Would you consider this an example of clear and or unclear card text. Why or why not?
(http://www.pojo.com/duelmasters/COTD/2012/July/Dojo_GhostSpy_Pojo.jpg)
It looks pretty clear to me.
The only potential problems I can see are:
The definition for "banished" isn't on the card, but would be clear if I had read the rules.
Does the player get to draw a card if the first part of the effect doesn't happen, for example if the opponent is unable to discard? I would say yes.
While I know that most people probably like keywords, I'm not personally a fan. For me they often seem to come into conflict with the flavour of the card.
My main problem with this card was that it didn't declare whose hand the discard from one. I figured it was your opponent but I still believe "from their hand" would of been good inclusion. It got it even more confused with the next effect because it made it sound like it was cyclical.
This is extremely unclear in my opinion. "...chooses and discards a card..." has no specificity at all. According to this text, my opponent would be able to choose and discard a card that is in play under either player's control, in either player's deck or decks, in either player's hand, in either player's discard pile, and any other place where a card may be. If the card really is granting all those options, then IMO it should say so since it seems so unlikely.
Everything looks clear when you make it big. Try cropping out the border and see how visible it looks at around 200 pixels wide.
Generally, you can only discard cards from hand and I would expect the associated rulebook to be consistent in its use and definition of the word "discard" so as to remove any confusion there. Indeed the rulebook could even have a definition included such as:
"When a player is made to discard a card by any means, they select a card from their hand and place it into their discard pile."
It is not immediately clear if a player would draw a card if their opponent had no card to discard, I would imagine the card would need revision to correct this or it would need rules errata to be correctly interpreted. The use of a full-stop is suggestive that the card draw is a separate action, however it is still reliant upon the banishment event. In summary, not 100% clear just from the card.
I guess if you want grammar nazi attack, it should read "Then, you may draw a card.".
My only real issue is the use of "Specter" instead of "Spectre" :P
I believe it uses the words "chooses and discards a card" because it's trying to make sure that players know the discard isn't random.
I agree that the action of discarding itself is pretty clear. Players never discard cards from another player's hand - instead they would make that player discard from their own hand. Business as usual imo.
The watermark should be more see-through. Otherwise it's pretty clear. No idea what bandished is, but I guess that has to do with the game.
Why do cards need watermarks?
Quote from: yudencow on July 26, 2012, 06:10:50 PM
Why do cards need watermarks?
Because it associates with a faction and it looks cool. No real reason though.
Is that like the pyramid eye in yugioh?