[Resistance-is-futile]

Paging rules empress amber :):):)

[Naetor]

I think the real question is if Starcraft is in the core:

BOT plus gomtuu what would that look like if you can’t prevent dilemmas but BOT says prevent and overcome

Is this a classic case of do as much as you can 2E? So BOT still puts it under even tho you can’t prevent dilemmas ?

I think this is (a) correct (b) confusing and undesirable.

We probably should have used the wording on Split Second that explicitly addresses this exact situation.

Someone else’s judgement call to make if this is a big enough deal to justify an errata to Statecraft though.

I took the different wording to imply that you were trying to encompass all prevent effects. If it's just P&O then I think it should get the same wording.

Related question, why do designers hate Borg so much?

[The Prefect]

For what it’s worth, I was in the design meetings where this was discussed, and until just now I thought the intent was the other way around. So...????

My recollection of those meetings is different than yours. But, it's always good to have designers publicly contradicting one another, so that's helpful.

[Armus]

For what it’s worth, I was in the design meetings where this was discussed, and until just now I thought the intent was the other way around. So...????

My recollection of those meetings is different than yours. But, it's always good to have designers publicly contradicting one another, so that's helpful.

Sarcasm or serious?

I can't tell.

[bhosp]

For what it’s worth, I was in the design meetings where this was discussed, and until just now I thought the intent was the other way around. So...????

My recollection of those meetings is different than yours. But, it's always good to have designers publicly contradicting one another, so that's helpful.

I’m on record that I was barely paying attention and not actually all that involved in Gannicus especially after it became clear that John wasn’t going to have to completely stop being involved. So: you’re clearly right, but as a moderately better informed than average player, I’m telling you: it’s confusing.

[Naetor]

I just want to play cards the right way - ideally the way they were designed and tested.

If they need to be reworded to do that, that's OK.

[The Prefect]

I’m on record that I was barely paying attention and not actually all that involved in Gannicus especially after it became clear that John wasn’t going to have to completely stop being involved. So: you’re clearly right, but as a moderately better informed than average player, I’m telling you: it’s confusing.

There's a difference between design intent being confused and the card "being confusing."

Regarding Garak: As far as the latter is concerned: John and I struggled with the wording a great deal throughout the process of getting this card finalized. As you're aware, 2e only gives us so much space to do things, and wording has to be carefully considered to avoid unintended interactions and to account for the inevitable rules lawyering. Given that, this was the best we came up with, and it was reviewed by Rules. It is a complex card? Yes. But, that was unavoidable given what we wanted to do.

As far as intent is concerned: the design intent was to have him kill personnel he was with or in proximity to, as depicted in the story (he was presumably with Grathon Tolar and he had to physically plant a bomb on the Senator's ship).

[GooeyChewie]

I just want to play cards the right way - ideally the way they were designed and tested.

If they need to be reworded to do that, that's OK.

I can tell you I tested it as him killing the personnel present with Garak, not necessarily with the personnel. Okay, never actually with the personnel, because I kept Garak at home and kept killing Quark (and that's why Garak no longer just stays in play when he does his order!).

[Naetor]

Regarding Garak: As far as the latter is concerned: John and I struggled with the wording a great deal throughout the process of getting this card finalized. As you're aware, 2e only gives us so much space to do things, and wording has to be carefully considered to avoid unintended interactions and to account for the inevitable rules lawyering. Given that, this was the best we came up with, and it was reviewed by Rules. It is a complex card? Yes. But, that was unavoidable given what we wanted to do.

As far as intent is concerned: the design intent was to have him kill personnel he was with or in proximity to, as depicted in the story (he was presumably with Grathon Tolar and he had to physically plant a bomb on the Senator's ship).

When you win an engagement involving your personnel, kill two of your non-[Car] personnel present and shuffle this personnel into his owner's deck to place the top two dilemmas of the loser's dilemma pile beneath your non-headquarters mission.

This seems like a clearer wording choice without almost no gameplay difference - and it's shorter.

Are the designers, themselves, ultimately the proofreaders? From experience, I know it's easy to overlook ambiguity in your own writing/ideas. If so, I'd suggesting passing it off to another department, maybe rules/errata, before releasing the sets.

[The Prefect]

To Naetor:

The inclusion of the requirement was intentional, though I understand from game-play perspective the argument can be made that ultimately it makes little difference.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "proofreading" here as proofreading of one type or another happens in several stages: designers obviously proofread their own cards to try to catch errors/ambiguities, etc.; proofreading to an extent naturally occurs during testing; Creative looks at the cards during the creative process and can ask questions and/or make suggestions; Rules reviews the cards and makes suggestions/recommendations to resolve problematic text, which could also be considered a form of proofreading; and then there's the actual formal proofreading, which is done by proofreaders. So, I suppose the answer to your question has to be, "no, designers are not solely responsible for proofreading their own cards."