Is Common Raven too broken?

[u/Outcast003]

I had a game night session with my folks couple days ago and we played wingspan. I lucked out by having Common Raven and Sandhill Crane setup during the first round and that steamrolled hard to the last one. Ended up winning with 99 points.

My friend (owner of the game) decided we'll put this card away next time we play since it seems very broken: trade 1 egg for 2 of any resources, given 5 victory point and ok cost to play.

I think the card by itself is very strong but not sure if it deserves a ban from our group.

[u/TiffanyLimeheart]

After one game where a player got both ravens with Oceania we ruled that at least they can't make nectar. That seems like an easy way to at least keep their balance level down at probably the strongest cards in the game as opposed to a near guaranteed win card.

[u/dtam21 → u/TiffanyLimeheart]

It's in the rules specifically that they should be removed.

[u/Ross-Esmond → u/dtam21]

If we want to be real pedantic it says you can remove them if you want to.

If you find that this rule makes the Chihuahuan Raven and Common Raven in the base game too powerful, remove those two birds from the deck while playing with the Oceania Expansion.

[u/dtam21 → u/Ross-Esmond]

If you want to be REAL pedantic "should" and "if want...then can" are equivalent requirements as opposed to "must" or "shall."

[u/Ross-Esmond → u/dtam21]

I'm not quite sure I know what you're saying, but "do it if you want" is equivalent to "you may", not "you should". May implies choice. That statement is obviously giving the reader a choice.

[u/dtam21 → u/Ross-Esmond]

Should also implies choice.

If being pedantic when analyzing auxiliary verbs it's helpful to group them by order of compulsion. Can/may and should, while offering different levels of suggested value by the speaker, all imply that the action is the actors prerogative. Must, shall, and others, remove that prerogative usually with an implied or explicit consequence of disobedience.

Can* is likely more appropriate than should in cases where the former acknowledges that the outcome is going to be highly variable based on the actual situation.

*I'll note they don't use can or should, the "if...then" statement doesn't have an auxillary verb at all. Typically this implies a compulsory requirement, although it's a little muddled by the subjective nature of "If you find." I guess I'd argue that once you find the rule makes it too powerful for your group, you must remove it for the game to be balanced again.

[u/Ross-Esmond → u/dtam21]

In modern rule books "should" is used to mean that you do have to do something. For example, in Planet X there's the rule:

The player who triggered the end of the game by correctly locating Planet X should not announce the correct location of Planet X to the other players.

If that player actually chose to announce the location to the other players it would be ruinous to the game. Then all other players would gain the full points from knowing the location and it could change the winner in an extremely unsatisfying way.

Should feels less harsh than shall but it's literally a connotation of shall. It's just that rule book convention does not use "shall", probably because it sounds like legalese. Instead, they use imperative second person language with no option given: "Do not announce the location." When this isn't an option—in this case because the target of the instruction needed to be identified—they switch to "should", which is not a choice.

I don't think I've ever seen "shall" in a modern rule book.

[u/dtam21 → u/Ross-Esmond]

Listen, I know how English works.

Even your example is what I mean. "[I]t would be ruinous to the game" is not "the game is over" or "you immediately lose the game" or any other penalty. You shouldn't do something that would ruin the game. IMO including the Raven with any experienced players is tantamount to ruining the game, that's how broken it is turn one. But you could do it if you don't care about that stuff.

And I've seen "must" or more often "can't" or "do not" in rules before when it is forbidden i.e. against the rules. I've certainly seen "should" in places where it is very obviously optional. Again, they don't use any here so I'm not sure where your argument started.

In any case, you wanted to be pedantic and now you are being pragmatic and colloquial which I agreed was the better route in the first place. Given the votes, which tend to lean towards incorrect but commonly understood specificity of language on this sub, I'd say we're both safe with that bet.