It is not rules lawyering to consider that "or" can be ambiguous.You need fulfill only one condition to win, but you will not lose by fulfilling both. It sounds nuts, because it is, but in the early days some rules lawyers would argue for your loss if the condition was "or" but you had fulfilled both A "and" B.
Such precision seems nuts to me too. Maybe I shouldn't be playing ASL.If such precision seems "nuts" to you, may I ask why you are actually playing ASL?
I play ASL because it's fun. Started with SL circa 1982ish. A few years after starting, I learned all that AND/OR stuff in high school (English, Geometry and Basic computer programming), but haven't really needed it anywhere else (including in ASL scenarios) since then. Maybe I just have a charmed life?It is not rules lawyering to consider that "or" can be ambiguous.
If you have studied some basic logics, you will know that there are two types of "or" :
The "and/or" expression clarifies which "or" the VC are speaking of.
- the exculsive or (XOR), which offers mutually exclusive choices - you can only choose one possibility.
- the inclusive or (OR) which allows multiple choices - you can choose more than one possibility.
ASL is a game which does use a very precise and technical writing system, so one should expect such technicity in VC.
If such precision seems "nuts" to you, may I ask why you are actually playing ASL?
Context my friend:First we kill all the lawyers - William Shakespeare
Kill all the lawyers only if you aim to deprive everyone of rights. Turns out that lawyers are necessary. Not necessarily good, but necessary. They are also cannibals, they eat their own.JACK CADE. Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,– as king I will be,–
ALL. God save your majesty!
JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:– there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Jack CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 't is the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.
From the way it's written I believe the Russians could just control building CC19 to win; if they control 4+ buildings in the German setup area but did not control building BB19 they would also win. If they control BB19 and any other buildings in the German setup area, more power to them, and they'll also win.I don't think so. First of all, CC19 is a building. Second, if I control CC19 and 1 to 2 other buildings, I would still fulfil the first VC.
That is indeed correct. To me the formulation with the conjunction is clear, but I understand how it might caused problems for some (I had to discuss this with my opponent who interpreted the VC incorrectly). And I think the cause of the problem - in this particular case - lies partly in the redundancy of the formulation. So I suggested an alternative formulation which instead of "and/or" contains only an "or", and which I believe is more understandable and logically elegant.From the way it's written I believe the Russians could just control building CC19 to win; if they control 4+ buildings in the German setup area but did not control building BB19 they would also win. If they control BB19 and any other buildings in the German setup area, more power to them, and they'll also win.
No. I mean that "or" in current language is ambiguous.You mean that my "or" is a logical systems language's XOR - and that for the rules text, we might need both. I have no quibble with that.
(I think that "or" to mean inclusive* and "OR" to mean exclusive would have been more elegant, but that is not my main argument.)
I am saying that in this case (RB7) an "or" (i.e. exclusive) is less redundant and possibly easier to understand as it is closer to spoken language.
* The fact that the way "or" is used in regular language already includes the option of both options being correct (i.e. inclusive) is verified by a simple negation following the rules of logical systems language.