0

A card game has a card with the following text:

Each other player destroys his or her minion with the least power (owner chooses in case of ties).

Am I correct in believing that the Subject, Verb, and Object are as follows?

  • The Subject: Each other player

  • The Verb: destroys

  • The Object: his or her minion

This might give the impression that the player is destroying the minion, when the rules text is supposed to imply that the card the rules text is on is performing the destruction.

What is the proper way to word the sentence, if you want to make it clear that the card with the quoted rules text above is destroying in the card, not any of the players?

(I.e. Would this be better, "Destroy each other player's minion with the least power (owner choses in case of ties)." With no subject, is it clearer that the card is performing the destruction?)

Other examples from the game:

  • Each other player discards two cards at random.

  • Destroy the lowest-power minion on each base with a higher-power minion.

  • You may destroy a minion of power 3 or less on this base.

Improve this question
5
  • I think you have an unusual concept of grammatical agent here. Obviously it's the player who owns/controls the "minion" who performs the destruction (he also has the choice of which minion to destroy, if he has more than one with equal "least power"). The fact that he does this in conformance with the game rules is incidental. Would you deny that a footballer actively "scores" a goal, because it's only the rules of the game that make it a goal?
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 21:11
  • @FumbleFingers, I don't think your analogy is close enough to Smash-Up. Would you deny it is the footballer that activiely scores a goal, or the team that he plays for? Smash-Up has no concept of players doing things other than Playing cards, earning Victory Points, and Drawing Cards. All other events in the game are caused by the cards that are played, (base cards, Minion cards, and Action cards). Is it clear to you from the 2nd/3rd example who is destroying the minions? (2nd has no actor, and 3rd appears to have the player make a choice to destroy or not.)
    – user1873
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 21:39
  • I admit I hadn't followed your link before. With just your quoted text to go on, it seems clear to me in the first example the game designers are thinking in terms of the other players being obliged to destroy their own minions. But looking at the rules I see that in other contexts they think of the player who drew a card as being the "agent" destroying the minions of others. Of course, it's somewhat arbitrary, in that there would be nothing unusual in a player saying something like "My card destroyed your minion". But probably no-one would say "The game rules destroyed your minion".
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Feb 9, 2014 at 15:05
  • @FumbleFingers, 'But probably no-one would say "The game rules destroyed your minion"' No one is saying that. The question is whether it is clear from the text on the card, that the card (a Action card in this case) is performing the destruction on the creatures that are destroyed, not the owners/controllers of the creatures being destroyed.
    – user1873
    Commented Feb 9, 2014 at 15:34
  • Guns don't kill people, people kill people
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Feb 9, 2014 at 17:33

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

A few alternatives:

  1. For each player, destroy that player's minion with the least power (owner chooses in case of ties).

  2. Destroy each player's weakest minion (owner chooses in case of ties).

  3. Destroy each player's minion with the least power (owner chooses in case of ties).

I prefer (1) but (2) would work if "weakest" is synonymous with "least power". If you are attached to the "his or hers" you can use it in place of "that player's":

For each player, destroy his or her minion with the least power (owner chooses in case of ties).

Improve this answer
0

Without more detail on context, I'm hazarding a guess at:

'Each other player uses his card to destroy his or her minion with the least power (owner chooses in case of ties).'

It depends what the 'power' relates to, ie:

'Each other player uses their lowest-powered card to destroy his or her minion (owner chooses in case of ties).'

More context would get you better answers, I suspect.

Improve this answer
3
  • Sorry, I bolded a section of the question you seemed to miss. The card that has the rules text quoted above is doing the destruction. perhaps, "[This card] destroys each other player's minion with the least power."
    – user1873
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 19:10
  • Obviously that's a transposed usage of 'destroy' since cards can't destroy anything (unless you put a million of them on top of a snowflake, and even then you're the agent).
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 21:22
  • Destroy is a game term. It is defined as moving the card from the in play zone, to the discard pile.
    – user1873
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 21:41
0

This is a case where the passive voice is needed. It should be reworded as:

Each other player's minion with the least power is destroyed (owner chooses in case of ties).

Any advice to never use the passive voice should be ignored.

Improve this answer
2
  • If you use the passive voice, is it clear what is performing the destruction? (Or only that those objects are being destroyed?)
    – user1873
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 19:11
  • No, it's not. But isn't it clear from context? What do the instructions on the other cards in the game say?
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 19:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .