Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, psychie said:

Wouldn't that technically be an errata?

I love pedantry!

Errata becomes a complicated terminology in our modern world of "living" documents and non-printed materials. Since the RR is an online-only document and can be updated directly, and there are no (known) printed materials that contain the error, then it would only be considered errata in the strictest interpretation, and even then would not be included in a listed errata due to the original document is able to be corrected/updated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gaffa said:

Actually, personal email.

Could we see this "email" about it? There's way way way too much of this sort of stuff outside of the main forum and site to really trust. It's also the internet, which I inherently distrust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Poi68 said:

An errata is a contradiction. Errata is plural. The singular is erratum iirc.

But it's arguably not a correction at all, rather it is an amendment for clarification.

?

If they only alter one word, then it would definitely be singular, however phrasing changes to more than one word could be argued to qualify for the plural errata! ;)   

Also, while if we are talking about Latin, you would be correct that the singular of errata should be erratum, however in English (the language we are using to communicate right now), errata is an accepted singular, and has been since the mid-17th century (see the usage note, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/errata?s=t ), and in some cases even has the rarely seen plural form of "erratas" (although I personally don't like that, as it seems shoe-horned in, so I would use errata as its own plural). Also, in case it wasn't clear, the definition for errata that we have been using in this thread goes off of definition 2 in the link cited above.

This follows from the idea that English words and word forms that are taken directly from older languages (especially inflected languages like Latin) don't necessarily follow the same rules as they did in those older languages, like for example the word "octopus" comes from ancient Greek, literally meaning "eight footed," however if we were following the Greek pluralization, more than one octopus would be "octopodes," however in English we either take after the Latin pluralization, and go with "octopi," or apply the standard shoe-horn English approach and go with "octopuses," either of which is technically correct (the best kind of correct), although whether or not they are accepted varies based upon the audience ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/octopus?s=t ).

Isn't linguistics fun?

2 hours ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Errata becomes a complicated terminology in our modern world of "living" documents and non-printed materials. Since the RR is an online-only document and can be updated directly, and there are no (known) printed materials that contain the error, then it would only be considered errata in the strictest interpretation, and even then would not be included in a listed errata due to the original document is able to be corrected/updated. 

Considering they have a version number and a space for a change log on the RR, I would argue that any changes/updates that occur after the initial posting would qualify as errata, especially given that I don't see how it being an online "living" document affects the application of the definition of errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

Speaking of pedantry:

RAW say you need to break your opponent's stronghold province to win.
The first player to break the province protecting his or her opponent’s stronghold wins the game.

What if your opponent breaks it themselves? (Endless Plains)

Well, in the RR under Breaking A Province, Broken Province, it states if a player's stronghold province is broken, they lose. So I guess if a player breaks their own Endless Plains under their stronghold, they lose but their opponent is denied a win? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Sorry, I was being facetious...thought my little winking emoji was sufficient to denote that, but perhaps not. 

I got as far as 'Breaking a Province' in your post, and jumped straight out to check a section I'd overlooked.
Missed the ;) completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ser Nakata said:

This is not a contradiction that needs ironing... If you lose, your opponent wins. If your opponent wins, you lose. 

 

This is common sense. That does not need to be in the Rules reference...

Common sense left once you could move your Stronghold around. ;)


The slight issue is that the wording under Winning the Game in the Rules Reference implies that for you to win, you need to be the one that breaks your opponent's stronghold province.
(The first player to break the province protecting his or her opponent’s stronghold wins the game.)

Under Breaking a Province, it doesn't matter who breaks the province.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Nakata said:

So what, you're claiming that if you destroy your own province, according to the RAW, you lose, but your opponent doesn't win?

Not quite.

The section under Breaking a Province is the only mention of a way for a player to lose the game.

Winning the Game section is where the issue is currently.
It says that you need to break your opponent's stronghold province to win. Thus, it can be read that if you don't break the province (if they do) you don't win, and cannot win because you cannot break/attack a broken province.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Nakata said:

On page 5 of the Learn to play, under provinces and strongholds :

As soon as a player’s stronghold province is broken, that player loses the game.

 

Cheers.
That reinforces what is under Breaking a Province (same wording).

Winning the Game section just needs to be updated to similar (preferably same) wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's weird, terminology-wise?  Unless I have missed something, my cavalry can be "sent home" (and removed as defenders) from my stronghold province. What are they defending here exactly, if not their "home?" :huh:

Edited by Ide Yoshiya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

You know what's weird, terminology-wise?  Unless I have missed something, my cavalry can be "sent home" (and removed as defenders) from my stronghold province. What are they defending here exactly, if not their "home?" :huh:

If it helps, think of the Stronghold as where *you* live, and all your samurai have their own homes elsewhere in your lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is really what Nate said, I would like to see a bit more explanation / justification.  It seems wrong.

It feels like this is a rules interaction that they hadn't honestly considered, and they attempted the "sure, why not?" approach without really thinking it through.  I think this thread supplies a pretty compelling answer to "why not". 

"Sure, why not?" works pretty well with the Yokuni ruling from a few days ago.  It does not work here, at all.  I would like to see them rethink this ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yogo Gohei said:

If that is really what Nate said, I would like to see a bit more explanation / justification.  It seems wrong.

It feels like this is a rules interaction that they hadn't honestly considered, and they attempted the "sure, why not?" approach without really thinking it through.  I think this thread supplies a pretty compelling answer to "why not". 

"Sure, why not?" works pretty well with the Yokuni ruling from a few days ago.  It does not work here, at all.  I would like to see them rethink this ruling.

Yeah, this is a little counter-intuitive, to be honest.  There is nothing in the rules labelling a province as a "stronghold province"; the setup rules simply say "...each player secretly selects one of their provinces, places it facedown above their dynasty deck, and places their stronghold card on top of it."  One could easily assume then that the "stronghold province" is the province that "contains" the stronghold, not the one that it was originally on.  I honestly think that's how most people would interpret it, but its also the way that would make it extremely annoying to finish off Crab; they'd just move the stronghold when you declared your attack, potentially forcing you to break all 5 provinces instead of just 4.

It's a fringe case, and would be sort of dumb to do right now (BF only has +2 province str, stronghold has +3), but I still don't like that it's even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now all we need is an attachment or event that turns a holding into a character so that Togashi Yokuni can copy character-Borderlands Fortifications' ability and switch himself with Mountain's Anvil Castle so that Togashi Yokuni protects my stronghold province and my stronghold is actually in play on the field.

Until this is possible my life will not be complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...