And/Or VC

[Juan SantaX]

I have a problem understanding And/Or victory conditions...

The VC says you have to control hex XXX and/or hex ZZZ.

Which one is the right answer? (I think A but I fail a lot with English)

A.- it means that if I control hex XXX, or if I control hex ZZZ, or if I control both, I win.

B.- it means that I have to control BOTH XXX and ZZZ to win.

I think I made this same question a year ago more or less, but the search machine runs into troubles....

TIA

 

[sdennis]

I think people use And/Or here because if it just said OR some lawyerly people would say controlling BOTH is a LOSS... so A is correct as far as I care.

 

[Robin Reeve]

A.
and/or is to avoid an exclusive or (XOR).

 

[Sparafucil3]

The virgule ('/') punctuation means "and or". So saying "and/or". The whole "and/or" phrase is redundant. It's literally saying "and and or or". Sorry, it is my crusade to stop virgule abuse. -- jim

 

[Steed]

The virgule ('/') punctuation means "and or". So saying "and/or". The whole "and/or" phrase is redundant. It's literally saying "and and or or". Sorry, it is my crusade to stop virgule abuse. -- jim

And all these years I've been thinking "1/2" was "one half"... No wonder my cooking is so bad.

 

[Jazz]

I have a problem understanding And/Or victory conditions...

The VC says you have to control hex XXX and/or hex ZZZ.

Which one is the right answer? (I think A but I fail a lot with English)

A.- it means that if I control hex XXX, or if I control hex ZZZ, or if I control both, I win.

B.- it means that I have to control BOTH XXX and ZZZ to win.

I think I made this same question a year ago more or less, but the search machine runs into troubles....

TIA

A is correct

 

[ScottRomanowski]

A. As @Robin Reeve wrote "and/or" is to avoid people misinterpreting it as an XOR and claiming you lose if you control both.

 

[Larry]

Or can be conjunctive or disjunctive. Eat your dinner or go to bed. Pick one. Vote for A or B. Also disjunctive. If A or B happens, then C will occur. Conjunctive.

But and/or (or just /) is always both. To read a VC of A or B, that A and B loses. that's silly. You kicked too much butt, so you lose. I played so poorly that you controlled A and B, so I win. The context of A or B in a VC as disjunctive is just wrong.

 

[Robin Reeve]

VC can avoid the and/or thingie by stating :

• "X wins by controlling either or both objectives A or B"
• "X wins by controlling one or two of objectives A or B."

 

[Actionjick]

The virgule ('/') punctuation means "and or". So saying "and/or". The whole "and/or" phrase is redundant. It's literally saying "and and or or". Sorry, it is my crusade to stop virgule abuse. -- jim

This must be reported to the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

This must be reported to the Department of Redundancy Department.

I'll report it too, for a redundant report.

VC can avoid the and/or thingie by stating

That's a good idea, but it may become wordy if the VC were longer, and more complex. Maybe we could get entries for IOR and XOR into the Index and get scenario designers to use them. But then we'd have one person who lists three conditions with XORs just to be difficult.

 

[lightspeed]

The virgule ('/') punctuation means "and or". So saying "and/or". The whole "and/or" phrase is redundant. It's literally saying "and and or or". Sorry, it is my crusade to stop virgule abuse. -- jim

It's worse than you think...Look at page 28 of the index. In ASL, / is defined to be and/or. Therefore,
and/or = and and/or or = ...



indy

 

[Michael Dorosh]

VC can avoid the and/or thingie by stating :

• "X wins by controlling either or both objectives A or B"
• "X wins by controlling one or two of objectives A or B."

X wins by controlling at least one of objectives A or B

 

[Philippe D.]

Seriously though, is there even one published scenario where one side has to achieve one of two conditions to win, but loses if they fulfill both?

 

[sdennis]

I agree, I highly doubt it and only the rules lawyer/stickler would attempt to interpret it that way IMHO. I think the and/or is unnecessary for 99.9% of us.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I agree, I highly doubt it and only the rules lawyer/stickler would attempt to interpret it that way IMHO. I think the and/or is unnecessary for 99.9% of us.

Indeed.
But ASL is a game which attracts some rules lawyers mentalities.
I mean, when an SSR says that a squad equivalent may setup HIP (with leaders and attached SW sharing the status), some players add to the hidden MMC squad equivalent up to four hidden SMC, as they count as zero equivalent.
It certainly is not the intention of the SSR to allow that, and 99% are quite sure that it is the case...
Now, nobody has reworded that type of SSR (e.g. by saying : "MMC, up to a squad equivalent, may set up HIP..."), because the great majority of the ASL crowd are reasonable people, when it comes to play the game.

 

[von Marwitz]

Seriously though, is there even one published scenario where one side has to achieve one of two conditions to win, but loses if they fulfill both?

If so, it must be a scenario in which these VC would refer to the Russians.

In case you fulfil one condition, that's ok. But if you are too successful by fulfilling two, your splendid success may appear presumptous to Comrade Stalin, who will then see you shot without much ado or, on a good day, sent to Siberia.

von Marwitz

 

[sdennis]

Indeed.
But ASL is a game which attracts some rules lawyers mentalities.
I mean, when an SSR says that a squad equivalent may setup HIP (with leaders and attached SW sharing the status), some players add to the hidden MMC squad equivalent up to four hidden SMC, as they count as zero equivalent.
It certainly is not the intention of the SSR to allow that, and 99% are quite sure that it is the case...
Now, nobody has reworded that type of SSR (e.g. by saying : "MMC, up to a squad equivalent, may set up HIP..."), because the great majority of the ASL crowd are reasonable people, when it comes to play the game.

I have seen this one done... everyone in the room was against it but it was played that way and "in a court of law" I could see the logic but common sense in a game must prevail...

 

[Larry]

A lawyer arguing that A or B excludes A and B would risk sanctions for making a frivolous argument FRCP, Rule 11 in this context.

 

[Sparafucil3]

A lawyer arguing that A or B excludes A and B would risk sanctions for making a frivolous argument FRCP, Rule 11 in this context.

And any reasonable person would accept that Marianne or Ginger was not Marianne AND Ginger. No wonder lawyers are dumb -- jim