Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rename
, started by Routerie on Feb 14th 2011 at 4:28:13 PM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Clean-up on aisle, started by DragonQuestZ on Mar 18th 2011 at 7:30:17 PM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: wick cleanup needed, started by RavenWilder on Oct 13th 2011 at 1:13:46 PM
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Needs Help, started by reterusu on May 27th 2014 at 8:53:36 PM
Moved here from the main page:
"The page image can be used to illustrate a common problem with this trope: how far must one stretch all outcomes for it to count as a Xanatos Gambit? Just as many of the other gambits on this page, it has failure conditions, but low-probability ones that only applies in certain outcomes: in one case, the hero could defeat the villain, his dragon, and his army in succession, leaving the son without the means to take over the world, while in another, the hero could secretly befriend the villain's son, who could talk the army down and let the hero live."
God is God of truth, and thus of current webcomic example links. See also: Grammar Nazi Hedge Trimmer
"In the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Jack Sparrow allowed himself to be shackled in the first movie so he could use them to take Elizabeth hostage. Either they let him escape or she becomes a distraction for his escape." Really? I thought Jack Sparrow was just a master of improvisation. Did he plan for Elizabeth Swan to come along at that exact moment? Why didn't he just pack a garrotte? I haven't seen the movie, but this entry does not sufficiently explain how it is a Xanatos Gambit, if indeed it is one.
"Or taking one of the Aztec coins? Barbossa can no longer win because he himself cannot be killed, but once Will dispells the curse, he can finish Barbossa off with his pistol." How would Barbossa win by being killed? That's kind of an important detail. And how does Jack Sparrow taking an Aztec coin curse Barbossa with undeath? And what if Barbossa had a pistol and killed Will first? People read this wiki without having read every book or watched every movie.
God is God of truth, and thus of current webcomic example links. See also: Grammar Nazi Hedge Trimmer
From the Dark Knight examples: "Later, he made people choose between killing a man or restraining themselves, letting him blow up a hospital. Finally, he gave two ships' occupants the choice to choose which ship would blow up. He didn't care how they chose - either would have delighted him. He was furious when neither chose to attack the other, but he was ready for that as well and prepared to blow them up himself." The very next entry starts with this statement: "His ferry plot failed the Xanatos test by virtue of getting some new scars." So does the ferry count or not? We need to remove either the example or its negation. Arguing in the examples is not permitted.
God is God of truth, and thus of current webcomic example links. See also: Grammar Nazi Hedge Trimmer Hide / Show Replies
The spoilered section that continues the second entry also needs cleaned up. I'm not sure exactly what it's trying to say.
God is God of truth, and thus of current webcomic example links. See also: Grammar Nazi Hedge Trimmer
Change "Western Animation" to "Animation." Anime can be anime or japanese animation. ...I mean come on.
Hide / Show Replies
"Western Animation" is the official category name. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/MediaCategories
I would argue that this item:
- Sidious's plan in The Phantom Menace is a Xanatos Gambit — at the start of the film he wants the Trade Federation to hold Queen Amidala prisoner; when she escapes, he sends his apprentice, Darth Maul, to prevent her from reaching Coruscant. But Amidala does reach Coruscant, and within a couple hours she's helped Sidious become Chancellor Palpatine.
is not a Xanatos Gambit — Sidious had a plan and it was foiled by an unexpected outcome, but he quickly adapted to move it toward his ends. It's at best Xanatos Speed Chess, at worst just an adaptive Evil Plan run by a particularly skilled Chessmaster.
I'm considering removing it. Any objections?
Edited by Randolpho Hide / Show Replies
^If he didn't factor in Amidala's arrival in Coruscant and the subsequent course of events, it's not Xanatos Gambit but Xanatos Speed Chess.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
It seems he was counting on that, however, because his elevation to Chancellor required Amidala playing the vital role of moving a Vote of No Confidence.
I'm still confused as to how Sidious would have won if Queen Amidala had not reached Coruscant. Why did he send Darth Maul? Unless there is an explanation this example fails to list (and thus it should be revised), I think it should be removed.
God is God of truth, and thus of current webcomic example links. See also: Grammar Nazi Hedge Trimmer
My Namesakes
Does it HAVE to be literally all outcomes benefit the planner? I mean, if the planner plans for every single itty bitty outcome doesn't that turn the Xanatos Gambit into a Xanatos Roulette?
I think we should rewrite it to say that it only counts as a Xanatos Gambit if all plausible outcomes benefit the mastermind. At the very least, can it still count as a Xanatos Gambit if at least two of the most plausible outcomes benefit the mastermind (like Heads I Win Tales You Lose for example)?
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass." Hide / Show Replies
That's exactly what it is. All plausible outcomes. As for the number, two is just that, a number. At the very least, the planner has to accomdate the possibility that their plan will fail. Heads I Win, Tails You Lose is just that; You lose, I win or you win, I win.
(Super late reply, BUT:) I think the litmus test is to imagine having the planner explain the plan to you. They start with their best possible outcome, and you say "But what if that doesn't happen?", then they give you the next option, and so on. You stop when the question "What if that doesn't happen?" starts to make you look silly.
"I've dispatched an annoying underling to kill the target. I'll be rid of the target, and I win"
"But what if the underling doesn't kill the target?" - "Then the underling will be dead, and they won't annoy me anymore. That's still a win"
"But what if the underling doesn't kill the target, and isn't killed by the target?" - "Then the underling has failed an important task, and I have an excuse to punish them publically and make them an example for the others. Also a win"
"But what if the underling doesn't fail their assassination task, but also the target hasn't been assisnated?" - "Errr.... what?"
There are two common trends I'm seeing in the examples which I'm not convinced are actually Xanatos Gambits proper.
1. "If I win, I win; if I lose, I get information that will help me win later." Mind, I'm not talking about loss giving information that helps in a bigger, overarching plan—I am specifically talking about when calling a plan a Xanatos gambit is justified by nothing but "if I lose, I'll learn something that will let me beat you later." Considering that this comes part and parcel with any loss, rather than requiring special planning, it doesn't fit the spirit of the trope...and I'm not convinced that "I might be able to do my goal more successfully next time" counts as an alternate victory condition. It barely counts as a consolation prize.
2. Standard, independent backup plans for if the primary plan fails. While certainly impressive, and capable of doing something similar to a Xanatos gambit, there seems to be a significant difference between the two.
Hide / Show Replies
It depends on the situation, I think. I can think of a few situations where it's really a form of misdirection. For example, Side A wants to steal a McGuffin. They set it up so that in order to stop them, Side B will reveal some piece of information about their side - the limitation of their powers, the number of members of their team, etc. The real goal isn't to get the McGuffin, it's to get this intelligence about Side B. However, if they get the McGuffin, it's still good for them. I'm not sure if the McGuffin has to be as important as the intel in order for it to be a Xanatos Gambit, but I think Side A has to at least have their eye on the intel as much as the McGuffin for it to qualify.
I made this Idolized Julius Kingsley icon back when Akito first came out, and now that the crossover is actually happening, I don't care.
The "economy" section is all really not this trope. It's describing different industries they think use this trope (which is not the same as "economy"), but... no. First of all, selling a service is not a duel. Second, the examples seemed to mostly be saying, "In this industry, once the contract is signed, you get paid whether you 'win' or 'lose'!" Besides the fact that "win or lose" isn't the best way to put that, it's completely missing the point - you still need to work hard to do the best job so you get the next contract - if you have a reputation for doing badly, that contract will be your last. Third, that's not even what the trope is - the trope is when a person comes up with plans for a particular situation so that they win regardless of what happens. You should be able to see what's wrong with the idea that that exists for an entire industry - if it did, no one would contract a firm to do that, they'd do it themselves. Also, if a blueprint like that exists, it's still not this trope. If the first person to use it didn't let anyone else in on the plan and let them think they'd "won" when they hadn't, *then* it would be this trope, but only in that instance. Basically, the people who wrote those examples are acting based on a whole lot of false assumptions. It's probably best to just remove that whole category. Do any other tropes have an "economy" category? It's sort of ridiculous, even besides the fact that it's using the word "economy" wrong. - edited for clarity.
Edited by lavendermintrose I made this Idolized Julius Kingsley icon back when Akito first came out, and now that the crossover is actually happening, I don't care.
It wasn't any actual plan, sounded more like trying to save face or... something. I'm not even sure if it counts at all, but in Pokemon Soul Silver, when you get Koga down to his last pokemon he says "...I was counting on this all along!" Unsure if it should be mentioned.
Hide / Show Replies
That's I Meant to Do That And sorry for late reply.
Edited by NNinja
Regarding the Bleach reference in the Anime/Manga section: I don't recall Aizen ever having actual back-up plans for whether he fails. The only solid example provided was the blurb about kidnapping Orihime, which is not a Xanatos Gambit since failing to capture her would not benefit Aizen at all. The battle in fake Karakura Town is mostly pitting his enemies against each other in 1v1 duels, which does not account for what happens if they realize his plan and team up with each other. I suggest getting rid of it, unless someone else has a legitimate example.
Hide / Show Replies
Firstly: It's not about having backup plans it's about benefiting from plans no matter what happens, secondly, why didn't you just repair it?
Pittsburghmuggle
I'd like to see a name change. I now know who Xanatos is, but have never seen "Gargoyles". This trope is so prevalent in fiction I think a more neutral title may be appropriate.
I'm not saying Xanatos may not be the crown jewel of this trope, just speaking for folks who aren't in the know.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics Hide / Show Replies
Ookies.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
Were it not for the fact noted 2 posts above, I'd petition for it to be renamed Xehanort Gambit. Having just beaten the latest Kingdom Hearts game, I think Xehanort may well have usurped Xanatos himself for this kind of planning. At the very least I'd like to know who to talk to about making Xehanort into the partial holder of the title "God of Xanatos Gambits". (Full disclosure, while I did enjoy Gargoyles, I'm a rabid KH fan so i MAY be a LITTLE bias...) Still its a good point nonetheless, and I am serious about the title thing over in the pantheon.
Why not have Xehanort Gambit redirect to this trope, or move it and have the current title link there?
Eh, because we don't rename pages for the sake of renaming pages. See the Trope Renaming Guidelines.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Is it still a Xanatos Gambit if the villain loses at the end but had a good plan of succeeding "A" and "B" none the less?
Hide / Show Replies
If the planner loses, its not a xanatos gambit. If the planner's primary goal fails, but they succedd at a secondary objective, it can count. The limtus test is that the planner has to have gained SOMETHING from the plan.
I would say, if the villain loses it may be a Xanatos Gambit, but only if the villain only lost because the hero Took a Third (or fourth, or eighth) Option that the villain could not have accounted for. A Xanatos Gambit depends on the gambit planner having a winning play for every plausible outcome.
So how can a Xanatos Gambit be foolproof if even Xanatos basically lost in the end?
Hide / Show Replies
What do you mean? Are you talking about the movie and how he went to jail at the end? That wasn't the gambit. The gambit was using the gargoyles to do his dirty work: if they contineu that's great but if they don't he can replace them robotic copies. Even when the gargoyles smashed the Steel Clan he still was able to test them and make them better. Xanatos Gambit doesn't mean 'always win' but 'always benefit'. There's a difference; the benefit can be a consolation prize.
Edited by ChaoticNovelist
That's not the point. Seeing how the Steel clan works against the originals is the point.
Sure, but they turned out to be inferior, and over the course of the series never helped him to triumph over Goliath
At the end of the series, he had to call a truce with Goliath and the clan, that doesn't sound like a benefit to him
Sounds more like Goliath ended up the winner of their rivalry
Edited by baxtus
Sanity is overrated
I think i cracked the gambit in the picture: Steal the McGuffin.
If I (or the big bad) destroys the McGuffin, the dragon will mostly turn against him/her because Evil Is Not a Toy.
If the big bad attacks me, I can also use the dragon
If he/she kills the dragon the McGuffin is worthless and lots of energy were wasted giving me the upper hand.
Edited by Zeanobia #nolivesmatter
Four words: Doc Scratch in Homestuck, at least at the time of this writing (Beginning of Disc 2). No matter what, he is going to release his master, the indestructible Lord English. He manipulates the players of S Burb and S Grub to force a need to cause the Scratch. Being omniscient, he has the ability to see all possible outcomes and force the one he desires. In fact, Doc Scratch at the time of this writing has and will always succeed, because "He Is Already Here."
Hide / Show Replies
...What?
This isn't for examples. Those go on the trope page.
Also, "Four words: X" sounds ridiculous. Just say "Doc Scratch in Homestuck has a Xanatos Gambit to release his master, the indestructible Lord English." Then explain the plan.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
in the real life section, near the bottom is this: Nixon going to China can be seen as one: his goal being to 'open it up' but a secondary goal achieved regardless of the first is faning Soviet fears of a China-America alliance which he exploited in later summits.
Tried to figure out what was meant by "faning". I believe the proper word if "feigning".
Hide / Show Replies
"feigning" is completely wrong. "Faning" comes from "fanning the fires" (+ some misspellingh) which is an idiom similar to "fueling the fires" hence "fanning/fueling Soviet fears". "Fanning" seems rather unnatural, I'd would have expected "fueling" but it's more right than "feigning".
Fanning the fires is a perfectly fine idiom. Fires need oxygen as much as fuel, and that's what the fanning does.
Emperor Palpatine's plot to have Luke Skywalker and Darth Vador duel to the death is listed as a Xanatos Gambit, but it seems to me that this clearly does not qualify because the ultimate outcome did not benefit him.
Hide / Show Replies
That's because Luke Skywlaker Took a Third Option. I think that a Xanatos Gambit can still be foiled. Palpaltine was planning on the results of the fight to the death so that if Vader kills Luke, he still keeps his Dragon and gets rid of a potnetial foe. If Luke kills Vader then Luke turns to the Dark Side and Palpaltine gets a new Dragon to replace his older less useful one.
I'm going to ask about that in my next post in this discussion.
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
If there is a third option not taken into account is it still really a xanatos gambit? I am quite certain if the gambit orchestrator has the information to conclude such a possibility, i assume it doesn't count as a xanatos gambit
Regarding the trope picture. There is one other bubble that can be added for gambit: klingon promotion.
You challenge me to combat. > You defeat me, but my army and the Dragon makes you their new leader. Mad with power, you continue my work. > I Win.
Could someone update the trope picture with this?
Edited by Scaresteam
Cut this:
Could someone explain one of the Babylon 5 gambits? If it doesn't have at least one that can be put in detail then it needs to be removed.
Removed the Death Note example. It was extremely forced (the hypothetical 'either way' situation wasn't mentioned at all in Death Note itself that I recall), and had an obvious chance of failure (in the hypothetical situation where it shows that Kira can be mocked - that would require getting the word out that he had been mocked, which eventually could result in eg. the guy getting killed five days later after information about the broadcast had spread worldwide, providing no benefit to L and costing him the life of a prisoner.)
It feels like someone desperately combed Death Note for an example that would fit on this page because they mistakenly thought that this was Crowning Moment of Planning or whatever.
Where force fails, cunning prevails
It seems this page, looking over it, could use a bit of a clean up to get rid of things which are just evil plans. I think what may help is requirement to explain HOW it's a Xanatos Gambit on both sides of things with outcomes and not just a plan.
Improving as an author, one video at a time. Hide / Show Replies
Frankly, over half the of the Real Life examples need to be cut. Preferably all of them.
while the first page quote is a fine quote which sums up the essence of the trope quite nicely, I don't think that the second one describes it very well. would it be ok if I were to change it to another one which was recently in the top spot (albeit shortly), "If I win, I get to be a king. If I lose, I get to be a legend."?
It's being used for the main index, since it's just the man it's hard for one particular trope to own it when there are other Xanatos tropes out there, but I'm making a new one to fit the page.
Whacked a whole bunch of examples from the literature section that either didn't describe the Xanatos Gambit, or described something that was not in fact a Xanatos Gambit.
This is really stupid. I just want to point out that one of the examples is The Departed, where Matt Damon survives and is then killed by Mark Wahlberg. Whoever wrote it censors out the fact that Damon is the rat, a fact which is revealed in the first minutes of the movie, but does not censor the fact that Wahlberg kills him, which is not revealed until the last scene and can't really be expected even if you've seen Infernal Affairs.
I could have just edited this, but I wanted to start a discussion of how big of an idiot whoever did that is.
Hide / Show Replies
If you see a mistake, fix it. Posting just to insult other tropers will get you banned.
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Take out the Chief Justice John Marshall real life example — it's incorrectly applied. Marbury v. Madison was far from a power grab by Marshall, as the doctrine of judicial review had already been adopted by state courts before Marbury v. Madison went to court. More importantly, because Marshall ruled in Marbury v. Madison that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, the writ of mandamus Marbury asked the Court to issue was invalid, meaning that Marbury could not become a justice of the peace because of Marshall's decision. As such, it would be incorrect to say that Marshall was trying to force Jefferson's hand because he himself made it impossible for Marbury to become a justice of the peace.
There should be a mention of Lord Foul in Donaldson's Covenant Chronicles. It is unusual in that no deception whatsoever is involved. He flatly states the full truth as he knows it at that time: if they do not act, Drool Rockworm will win both against the Lords of the Land and against Foul, in 7 years. If they act and attack Rockworm now, they will win against Rockworm, but Foul will win against them in 49 years.
Hide / Show Replies
[-TallDarkAndBishoujo-]
Discussion thread here
regarding replacing the current image.
I thought this refers to faking death as part of a plan.