Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fenrir]

Xanatos gambit fail.

Well, come on now. Let us not be too hard on him. A Xanatos Gambit is not an easy thing unless you are Xanatos.

[Bauglir]

I assume that this is a solid plan. However, for reasons stated above, it really isn't a Xanatos Gambit. If, for instance, you transformed into your Patron Spirit upon being slain and this transformation allowed you to achieve whatever goal your opponent was trying to stop in the first place, then it would qualify, for instance. Not only do you need to win no matter what happens, adversaries need to be in a position where nothing they can do won't help you. Not merely where nothing they can do will stop you.

[Neonivek]

Ok here is basically how a Xanatos Gambit works in very VERY simple terms

If I win, you lose
If you win, I win

In otherwords a situation where the opponent in "winning" actually doesn't (or where you win anyhow). With the opponent being set against you.

A plan where you covered every single base so you couldn't possibly lose isn't a Xanatos Gambit... it is just a plan. It needs to be a gambit first.

A Gambit is basically a lot like a "Trick"

If, for instance, you transformed into your Patron Spirit upon being slain and this transformation allowed you to achieve whatever goal your opponent was trying to stop in the first place, then it would qualify, for instance

That wouldn't be a gambit anyhow. It lacks a "Trick" and is simply a "You didn't have a chance anyhow".

[Johnfalcon99977]

Did none of you hear me say "We are about equal in skill"? Its not a crube battle. The transformation is also not a super-weapon, I said it was a boost to my stats, not a friken game breaker.

Also, since fleeing benefits me, it counts as a win. Also, he cannot have any "tricks up his sleeve" or "Bring something unexpected" because I know everything he has. Hell, the information is put on open display for gods sake! I know his skills, everything he has, and all his powers. Same for him. And everyone else on the site. If I had not known his stats, then it would not be a Xanatos Gambit, but simply just a Gambit.

You also do not have to die in at least one outcome for every Xanatos Gambit. You seem to think it requires that.

And I also notice you are making assumtions based on what you think is the situation. Hell, after it had worked (Proof and point.) I had posted it and the people there said it was good! They knew all the stats, and the situation provided.

And from what you are all saying, it seems you are increasing the definetion of a Xanatos Gambit to make it not one. A Xanatos Gambit in my mind is a plan in which all outcomes favor the person who made the plan, no matter what the Enemy does. That is the base line. And I have successfully done that.

[Sensei]

Did none of you hear me say "We are about equal in skill"? Its not a crube battle. The transformation is also not a super-weapon, I said it was a boost to my stats, not a friken game breaker.

Well then, there's still a good chance that he just stabs you, and you die.

And for the record, a Xanatos gambit necessarily means that when your opponent thinks they've won, you have actually won. In this case, if they kill you, they win and you lose.

[Neonivek]

If I had not known his stats, then it would not be a Xanatos Gambit, but simply just a Gambit

No... no that isn't a requirement. A Xanatos Gambit isn't infallable (ever wonder why Xanatos didn't beat the Gargoyles and end the series?).

It only needs two steps.

You also do not have to die in at least one outcome for every Xanatos Gambit

You need to "lose" which you don't. You just, though severe metagaming, mapped out every possibility allowing you to get out ahead in all of them.

A Xanatos Gambit in my mind is a plan in which all outcomes favor the person who made the plan, no matter what the Enemy does

That is just being in a supperior possition. If I had a gun and was in an open field...

And for the record, a Xanatos gambit necessarily means that when your opponent thinks they've won, you have actually won. In this case, if they kill you, they win and you lose

Yes. as I said the most simple way to describe it is

If I win, you lose
If you win, I win

Mind you... even that is too simple at this point. It needs to be a trick essentially.

[Fenrir]

You also do not have to die in at least one outcome for every Xanatos Gambit. You seem to think it requires that.

That depends upon what the opponent is trying to do. If the opponent is trying to kill you, then killing you should further your master plan.

Hell, after it had worked (Proof and point.)

Its success does not mean that it was a Xanatos Gambit. If I tell someone that I killed someone with a bat, and they see that it was really a shovel, pointing out that I managed to kill the person would not mean that I had not used a shovel.

I had posted it and the people there said it was good! They knew all the stats, and the situation provided.

Did they just say that it was good? or did they agree that it was a Xanatos Gambit? If they said that it is a Xanatos Gambit, they simply do not know what a Xanatos Gambit is.

A Xanatos Gambit in my mind is a plan in which all outcomes favor the person who made the plan, no matter what the Enemy does.

I am afraid that your mind is not the basis by which we assign meaning to words, so I am afraid you shall need to utilize common definitions if you wish to be understood. A Xanatos Gambit is any plan in which everything the opponent does helps you. Your plan dictates that, if your adversary gains the upper hand, you shall turn about and gallantly chicken out. Being driven from the battlefield is not helpful. Read the link you provided in the original post. “At its most basic, the Xanatos Gambit assumes two possible outcomes by the one manipulated - success or failure. The plan is designed in such a way that either outcome will ultimately further your goals.”

[Johnfalcon99977]

At this point I am starting to think you are completely ignoring everything I say.

And for the record, a Xanatos gambit necessarily means that when your opponent thinks they've won, you have actually won. In this case, if they kill you, they win and you lose.

This what I am talking about.
Now you are saying it needs the Victory to think hes won. But what if there is no outcome that results in his victory, hum?

Well then, there's still a good chance that he just stabs you, and you die.

And I have already said that instant kills like that are impossible. Also, people in this RP are tougher to prevent that kind of stuff. Bullets don't kill PCs in one shot in this game!

But, they still hurt like hell, no matter what.

If I had not known his stats, then it would not be a Xanatos Gambit, but simply just a Gambit

No... no that isn't a requirement. A Xanatos Gambit isn't infallable (ever wonder why Xanatos didn't beat the Gargoyles and end the series?).

It only needs two steps.

What? This response does no make any sense.

You also do not have to die in at least one outcome for every Xanatos Gambit

You need to "lose" which you don't. You just, though severe metagaming, mapped out every possibility allowing you to get out ahead in all of them.

I do "lose" in one outcome, did you not read the damned pic I put up in the OP? Also, I did not list all the outcomes, I listed what I needed to do in the fight to achive victory no matter what.

A Xanatos Gambit in my mind is a plan in which all outcomes favor the person who made the plan, no matter what the Enemy does

That is just being in a supperior possition. If I had a gun and was in an open field...

No. It is not. It is what I call an Xananos Gambit. Also that is an awful example. Simply awful.

And for the record, a Xanatos gambit necessarily means that when your opponent thinks they've won, you have actually won. In this case, if they kill you, they win and you lose

Yes. as I said the most simple way to describe it is

If I win, you lose
If you win, I win

Mind you... even that is too simple at this point. It needs to be a trick essentially.

"An Xanatos gambit my mind is a plan where all outcomes favor the victory"
Do you forget so quickly?

You also do not have to die in at least one outcome for every Xanatos Gambit. You seem to think it requires that.

That depends upon what the opponent is trying to do. If the opponent is trying to kill you, then killing you should further your master plan.

And you my friend are just proving my point with this statment. We are fighting, but he does not really need to kill me. In fact, I am trying to kill him.

Hell, after it had worked (Proof and point.)

Its success does not mean that it was a Xanatos Gambit. If I tell someone that I killed someone with a bat, and they see that it was really a shovel, pointing out that I managed to kill the person would not mean that I had not used a shovel.

You are not saying anything with this statement. This only takes effect if someone believes I did not use an Xananos Gambit.

I had posted it and the people there said it was good! They knew all the stats, and the situation provided.

Did they just say that it was good? or did they agree that it was a Xanatos Gambit? If they said that it is a Xanatos Gambit, they simply do not know what a Xanatos Gambit is.

I typed out the defintion and gave them the link to the TV tropes page. They know what it is.

A Xanatos Gambit in my mind is a plan in which all outcomes favor the person who made the plan, no matter what the Enemy does.

I am afraid that your mind is not the basis by which we assign meaning to words, so I am afraid you shall need to utilize common definitions if you wish to be understood. A Xanatos Gambit is any plan in which everything the opponent does helps you. Your plan dictates that, if your adversary gains the upper hand, you shall turn about and gallantly chicken out. Being driven from the battlefield is not helpful. Read the link you provided in the original post. “At its most basic, the Xanatos Gambit assumes two possible outcomes by the one manipulated - success or failure. The plan is designed in such a way that either outcome will ultimately further your goals.”

If I fail, then I have a reason to come back and do the whole thing over again. I also gain EXP from it, as I had put in the fucking OP. The goal is also to gain EXP from the encounter, which will happen as long as I do not die. So if I flee, I win anyway.

And honestly, I hate arguing. Its a waste of my time, it gets me angry, and its stupid. Having this thread is just a gate for more argument, so I am just going to lock this.

Not that I cannot prove that what I made is an Xananos Gambit, but because I really do not want to argue about this. Good day sirs.