Objective card "Contained" explained

[Clawlessdragon]

I had a long logical explanation why you can't count dead fighters as "survivors"... but it was just repeating what was said already, using different words.

A slight change on the card would solve this "score if all surviving enemy fighters are in their territory or out of action" 

However, in the middle of my long reply I came across another angle that would make me agree with Goblin-King !! 

I think we can agree to Surviving = "Someone who is still living, even after the death of another or the end of a situation or event, is said to be surviving" therefore if a fighter dies, he can not be surviving and so if all fighters are dead and off the gaming board, they can not be considered survivors, yes that warband is "contained" but the card says "all survivors".

The different angle : look at the glossary of the rule book, they do not define Surviving as it speaks for itself. They do define Out of Action - notice they do not use the word "Killed" in the rule book - just "out of action" (suffered damage and removed from the battlefield) - Are GW not using the word Killed in the game as it should appeal to parents who want to buy it for young kids... Like the 80's A-Team TV show, no one ever died, no matter how many guns, explosions or crashes...  far more palatable to say I've taken you out of action, rather I've killed you!! or is it intentional by GW so cards like this can be played and scored.

I can see this card working as Goblin-King describes should GW clarify if a fighter is "out of action" he is also surviving (mortally wounded etc) just no longer in the current fight!

Well that was my light bulb moment - a different take on the subject

 

[NeverEasy]

I'm sorry Clawlessdragon, I honestly do not mean to offend, but if I understood you correctly then what you wrote made absolutely no sense Are you saying we should not let an opponent score for example March of the Dead if one or more of his out of action skeletons did not move this turn (since it is still "surviving")? Or that Blooded can not be scored if one fighter is out of action (since the rules state you remove the wound tokens when a fighter is taken out of action)? Even if you were right, out of action fighters are clearly not in any territory on the board, so in the case of Contained all surviving fighters would not be in the opponent's territory. Anyway, clearly out of action fighters did not survive.

[c2h5oc2h5]

2 hours ago, NeverEasy said:

If you want to count zero as a valid amount of surviving fighters, then all your surviving fighters are in fact not in your territory since you have an equal amount of fighters in every territory: 0 fighters in enemy territory, 0 fighters in no man's land, and 0 fighters in friendly territory. If you have an equal amount of surviving fighters in every territory, then surely you can not claim that all your surviving fighters are in one specific territory (your territory in the case of Contained). 

edit: typo

Good point! This is a valid argument.

I wonder what was the original intent of Contained... not that it matters when we discuss just card's wording, but I'm curious.

[NeverEasy]

6 minutes ago, c2h5oc2h5 said:

Good point! This is a valid argument.

Thanks!

I would also like to add that if Contained and Conquest could be scored with zero surviving fighters, then a very odd situation could occur: Player A kills all of Player B's fighters --> Player A tries to score Contained, arguing that all of Player B's zero surviving fighters are in Player B's territory --> Player B says "No they are not! All my zero surviving fighters are in YOUR territory!" and reveals Conquest. Clearly all of Player B's zero surviving fighters can not at the same time be in both players’ territory.

[ReynakZhen]

You cannot contain something, that is not there to be contained.. The card is quite clear that there needs to be an opponent on the board.

[Goblin-King]

heh - out of action doesn't exactly mean dead. And surviving is the opposite of dead. Linguistically every model is a survivor!!! 
It's impossible to score contained if you take just a single enemy fighter out of action, because then he is a surviving fighter trapped in the Limbo that is outside the board.

Can we at least all agree that "a surviving fighter" means "a fighter that is not taken out of action"? 

[NeverEasy]

10 minutes ago, Goblin-King said:

Can we at least all agree that "a surviving fighter" means "a fighter that is not taken out of action"? 

100%

[Clawlessdragon]

1 hour ago, Goblin-King said:

Can we at least all agree that "a surviving fighter" means "a fighter that is not taken out of action"? 

definitely

 

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Clawlessdragon said:

A slight change on the card would solve this "score if all surviving enemy fighters are in their territory or out of action" 

Except that it's impossible for a surviving fighter to be out of action.  They are opposite conditions. 

An option might be to change it to "score if all enemy fighters are in their territory or out of action. "

Removing "surviving" fixes it because it changes the conditions placed on the objective through the use of a word that had a meaning (a meaning we can't ignore unless we change or remove the word itself).

[Rob P]

Obviously (if it comes), we'll have to await the FAQ for clarification of the rule writer's intention. But I feel a layer of complexity and strategy is removed with the ''community team'' answer.

[NeverEasy]

1 hour ago, Rob P said:

Obviously (if it comes), we'll have to await the FAQ for clarification of the rule writer's intention. But I feel a layer of complexity and strategy is removed with the ''community team'' answer.

Until then, if somebody kills all your fighters and tries to score Contained while claiming all your zero surviving fighters are in your territory, I suggest you just counter by telling him that "No, my zero surviving fighters are equally distributed among all three board zones"

[Biboune]

This game is getting quantic.

[NeverEasy]

1 hour ago, Biboune said:

This game is getting quantic.

Gave me a good chuckle Can't wait until they introduce proper quantum mechanics.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

On 20/1/2018 at 10:54 PM, QuantumMottle said:

Panik, I would say that unless you can show me a surviving fighter who isn’t in their territory then the score condition is met. 

QuantumMottle, with all due respect, you fail at logic. Hard.

Turn the wheel on your argument: if all the enemies are killed show me a surviving fighter that IS in their territory.

[CodFather]

At the LVO grand clash, which was judged by the game designer, contained was ruled to require at least one enemy fighter alive AND in their territory. 

[QuantumMottle]

52 minutes ago, CodFather said:

At the LVO grand clash, which was judged by the game designer, contained was ruled to require at least one enemy fighter alive AND in their territory. 

I’m happy to go with that. 

18 hours ago, KillagoreFaceslasha said:

QuantumMottle, with all due respect, you fail at logic. Hard.

Thanks for that pleasantry. 

[Goblin-King]

44 minutes ago, CodFather said:

At the LVO grand clash, which was judged by the game designer, contained was ruled to require at least one enemy fighter alive AND in their territory. 

I'm okay with this. Thanks for bringing this to the thread. The card really should have an (at least one) then.
Despite  claims to the opposite, the current wording is not 100% unambiguous.  

[Rintrah56]

59 minutes ago, CodFather said:

At the LVO grand clash, which was judged by the game designer, contained was ruled to require at least one enemy fighter alive AND in their territory. 

Off topic (related to the question you raised in another thread), but they also played - under his supervision - that the 5th objective can still be placed in an edge space ?

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Goblin-King said:

I'm okay with this. Thanks for bringing this to the thread. The card really should have an (at least one) then.
Despite  claims to the opposite, the current wording is not 100% unambiguous.  

I cannot comment on the wording and rules of grammar in other languages, but by those of English it is 100% unambiguous*. No extra words needed to convey the designer's intent (that we now have.)

*Failing to understand the grammar rules does not make a thing ambiguous. 

Also - No slight intended.  I don't know which language you use normally.  

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Rintrah56 said:

Off topic (related to the question you raised in another thread), but they also played - under his supervision - that the 5th objective can still be placed in an edge space ?

What's the question here?

[Rintrah56]

Sorry, I may have confused things by posting in this thread. See Codfather’s question in the FAQ thread and/or the podcast thread - some people had (IMO) misread the recent FAQ to mean that 5th objective couldn’t be placed in an edge space unless there were no other valid spaces to put it in (as opposed to always being able to use edge space for 5th objective),

[Goblin-King]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I cannot comment on the wording and rules of grammar in other languages, but by those of English it is 100% unambiguous*. No extra words needed to convey the designer's intent (that we now have.)

*Failing to understand the grammar rules does not make a thing ambiguous. 

Also - No slight intended.  I don't know which language you use normally.  

You know what... Fine!

You claim superior knowledge of English grammar. Just show me the explicit grammar rules that undeniably proves the card can only be understood in ONE specific way.

[Sleboda]

 Thanks for the willingness to have that duscussion - honesty!

I'm not sure an internet forum is the right place for the sort of lengthy, boring "classroom" chat needed to really go into it,  though. 

I know that if someone with expertise in geometry or trig said something about how the path a model takes on a charge can be calculated to be blah blah blah, I would just go with it rather than spend hours and pages of internet text trying to get the education. 

Of course,  that totally depends on believing the other person knows more about a given thing,  so I can absolutely see how that can be tough with a stranger. 

I suppose the short version is that the words chosen have real world meanings that have not been locally received redefined by a glossary, and the sentences themselves don't allow for a different interpretation without adding to the words that are there or changing their meaning. 

Therefore,  I go with what is written and how it is written.

:shrug:

 

FYI - I'm happy (seriously,  I like being proven wrong since it means I've learned something) to be shown wrong by someone with more knowledge of English.  Anyone want to speak up? 

[Goblin-King]

What I'm really asking for is the source. Please refer to specific grammar rules. 
What you just wrote is your interpretation. You make a very bold claim, that there is no way to misunderstand the text. You say grammar rules back you up. 

"Words have meaning" is a very vauge statement in this context. Sure words have definitions, but you need to refer to a rule to support your claim that the inclusion of "survivors" must mean there must in fact be any survivors. In my opinion it's the word "all" that's tricky. 

Let's say we have a bus during Apartheid.
A sign says "All blacks must sit in the back of the bus".
The ticket inspector enters the bus and writes the driver a fine because all the seats are empty.

"All" can mean "everybody or nobody".

[CodFather]

Guys, this dickk measuring contest is pointless.  Game designer says that you must have at least one model left alive to score cards like Contained or Conquest, and that is how it will be ruled in major tournaments.   Hopefully it will be clarified in the next errata for simplicity sake.