[jls900]

Quick question, say I'm facing this dilemma and have no cards in my hand. Are 3 people still stopped, or is the dilemma just overcome?

Thanks!

[Shanebrier]

Interesting, I'd like to say that the dilemma does nothing, but I'm pretty sure with an empty hand that it would stop 3.

[jbales1974]

I'd say it just fizzles. There is nothing to choose

[Brak_]

I'd say you go with the "Do as much as you can" rule. With no hand, opponent can't choose a card. You cannot discard the card, since none was picked. Since you did not discard it, three personnel are stopped.

[eberlems]

The wording is slightly different to Command Decisions, but I think the logic is the same.

[jls900]

I'd say you go with the "Do as much as you can" rule. With no hand, opponent can't choose a card. You cannot discard the card, since none was picked. Since you did not discard it, three personnel are stopped.

Does the "do as much as you can" rule really apply here? The card states "unless you choose to discard that card", which hinges on the first sentence in which a card was chosen. If no card was chosen, wouldn't that make it impossible for me to make the choice between discarding the card or not discarding it? Wouldn't "as much as you can" just be nothing here?

[Latok]

Wouldn't "as much as you can" just be nothing here?

You can't stop 3 personnel?

[jls900]

Wouldn't "as much as you can" just be nothing here?

You can't stop 3 personnel?

I could, but that's only supposed to happen unless I choose to discard the card my opponent chose.

The card it's referring to doesn't exist, so how could you say whether I'm choosing to discard it or not. Why is it possible for my opponent to choose a card from my hand that doesn't exist, but not possible for me to choose to discard that card? If that was how this card was meant to behave in this situation, wouldn't that be a little too unfair to decks?

[prylardurden]

If that was how this card was meant to behave in this situation, wouldn't that be a little too unfair to decks?

I have no idea how that card resolves with no hand, but there are drawbacks to playing any deck, like decks facing Hull Breach.

[Latok]

Wouldn't "as much as you can" just be nothing here?

You can't stop 3 personnel?

I could, but that's only supposed to happen unless I choose to discard the card my opponent chose.

The card it's referring to doesn't exist, so how could you say whether I'm choosing to discard it or not. Why is it possible for my opponent to choose a card from my hand that doesn't exist, but not possible for me to choose to discard that card? If that was how this card was meant to behave in this situation, wouldn't that be a little too unfair to decks?

Rules shouldn't be concerned with the power of cards, that's a problem for design, so it's irrelevant how each interpretation of this card increases or decreases it's power/effectiveness against any affiliation or deck. However even then this card pre-dates so being 'unfair' to decks is a problem of the shit design of not this dilemma.

[CaptMDKirk]

You can't choose the first choice, so the second choice kicks in by default. Seems pretty straightforward.

[T-Ricks]

You can't choose the first choice, so the second choice kicks in by default. Seems pretty straightforward.

Agreed. That's actually a pretty neat strategy for this particular game mechanic, similar in a way to Causal Recursion when you have no cards in your discard pile to remove from the game.

[GooeyChewie]

Does this dilemma hit Mirror Starfleet harder than it hits most affiliations? Yes. Is that unfair? No.

Many dilemmas hit certain affiliations harder than others. That's part of playing the game. Mirror Starfleet gets some pretty impressive bonuses for having no cards in hand, but part of the trade-off for getting those bonuses is they get hurt more by cards like this one, or Last Gasp and its brothers.

[BobRobbins]

Some dilemmas describe one effect, followed by an alternate effect “if you cannot” perform the first. In such cases, if the first effect is not performed completely, you must perform the second.

The above quote is taken from the 2e rulebook.

Assuming "unless you [...]" is handled the same as "if you cannot" in this explanation, which I would imagine they are considering they operate similarly, you can't ignore the stopping three personnel just because the choosing a card to discard operation gets bogged down.

The fact of the matter is there's no necessity or penalty imposed for the player who plays the dilemma to choose a card, whereas there is an ultimatum given to the player facing it (Unless you do X, Y happens). In this case, you can't do X (discard that card) so Y must happen instead (randomly stop three personnel).

"Unless you choose to discard that card, randomly select three personnel to be stopped" is a standalone sentence, I don't see how it's linked to or requires a successful "examine and choose a card" operation. You can't perform the action of discarding that card, it's impossible, the only alternative left is to randomly stop three personnel.

This is how I see it at least. Am I correct here?

[Walzo]

Does that mean that First-hand Experience and/or Deanna Troi, Guide and Conscience could be used when you have no cards in hand against Memory Invasion (and Gorgon for First-hand Experience). I'd say no, but the way this is being stated I'm unsure.