[pfti]

The fact is that neither of those rules are actually in the text that I can find ( and that might be something we need to rectify)

SO I think the wording of sybok is important for a couple of reasons. he does not fall under the "does not work with rule" at all. So that is what let's release the pain override his specific works with restriction.

However, War Council creates a "does not work with", which as per the glossary can only be overcome with the "regardless of affiliation" text -- which is not present in this case. Meaning the war council restrictions are not overcome by release the pain (because they are two totally different rules entities.

This interpretation also seems to support the Release the Pain Entry which (under my reading) suggests that lore could not work with St. John Talbot.

Thus you can release, but they would be incompatible and form a different AT On planet.

[Armus]

The fact is that neither of those rules are actually in the text that I can find ( and that might be something we need to rectify)

SO I think the wording of sybok is important for a couple of reasons. he does not fall under the "does not work with rule" at all. So that is what let's release the pain override his specific works with restriction.

However, War Council creates a "does not work with", which as per the glossary can only be overcome with the "regardless of affiliation" text -- which is not present in this case. Meaning the war council restrictions are not overcome by release the pain (because they are two totally different rules entities.

This interpretation also seems to support the Release the Pain Entry which (under my reading) suggests that lore could not work with St. John Talbot.

Thus you can release, but they would be incompatible and form a different AT On planet.

I think I understand your logic, and under the current rules, agree it's correct. However, this is a bloody mess and probably points to a need for some rules re-jiggering.

My fundamental problem is that logically, Sybok's restriction (works only with ) and War Council's new restriction (does not work with aligned) are functionally the same, yet being treated differently because of wording differences. I recommend evaluating the feasibility of codifying the principle of the specific overriding the general, both in a cards-vs-rules and a card-vs-card context. That could go a long way towards making the rules simpler, but may also have unintended consequences that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

[pfti]

To be fair, under a strict interpretation of the rules. Sybok's text doesn't work. There is no definition of "works with" only "does not works with" but I had to make the jump to his text saying "May only mix with NA" to make the card work at all.

So I would say rules needs to hammer out what this means for now. but for now "Release this Pain" does not override "does not work with" restrictions. Sybok may only mix with NA personnel - but this may be overridden by "Release this Pain"

Note rules/errata will examine this both to clarify the rules and about what outcome is desirable.

(the easy fix would be a "does not work with" and a "regardless of affiliation" on RtP but that might have consequences I am not thinking of right now.

[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

The Release This Pain entry isn't useful because it's out of date and doesn't account for its errata. Pre-errata, it only let affected personnel work together and with Sybok. It didn't mention Korrd & Co. at all, so they would still be subject to normal affiliation compatibility rules. With RtP's errata, it lets affected personnel work with Sybok and personnel with Sybok in lore, which includes Korrd & Co.

RtP was kind of a mess, so I'm glad the errata cleaned it up, but I wonder now if it should just get a "regardless of affiliation" so we don't have to deal with this question ever again. It makes enough Trek sense and it lets people do what they want to do. I don't think there would be a balance issue because there's already TMW and Memory Wipe to let aligned personnel work with War Council.

In the meantime, I think the Golden Rule is applicable in one way or another, otherwise Korrd himself doesn't work with Sybok. Unfortunately the Golden Rule is rivaled only by the Cumulative Rule in being easy to recite but difficult to actually apply. So we just need some declaration from high and oh look as I was writing this, we got one.

Edited to add words I forgot the first time.

[BCSWowbagger]

Updated the forum rulings.

Question I would submit to the RC: do we need the does not work with rule to trump Treaties at all? The easiest resolution (I think, at first blush) would be to just have "does not work with" and "works only with" restrictions be (1) treated identically, as generic default behaviors for the cards in question, and (2) overridden by any card that specifically extends compatibility, including Release This Pain or a treaty.

EDIT: (Is this an honest suggestion or a devious plan to get my Maquis + War Council deck chugging? Let the reader decide!)

[AllenGould]

I'd lean the other way - that a prohibition overrides permission.

The example I'd use is ol' Fajo Miles. He doesn't work with Cardassians. But if you can just seed a Fed/Car treaty (which would have to do *anyway*), then it's not much of a restriction, is it?

[Armus]

I'd lean the other way - that a prohibition overrides permission.

The example I'd use is ol' Fajo Miles. He doesn't work with Cardassians. But if you can just seed a Fed/Car treaty (which would have to do *anyway*), then it's not much of a restriction, is it?

I'm not sure that's the best example. Keep in mind when the Fajo Collection came out, the only Cardassians in the game were Non-aligned and could otherwise ostensibly work with Fajo Miles.

Don't go all revisionist Nerd history on me, Allen.

[BCSWowbagger]

I'd lean the other way - that a prohibition overrides permission.

The example I'd use is ol' Fajo Miles. He doesn't work with Cardassians. But if you can just seed a Fed/Car treaty (which would have to do *anyway*), then it's not much of a restriction, is it?

I assume Fajo Miles is the reason the rule was created the way it was, since he was an early "does not work with" affiliation restriction guy, and so Decipher crafted a rule to make Miles work but not necessarily to make the game work. It makes sense for Miles, but has always struck me as counterintuitive when applied to every other card with a "does not work with" affiliation restriction -- such as Sybok.

Miles, for his part, would not have his box rendered meaningless, since he would still be barred from working with Joret Dal, Evek, and several versions of Garak.

[AllenGould]

I'd lean the other way - that a prohibition overrides permission.

The example I'd use is ol' Fajo Miles. He doesn't work with Cardassians. But if you can just seed a Fed/Car treaty (which would have to do *anyway*), then it's not much of a restriction, is it?

I'm not sure that's the best example. Keep in mind when the Fajo Collection came out, the only Cardassians in the game were Non-aligned and could otherwise ostensibly work with Fajo Miles.

Don't go all revisionist Nerd history on me, Allen.

I don't mean it in terms of Decipherial Intent, but as an easy-to-understand example.

Tallera (which is also Fajo, weirdly) would work just as well as an example.

[BCSWowbagger]

Tallera (which is also Fajo, weirdly) would work just as well as an example.

I disagree. My intuition says she should work with Fed if there's a treaty. The only reason she has a restriction box at all (says my intuition on first reading of the card) is because she's a personnel who doesn't work with , which is a very unusual change to the basic rules of her affiliation. If Sela can work with under a treaty, though, I don't see why Tallera wouldn't be able to.

(...except for the fact that Decipher made a rule that says so.)

[frakkingoff]

I'm not sure that's the best example. Keep in mind when the Fajo Collection came out, the only Cardassians in the game were Non-aligned and could otherwise ostensibly work with Fajo Miles.

Decipher knew they were making a affiliation when the Fajo Collection came out, as the First Anthology had teased it six months earlier with Garak.

If Sela can work with under a treaty, though, I don't see why Tallera wouldn't be able to.

The reason Sela can under a treaty - and Tallera can't, because of her restriction box - is Trek sense. If Sela's government negotiates a treaty between them and the Federation, then Sela (as a government agent/employee/soldier) has no problem following those orders.

Tallera's story is entirely different - she's an extremist and a terrorist, who is very much against the Federation. Hence, the need for a restriction box, to hamper her even in the face of a treaty.

Real-world example: The US might make a treaty with Saudi Arabia, so American and Saudi citizens can mix and cooperate. But even in the face of such a treaty, Bin Laden would never work with the US, despite being a Saudi national.

[Takket]

Not sure how to articulate this exactly.......... but we almost need a way of defining the order in which you check card conditions. Like, how the rule for enhancing attributes is add (Bynars Weapons Enhancement) before you Multiply (Kurlan Naiskos)

Do we need a rule saying that you check global restrictions/allowances before checking individual ones?

Do I have a global restriction on working with aligned? YES: War Council

Do I have an individual allowance that will override the global restriction? Yes: General Koord's special skill and my Release This Pain on Jean-Luc Picard let them mix with Sybok and Sybok lore personnel.

another example:

Do I have a global allowance to mix and ? YES: the fed/card treaty

Do i have an individual restriction to override the global allowance? YES: Miles O'Brien's restriction box.