A Guide to The Last Alliance (ALeP) 1.0

• Versions
• 1.0

Great write up! It's that 'inclusive or' that makes my brain hurt.

I doubt it makes it less confusing, but I wish the contract's last line read "A and/or B". You probably head plenty of internal discussion already trying to find satisfactory language.

@Quetzal513 The "or" is simply meant to be understood in the natural way given the context it's in. In the case of Host of Galadhrim it would get modified to say:

Planning Action: Return each Silvan or Hobbit ally you control to your hand. Then, ...

The intended way to interpret this sentence is to return each ally with the Silvan or Hobbit trait to your hand, which would be your whole board of allies. Do you have a different interpretation?

I'm sure there is something absurd that can be done by combining "The Last Alliance" with Eithiliant.) But there are too many options, and it just made my head hurt. ☺

@Seastan My natural, different, interpretation is to treat 'or' as synonymous with 'either', implying I must make a choice. In the case of Host of Galadhrim It allows me to return each ally with the Silvan trait, OR it gives me the flexibility to return each ally with the Hobbit trait, but not both. If it said "Return each Sivan AND Hobbit ally" or if it said "Return ALL Silvan or Hobbit allies" (that one still gives me a moment's pause) then I would return all the allies that have either trait.

I probably don't have a strong enough sense of English or computer language use of conjunctions, prepositions, logic statements, etc. And I certainly acknowledge the wording chosen for the contract works fine for many instances, while trying to apply across many different usages (I can appreciate the challenge).

@Quetzal513 That's an interesting interpretation. How would you interpret a non-game related sentence like "Put each damaged or spoiled item in the trash". Would you only pick one of those options? Or would you throw out everything that is either damaged or spoiled? I think the latter is the more natural interpretation. Furthermore, you can't use "and" in that sentence because it would mean you could only throw out items that were both damaged and spoiled.

I think your interpretation would by natural if the card said "Return each Silvan ally or each Hobbit ally you control to your hand." But that's not what the card is doing.

@Seastan It would depend on the context of the groupings. If there were many items before you, some spoiled, some damaged, and others fresh, whole, intact, etc. then I would agree with your logic, you would be dividing the group among those in bad shape and those in good shape. But if you were looking at a group of only damaged and spoiled items (and nothing else) I would chose between the spoiled (throw out because they could cause infection) and the damaged (could still be salvaged or use, but maybe not sold at retail).

Side A of the contract specifies all characters "must have either the printed A or B trait (but not both)", so immediately the entire set is comprised of only those two things. There are no trait C's. So the 'or' statement divides the set. It's not able to divide between an in group (A+B) and an out group (non A+B characters). In the example above if you had Gondor, Dwarf, etc allies on the table your interpretation would be a bit more natural to me.

@Quetzal513 I'm still not quite understanding. Are you saying that if you had a trait C under your control, your interpretation of the card would change? Because despite the deckbuilding restriction, when it comes to actually resolving Host of Galadhrim during gameplay, there's no guarantee that you only have A and B allies. Say if someone passes you a Ceorl, or if there's a Defender of the West ally bouncing around the table, would the way you resolve this effect change significantly on a turn-by-turn basis?

Or if a treachery card said "Exhaust each Hobbit or Silvan ally in play", and you had Hobbits, Silvan, and Rohan allies under your control, you would interpret it as asking you to exhaust all your Hobbit allies and all your Silvan allies, but if you didn't happen to have any Rohan allies you'd choose between exhausting only Hobbit allies or only Silvan allies?

Are we going to test the character limit of ringsdb comments? :P

My interpretation really wouldn't change in the examples you give (mostly b/c damaged or spoiled are not mutually exclusive groups, unlike the contract language); I'm just trying to illustrate ways it could change towards your interpretation. Humans interpret and contextualize things differently based on situations, subconscious wanting to over apply positive consequences or under apply negative consequences, etc. Even in your previous example, it would be easy to interpret "damaged or spoiled" to lump them into one "unfit" group, when they are infact distinct and separate conditions.

Unscientifically, sample size 1, I placed a few apples and bananas on our dining room table (and in this case, the table was clear of all other objects), gave my wife the Host of Galadhrim mimicking instruction, "Return each apple or banana to the kitchen". She returned all of the apples, the bananas remained. Could her interpretation have changed if there was 1 other non-A, non-B fruit? 50 non-A, non-B? I think the possibility exists, but would need a much larger sample size to test. (Full disclosure, she hates bananas, doesn't even like to touch them, so that undoubtedly influenced her too.)

For the treachery effect, I would still exhaust one group or the other. Still relies on the mutually exclusive trait. But I'm notorious for wanting to under-apply when revealed or travel effects. (I'm only human.)

Wow, an experiment! I think a lot can be implied through tone though, so it would have been better to write down the instruction. Regardless, the big difference between the experiment and this game is that in this game, cards need to do the same thing regardless of context, meaning part of the interpretation should take into account the thought "what would I do if there was an option C or D here as well", which the experiment didn't do.

And in this game, the deckbuilding restrictions are totally separate from the gameplay. It's possible to have a Rohan/Scout alliance, then during gameplay have someone send you Ceorl, who is both a Rohan and a Scout. So when it comes to actual gameplay, the mutual exclusivity of these traits is not a fair assumption.

As for the treachery, again there's no need for it to be mutually exclusive. Imagine you were running an Arwen/Elrond/Cirdan deck and a treachery came up that said "Exhaust each Noble or Warrior character". You'd be totally fine leaving up all your heroes? What do you think would be the common interpretation here (ignoring your desire to under-apply effects)?

You're greatly overextending and giving me too much credit to call it an experiment, I called it unscientific :P Your suggestions are certainly some of the things needed to improve the methods.

It has taken me too long, but I think I've come around to it; sorry for the consideration of the set as relevant to the discussion (even though I think in more global situations, it is pertinent). The issue is that the traits are mutually exclusive to each other (the fact they comprise the entire set at deck construction covers most but, as you illustrate, not all cases), not that they are mutually exclusive to the set. My apologies for not coalescing my reasoning more directly. You're chosing to trigger each instance of trait A or trait B. In the case of Ceorl, he would be triggered regardless of which trait you select.

Treachery, context is important. Are those 3 heroes the only characters I have on the table? Then they must be exhausted. Are all noble characters exhausted but I have ready warrior allies on the table? Then the warriors must be exhausted. Do I have some number of ready noble characters and some number of ready warrior characters? Then it is a choice to exhaust the nobles or exhaust the warriors (and if someone has cheated a noble warrior over to me, they're getting exhausted either way). The treachery implies a cost (I think of travel effects this way too) which must be applied and may exclude a choice I'd like to make based on eligible conditions.

Hmm, ok. Would you further assume that it is up to each person to choose whether to exhaust their Warrior characters or their Noble characters, or would the group have to decide as a whole?

Does it help at all that in this game, when players are given a choice, it is normally made explicit? Like by using the word "either" or the phrase "must choose".

This is quite curious, as I would've felt quite comfortable designing such a treachery without having any concern over misinterpretation.

Is it fair to say then that you see essentially no difference between the phrase "Do X to each A or B" and "Do X to each A or each B"? I can't wrap my head around how these are logically equivalent.

It's a confusing contract. I'm sure it's fun but it is trying to do too many things at once.

My brain hurts. I'll check in later and see if you've figured it out.

I know you all be like, "How much longer can the kid last against the Android?"

My interpretation, unfamiliar with coding language, is probably in the minority, but it's not as “natural” to interpret. Near as I can tell ‘inclusive or’ is a term/logic function that coders would be familiar with; for those not, it feels like a very opaque term. But since the cards follow English grammar, I think I have the answer.

'Each' is a pronoun that modifies the noun that follows; in the example from Host of Galadhrim and “Seastan’s Hypothetical treachery” this refers to singular noun of ally/character (respectively). So yes, each individual in the group of ‘character’ needs to be identified and regarded separately. I concede the wording does function as intended, even if confusing.

In my defense, of how "Do X to each A or B" and "Do X to each A or each B are logically equivalent is a matter of whether A and B refer to adjectives or nouns. In the case of all the cards I’ve perused, the game's copy editors were careful to treat traits as adjectives. But it’s so easy to intermix racial traits as nouns. “I’ll exhaust these hobbits to quest…”, “I’ll return these Silvans to my hand…” might be what we typically say, but in those instances, they are nouns. Whether it could be articulated, that is grammatically how it should work. (Thankfully Host of Galadhrim references “Return each Silvan ally you control” and not “return each Silvan you control”

So, in my earlier example of "Return each apple or banana to the kitchen", my wife behaved appropriately (even though I introduced an incongruous noun-based example to the discussion); ‘each’ was modifying and referencing nouns (and hence all that mumbo context about mutually exclusive groups; all correct if ‘each’ is referring to a noun.)

I won’t go into answering the questions to the Hypothetical Treachery, but the preceding discussion would apply. Your wording references the noun ‘character’, so ‘each’ would reference all characters individually, even if the wording could be improved (i.e., Exhaust every Noble or Warrior character, etc.).

I think you've been able to articulate it much better than me in that "each" is referring to the subject ("ally") and not the adjectives (the traits). The game does intend traits to be used as adjectives, which is way they are always followed by an actual subject like "hero/ally/attachment/character/etc" (though there are some rare slip ups, for example Smoke and Think).

I'm not sure how swapping in "every" improves it though. Can't you make the same mistake in thinking it means "every Noble" or "every Warrior"? I think to really drive the point home you should just move up the subject earlier in the sentence: "Exhaust each character with the Noble or Warrior trait."

Of course, there's no way to create such a unique effect such as the one here on TLA and expect it to morph the text into the absolute clearest wording in every case.

Maybe some people will play a couple cards wrong as a result, though I guess if they take your interpretation they will be playing a strictly weaker version of it rather than a stronger one, so at least no victories should feel invalid :)

I think you've been able to articulate it much better than me...

Achievement Unlocked! (probably still giving myself too much credit)

But really, all these posts are just an exposure of my poor grasp of language, both English and coding (maybe there were others in this tribe too) and self-perceived aimless wandering for better understanding (I got there in the end). I was sitting in bed later that night and had the realization that suggesting 'every' as a reword, didn't solve the problem and, only further illustrated how I failed to apply the lesson of the day (and I couldn't even save face by editing my earlier post).

I'll go back to dreaming up ridiculous decks now; maybe one featuring Messenger of the King-Dori-Thorongil-Dori. Sure to be in the Bike Spoke Hall of Fame :P

If I make a Last Alliance Noble + Creature deck with T Eomer, Lothiriel, and Gwaihir, then could I use the Last Alliance action to change Lothiriel's ability text "If Éomer is in play, Lothíriel gains the Rohan trait" to "If Éomer is in play, Lothíriel gains the Rohan or Creature trait"?

I assume the answer is no, because that sounds bonkers, but I have to check. That is part of her ability text, right?

My mistake, I meant a Rohan + Creature deck.

@jobaasimYou wouldn’t be able to do that lineup, because Lothiriel doesn’t have the Rohan trait until Setup. So she would not be a valid hero to include to satisfy the deckbuilding restrictions on Side A of the contract.

To get a Lothiriel Eagle deck you would have to build Noble + Creature or Gondor + Creature. Then you could play a Trait granting attachment, like Diligent Noble, Steward of Gondor, or In Service of the Steward onto her. That attachment could be targeted by the contract to grant her the Creature Trait and allow her to put a Creature ally into play with her response.