[Takket]

EDIT: example, as promised, of the Frool Rule not being followed in practice.

Suppose you have Voktak x3 on your ship at Study Badlands. They attempt and encounter "Subspace Seaweed". They overcome it using their 3 Navigation. They encounter Maglock, which they overcome using their 3 OFFICER. They then try to solve the mission. They succeed and score 25 points, using their 3 Navigation and 3 Stellar Cartography. Your opponent uses Navigate Plasma Storms and probes with result Flare-Up: "All ships and facilities in space in that region without 3 Navigation aboard are damaged." Your ship has 3 Navigation aboard, all from Voktak. Is your ship damaged?

According to the Frool Rule, yes, your ship of Voktaks is damaged. They can't each contribute their regular skills to meet its requirements (even though they can for missions and dilemmas). So they can't meet this requirement and they suffer for it.

Still, they have 5 RANGE, so, next turn, they fly over to A Good Place To Die and attempt. They face Zaldan and overcome it, thanks to their 3 Treachery. Next, they face Attack of the Drones. All three are captured by Transporter Drones. How many points does opponent score?

According to the Frool Rule, your opponent scores only three points (not the nine points he would score if your Voktaks were different personnel).

You then play Rescue Captives and get your Voktaks back. Unfortunately, your opponent now flies over to shoot you. He blows up your ship and plays Latinum Payoff. How many points does he score?

Again, it's 3 points, not 9... even though you just used all three Voktaks to pass a Maglock!

I am guessing that, in the entire history of the Frool Rule, those bizarre outcomes never occurred to a single player in-game who wasn't in some way involved in writing rules documents. I would be amazed if anyone EVER played Latinum Payoff correctly in light of the Frool Rule.

The Frool Rule was insane, it hacked at the very foundations of the game to fix a single broken card, and it is no wonder there was so much confusion about the cumulative rule while it was in effect.

Lucky for us, the Frool Rule is gone now, and we never have to worry about this nonsense again. The only thing you need to know about the cumulative rule now is the classic formula: two copies of the same card can't have the same effect on the same target at the same time.

So 2x Darian Wallance CAN'T staff a duck blind??? Or are they not actually "targeting" duck blind? Duck Blind is just "looking for" 2x anthropology.........

my mom bought me premier starter decks when white border was first released. i'm still working on cumulative.

[BCSWowbagger]

So 2x Darian Wallance CAN'T staff a duck blind??? Or are they not actually "targeting" duck blind? Duck Blind is just "looking for" 2x anthropology.........

Darian Wallace x2 is not targeting Duck Blind, he is meeting its requirements. Just like those Voktaks can meet requirements for Maglock, and just like they can meet requirements for Navigate Plasma Storm.

So, yes, he CAN staff a Duck Blind with another copy of himself.

my mom bought me premier starter decks when white border was first released. i'm still working on cumulative.

Yeah, I had an easier time with trigonometry. I didn't really understand it at all until I literally wrote a rulebook that had to explain it. It'll click!

[Takket]

So 2x Darian Wallance CAN'T staff a duck blind??? Or are they not actually "targeting" duck blind? Duck Blind is just "looking for" 2x anthropology.........

Darian Wallace x2 is not targeting Duck Blind, he is meeting its requirements. Just like those Voktaks can meet requirements for Maglock, and just like they can meet requirements for Navigate Plasma Storm.

So, yes, he CAN staff a Duck Blind with another copy of himself.

my mom bought me premier starter decks when white border was first released. i'm still working on cumulative.

Yeah, I had an easier time with trigonometry. I didn't really understand it at all until I literally wrote a rulebook that had to explain it. It'll click!

"meeting requirements" THAT is the keyword that makes sense to me now.

I'm clear.

I'll officially scrap plans for my "use 10 copies of Woteln on my outposts to wall my opponent in behind missions with range so high they can't move their ships" deck

Although 1 Woteln on at a mission with span 5 next to a Gaps in Normal Space would still be pretty brutal!

[BCSWowbagger]

[Armus]

Triple treaty deck with Fed, Klingon, Romulan, Klaestron, Husnock and Neutral Outposts with Wotelns everywhere! Find a way to play him for free and use your card plays on space pollution events!

Probably won't win a game but would totally mess with your opponent!

[Se7enofMine]

Triple treaty deck with Fed, Klingon, Romulan, Klaestron, Husnock and Neutral Outposts with Wotelns everywhere! Find a way to play him for free and use your card plays on space pollution events!

Probably won't win a game but would totally mess with your opponent!

Depending on one's personality, the mere fact of driving your opponent batty could be a win :p

[jrch5618]

I have a few questions regarding the Named in Lore rule.

It says that Zegov names both Duras and the Sisters of Duras in lore, with the only lore reference being 'Sisters of Duras'. Isn't this inconsistent with the rest of teh rules entry?

If that's true, then all the Klingons in Broken Bow who reference "Duras Son of Toral" would also just reference "Duras"? I don't see how that's right.

[winterflames]

I have a few questions regarding the Named in Lore rule.

It says that Zegov names both Duras and the Sisters of Duras in lore, with the only lore reference being 'Sisters of Duras'. Isn't this inconsistent with the rest of teh rules entry?

If that's true, then all the Klingons in Broken Bow who reference "Duras Son of Toral" would also just reference "Duras"? I don't see how that's right.

The cards which care about Duras are worded differently than the named in lore cards.
illegitimate and Duras Son of Toral
Vs
followers or benefactor

[jrch5618]

So to clarify, if Zegov, Duras, and Sisters of Duras hit Dramatis Personae, Duras wouldn't be stopped for Zegov isn't actually naming him, but the Sisters would be? That sentence in the glossary is clear as mud.

[winterflames]

I believe that capitalized Sisters of capitalized Duras should name both Duras and Sisters of Duras because of the capitalization clause. Talking about Duras' Sisters as Duras' sisters automatically references him.

(See also not capitalized sisters of capitalized Duras: Thei and Gorta)

[BCSWowbagger]

I have a few questions regarding the Named in Lore rule.

It says that Zegov names both Duras and the Sisters of Duras in lore, with the only lore reference being 'Sisters of Duras'. Isn't this inconsistent with the rest of teh rules entry?

If that's true, then all the Klingons in Broken Bow who reference "Duras Son of Toral" would also just reference "Duras"? I don't see how that's right.

TLDR: there are some cards whose very card titles contain valid named-in-lore references to other personnel. This makes life hard for Creative but you shouldn't let it make life hard for you.

(TLDR II: winterflames is correct.)

Unpacking this is easier if we try another example. Who are the matching commanders of Voyager?

Let's take this step by step. Voyager's lore:

In 2372, Culluh and Seska took command of the Alpha Quadrant vessel U.S.S. Voyager and its technology for the benefit of the Kazon-Nistrim sect.

Let's say Culluh and Seska board Voyager. You have to determine whether that card is named in Voyager's lore as a matching commander. You look at the lore. It does include the words "Culluh and Seska." It's those exact words. There's no capitalized modifiers such as ranks, titles, or descriptors. Context is clearly referring to these people; it's not some random fluke like the "Bok" in "Bok'Nor." Therefore, yes, Culluh and Seska is a matching commander of Voyager.

Okay, let's say Culluh and Seska are killed. Armus - Skin of Evil kills them because he thinks Seska should have higher INTEGRITY (I tease, I tease! ). Next turn, you play Seska and put her on Voyager. Is she matching commander? You look at the lore. It does include the word "Seska." It's that exact word. There's no capitalized modifiers such as ranks, titles, or descriptors. Sure, there's a capitalized word nearby, but it's not modifying Seska in a way that would "break" the "match" between her card title and this lore. Context is clearly referring to her; it's not some random fluke like the "Bok" in "Bok'Nor." Therefore, yes, Seska is a matching commander of Voyager. (Ditto Culluh.)

Okay, so now let's talk the House of Duras Through The Centuries.

Zegov
Typical Klingon female inspired by the Sisters of Duras. Ruthlessly supervised the I.K.S. Pagh engine room. Curious about William T. Riker's endurance.

Let's say Zegov gets into a Dramatis Personae with Sisters of Duras. You have to determine whether Zegov names Sisters of Duras in lore. You look at the lore. It does include the words "Sisters of Duras." It's those exact words. There's no capitalized modifiers such as ranks, titles, or descriptors. Context is clearly referring to a personnel card named Sisters of Duras. Therefore, yes, Zegov names Sisters of Duras in lore.

Okay, next turn, Zegov attempts another mission and gets into a Dramatis Personae with Duras (unlucky girl!). You have to determine whether Zegov names Duras in lore. You look at the lore. It does include the word "Duras." It's that exact word. There's a capitalized word nearby ("Sisters"), but it's not modifying Duras in any way. Context clearly indicates that, yes, this reference to Duras does mean "that Klingon dude who had those sisters and was evil" not "some random freighter that happened to be named 'Duras'ne'." Therefore, yes, Zegov names Duras in lore. And it is, in fact, impossible to name the Sisters of Duras in lore without naming Duras as well, because the very act of talking about the "Sisters of Duras" names Duras.

Okay, so where does the rabbit hole of names within names end?

It ends in Broken Bow. Aklam's lore says:

Typical of help officers on smaller Klingon ships. Served under Duras Son of Toral in 2153. Pilot particularly practiced at orbital maneuvers.

Let's say Aklam and Duras get into a Dramatis Personae now. You have to determine if Aklam names Duras in lore. You look at the lore. It does include the word "Duras". It's that exact word. But it is right next to a capitalized word ("Son"), and that word is modifying "Duras". It is specifying, "No, we're not talking about THAT Duras, we're talking about THIS OTHER Duras, the Duras who was son of Toral." Therefore, no, Aklam does not name Duras in lore.

On the other hand, as you can see yourself by applying the principles above... Aklam actually does name Toral in lore. That was a Rules miss; "Duras Son of Toral" should have noted it and found some other way to identify him, but IIRC that didn't happen.

Hopefully that clears it all up for you. The situation where card titles contain other card titles, especially valid card titles, is very rare. It basically happens on a handful of dual-personnel cards and on Worf Son of Mogh. But it can be resolved easily by careful application of the standard named-in-lore rules.

[Takket]

Can George and Gracie be earned from a Cryosatellite? (not entering play at the institute)

Can a romantic partner use The Beating Heart to save two (or more) romantic partners selected to die at the same time?

Example: Jean-Luc Picard is present when Vash and Anij are both selected to die by Outpost Raid.

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" because they don't actually die "at the same time". So I have to make a valid response to one death by stopping Picard and I can't stop him again so one of them is out of luck.........

[BCSWowbagger]

Can George and Gracie be earned from a Cryosatellite? (not entering play at the institute)

No. Their restriction box wins that conflict.

Can a romantic partner use The Beating Heart to save two (or more) romantic partners selected to die at the same time?

I think the answer is no.

I think they actually do die at the same time under ordinary circumstances. You could respond to both deaths simultaneously with something that saves people en masse. However, The Beating Heart does indeed force you respond to each death separately, which does create a sequence where one gets saved first, which means the other can't be saved because the savior is stopped.

But, whenever I start trying to chart the timing rules, I end up looking like this guy, so I'm going to forbear from digging into that more unless somebody thinks I'm out to lunch.

[Boffo97]

And whenever *I* try to answer rules questions, I end up looking like this lady.

[Takket]

Are these statements accurate, and if not, where am I wrong........

Sybok will refuse to work with a Federation personnel under the influence of Ceti Eel OR Brainwash because of his restriction box. However, I could "Release This Pain" that personnel and then Sybok would work with him/her.

Khan will refuse to work with a Federation personnel under the influence of Release This Pain OR Brainwash because of his restriction box. However, I could Ceti Eel that personnel and then Khan would work with him/her.

I cannot mix a Jean-Luc Picard under the influence of Ceti Eel with a Gowron under the influence of Release This Pain because RTP & Eel do not allow mixing "regardless of affiliation" unlike a card such as Brainwash of Temporal Micro Wormhole.

Also, can I seed Terok Nor and Chamber of Ministers at Bajor? Chamber says a "Nor may coexist here" so I assume the means Terok Nor OR DS9