Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#365627
Interesting. Would you argue that Alpha 5 Approach could be used for the Vintner as well?

With regards to your question, however, I think the answer's no.
User avatar
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#365641
Might have been the Wixiban thread.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#365653
I'm going to guess that rules will ultimately say no BUT I would argue for a yes under the theory that "16 different skills" doesn't include the full possible range of skills (thus it doesn't necessarily require bio for vintner or Diplomacy for K'mtar) while "any attribute" does include the full range of possible attributes thus making them different issues/animals/etc for rules purposes.
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#365655
A5A has a Rules Tool entry.

I would agree in the light of that ruling, the the answer to the original question is no.
 
By Peers
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#365656
To play Devil's Rules Lawyer:

Alpha 5 Approach says '16 different skills'. This means that Vinter does not count it as including Biology, because any set of '16 different skills' is a limited subset of 'any skills'. Biology is a limited subset of 'any skill'. The two do not completely overlap; Biology is both inside and outside that subset until the subset is determined. Since it can be outside, it can't be included because it's not certain. You can attempt the mission without Biology, or have Biology in your team and then killed off, and then you can't use Biology to complete the mission.

However, if a mission requires 'Any Attribute', than that is not a limited subset of attributes; it's quite simply, the entire set of attributes. Strength will always be a part of that set. It is also a Cunning mission and an Integrity mission. And, technically, a Range, Shields, and Weapons mission as well (Although if you can pull off a Range > 36 attempt with a single ship...) You will never not have Strength to compare to the requirements.

Now, if it said 'Your lowest attribute >36' or 'At the start of each mission attempt, select an attribute; you must have that attribute > 36 to complete this mission', then it wouldn't count at a Strength mission, because it no longer completely overlaps the possible subset of attributes.

It's like P'tol. You don't know for sure the results before you play him, so you can't use his cost reduction, even if you know what dilemmas are on top of the dilemma pile, because someone could shuffle the deck (change the subset of cards). But if you do know the results (-1 for each Headquarters mission), you can.
User avatar
 
By CaptMDKirk (Matt Kirk)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#365659
Kaiser wrote:Does the mission say "strength"? No? Not a strength mission then.
:thumbsup:
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#365661
Kaiser wrote:2E needs to stay straightforward*. Does the mission say "strength"? No? Not a strength mission then.

*i know, that ship has sailed...
Set up says "personnel" which is both singular and plural yet it was ruled to be singular even though that meant opening up yet another one off exception and completely ignoring another rule. So I'd say not only has that ship sailed - but Rules didn't care about that ship in the first place.
User avatar
 
By CaptMDKirk (Matt Kirk)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Architect
#365662
Hoss-Drone wrote:Set up says "personnel" which is both singular and plural yet it was ruled to be singular even though that meant opening up yet another one off exception and completely ignoring another rule. So I'd say not only has that ship sailed - but Rules didn't care about that ship in the first place.
Clarifying the difference is keeping things straightforward. The opposite is not implied just because the ruling didn't agree with your preferred interpretation.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#365664
CaptMDKirk wrote:
Hoss-Drone wrote:Set up says "personnel" which is both singular and plural yet it was ruled to be singular even though that meant opening up yet another one off exception and completely ignoring another rule. So I'd say not only has that ship sailed - but Rules didn't care about that ship in the first place.
Clarifying the difference is keeping things straightforward. The opposite is not implied just because the ruling didn't agree with your preferred interpretation.
Clarifying the difference by making an exception where it didn't have to be isn't keeping anything straightforward - its simply adding to the burden of knowledge to play for reasons that simply aren't good enough.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]