[Ensign Q]

is it possible to actually errata the cardtext to the resolution text instead?

[SudenKapala]

For any specific dilemma? Or for all?

As you see, many of the resolution texts are quite lengthy and would never fit. And most of those -- or at least some -- will become second nature after having encountered them a few times. You'll only look those up in very special cases.

But it's an understandable question, really!

[Ensign Q]

i think there is a more or less general rule how dilemmas are handled. did they got passed then its discarded, otherwise the effect happens and it gets replaced (team stopped) (unless the card says otherwise.)

thats at least what i got from it.

the dilemma resolution is quite lengthy for some cards, because its not written in the shortest text possible. often it would be enough to just add to the cardtext sth like (and gets discarded) to make it more clear.

[SudenKapala]

i think there is a more or less general rule how dilemmas are handled.

Ah... that, err, "general rule" of resolving dilemmas comprises everything between the middle column of Glossy page 22 and the last column of page 24. (In total, 7 columns.) There are reasons for that.
But if you have a way of doing away with all that, you'll achieve the SudenKäpälän Seal Of Approval! (And that's something... )
And I'll nominate you to be The Hero Of First Edition, too.

[Ensign Q]

quickly checking the section, it basically does what i said it does. at least in my understanding.

with the only exception that targeted dilemmas also get discarded when there is no legal target around, which basically still is some kind of requirements met (cant pass with some specific kind of guy in the team)

[SudenKapala]

Of course; the general rules like you mention, do exist (in the first few lines of that section). But in a game as complicated as this, there are too many combinations between e.g. dilemma and affected cards, to keep the rules truly simple. Take, for example, this post here, and the next 4 replies -- this is such a specific situation that causes a lot of confusion.

For all my love of this-here game, Magic (e.g.; it was elsewhere mentioned in similar context) is simpler, and more structured, and has always been more elegantly maintained. (Its full rules document is also around hundred pages -- but those are all rules. The STCCG Glossy is full of rule exceptions and additions for specific cards which this game, like it or not, needs.) With which I mean, that from its inception, STCCG (1e) was meant to grow and expand, not only in card types but also in scope and mechanics. In that sense, things like STCCG and SWCCG are fundamentally different from more compact and elegant games like Magic.

I love both. (STCCG quite a bit more.) Each for their own reasons.

[Ensign Q]

well yeah this game is more complex than magic, but im under the impression a lot boils down to the chaotic structure and or the limited space for text on the cards.
like its totally fine to have exeptions, but when you need a 2nd rulebook because it doesnt fit the card, its not very throughthought.
magic had a long time to ripe, but cleaning up their rules took a long time as well. keywording was pretty essential to this, so when this game gets the next big rule update it might be helpful to introduce keywords as well as term generalization. for example "continued dilemma" or "single dilemma" (or more symbols lol)

[SudenKapala]

magic had a long time to ripe, but cleaning up their rules took a long time as well.

Good point!

like its totally fine to have exeptions, but when you need a 2nd rulebook because it doesnt fit the card, its not very throughthought.

I won't presume to affirm the last clause/conclusion -- because I am not a CCG designer. But I certainly agree that the first parts are not a very good sign, nor a handy solution.

Still, I love this game, and I'll make do with my nice big binder with rules and glossy and DRG and, ...
But you'll have my full support on rules simplification. (Just not on throwing errata all around. )

[SudenKapala]

*bump*

We have a very important and extremely handy resource ( ) on the front page, that -- still ( ) -- contains quite some SNAFU
( ). Is there any progress or news on the issues stated in the OP?

Moreover, this endeavour of Jono's holds my interest (because it is meant to include dilemma game text and Q-icon cards ).

Additionally, the phrase "(x+1)turn" (Linguistic Legerdemain) in the current DRG on the front page (because of its DataBase text?) misses a space.

Thanks!

EDIT:
I've seen that most dilemmas have their DRG entry in the DB (but Astral Eddy's seems to be missing). I now think to understand that the front page DRG link automatically prints the DB entries into a PDF (nifty! ).
What I've also seen, is that many (if not all) of the truncated entries in the PDF have been cut short when they should say "<". Moreover, there is no "<" anywhere in the PDF... to me this seems a bit like the apostrophe horror, but then with the 'smaller than' sign.

Additionally, Flaxian Assassin (in the PDF) says: "If no personnel with three or more • [skill dot]" (which I remember similarly from the current Rulebook, which also printed some weird characters in certain places).

I hope this info dump helps anyone who works on the DB and/or the DRG... Your works are much appreciated ("and of vital importance to the state").

[SudenKapala]

Aphasia Dev missspells (or misspells? ) "otherwise" as "otherwiese".

[Takket]

Aphasia Dev missspells (or misspells? ) "otherwise" as "otherwiese".

fixed!

[jjh]

Any chance this document can be updated through A Private Little War?