Vassa Article #117 contradicts itself - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Vassa Article #117 contradicts itself

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
kev777
Jul 05, 2010 14:25:47 What year did the destruction of Bloodstone Valley occur?

The article contradicts itself

"in the Year of the Forged Sigil (1459 DR), distracted therealm of Bloodstone from the marshalling Vaasan armies in the north. The following year war ensued;and the capital of Bloodstone was seized by WarlockKnights"

or

"Once capital of the unified Kingdom of Bloodstone,the city was overrun by Vaasans a decade past, and itremains garrisoned by a large contingent of WarlockKnights to this day." (1469 DR)

#2
The_Silversword
Jul 05, 2010 18:07:23 Maybe the battle lasted 10 years?
#3
18DELTA
Jul 05, 2010 20:26:50 Probably a typo...
#4
gray_richardson
Jul 06, 2010 21:18:17 What's the contradiction? In 1460 it was overrun, and in 1469 (a decade later) it is still occupied. I'm not seeing where the contradiction lies.

Perhaps your question is regarding it stating "a decade" instead of 9 years? But maybe that could be explained either by the author rounding up, or alternatively the overrunning may have occurred in early 1460 while the reflecting back is from late 1469, so that it does end up being a full decade--or at least just shy by only a month or so.

Regardless, the destruction would appear to have occurred, or at least begun, in 1460.
#5
Stigger
Jul 07, 2010 0:50:10 What Gray said.
#6
iakhovas
Jul 07, 2010 12:16:48 The wording there is definitely a bit wonky. My appologies. The civil war began in 1460 DR, but the capital of Bloodstone was not taken until 1469 DR.
#7
gomeztoo
Jul 08, 2010 6:38:00 I added the dates to the timeline, I hope it helps to clarify.
#8
kev777
Jul 08, 2010 15:56:47
What's the contradiction? In 1460 it was overrun, and in 1469 (a decade later) it is still occupied. I'm not seeing where the contradiction lies.

Perhaps your question is regarding it stating "a decade" instead of 9 years? But maybe that could be explained either by the author rounding up, or alternatively the overrunning may have occurred in early 1460 while the reflecting back is from late 1469, so that it does end up being a full decade--or at least just shy by only a month or so.

Regardless, the destruction would appear to have occurred, or at least begun, in 1460.

Well you are reading a lot into that. The semicolon connects the war in 1460 with the capital being seized (the same year) .

"the following year a war ensued;and the capital of Bloodstone was seized by WarlockKnights"

Furthermore, why would they overrun their own city a decade later? The text doesn't say that it was still occupied a decade later it says it was overrun a decade later.

What makes it more confusing is that the article goes on to say that the Warlock Knights seceded from there since that time. The 1469 date isn't mentioned until later in the article.

So when did the Knights secession begin ? From 1460 or 1469?

#9
18DELTA
Jul 08, 2010 20:33:50
The wording there is definitely a bit wonky. My appologies. The civil war began in 1460 DR, but the capital of Bloodstone was not taken until 1469 DR.

This is from the author of said article...

#10
kev777
Jul 08, 2010 22:00:47 yes thanks.. I was a bit too quick on trigger and didn't read the other posts before I replied.

It's good to know that those who write the articles are also very active on the forums here.

The reason it is important to me is that after reading the Vassa article, I recently told my players that the year for the campaign was 1469 (a few months before the destruction of bloodstone city). I had to switch the year again to 1459 when my players became confused. Looks like I'll have to change it back to what I first thought it should be.

In my campaign, the Order was recently defeated at the Vassan wall by a Warlock Knight and his army. The Order claims that they were betrayed by the current Duke of Bloodstone. They also allege that that the Duke used the defeat as an excuse to have the Order and the church of Ilmater evicted from Bloodstone City for incompetence. Needless to say, the baron's new militia has already threatened the order with several overtly aggressive actions. All these actions will precipitate the eventual destruction of Bloodstone City, that is if the players fail to stop it from happening.

#11
Mirtek
Jul 11, 2010 5:57:41
What year did the destruction of Bloodstone Valley occur?

The article contradicts itself

"in the Year of the Forged Sigil (1459 DR), distracted therealm of Bloodstone from the marshalling Vaasan armies in the north. The following year war ensued;and the capital of Bloodstone was seized by WarlockKnights"

or

"Once capital of the unified Kingdom of Bloodstone,the city was overrun by Vaasans a decade past, and itremains garrisoned by a large contingent of WarlockKnights to this day." (1469 DR)

I can't see a contradiction therE:
A: The war started in 1459, the city was overrun one year later, which makes the date of it's fall 1460

B: We are now in 1469 and telling you that the city was overrun a decade past, which makes the date of it's fall 1460

Well you are reading a lot into that. The semicolon connects the war in 1460 with the capital being seized (the same year) .

   Correct. Which makes that year 1459 or 1460.
Furthermore, why would they overrun their own city a decade later? The text doesn't say that it was still occupied a decade later it says it was overrun a decade later.

The text says it was overrun a decade past, not a decade later

#12
kev777
Jul 12, 2010 8:42:28 Mirtek,

You sound just as confused as I was when I read the article.

The current year is 1479 and that means that a decade past is 1469. Regardless, if you read the previous posts you will see that the author has corrected the date. The city was destroyed in 1469 as he said.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kev777 Jul 05, 2010 14:25:47	What year did the destruction of Bloodstone Valley occur? The article contradicts itself "in the Year of the Forged Sigil (1459 DR), distracted therealm of Bloodstone from the marshalling Vaasan armies in the north. The following year war ensued;and the capital of Bloodstone was seized by WarlockKnights" or "Once capital of the unified Kingdom of Bloodstone,the city was overrun by Vaasans a decade past, and itremains garrisoned by a large contingent of WarlockKnights to this day." (1469 DR)
#2 The_Silversword Jul 05, 2010 18:07:23	Maybe the battle lasted 10 years?
#3 18DELTA Jul 05, 2010 20:26:50	Probably a typo...
#4 gray_richardson Jul 06, 2010 21:18:17	What's the contradiction? In 1460 it was overrun, and in 1469 (a decade later) it is still occupied. I'm not seeing where the contradiction lies. Perhaps your question is regarding it stating "a decade" instead of 9 years? But maybe that could be explained either by the author rounding up, or alternatively the overrunning may have occurred in early 1460 while the reflecting back is from late 1469, so that it does end up being a full decade--or at least just shy by only a month or so. Regardless, the destruction would appear to have occurred, or at least begun, in 1460.
#5 Stigger Jul 07, 2010 0:50:10	What Gray said.
#6 iakhovas Jul 07, 2010 12:16:48	The wording there is definitely a bit wonky. My appologies. The civil war began in 1460 DR, but the capital of Bloodstone was not taken until 1469 DR.
#7 gomeztoo Jul 08, 2010 6:38:00	I added the dates to the timeline, I hope it helps to clarify.
#8 kev777 Jul 08, 2010 15:56:47	What's the contradiction? In 1460 it was overrun, and in 1469 (a decade later) it is still occupied. I'm not seeing where the contradiction lies. Perhaps your question is regarding it stating "a decade" instead of 9 years? But maybe that could be explained either by the author rounding up, or alternatively the overrunning may have occurred in early 1460 while the reflecting back is from late 1469, so that it does end up being a full decade--or at least just shy by only a month or so. Regardless, the destruction would appear to have occurred, or at least begun, in 1460. Well you are reading a lot into that. The semicolon connects the war in 1460 with the capital being seized (the same year) . "the following year a war ensued;and the capital of Bloodstone was seized by WarlockKnights" Furthermore, why would they overrun their own city a decade later? The text doesn't say that it was still occupied a decade later it says it was overrun a decade later. What makes it more confusing is that the article goes on to say that the Warlock Knights seceded from there since that time. The 1469 date isn't mentioned until later in the article. So when did the Knights secession begin ? From 1460 or 1469?
#9 18DELTA Jul 08, 2010 20:33:50	The wording there is definitely a bit wonky. My appologies. The civil war began in 1460 DR, but the capital of Bloodstone was not taken until 1469 DR. This is from the author of said article...
#10 kev777 Jul 08, 2010 22:00:47	yes thanks.. I was a bit too quick on trigger and didn't read the other posts before I replied. It's good to know that those who write the articles are also very active on the forums here. The reason it is important to me is that after reading the Vassa article, I recently told my players that the year for the campaign was 1469 (a few months before the destruction of bloodstone city). I had to switch the year again to 1459 when my players became confused. Looks like I'll have to change it back to what I first thought it should be. In my campaign, the Order was recently defeated at the Vassan wall by a Warlock Knight and his army. The Order claims that they were betrayed by the current Duke of Bloodstone. They also allege that that the Duke used the defeat as an excuse to have the Order and the church of Ilmater evicted from Bloodstone City for incompetence. Needless to say, the baron's new militia has already threatened the order with several overtly aggressive actions. All these actions will precipitate the eventual destruction of Bloodstone City, that is if the players fail to stop it from happening.
#11 Mirtek Jul 11, 2010 5:57:41	What year did the destruction of Bloodstone Valley occur? The article contradicts itself "in the Year of the Forged Sigil (1459 DR), distracted therealm of Bloodstone from the marshalling Vaasan armies in the north. The following year war ensued;and the capital of Bloodstone was seized by WarlockKnights" or "Once capital of the unified Kingdom of Bloodstone,the city was overrun by Vaasans a decade past, and itremains garrisoned by a large contingent of WarlockKnights to this day." (1469 DR) I can't see a contradiction therE: A: The war started in 1459, the city was overrun one year later, which makes the date of it's fall 1460 B: We are now in 1469 and telling you that the city was overrun a decade past, which makes the date of it's fall 1460 Well you are reading a lot into that. The semicolon connects the war in 1460 with the capital being seized (the same year) . Correct. Which makes that year 1459 or 1460. Furthermore, why would they overrun their own city a decade later? The text doesn't say that it was still occupied a decade later it says it was overrun a decade later. The text says it was overrun a decade past, not a decade later
#12 kev777 Jul 12, 2010 8:42:28	Mirtek, You sound just as confused as I was when I read the article. The current year is 1479 and that means that a decade past is 1469. Regardless, if you read the previous posts you will see that the author has corrected the date. The city was destroyed in 1469 as he said.