Sleboda Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 34 minutes ago, Goblin-King said: Just because the word "surviving" is used, doesn't mean there has to actually be any survivors. Yes. Actually, factually, in reality, with words what we speak and understand --- yes it does. "You win the lottery if none of your numbers don't match the winning numbers." I WIN! I didn't buy a lottery ticket, so I have zero numbers, which means none of my zero numbers don't match the winning numbers! I'm rich! Uh, sir. You need to actually have some numbers in order to count. Nuh uh! Gimme the monies. **** "All of your green cows must sing opera for you to get a sandwich." I have six cows that all sing opera. I get a sandwich. Feed me! Um, sir, your cows are all brown. So? They all sing opera. Yes, but none are green, and if you don't have green cows at all, you cannot even participate in the sandwich contest. Nope. A lack of any green cows is the exact same thing as them all being green. SMH. (Words having meaning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumMottle Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 43 minutes ago, Goblin-King said: From my point of view it's the assumption that the amount of surviving fighters can't be zero, that's causing problems. Just because the word "surviving" is used, doesn't mean there has to actually be any survivors. The words simply say "all surviving fighters...". That means everyone who is not dead. Everything else is assumptions and interpretations. No insult taken Sleboda. Said I was out so going to offer no further rebuttal other than to reiterate Goblin King’s crucial point here. Words. No words on the card say there needs to be survivors. Edit: Didn’t see the last post. Sorry, but cows and lottery are non-equivalent straw men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Just now, QuantumMottle said: No words on the card say there needs to be survivors. Yes, there are. Or rather, there is. My whole point is that the word survivor itself is inherently saying, well, that there need to be survivors. They chose the word survivor. That word means a dude that survived. If they all died, there are no survivors. Definitions. Word choice. The used survivor, not "thing that may or may not currently be on the board. " The word itself solves the "debate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumMottle Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Words only having meaning in their full context. The meaning you infer from the words ‘surviving enemy fighters’ just isn’t backed up by the rest of the words on the card. Both sides have become pretty entrenched now and we’re fighting over scraps in no mans land with no progress being made. I’ll wait on an FAQ and be happy to be shown wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-King Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Yeah... we've pleaded our cases. The rest is up to the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rintrah56 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Rob P said: They can be out of play/off the board/dead. Or even in no-one’s territory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-King Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Quote There are no surviving enemy fighters outside of their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters must be within their territory. Quote They can be out of play/off the board/dead. Then they cease to be surviving fighters and the statement still holds true. 3 minutes ago, Rintrah56 said: Or even in no-one’s territory... no-man's-land is included in "outside their territory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 41 minutes ago, Goblin-King said: Yeah... we've pleaded our cases. The rest is up to the judge. I hear ya, but really, no judge needed. If I say 2+3=6, you have every right to say "No, Joe, 3 means one and one and one, not one and one and one and one." Despite his best efforts, Trump has not replaced truth with Alternative Facts. That means the definition of survivor still matters. BTW - Die, Pats, die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rintrah56 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 40 minutes ago, Goblin-King said: no-man's-land is included in "outside their territory". I agree with that as a statement of fact. The problem is that "outside their territory" isn't the rule as stated on the card for Contained, but rather, I think, a suggested way of interpreting the card. e.g. re: "There are no surviving enemy fighters outside of their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters must be within their territory." You could just as easily say, as another suggested way of interpreting the card, "There are no surviving enemy fighters inside their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters must be outside their territory" = failed to score Contained. Just depends on whether your choice of interpretation is pro-scoring Contained, or anti-scoring Contained. And even that requires acceptance of "all surviving fighters are" to mean that there don't actually have to be any surviving fighters. Which I personally don't agree with either for the same reasons as others. Anyway, just my two cents. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to argue - and I respect everybody's input on this - just exploring the thinking here. If it takes an FAQ to get agreement then so be it, and we can all go back to enjoying our game. Speaking of which, time to crack open a new can of zandri dust and get spray-painting some sepulchral guard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-King Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Rintrah56 said: I agree with that as a statement of fact. The problem is that "outside their territory" isn't the rule as stated on the card for Contained, but rather, I think, a suggested way of interpreting the card. Rob P wrote that statement as an example of failed logic. It just happened to actually hold water. Quote A.) "There are no surviving enemy fighters outside of their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters must be within their territory." B.) "There are no surviving enemy fighters inside their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters must be outside their territory" It is absolutely true in B. that if the enemy territory is empty, then all surviving enemies must be in your territory (or no-man's land). But neither statements really matter. If there ARE any survivors, obviously it's easy to resolve the card. It's all about whether the card means literally "all survivors must be..." or "some AND all survivors must be..." Quote Anyway, just my two cents. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to argue - and I respect everybody's input on this - just exploring the thinking here. I hope this is how everybody feels Language is fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanikSpreder Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 Part of it being awesome playing a brand new game - exploring all the cracks and nuggets together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob P Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Goblin-King said: I hope this is how everybody feels Language is fun Side question: Does the game continue if your opponent if wiped out? I've not seen the full rules and the introductory rules are not clear on this. They appear to suggest player choice to play to three rounds or until warband wiped out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-King Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 50 minutes ago, Rob P said: Side question: Does the game continue if your opponent if wiped out? I've not seen the full rules and the introductory rules are not clear on this. They appear to suggest player choice to play to three rounds or until warband wiped out Absolutely. If your entire warband gets wiped the game continues just as if they were alive. Only difference is that your options are reduced to either drawing power cards and hoping to get one that can somehow disrupt your opponent's plans - Or you cycle your objective cards. A lot of them are actually obtainable even if your entire warband is out of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob P Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Ah, that does make sense, as I don't think the introductory game pdf envisages use of the cards - so game over when opponent is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kairos Tejedestinos Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 By RAW you cannot score it. It is fairly simple and straightforward, you can disagree with GW's on how it should be scored, and therefore ask for an FAQ to change it, but it is crystal clear. Objective cards set up literal conditions, if they are not met, you don't score. Are enemies in your opponent's territory? Nope. You don't get to score. Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-King Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 I asked on FB and this is the reply I got: Quote Can you score "Contained" if your enemy has no fighters left?And can you score "Conquest" if all your own fighters are dead? Quote Well, that's a good question and one we get a lot. We'll pass it on to the right folks for potential FAQ for you. The way we play it here in the Community office (so, totally unofficial!) is that yes, they can be scored. You have reached the consequences on the card, so why not? Totally unofficial, but none the less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choombatta Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 So I would have to guess that you would allow someone with no remaining fighters on the board to score the objective "All surviving fighters have at least one wound token on them", correct? Which just seems so wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Goblin-King said: You have reached the consequences on the card Shows a substandard level of reading comprehension if they believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 I can generally agree with that opinion for Contained. You're presumably rewarded for making sure the enemy doesn't spread outside of their board at the end of the game. If they're all dead, they haven't spread anywhere. Mission accomplished! But Conquest... the point is to push through to the enemy's board and have a toehold there by the end of the game. If all of your men are dead, how is that conquering anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choombatta Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Also, bear in mind the one objective card the FAQ currently states can be scored without any remaining fighters on the board does not use the word "surviving" in its' text. Forgot name on card, but the objective you can score if no friendly fighter received any damage in the previous action phase. It does not say "surviving friendly fighter", just "friendly fighter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 In order for a thing to be contained, it must exist. If it is eliminated, then, well, it's eliminated. A jar that has a bug inside it contains a bug. If the bug dies and is dumped out, the jar contains nothing - it's empty. This is Contained, not Annihilation. I understand we can apply all sorts of role-playish "meaning" to the cards, but this is not an RPG, so that sort of interpretation or re-imagining/re-wording is not appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-King Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Sleboda said: I understand we can apply all sorts of role-playish "meaning" to the cards, but this is not an RPG, so that sort of interpretation or re-imagining/re-wording is not appropriate. Quite frankly both 1 hour ago, Daveman said: But Conquest... the point is to push through to the enemy's board and have a toehold there by the end of the game. If all of your men are dead, how is that conquering anything? ...and... 14 minutes ago, Sleboda said: In order for a thing to be contained, it must exist. If it is eliminated, then, well, it's eliminated. A jar that has a bug inside it contains a bug. If the bug dies and is dumped out, the jar contains nothing - it's empty. This is Contained, not Annihilation. are applying "roleplaying" to the rules. The name of the cards holds no bearing on the rules, just like the fluff flavor text doesn't. Is this what this has been about all along? Is it the word "contained"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c2h5oc2h5 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 10 hours ago, Choombatta said: Also, bear in mind the one objective card the FAQ currently states can be scored without any remaining fighters on the board does not use the word "surviving" in its' text. Quote Forgot name on card, but the objective you can score if no friendly fighter received any damage in the previous action phase. It does not say "surviving friendly fighter", just "friendly fighter". But Contained and this card aren't alike. This card states that no fighters took damage in the previous action phase and adding "surviving" would change it's meaning. With no "surviving" you must not lose any fighter in order to score this objective. If "surviving" was there, it would be possible to score the objective with a fighter wounded to death ;). Directly on topic: "Score this in the third end phase if all surviving enemy fighters are in their territory." Well, there are two interpretations: (1) "surviving" connects to the whole sentence and implies there must be survivors, (2) "surviving enemy fighters" is a sentence used literally, to retrieve just what it says: a number of enemy fighters that are currently alive. Applying either (1) or (2) is neither roleplaying nor using fantasy interpretations. Both approaches have it's merit. Personally I'm opting for (2), because I view rules as logic statements. And this is more direct approach IMO. However (1) is also very feasible and less problematic with cards like Conquest... I hope whatever FAQ will say, it'll have all those "surviving" cards a consistent interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverEasy Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverEasy Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Sorry I meant to say you can't claim your opponent's surviving fighters are all in his territory, but the logic is still just as valid (there is an equal amount of surviving fighters in all territories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.