[pfti]

Hey all, I posted the wrong copy of the rules update.

The unique and universal entry was something rules is working on, but is not quite ready.

So that rule has been recanted.
However i offer the following if you attempted to seed a unique facility but failed to do so (e.g. a headquarters) you may use copies of it in play for the purposes of cards that refer to "your" facility

[HoodieDM]

not quite ready.

TEASE!!




~D

[Hobie]

This makes me happy to see in Blue. Thank you!

[BCSWowbagger]

Fun fact: according to my records, this is the first bluetext ruling since August 27, which is the longest gap in... I'm not sure, but it's been a long time. A good sign for the steadily-increasing stability of 1E rules!

Adding this one to my Unofficial Rulings page (see my signature) now.

(Bonus fun fact: There are only 13 current bluetext rulings that have not been superseded or confirmed by official Glossary updates.)

[AllenGould]

However i offer the following if you attempted to seed a unique facility but failed to do so (e.g. a headquarters) you may use copies of it in play for the purposes of cards that refer to "your" facility

I almost hate to bring it up... but how do you attempt to seed a facility?

[Boffo97]

However i offer the following if you attempted to seed a unique facility but failed to do so (e.g. a headquarters) you may use copies of it in play for the purposes of cards that refer to "your" facility

I almost hate to bring it up... but how do you attempt to seed a facility?

You have a headquarters or other unique facility in your seed deck, ready to seed, and opponent seeds his or her's first.

[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

Also I assume that everyone here means "not duplicatable" or "non-duplicatable" when they say "unique".

[jrch5618]

My question is this - if you attempt to seed Terok Nor or Mirror Terok Nor and your opponent seeds the flipside (DS9 or Mirror Terok Nor), can you still use THAT station as 'yours' for purposes?

[BCSWowbagger]

Also I assume that everyone here means "not duplicatable" or "non-duplicatable" when they say "unique".

Technically, a non-duplicatable facility is unique, isn't it? The "attempt to seed" problem would only arise with a non-duplicatable facility, I think, so the wording is a little broad, but works, I think.

I'd worry more if this weren't an interim ruling; I'm sure it'll be fixed when the "real" ruling comes out in (presumably) next month's CRD.

My question is this - if you attempt to seed Terok Nor or Mirror Terok Nor and your opponent seeds the flipside (DS9 or Mirror Terok Nor), can you still use THAT station as 'yours' for purposes?

No.

As always, if I seed Deep Space 9 and you attempt to seed Terok Nor, your Terok Nor gets knocked out-of-play by the persona rule as soon as you try to put it on the table. That's hasn't changed.

What's changed is this ruling. However, the card you attempted to seed (Terok Nor) is not a copy of a card currently in play (Deep Space 9) (see copy in the Glossary). It's just another version of the same persona. Therefore, it does not fall under this ruling, which only applies to "copies" of the card in play.

So, nothing has changed for this scenario: you still lose that Terok Nor, and you cannot treat Deep Space 9 as "yours."

However, you can download a Cardassian Outpost with I Miss This Office and play Cross-Quadrant Expansion there instead, so no big deal.

[pfti]

However i offer the following if you attempted to seed a unique facility but failed to do so (e.g. a headquarters) you may use copies of it in play for the purposes of cards that refer to "your" facility

I almost hate to bring it up... but how do you attempt to seed a facility?

What i mean by this, is you have to prove it was in your seed deck, but you could not legally play it.

[edgeofhearing]

I almost hate to bring it up... but how do you attempt to seed a facility?

What i mean by this, is you have to prove it was in your seed deck, but you could not legally play it.

So, in that case, would you be able to use it as a miss-seed?

[jrch5618]

I don't see how. By the time you seed facilities, it's too late for that - dilemma phase is over by then. Only way that could possibly work is for DS9/Terok Nor or Mirror Terok Nor, because those two seed in dilemma phase...?

[soggy_amphibian]

I think you'd discard it as per normal.

The recanted CRD said to put the duplicated non-duplicatable facility on top of the already-existing one to create a "single facility".

Some cards (I can think of XQX, Legitimate and Illegitimate Leader off the top of my head) whose "your facility" text really hurt you if your opponent seeded the Headquarters you wanted to use, first.

Good luck, Rules, with getting the wording down right, and thanks for interimly keeping it in the game even though you didn't mean to post it yet. That could be one pretty nasty NPE in the right (wrong?) situation.

[jrch5618]

Did this ever make it into the glossary? I don't remember seeing it. (Since now there's a similar one with time locations...)

(Oh yeah, 3 year necro!)

BTW, would this mean that if both players tried to seed the same non-duplicatable Nor (like both tried to seed DS9), would BOTH players be station controller, or just the one who actually seeded the Nor? And if not, what does this ruling mean for Nors?

[BCSWowbagger]

Did this ever make it into the glossary? I don't remember seeing it. (Since now there's a similar one with time locations...)

No. This is the single oldest "interim ruling" on my bluetext rulings list -- by a long shot.

The other "interim" ruling is the Edo Probe ruling, which is only 11 months old at this writing. Which is still pretty long, when you think about it.

BTW, would this mean that if both players tried to seed the same non-duplicatable Nor (like both tried to seed DS9), would BOTH players be station controller, or just the one who actually seeded the Nor? And if not, what does this ruling mean for Nors?

Note that this ruling only applies if you both try to seed copies of the same non-dupe Nor, not just persona versions. So, yes, it does apply if you seed Deep Space 9 and your opponent also tries to seed DS9. It does not apply if you seed Deep Space 9 and your opponent tries to seed Terok Nor.

But, yeah, let's suppose you and your opponent each run a deck that seeds Deep Space 9 and no other facilities. Your opponent seeds Deep Space 9 first, so you have to throw yours away. Under this ruling, however, you can still use the following cards with your opponent's DS9 as if it were "yours":

Specifically/Essentially Nor:
Sisko 197 Subroutine
Establish Tractor Lock
Baryon Buildup
Tactical Console
Construct Starship
Defense System Upgrade
Reaction Control Thrusters
Process Ore (this obviously matters more if you both seed Terok Nor than if you both seed Deep Space 9)

Headquraters/Nor
Chula: The Way Home
Legitimate Leader of the Empire (probably not a big concern in a mirrored-DS9 deck; huge concern if you and your opponent both seeded The Great Hall and no other facilities)
Illegitimate Leader of the Empire
Cross-Quadrant Expansion
Reactor Overload
Assign Support Personnel
Call for Reinforcements
Alliance for Global Unity

If this ruling were cancelled, you'd simply be dicked on all these cards in a mirror match. Your opponent would be able to use them with DS9; you would not. (And, since DS9 is your only facility in this scenario... ouch.)

That could be only a minor inconvenience (I'm not suuuuuper worried about Baryon Sweep ruining my day) or it could be a major problem (you might need to delay your ASP download by a turn while you get a compatible ship out; Cross-Quadrant Expansion might be a key draw engine, and you lose access to it if your opponent just happens to seed the non-duplicatable facility before you do). Some are potentially game-breaking (Alliance for Global Unity decks could get screwed coming and going on this, since both DS9 and Chamber of Ministers on non-duplicatable).

This ruling is in place to prevent those "gotchya" situations from arising. MACO Training Camp is another such situation and it was missed by this ruling, so now it has been fixed with the new one. It's unfortunate that someone had to lose her game because of that oversight. And hopefully we won't be waiting three years now for the final resolution.

Does that make sense?