Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#600098
Elim Garak, Cold-Blooded Mastermind

When you win an engagement involving your [Cmd] 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.

1 - does he have to be involved with the engagement?
2 - If not, then the 2 personnel are present with him, and not present in the battle.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#600101
boromirofborg wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:44 pm Elim Garak, Cold-Blooded Mastermind

When you win an engagement involving your [Cmd] 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.

1 - does he have to be involved with the engagement?
2 - If not, then the 2 personnel are present with him, and not present in the battle.
I think the answers are:

1.) No, and
2.) LOL :lol:
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#600112
Marquetry wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 12:02 am Exactly, he's "masterminding" the engagement from far away.
No he's not, it's just more bad card wording.

Don't try to retcon Story Mode, Amber. This is a Process era card and we all know those Process guys couldn't design shit! :wink:
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#600222
No he's not, it's just more bad card wording.
I don't know. He is [Cmd] himself so why not word it "When you win an engagement involving this personnel, ..." which is a standard wording and would take less space. I think they (the designers) intended it to work without Garak in the engagement.

Unless you mean the two killed personnel should be in the engagement but not Garak? Which would have slightly weirder wording but not unprecedented and would take more space, probably not enough to add another line though.

So I think it's a safe bet they wanted Garak to not have to be in the engagement "masterminding from afar" as Amber said but whether they intended the two killed to be in the engagement or just with Garak(which is how it works) is less clear to me.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#600342
Latok wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:39 am So I think it's a safe bet they wanted Garak to not have to be in the engagement "masterminding from afar" as Amber said but whether they intended the two killed to be in the engagement or just with Garak(which is how it works) is less clear to me.
This is just my interpretation (and gives the benefit of the doubt for wording intention), but I would assume the personnel need to be present with Garak. If they wanted the personnel to be in the engagement, they could have clearly said, "...kill two of your non-[Car] personnel involved..." I assume "present" is always with the card that word is on (if on a noun).
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#600628
The Guardian wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:25 pm
Latok wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:39 am So I think it's a safe bet they wanted Garak to not have to be in the engagement "masterminding from afar" as Amber said but whether they intended the two killed to be in the engagement or just with Garak(which is how it works) is less clear to me.
This is just my interpretation (and gives the benefit of the doubt for wording intention), but I would assume the personnel need to be present with Garak. If they wanted the personnel to be in the engagement, they could have clearly said, "...kill two of your non-[Car] personnel involved..." I assume "present" is always with the card that word is on (if on a noun).
Yes the personnel being present with Garak is how the card works and they could have worded it as you suggest but what I was saying is that I am not confident that is what the designers intended like I am that they intended Garak to not have to be in the engagement.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

First: Rescue Captives is OP, there should[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation