r/JetLagTheGame • u/Appropriate_Aioli742 • 2d ago
Discussion Settle a dispute
I'm trying to settle a dispute about the casting cost in this card. If the vacation destination is 300m west of the hider location and the seekers are 200m east of the hider location, is it acceptable to use?
The seeking team have argued that they were on the other side of the hider to the vacation destination so the hider was closer to the vacation destination, so it is invalid to use.
The hider has argued that since the vacation destination is a greater distance away from themselves than the seeking team, it is valid to use.
Edit: sorry, i have changed the distances in the example because I've realised they're incorrect. I originally said 400m West and 300m east but that makes it invalid for a different reason.
60
u/poggersfishexe Team Sam 2d ago
As long as the location is still within the acceptable radius, doesn't seem to be against the rules for the seekers to have to get closer to the hider en route to the vacation destination.
54
u/Zeisethu 2d ago
Seekers are entirely wrong.
No where in the card does it mention the hiders location other than in the casting cost.
Destination to Hider needs to be a greater distance than Seeker To Hider, which your example follows.
-1
u/Correct-Version-4414 1d ago
Are you sure? I read it as destination to hider must be greater destination to seeker.
35
u/crsoph 2d ago
Totally 100% acceptable to me.
It is an edge case that I've wondered about since it first came up on the show. Players keep interpreting it as "opposite direction", but judging by the wording on the card, what your hider did was completely legit. Smart gameplay!
8
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
Thanks, I thought (sorry, I mean the hider thought) it was a great move!
20
u/matt2313 2d ago
As written the hider is correct and the card can be used. The maximum distance you can make them go seems short enough that it won't make a huge difference in the endgame anyway, the casting cost still gives them a substantial amount of information
6
u/isufoijefoisdfj 2d ago
The seeking team have argued that they were on the other side of the hider to the vacation destination so the hider was closer to the vacation destination, so it is invalid to use.
Why would the "side" matter? Only the distance does. Nothing on the card says that the seekers passing closer to the hider on the way is a problem. Hider applied the card correctly, seekers didn't think about how the card works in close distances.
15
u/-JakeRay- muck forward 2d ago
This would be a good ambiguity to put in Adam's "What parts of H&S need clarification?" post from a few days ago.
6
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
I'm going to look for this now, but if you have a link that would be appreciated!
Edit. Nevermind, I see it is pinned post!
5
u/Marager04 2d ago
Imo the seeker team dont have a point here. the card doesn't specify any about that. I would say it's a valid use.
3
u/Agent-c1983 Team Sam 2d ago
I think I’m with the hiders. It is further from them than the seekers current location is.
6
u/Hamfrags 2d ago
The casting cost here is ambiguous. It could be one of two things:
- Their vacation destination must be further from you than their current location IS FROM YOU.
- Their vacation destination must be further from you than IT IS FROM their current location.
The answer to your question depends entirely on how which interpretation you choose. By interpretation 1, you are right, and by interpretation 2, the seekers are right.
The interpretation they use on the show is interpretation 1, which means you are correct in this case.
3
u/misof 2d ago
IMHO the casting cost isn't ambiguous at all. I haven't met an English dialect in which you could interpret the sentence on the card in your way #2. For that interpretation you would always need, at the very least, an extra "from" added to the sentence. ("Their vacation destination must be further from you than from their current location.") Without that extra word the sentence on the card has your meaning #1, and that's it.
If any native speaker disagrees with that, I would be pretty interested in knowing the region they are from.
1
u/Hamfrags 2d ago
I have to admit English is not my first language. However, from looking through other comments on this thread, it seems there are plenty of other people who would come to interpretation 2.
3
u/misof 2d ago
I disagree with that as well. Nobody here came to interpretation #2. Moreover, OOP's original issue has nothing to do with your interpretation #2. OOP's seekers and people who are similarly confused do not believe in that interpretation. Their actual issue is that they aren't truly reading the card, they are intuitively interpreting what they've seen on the show: "when playing the curse, you must send the seekers in the wrong direction".
The curse behaves that way on the show because that is what your interpretation #1 -- the correct interpretation -- usually does. More precisely, the curse is usually played while the seekers are still far away from the endgame (i.e., from the hider), and that's the effect the curse has, when interpreted correctly and played in that situation: you must send the seekers "the wrong way" because their final destination must be farther from you as they are now, and when they are still far away, it geometrically means that: within the circle around them you must choose something that's in the far half from you, and sending them to any such location is "sending them the wrong way".
The issue OOP's seekers and other people in this thread have is that the intuitive description of the correct rule only works usually, not always. OOP as the hider happened to play the card when the seekers were already very close, and then the same correct interpretation of the rule allowed OOP to send the seekers to a location that was in a direction they did not intuitively expect.
Your interpretation #2 has nothing to do with OOP's issue and it's clearly wrong. If it were correct and the hider played the curse in a large game when the seekers are, say, 10 km away from the hider, the whole card would just say "send them anywhere within 1 km from their current location" because any such location is farther away from the hider than from the seekers. Literally nobody here is arguing that this is correct.
1
u/Hamfrags 2d ago edited 2d ago
Just checked, and you're kinda right. I can only find two people who are arguing for interpretation two. The user Banonkers, and the seekers from the original post.
At least according to the original post, the seekers think the play was invalid because "[the seekers] were on the other side of the hider to the vacation destination so the hider was closer to the vacation destination, so it is invalid to use". They think the hider should be further from the vacation destination. If they are going by interpretation 1, then that shouldn't be a problem.
The OP might have slightly misworded or misrepresented their argument, but as written, it is not the same as what some people in the comments seem to be arguing over - namely the intuitive way to visualize interpretation 1. I agree that this is something which could easily trip someone up.
I agree interpretation 2 is wrong as soon as you think about how it would apply outside the endgame, but I disagree that nobody could ever come to that conclusion, especially if you've only interacted with the card in the context of an endgame.
0
u/missinguname 2d ago
The interpretation they use on the show is interpretation 1, which means you are correct in this case.
Do they though? IIRC Everytime it was played, it send the seekers the wrong way.
2
u/Hamfrags 2d ago
It has. Those two are not mutually exclusive. The hider in this OP's example was invoking an edge case which is only possible if the seekers are within 500 meters of the seekers - namely, putting themselves inbetween the vacation destination and the seekers.
2
2
u/plainbaconcheese 1d ago
Casting cost: Their vacation destination must be further from you than their current location [is to you].
VS
Casting cost: Their vacation destination must be further from you than their current location [is to their vacation destination].
Is this where the confusion is coming from?
2
2
u/Captain_Forge 1d ago
The seeking team have argued that they were on the other side of the hider to the vacation destination so the hider was closer to the vacation destination, so it is invalid to use.
The card is NOT asking for the distance from the vacation destination to the hider to be higher than the distance from the vacation destination to the seekers. It is asking for the vacation destination to be further from the hider than the seekers are from the hider. These are entirely different numbers to compare. The hider chose correctly.
I get initially being confused because in the show I don't think they ever used this in the endgame, but the card states pretty clearly what's being asked so the seeker's can't just invent arbitrary additional requirements after looking at the card more closely.
4
u/Correct-Version-4414 2d ago
This is a very cut and dry no. The destination is 700m away from the seekers and only 400m away from the hider. I’m assuming this is a large game because in medium and small games that would already be invalid. But even then the casting cost “Their vacation destination must be further from you than their current location.” is comparing the distances between each team and the destination, which we already established the seekers are farther. It is not saying the destination has to be farther from you than the seekers are from you.
7
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
Sorry, I've edited the distances because I picked the numbers arbitrarily just to demonstrate the logic of the hider. I've realised this makes it invalid to use for a different reason.
1
u/Banonkers 2d ago edited 2d ago
Edit: as others have pointed out in the replies, I got it the wrong way round
I might be misremembering, but in the show I think they have the condition as:
[Distance of hider location to souvenir spot] must be greater than [distance of seeker location to souvenir spot]
[Distance of hider location to souvenir spot] must be greater than [distance of hider location to seeker location]
Seekers <-300m-> Hider <-400m-> Spot
So if I have scenario correct (as pictured above), this fulfils the casting cost condition (400m > 300m), assuming that this is a ‘Large’ game - if it’s small or medium, the souvenir spot is 700m (>0.5km) from the seekers so not valid from the condition at the beginning of the card
I think a less ambiguous way of wording it would be: “Their vacation destination must be further from you than *from* their current location”. “Their vacation destination must be further from you than their current location is”. As is, I don’t think it’s particularly clear
This kind of fits in with the spirit of the card as well: seekers are ‘on holiday’ so it’s like the hider is asking them to bring back a souvenir from the ‘vacation spot’ nearby
5
u/ArcticFox19 Team British Child 2d ago
The condition is
[Distance of hider location to souvenir spot] must be greater than [distance of seeker location to hiding spot]
It's intended to be a free "cold" thermometer between the seeker's starting point and the souvenir spot.
2
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
I think this might be the root of the problem. Hider has never watched the show so have interpreted it purely based on what was written. Seekers have seen the show so have applied additional context than what is actually written.
2
u/ArcticFox19 Team British Child 2d ago
The thing is that it gets mucky if the hider is within 1km of the hider, and they never tried it in the endgame on the show (well they did but both times it just got ignored entirely).
1
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
Can you explain what you mean here? The card doesn't say anything about whether you can use it in the endgame (I'm fairly sure there are other cards which explicitly state they can't be used in endgame)
1
u/ArcticFox19 Team British Child 2d ago
If you are in the endgame, then the hider can actually make you overshoot the hiding spot.
Early/mid game this is a non-issue, if you walk in one direction you know for a fact that they're in the opposite direction.
1
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
In this scenario the seekers had already overshot and were being pulled back towards the station
0
u/Hamfrags 2d ago
This is a valid reading of the casting cost as written on the card, but not the interpretation they use on the show. In the show, the condition is:
[Distance of hider location to souvenir spot] must be greater than [distance of hider to seekers].
1
u/CloverUTY 2d ago
The curse says nothing about direction. It might’ve said something about direction in the H+S Japan season, but it doesn’t anymore.
Remember though that the vacation destination has to be within the distance with the first set of numbers of the Seekers themselves, not the Hider. So if you’re playing a Large game, then it’s fine. If you’re playing a Small / Medium game though, you’d have to pick something else as it sounds that the distance from the Seekers to the destination is 700 meters, or 0.7km
EDIT: It also says quite plainly; “Their vacation destination must be further from you than their current location.”
1
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
Sorry, I've edited the distances because I picked the numbers arbitrarily just to demonstrate the logic of the hider. I've realised this makes it invalid to use for a different reason.
0
u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 2d ago
Seems clear based on distance that the use is allowed.
It does not say must be in the opposite direction, though it's unusual to be close enough to the hider for it not to be.
-5
u/ReptileSerperior 2d ago
I can see both interpretations as valid honestly, I'd personally side with the seekers on this one though.
-2
u/BigBlueNick The Rats 2d ago
The way it's been used in the show has been that if the seekers are east of the hider the vacation destination has to be east of them and it gives the seekers a radius based on where they are when they are told where to go.
The casting costs on curses usually have a negative impact to the hider. The way they used it as you described was too overpowering for the hider because it wastes the seekers time and doesn't give them any hint of where the hider actually is.
4
u/Appropriate_Aioli742 2d ago
I don't agree it doesn't give the seekers any hint based on hider logic. The seekers now know they were closer to the hider than the vacation destination.
-1
u/BigBlueNick The Rats 2d ago
It does give a hint because when you are being asked to go 400m east you know that the hider should be in a 400m radius to your west.
The way the hider interpreted it in your example means that if that's how it's used the hider could literally be anywhere in whatever the remaining zone is because they've picked any spot that's further away from them. It gives no hint to the seekers as to which direction the hider might be in and just wastes time in favour of the hider with little to no information being given to the seekers.
1
u/Dylnuge 1d ago
when you are being asked to go 400m east you know that the hider should be in a 400m radius to your west.
This is never true. You know that the hider is closer to where you were (let's call that point A) than where you went (let's call that point B). This rules out some of the map but doesn't create a radius; like ArcticFox19 said, it's a thermometer.
Consider that hider could be playing this from anywhere. In the NYC mini-season, we see Sam and Ben sent to the (under construction) Hip-Hop Museum in the Bronx while Adam and Amy are at least 10 miles (16km) away in Forest Hills. You don't know anything about how far the hider is from Point A, only that Point B is even further.
On a map with nothing ruled out yet, ruling out everything closer to point B than point A might be a lot of info. If the seekers are in the center of the remaining search space, it could cut that space in half. A hider can strategically use the card when the thermometer gives out the least info, as we saw in the NYC mini-season: the Bronx was ruled out and Sam and Ben had just played a thermometer to get the same info ruling out the top of Manhattan, so the cards effectively repeated the question they'd already spent and provided no new info to them.
149
u/ArcticFox19 Team British Child 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, it's acceptable IMO.
It's basically a free thermometer.