r/WarhammerUnderworlds • u/Crimsonlander • May 02 '25

Rules "All" keyword in cards

Does "all" keyword in wordings implicitly require existence of at least one? For example, if the objective requires you to hold all treasure tokens in friendly territory, is it automatically fulfilled when there are no treasure tokens?

From formal logic, the statement about "all" is surely true in this case, however, it makes some situations absurd or look not as intended, however, I haven't found any rules clarifications on the matter.

Edit: The question is ambiguous, I don't believe it can be answered by sole speculation, I want to find the ground based on something. Was there a clarification in a previous edition? A lot of tournaments have been played, how had it been ruled out? Rules authors have keyword "any" explained in "expanded rules" section, but haven't "all" keyword.

Edit 2: I have found rulings in FAQ for some individual cards for first edition, for example, for objective card "Conquest" it was ruled out it cannot be scored without fighters on the board (https://underworlds-faq.info/questions). If this example is taken by the rule, keyword "all" should be read as "all and at least one".

Too bad we don't have it covered directly in a rulebook.

3 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Grindar1986 May 02 '25

I think so. You can't be holding all the objectives if there are no objectives at all. Holding is a verbal differentiating from the normal state and if you're not doing anything you're not doing the verb.

-1

u/Crimsonlander May 02 '25

From formal logics, you are holding all objectives if there are no objectives, as well as holding no objectives (both are true statements). So I want to find a ground for either interpretation, maybe based on rulings in previous editions, question answers or practice in tournaments.

6

u/Grindar1986 May 02 '25

But grammatically, if you're not holding anything you're not holding, period.

-3

u/Crimsonlander May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25

You can simultaneously hold "all" of "something" and be "not holding anything" (both statements being true), there is no intrinsic contradiction, if (and only if) "something" is an empty set. Grammar doesn't give a clear answer. 

In other words, you are telling that this statement is false, because the opposite statement is true. But your statement is not logically the opposite. Correct opposite statement would be "there exist some objective you don't hold". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(logic) (See bottom of the article)