[Naetor.Ret]

There are few effective high roll dilemmas. This could be one, but the clause about gaining the choice stop hurts it. It's kind of a way to hedge against your own high roll, and as a result makes it less effective/overcosts on either side of the roll. If this was 0 or 1 cost, with no stop in it, it would be better at what it is designed to do.

Between you and Johnny there's no winning for Design.

I don't think it's a bad card, just making the point that high roll cards have their place and making them "safe" kind of defeats the purpose.

[eberlems]

If one personnel faces the dilemma, is the one affiliation different?

[KillerB]

There are few effective high roll dilemmas. This could be one, but the clause about gaining the choice stop hurts it. It's kind of a way to hedge against your own high roll, and as a result makes it less effective/overcosts on either side of the roll. If this was 0 or 1 cost, with no stop in it, it would be better at what it is designed to do.

Between you and Johnny there's no winning for Design.

Ha, good catch.

I kinda agree with Nasty Nate 2.0, but Johnny isn't wrong (I used to poo poo 'crapshoot dilemmas' in GCBC). I guess Design should make more of these types of cards in both versions. 0-1 cost "all or nothings" and 2 cost "safe" ones.