Help / feedback

Law of Domination

I'm a little confused how to read Law of Domination.
It says 'Chose an opponent to chose a Unit they control'. You could read this in two ways.

  • Chose an opponent, if you do they chose a Unit they control.
  • Chose an opponent, if you do you chose one of their units.

Usually the phrase 'Do x to do y' means 'If you want to do y, you have to first do x'. But the preview talks about it as if the opponent gets to chose. Which one is the intended use ?


Comments

  • The first interpretation is the correct one, and yes, it could have been done with clearer text:

    "... choose an opponent, then that opponent chooses a Unit they control."

    You should still be able to hypothetically set up a favorable trade under these circumstances, because the person playing Law of Domination chooses their unit second. It also allows you (or your opponent) to choose exhausted units.

  • just to clarify, your opponent chooses their combatant, and then you choose yours? my impression was that you got to choose both

  • Thanks for the reply. I thought about it more and found that it would probably say 'Chose a unit an opponent controls' instead of 'chose an opponent' if i would get to chose both units.

  • I assume the reason it's worded like this is because it gets around cancels (neither the opponent nor their unit is targeted). It also balances the effect a bit.

    Agreed that it's a little clumsily worded, though.

  • Usually the phrase 'Do x to do y' means 'If you want to do y, you have to first do x'.

    In the generic 'Do x to do y' x and y are both actions. Here, we have the more specialized 'Tell x to do y' case where x is a person that is told do action y. So the action y is not on your account. I think the construction is called 'Accusative con infinitive' in Latin and exists in English as well. When an object (the accusative) is directly followed by an infinitive the action described by the infinitive is linked to the object and to the subject of the main clause. I have actually always considered this construction as rather elegant than clumsy (British) English.

    Edit: I misnomed the construction. Its abbreviation was always AcI, but I is for infinitive not imperative.

  • In the generic 'Do x to do y' x and y are both actions. Here, we have the more specialized 'Tell x to do y' case [...]

    maybe but how do you know that. 'Chose an opponent' is also an action, the sentence has both forms. The point is to see why it should mean 'tell X'. If you know that, there is no problem.

    I have actually always considered this construction as rather elegant than clumsy (British) English

    Maybe its elegant in prose but in instructional texts it is probably not as much when it allows for multiple interpretations.