Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Rob P

Members
  • Content count

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Lord Celestant

About Rob P

  • Rank
    Decimator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rob P

    Conceding a game in Tournament Play

    Forfeiting could cause point shenanigans. Simply better if player A no longer participates?
  2. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    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.
  3. Rob P

    The future

    It's all looking good to me. We're still riding the wave and it looks like there is a good use of old and new kits to keep the pace of change coming.
  4. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    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.
  5. Can anyone PM me a photo of the construction guide? Thanks Rob Edit: Each page please - I can see i've left myself open to shenanigans in my original request!
  6. FWIW I've bought the Stormcast from Absolution Black. The transaction was smooth, models arrived today and AB kept me informed throughout. Thanks!
  7. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    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.
  8. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    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
  9. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    They can be out of play/off the board/dead. The use of the phrase 'all surviving enemy fighters'. A card swap out isn't free is it? It costs an activation?
  10. Rob P

    Locking older threads?

    I wonder if it could be done by last post date so long running posts and current are not locked?
  11. Rob P

    Contained and Denial

    Replying to OP: I suppose that if you play a 3 or 4 player game the differences between the two cards become more apparent.
  12. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    Conquest is only a problem if you choose to read Contained in a way that makes Conquest a problem. I think there is a flaw in your logic here, Goblin King. It's a deductive fallacy. 'There are no surviving enemy fighters outside of their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters must be within their territory.' This is not a logical statement. Apologies, if i've misunderstood your point. Obviously, this isn't about logic but intent, but .... show me the cards which state 'surviving fighters (at least one)'. I suspect the writer thought that the pre-condition of survival would speak for itself, but if you can show me a card which has that condition i'll have to naturally accept that the writers intended 0 to satisfy the requirement. Also RAI, Scent of Victory is an example of a card that does punish you for killing all your enemies. ... that being said, the one thing everyone can agree on , is that a FAQ would make clear the rules writer's intention! Edit: QuantumMottle: The zero thing is about reading ''no surviving enemy fighters'' as ''all surviving enemy fighters''. Can ''all surviving'' mean none? I know we disagree on the importance of ''surviving'' on the card so I don't think that takes us any further.
  13. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    ''All surviving fighters (of which there are none) are in their territory.'' There are no surviving fighters therefore there are no fighters to satisfy the criteria of 'all surviving fighters'. Again, it's creative to read 0 as a value. Edit: AOS match play effectively punishes you for tunnelvision killing the enemies over achieving the point scoring objectives - I don't think it's a stretch for a competitive game to require strategy over brute force.
  14. Rob P

    Death vs Death Lore Question

    Personal opinion: Nagash has some direct control, but it may wane over distance or when he isn't directly exerting some mystical control over the undead. Some of it may be fear too. iIthink most of the undead have some element of free will but Nagash can overpower it for most (probably not vampires). Order will fight each other for all sorts of reasons. Some conflicts are much easier to justify from a narrative point of view. There are arguments over means justifying the ends and some faction will draw the short straw or general self-interest. Also, certain order races seemed to be assigned order more loosely (e.g. Fyreslayers) - outside of match play you could justify fyreslayers fighting for anyone for Ur-gold. I'd expect to see the undead in other realms too. The mechanics might be the same or different than those in Shyish. They may have come through a realmgate at some point in the past or not. I think the point of AOS is that the setting is so big that any story is possible.
  15. Rob P

    Objective card "Contained" explained

    I agree, a FAQ should clear up this sort of thing. Given that it's marketed as 'competitive play' it needs tightening up.
×