Jump to content

Objective card "Contained" explained


PanikSpreder

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Goblin-King said:

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".

I think we left Shadespire a long time ago, but i'm enjoying this back and forth about the meaning of the words.

 

I'm not descending into the grammar point, but I the question of whether you can have 'all of nothing' has some philosophical value.

 

The point I made was that an absence of something in one place does not logically mean the something is somewhere else.

 

I think one of the earlier posters said it along the lines of - all of the surviving enemies, of which there are none, are not outside of their territory can be flipped as all of the surviving enemies, of which there are none, are not within their territory. There are no cats outside of China does not mean there are cats inside of China - at best you might be able to infer meaning but as I said before (in another context) it does not logically follow that there are cats in China.

 

I think the crux of the division is this - Suppose someone sets you a challenge: gather me all of unicorns on earth . If you go to them with nothing and say, here you go, here are all the unicorns on earth, have you satisfied the challenge?

 

I would say the challenge is impossible to complete. I suspect you would say that you have satisfied the criteria as you have brought them all of the unicorns on earth (i.e. none).

 

Just to stay on topic - I think an errata is still needed. The designer is a higher authority than the community team (I guess), and I happen to agree with the designer (though more for gameplay than anything), but an errata sets it in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
20 minutes ago, Rob P said:

 

I would say the challenge is impossible to complete. I suspect you would say that you have satisfied the criteria as you have brought them all of the unicorns (none)

Fun!

I would say you have to look at all the words in the condition, including "bring."

I can't bring you a nothing,  only a something.   You could phrase the challenge as "If there are any unicorns,  bring them all to me, but if not, report back that there are none."

I can bring or report. I cannot bring a thing that does not exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnelian said:

Just like you can't contain a nothing, only a something

True  (and i would interpret the card as not being able to be scored if there are no enemy fighters)

But you can contain a vacuum (nothing) although actually what you are doing is the inverse and containing all the something from encroaching on the nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 31.01.2018 at 10:12 AM, Carnelian said:

Just like you can't contain a nothing, only a something

There is enemy faction near your territory. You killed them all. Did you contained a threat, or not?

Ofc, you can only contain a something, not a nothing. But if there is nothing anymore, it doesn't mean that there was nothing contained. Actually, that there is nothing anymore, it can be a result of your successful contain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Except that "contain the threat" is not the card, in plain wording or in rules.

I was just refering to logical sense of name, not to rules of card. Card name is just "Contain" so that means its about containing... nothing? :) You can say its about anything. Threat, enemy fighters, enemy faction. Logic is still that same. If there is nothing right now, it doesnt mean that there was nothing contained.

If you have rats in your basement. If you kill them all, do you contained them? Or you need to leave at least one living (surviving) and trapped in that basament?

 

About rules. Until its FAQ'ed im using way of reading rules i learned playing MTG. Do what card says, nothing more, nothing less (if there is no requirement, you don't make one, cuz its you think it should be there, even if its logical for you).

"Score this ... if all surviving enemy fighters are in thier territory"

Step 1: Count all surviving enemy fighters

Step 2: Count all surviving enemy fighters in his territory

Step 3: If results in step 1 and 2 are equal then you score glory.

When enemy team is dead:

S1: 0

S2: 0

S3: 0=0. You got glory points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Reggi said:

f you have rats in your basement. If you kill them all, do you contained them?

 There is a key element you are (not on purpose probably) glossing over.

Them.

No,  you have not contained "them." You maybe have contained "the threat" but if there are no rats left, you have eliminated the rats,  not contained them.

It's not adding anything to the card to apply the words that are presemt. The word "survivor" is about a person/being/fighter that still exists. If there are no fighters left, then none have survived. The card says you  check the positions of survivors, which means you must have fighters that, well, survived. If you have none present, then by definition  the non-present fighters cannot be present in their own (or enemy) territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 16.02.2018 at 2:46 PM, Sleboda said:

It's not adding anything to the card to apply the words that are presemt. The word "survivor" is about a person/being/fighter that still exists. If there are no fighters left, then none have survived. The card says you  check the positions of survivors, which means you must have fighters that, well, survived. If you have none present, then by definition  the non-present fighters cannot be present in their own (or enemy) territory.

Well, i see that in diffirent way. Card says that all survivers need to be on enemy territory. It don't say that there need to be any.

You are assaulted by super logical guy. He say's to you "Give me all your money you have on you or I will shoot you". You don't have any. By fallowing logic, he should shoot you or not? Going by your logic, he should, cuz he ordered you to give him all your money, so you needed to give him any.

Officer to soldier after battle "All survivors need to be in jail". There is no survivors. Jail is empty. Soldier didn't obey his order, cuz there need to be at least one? So he should create someone?

For me, that card doesn't tell us that there need to be any survivors, just that all survivors need to be in enemy territory. And there can be none survivors left.

Sure, it will be easier if there would be just "if any". But on other side, there is no "at least one".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Reggi said:

Well, i see that in diffirent way. Card says that all survivers need to be on enemy territory. It don't say that there need to be any.

No, really, that's literally what the two words, together, mean. That's the whole entire point. All. Survivors. 

- You can't have "all" of a thing that doesn't exist.

- Someone who "survived" a thing is still around. If he is not present/dead/out of action, he cannot, by actual literal definition, be  described as "surviving."

The card would need to be use different words to allow for out if action models to count.

For instance:

"Threat Eliminated - If there are no enemy fighters in your territory or in no man's land in the third end phase..."

That would allow for the presence of survivors in their own territory as well as the option for you to have killed them all. That's not at all what the card's current selection of words says, though.

It really is just a matter of applying the words on the card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

No, really, that's literally what the two words, together, mean. That's the whole entire point. All. Survivors. 

- You can't have "all" of a thing that doesn't exist.

- Someone who "survived" a thing is still around. If he is not present/dead/out of action, he cannot, by actual literal definition, be  described as "surviving."

The card would need to be use different words to allow for out if action models to count.

For instance:

"Threat Eliminated - If there are no enemy fighters in your territory or in no man's land in the third end phase..."

That would allow for the presence of survivors in their own territory as well as the option for you to have killed them all. That's not at all what the card's current selection of words says, though.

It really is just a matter of applying the words on the card.

"All" can be 0. 

Count all your money - i have 0/ i have none/ i don't have any

All those answers are correct and right. Just like "Count all unicorns in the world" you can replay "They don't exist" or... "0". It is true too.

"All" don't mean that there need to be anything.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/all

"Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing." 

quantity can be 0

extent of a particular group can be 0

I guess, you are focusing only on one part of "all". Thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Reggi said:

"All" can be 0. 

Count all your money - i have 0/ i have none/ i don't have any

All those answers are correct and right. Just like "Count all unicorns in the world" you can replay "They don't exist" or... "0". It is true too.

"All" don't mean that there need to be anything.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/all

"Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing." 

quantity can be 0

extent of a particular group can be 0 (all red hair ppl in group where everyone have black hair)

I guess, you are focusing only on one part of "all". Thing.

I got a couple of questions Reggi:

What do you think should happen if you kill your opponent's warband and want score Contained, but then he shows Conquest and claims all his fighters are in your territory? Do you think you should both be able to score your respective cards or neither should be able to? Are all his fighters in his and your territory at the same time? 

What if both your and your opponent's warbands are eliminated (it could happen because of final blow for example) - should you both be able to score Contained and Conquest? 

What if you killed your opponent and want to score Denial but your opponent wants to score Conquest? How can there be no enemy fighters and all enemy fighters in your territory at the same time?

What if you killed your opponent, want to score Contained and use the logic that his surviving fighters = 0 and fighters in his territory = 0, but he counters by saying that all his fighters are not in his territory because he has an equal amount of fighters in your territory, no man's land, and his territory (0/0/0)? 

All these weird questions get resolved if it is deemed that there has to be at least one fighter left to score Contained/Conquest. From a game designer's point of view it is clearly the most logical and least confusing way to resolve the issue.  

denial_and_conquest.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @NeverEasy

The Conquest one is particularly instructive.

If we are to take null (zero) as being a count of things (when in fact zero of something is the antithesis of a count of things - a placeholder, if you will) in this game, then we must accept this invented concept across the board and allow that a dead warband can score Conquest by having zero fighters in enemy territory.

 

Not to be combative, @Reggi but really would love to hear your thoughts on this just as  way to politely continue the public  (TGA) discussion.

 

*Special note - I am appreciating the civility of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conquest is pretty freaking clear. 

-Where are all your surviving fighters?
Nowhere
-Is your enemy's territory nowhere?
...no?
-Then you can't score it. 

Denial also seems clear in that it does not require any enemy fighters.

-Are there enemy fighters in your territory?
No
-Score it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sleboda said:

@Requizen

Indeed.  It will be maddening when GW rules that you can score with dead guys.

"All your fighters are dead"

"Yeah but you can't prove dead fighters aren't on an Objective Hex, so I get Overextended since I'm holding every Objective."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/27/2018 at 8:28 AM, Reggi said:

"All" can be 0. 

Count all your money - i have 0/ i have none/ i don't have any

All those answers are correct and right. Just like "Count all unicorns in the world" you can replay "They don't exist" or... "0". It is true too.

If you have 0 money, you cannot count it, as there is nothing to count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any reason to beat on this dead horse?

Both views have been thrown around as gospel and noone is gonna change their view just because one more voice is added in. We'll just have to live with this until Games Workshop releases an official FAQ...

In the mean time, I'll myself will be playing with the Adepticon FAQ, except for the way they chose to handle Earthquake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...