• 801 posts
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 54
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#461174
So the card of the day....... Quite a Coincidence

wow... is it me or does this seem like a REALLY easy way to score 50 points?

seed 5, place on 5 people, auto-destruct a ship........

leads me to some questions..........

1. a play a person, then reveal Quite a Coincidence and place it on that person. Have i now advanced to execute orders and cannot play any more persons?

2. i seed Assign mission specialists. can i reveal Quite a Coincidence in the seed phase and play 2 on my mission specialists?

3. i report a ship with 5 crew. since (i believe) you can respond to any action with any number of valid responses, can i reveal 5 copies of Quite a Coincidence and place one on each person?
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#461213
Takket wrote:So the card of the day....... Quite a Coincidence

wow... is it me or does this seem like a REALLY easy way to score 50 points?

seed 5, place on 5 people, auto-destruct a ship........

leads me to some questions..........

1. a play a person, then reveal Quite a Coincidence and place it on that person. Have i now advanced to execute orders and cannot play any more persons?

2. i seed Assign mission specialists. can i reveal Quite a Coincidence in the seed phase and play 2 on my mission specialists?

3. i report a ship with 5 crew. since (i believe) you can respond to any action with any number of valid responses, can i reveal 5 copies of Quite a Coincidence and place one on each person?
1. You are allowed to reveal hidden agendas in your play phase because they're 'at any time' actions like playing interrupts.

2. You can't reveal hidden agendas in the seed phase.

3. You can do this but I think it's simpler in that you can report a single person and reveal 5 copies of Quite a Coincidence to place on that single person but the cumulative rule might disallow this.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#461231
Red annotations in Latok's quote are mine; sorry for this inappropriate way of getting my point across; see the next few posts below.

Regarding 3:
Latok wrote:you can (indeed) report a single person and reveal 5 copies of Quite a Coincidence to place on that single person but the cumulative rule might will 'disallow' you to have any additional beneficial effect of this, beyong the first.
So, It does effectively disallow that tactic (even though it doesn't disallow you to factually play the cards like that -- but it would be a waste to do so);
Glossy wrote:cumulative – If a card is cumulative,
multiple copies of the card can have the
same effect on the same target(s) at the
same time. Damage markers (Tactic cards)
are cumulative, as are cards specifically
marked "cumulative." All other cards are
not cumulative
.
(From out of the past, conceptually, I've always thought of it like this: the 10 points awarded by each copy of (non-cumulative cards like) Coincidence are the exact same 10 points each time -- not raising the total above 10. I think the rules were once written like that, as well? But the above Glossy entry might work better for y'all, prolly.)
Last edited by SudenKapala on Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:37 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
 
By Ensign Q
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#461240
above glossy entry?

so what now, does it work or not. it seems extremly cheesy if it does.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#461250
That will not work!

Quiet a Coincidence reads: Place on a personnel just played. When personnel is killed, discard event to score points.

Destroyed ships and facilities (and all cards aboard them) are discarded.

It is hard to KILL your own personnel.
The only Card I know is Absolute Power. And it is a Once per game thing
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#461251
little time and even less brainspace, ATM.
therefore i edited my prev. post to make it more clear; generally, i think what Latok & i wrote is still correct.

also, and especially, probably everything that Enabran said; except perhaps for a small, near insignificant, detail: (
Enabran emphasized in bold, the term "discarded",
when also making "destroyed" bold may have been even better in this case. the way the personnel die, matters. the ship is "destroyed", and the personnel, paradoxally, aren't "killed" due to this, but "are discarded"? see Glossy. BUT, in any case, the manner / why cards are discarded is important distinction for many dilemmas and support cards.
)
I overlooked that distinction. Thanks Latok & Enabran!
User avatar
 
By 9of24 (Jeremy Huth)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#461257
The rule book, section "Life in Space: Killed or Destroyed" says:
Cards that are killed or destroyed leave play normally, usually to the discard pile. All personnel aboard a ship or facility when it is destroyed are killed, and all equipment present is destroyed.
Looks like Auto-Destruct Sequence would work.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#461260
Great!
Bring us a lawyer to rule that issue.
Rulebook vs Glossary...
But I would say the Glossary has more power than the Rulebook.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#461262
I'm fairly sure that "destroyed" and "killed" are functionally identical, except in what card types they're referring to.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#461265
Enabran wrote:I would say the Glossary has more power than the Rulebook.
Indeed. It has been so for many years (almost 2 decades), when the old Rulebook (dated y2k!) was still effectively the ONLY rulebook, but the Glossy quickly overtook it in importance (if it wasn't more imortant to begn with).
Still, since Wowbagger was recently able to officially introduce his NEW Rulebook (in the making since, what, 2014? Earlier?), technically, there should be no "differences of opinion" left between Rulebook & Glossy. I think the author (and his esteemed, hard-working proof-readers) worked hard to try to accomplish that.

However, I certainly take it that the Glossy -- in, hopefully, only sporadic instances -- will remain the binding text. At least for the foreseable future. Until fresh young minds -- like EnsignQ -- have stormed the barricades and have done away with all complex stuff, and have found ways to inspire us to pour all the complexities of 1e unto the card texts themselves and into 1 rules tome. Which would be much better. And easier. And... impossible.

(That's a compliment, Q! :D I like your critical thinking. :thumbsup: I also think it's unrealistic in various instances -- and the above outcome certainly is a pleonastically(??) unattainable utopia -- but it's good that you shake things up with your "young minds fresh ideas" (can't find a video or gif of that great Trek dialogue) energy. Keep it up. To an extent. 8) )
AllenGould wrote:I'm fairly sure that "destroyed" and "killed" are functionally identical, except in what card types they're referring to.
I'm not sure if I understand and/or agree.
I was told that, e.g., Genetronic Replicator does not work when personnel, say, "vanish" or "are discarded", or, indeed, are "destroyed" when their ship is. (Which is fully logical -- but also covered by the rule/logic that they need to be "killed" for the Genny Rep to work. It's just an example, though -- there's bound to be less explicit examples that are solved by the definitions logic rather than the TrekSense of this example.)

Please elaborate on your answer, Allen, if you think I misunderstood. :)
User avatar
 
By commdecker (Matthew Zinno)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Arbiter
Community Contributor
#461275
Latok wrote: 1. You are allowed to reveal hidden agendas in your play phase because they're 'at any time' actions like playing interrupts.
This general statement is true, but the actual timing behind this card is that you reveal it as a valid response to the card being played.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#461289
Enabran wrote:But I would say the Glossary has more power than the Rulebook.
The Rulebook agrees that the Glossary is the highest authority:
Rulebook: About This Rulebook wrote:The companion to this rulebook is the Glossary. The Glossary is available at the CC's website, and includes many rulings and clarifications related to specific cards and terms. If the rulebook and the Glossary ever conflict, the Glossary is correct.
However, I don't think we need to worry about a Rulebook/Glossary conflict here, because the Glossary doesn't contradict the Rulebook on this:
Glossary: Facilities: battle wrote:Battle – Facilities participate in battle and are
damaged or destroyed in the same manner
as ships. See battle – ship, damage.
When a facility is destroyed, all personnel
aboard or “in” the facility are killed.
What Glossary text says that destroying a ship doesn't kill its personnel and destroy its equipment? And, if that were how it worked, then how would Mona Lisa work? And would Aamin Marittza not score points when his ship explodes?

Bottom line: I am pretty sure that destroying a ship or facility kills all personnel aboard and destroys their equipment, just as the Rulebook says. The Rulebook quote is convenient, though, because it is (IMO) a lot easier to find.

(There are cards in the game that "discard" a personnel without "killing" them, such as Spatial Rift, but these cards are few and far between -- and they are specific about what they are doing.)

Going back to the original set of questions...
1. a play a person, then reveal Quite a Coincidence and place it on that person. Have i now advanced to execute orders and cannot play any more persons?

2. i seed Assign mission specialists. can i reveal Quite a Coincidence in the seed phase and play 2 on my mission specialists?

3. i report a ship with 5 crew. since (i believe) you can respond to any action with any number of valid responses, can i reveal 5 copies of Quite a Coincidence and place one on each person?
1. Commdecker is correct; revealing QAC in this case is a valid response and does not advance you to the orders phase. Even if it weren't a valid response, it would be an "at any time" action which still would not advance you.

2. No, because neither valid responses nor "at any time" actions are allowed during the seed phase:
seed phase: other seeding rules wrote:The only actions you may take during
the seed phases are seeding cards,
carrying out game text that takes place
immediately upon seeding a card faceup, such as downloading Bajoran
Wormhole with Ultimatum or an
Emblem card with Disrupt Alliance, and
special downloads. You may not
activate a hidden agenda or use “play
phase” game text such as effects that
suspend play (except special
downloads) or may happen “at any
time” or “each turn.”
Why are special downloads allowed during the seed phase? I genuinely have zero clue. I'm sure there's a historical reason for it, but I have no idea why [DL] (and ONLY [DL] ) once again get to trump every other timing rule in the game -- in this case, even functioning where suspends play cards do not!

Anyway, back to your question: bottom line is you can't use QAC against seed-phase personnel. But you can use them against personnel played on the first turn!

3. Yes, it would be fine to place one copy of QAC on each personnel. As others have pointed out, you couldn't place all five copies on the same personnel, but, as long as they're different personnel, it's different targets.

3a. ("Does Auto-Destruct Sequence work for 50 points if I kill 5 QAC targets with it?")

If you killed all five at the same time, I believe you would only score the first 10 points, not all 50, because of the cumulative rule.

If Auto-Destruct Sequence blows up a ship with 5 different QAC targets aboard, QAC would be having the same effect (scoring 10 points) on the same target (you, the player) at the same time (during the destruction of the ship). Even though the triggers are different (because each QAC initially targets a different personnel), I think the cumulative rule will prevent a mass simultaneous QAC payday.

Something you could do, though, is self-seed a Symbalene Blood Burn, place your facility under quarantine, and then have each person die off one turn after another. Those deaths would be at different times, avoiding the cumulative rule issue.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 54
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]