[jrch5618]

A weirder case: Klaestron Outpost can be built where there is a Klaestron ENGINEER. But all Klaestron personnel currently in the game have ENGINEER. So "Klaestron ENGINEER" is redundant unless one day there would be a Klaestron personnel without ENGINEER. Is this a broken link?

In short-- no. The card is looking for a group, in this case the group of Klaestron Engineers. There are multiple Klaestron engineers, so the card has a group it can target.

Being redundant doesn't mean it is a broken link. A broken link (as this topic defines them-- I actually disagree a little with this definition) is whatever group is called out by another card. No card calls out non-engineering Klaestrons. (For the record, I believe a broken link should only be a card that is specifically named, but it appears most people disagree with me on that point)

Finally, it is not redundant. While all Klaestrons (currently) are engineers, not all engineers are Klaestrons.

I define broken links as a specifically-named card that doesn't exist - a card group or gametext reference that should refer to a group but has 0-1 members - or a matching commander/romance pairing that doesn't exist. A few 6th-Rule references are in there too. If you have any issues with my list I will gladly listen. (I will note that the designers agree with this for they closed several 'only one member in a group' links in Cold Front.)

[Davey1983]

A weirder case: Klaestron Outpost can be built where there is a Klaestron ENGINEER. But all Klaestron personnel currently in the game have ENGINEER. So "Klaestron ENGINEER" is redundant unless one day there would be a Klaestron personnel without ENGINEER. Is this a broken link?

In short-- no. The card is looking for a group, in this case the group of Klaestron Engineers. There are multiple Klaestron engineers, so the card has a group it can target.

Being redundant doesn't mean it is a broken link. A broken link (as this topic defines them-- I actually disagree a little with this definition) is whatever group is called out by another card. No card calls out non-engineering Klaestrons. (For the record, I believe a broken link should only be a card that is specifically named, but it appears most people disagree with me on that point)

Finally, it is not redundant. While all Klaestrons (currently) are engineers, not all engineers are Klaestrons.

I define broken links as a specifically-named card that doesn't exist - a card group or gametext reference that should refer to a group but has 0-1 members - or a matching commander/romance pairing that doesn't exist. A few 6th-Rule references are in there too. If you have any issues with my list I will gladly listen. (I will note that the designers agree with this for they closed several 'only one member in a group' links in Cold Front.)

Didn't mean to suggest I had any issues with your list. I just have a different opinion on the definition. It does appear the designers of Cold Front agree with you (mostly, they did claim one thing you indicated was a broken link was not in their view on the designer Q and A), but I know other designers have said different things in the past.

I actually really like your list, and I hope you keep at it! Forgive me if I came off argumentative or anything like that.

[Takket]

A weirder case: Klaestron Outpost can be built where there is a Klaestron ENGINEER. But all Klaestron personnel currently in the game have ENGINEER. So "Klaestron ENGINEER" is redundant unless one day there would be a Klaestron personnel without ENGINEER. Is this a broken link?

In short-- no. The card is looking for a group, in this case the group of Klaestron Engineers. There are multiple Klaestron engineers, so the card has a group it can target.

Being redundant doesn't mean it is a broken link. A broken link (as this topic defines them-- I actually disagree a little with this definition) is whatever group is called out by another card. No card calls out non-engineering Klaestrons. (For the record, I believe a broken link should only be a card that is specifically named, but it appears most people disagree with me on that point)

Finally, it is not redundant. While all Klaestrons (currently) are engineers, not all engineers are Klaestrons.

Also........... while both Klaestrons have engineer as a skill, there are plenty of cards that remove skills and thus can prevent you from building this outpost. So the term "Klaestron Engineer" is only redundant if you assume a personnel to not be under the effect of a skill removing card of some sort.

[jrch5618]

Metamorphosis Update:

This is a very minor change to the list with a net of -1 entries (or -2 if you double-count Leosa).

Closed Links:
Intuition, downloaded by Deanna Troi (TNG).
Leosa, both a romance of, and a 6th-Rule link to, Nunk.

New links:
Reman Disruptor Rifle, by Thexor.

[Rachmaninoff]

Nomination: Kivas Fajo makes parallel use of an opponent's Palor Toff cards, but only one such card in this group exists (Alien Trader). This falls under the same category as the Sickbay and Terran Flagship broken links.

[jrch5618]

Nomination: Kivas Fajo makes parallel use of an opponent's Palor Toff cards, but only one such card in this group exists (Alien Trader). This falls under the same category as the Sickbay and Terran Flagship broken links.

Agreed. Adding it.

[jrch5618]

Well. Coming of Age and The Gift - I see no changes to my list, to either add or remove.

[jrch5618]

On my stance of 'if a group that refers to a group of cards only has a single entry, it count as a broken link'... I just thought of another.

22nd-Century ShiKahr says that all are native. But there's literally only one that is NOT - Surak. Should this count?

[BCSWowbagger]

(1) Holy heck, I never realized Surak wasn't native before now.

(2) Nah, this shouldn't count. They properly defined the time location according to the story. They would have done it that way whether there were a thousand non- , just one non- , or zero non- . There's no commitment or even really a suggestion of future intent to design of non- there; it's just proper obeisance to story and precedent.

[Jono]

On my stance of 'if a group that refers to a group of cards only has a single entry, it count as a broken link'... I just thought of another.

22nd-Century ShiKahr says that all are native. But there's literally only one that is NOT - Surak. Should this count?

If they ever wanted to make the Vulcans from “Carbon Creek” or remake the “First Contact” ones, they definitely would not be ... but I don’t think this is a broken link.

[jrch5618]

On my stance of 'if a group that refers to a group of cards only has a single entry, it count as a broken link'... I just thought of another.

22nd-Century ShiKahr says that all are native. But there's literally only one that is NOT - Surak. Should this count?

If they ever wanted to make the Vulcans from “Carbon Creek” or remake the “First Contact” ones, they definitely would not be ... but I don’t think this is a broken link.

See? It's a promise of a future group that only has a single member. Looks like it counts to me. Added to my list. Beside - they didn't have to put the icon there. When they did 22nd-Century San Francisco, they just said so even Daniels can report and he's definitely not native to the 22.

[BCSWowbagger]

It's a promise of a future group

You and I may have different definitions of "promise." There are a few cases where I think future-proofing may reasonably be interpreted as creating a broken link. But sometimes future-proofing is just good design choices.

[Slayer07]

Nomination for section 3; The Twin Mistresses of Evil from Holodeck Adventures mentions both the Delaney Sisters as well as Megan and Jenny but these cards do not exist. Seems to me to be in the same vein as Sergey and Helena.

[jrch5618]

Nomination for section 3; The Twin Mistresses of Evil from Holodeck Adventures mentions both the Delaney Sisters as well as Megan and Jenny but these cards do not exist. Seems to me to be in the same vein as Sergey and Helena.

The difference is that Sergey and Helena has Sergey Rozhenko and Helena Rozhenko as persona references. The Twin Mistresses do not.

[Slayer07]

Nomination for section 3; The Twin Mistresses of Evil from Holodeck Adventures mentions both the Delaney Sisters as well as Megan and Jenny but these cards do not exist. Seems to me to be in the same vein as Sergey and Helena.

The difference is that Sergey and Helena has Sergey Rozhenko and Helena Rozhenko as persona references. The Twin Mistresses do not.

I don't think it's much of a difference. What's the difference name wise between The Delaney Sisters as a dual personnel card and Sisters of Duras as a dual personnel card?