[Mogor]

BTW, it gets much easier to give an answer if you use the "card1" tag to link to the cards in your question.
Mogor wrote:
Had an interesting scenerio came up,

Each of us had cards impacting attack restrictions, mine was a no attack restriction ie the emblem vs the We are the metrons card. How does that resolve and why
I suspect this one will have some debate. Please ask it again in a new thread.

[Iron Prime]

Metrons
Emblems

[Professor Scott]

Emblem Of The Alliance and Emblem Of The Empire when used give the specified characters no attack restrictions, globally. However, I believe the We Are The Metrons card would locally override that lack of attack restrictions at that specific mission. Since Metrons is not Unique, they could be seeded on multiple missions, and thus create a field of play that would override the lack of attack restrictions from the emblems at each of those missions effected, but at a tremendous seed cost. Also, keep in mind, Metrons are valid targets for Kevin Uxbridge so they can be nullified.

My

[Comicbookhero]

This is a good question. After reading the Glossary entry for "battle – affiliation restrictions," I believe the removal of all attack restrictions by cards like the Emblems (as long as your entire force corresponds to your Emblem) would trump We Are The Metrons.

[AllenGould]

I'd go the other way - in general, a card that says you can't do something trumps a card that says you can. Or, you could treat them as additive: no restrictions + Fed restrictions = Fed restrictions, after all.

[Latok]

I'd go the other way - in general, a card that says you can't do something trumps a card that says you can.

I agree with this because I made the same argument for Lissan vs Conundrum as well, though that's a little harder because it's can't vs must.

[AllenGould]

I'd go the other way - in general, a card that says you can't do something trumps a card that says you can.

I agree with this because I made the same argument for Lissan vs Conundrum as well, though that's a little harder because it's can't vs must.

Can't trumps must unless it specifically overrides by name - was told that by Major Rakal in person once.

[Armus]

Emblem Of The Alliance and Emblem Of The Empire when used give the specified characters no attack restrictions, globally. However, I believe the We Are The Metrons card would locally override that lack of attack restrictions at that specific mission. Since Metrons is not Unique, they could be seeded on multiple missions, and thus create a field of play that would override the lack of attack restrictions from the emblems at each of those missions effected, but at a tremendous seed cost. Also, keep in mind, Metrons are valid targets for Kevin Uxbridge so they can be nullified.

My

Both cards override the relevant rules. If we go with the basic premise of the specific overriding the general, then I would agree with the above.

Whether or not that's a fair reading is an open question though, so I recommend pfti weigh in on this.

[commdecker]

My thought was that Emblem wins, with the following reasoning. Metron changes your attack restrictions from A to B. But afterwards, you still have somebody's regular attack restrictions, which is the same situation that Emblem normally deals with -- it takes the attack restrictions you have and throws them away.

[Professor Scott]

Emblem Of The Alliance and Emblem Of The Empire when used give the specified characters no attack restrictions, globally. However, I believe the We Are The Metrons card would locally override that lack of attack restrictions at that specific mission. Since Metrons is not Unique, they could be seeded on multiple missions, and thus create a field of play that would override the lack of attack restrictions from the emblems at each of those missions effected, but at a tremendous seed cost. Also, keep in mind, Metrons are valid targets for Kevin Uxbridge so they can be nullified.

My

Both cards override the relevant rules. If we go with the basic premise of the specific overriding the general, then I would agree with the above.

Whether or not that's a fair reading is an open question though, so I recommend pfti weigh in on this.

It thinks that's kind of the point here. When used by themselves, both the Emblems and the Metrons specifically override the general attack restrictions of the factions involved. Where they clash when used in conjuction, is that the Emblems create a new general condition which the specific Metrons should once again override. Another example would be using Duck Blind and Ready Room Door. Generally, you only draw one card at the end of your turn. Specifically, when Duck Blinds conditions are met, you may draw an extra card. This creates a new general condition as long as the Duck Blinds is properly staffed. Upon playing Ready Room Door to download a matching commander to your ship, you specifically draw no cards this turn, despite still meeting the general condition of having 2x Anthropology in the Duck Blind. This game, like most others, is primarily based on specifics conditions overriding general conditions.

[Professor Scott]

My thought was that Emblem wins, with the following reasoning. Metron changes your attack restrictions from A to B. But afterwards, you still have somebody's regular attack restrictions, which is the same situation that Emblem normally deals with -- it takes the attack restrictions you have and throws them away.

The problem here is that Emblems work everywhere, but the moment your ship enters the mission affected by Metrons, they change your attack restrictions as indicated on the card. Once you leave that mission they would revert back the those of the Emblem.

[Borg King]

...Emblems work everywhere, but the moment your ship enters the mission affected by Metrons, they change your attack restrictions as indicated on the card. Once you leave that mission they would revert back the those of the Emblem.

I think this makes the most sense and works the best with Metrons; creating pockets of space were battle can be skewed in your favor while the emblems are still relevant to gameplay.

[BCSWowbagger]

While I was on the Design team for Cold Front, this exact question caused a lengthy argument in the Rules Committee that was trying to approve We Are The Metrons for release, with many many wording changes getting the issue no closer to resolution.

There were big questions about what role the Golden Rule played here: you could argue that Metrons is more specific by location and overrides the general rule set by Emblem of the Empire (i.e. it doesn't affect your cards everywhere like Emblem does, just your cards at this one mission). But you could also argue -- equally strongly -- that Emblem is more specific by faction and overrides the general rule set by Metrons (i.e. it doesn't affect all your cards the way Metrons does, just the ones with the marking).

This went back and forth with no obvious way to resolve it. It's another cautionary tale about not relying too heavily on the Golden Rule to save you from conflicting card texts. Ultimately, the problem dragged on so long, it came within a few days of killing both this card (We Are The Metrons) and the Ferengi Cargo Ship (which does something similar).

At the last minute, the Rules Committee sent us this decision (it's an internal ruling, so it's not written up all fancy for inclusion in the CRD):

Go back to the 12-06 wording. [We've found] the answer to the critical question.

battle – affiliation restrictions, final paragraph. "When a card, such as Emblem of the Empire, removes affiliation attack restrictions from a group of cards, they may attack any affiliation, including their own."

*Removing* the AAR is a special thing, not equivalent to giving you someone else's. So it wins, i.e. if you're and this card gives you , but you use Emblem to *remove* your restrictions, then your restrictions are gone. No rules conflict.

(This is pretty much what commdecker said in this thread a few posts ago.)

This sidestepped the Golden Rule altogether, which saved both cards from the cut file.

So, at least as of release day, the understanding of the R.C. was that (practically speaking) Emblem of the Empire trumps Metrons. We were fine with that.

You'd have to ask Rules if that stands. Given the level of confusion about this and other battle interactions (does Captain Kirk trump Strategema??*), it's probably worth a Glossary note somewhere anyway.

*No, he doesn't beat Strategema, but proving it is non-trivial.

[Mogor]

While I was on the Design team for Cold Front, this exact question caused a lengthy argument in the Rules Committee that was trying to approve We Are The Metrons for release, with many many wording changes getting the issue no closer to resolution.

There were big questions about what role the Golden Rule played here: you could argue that Metrons is more specific by location and overrides the general rule set by Emblem of the Empire (i.e. it doesn't affect your cards everywhere like Emblem does, just your cards at this one mission). But you could also argue -- equally strongly -- that Emblem is more specific by faction and overrides the general rule set by Metrons (i.e. it doesn't affect all your cards the way Metrons does, just the ones with the marking).

This went back and forth with no obvious way to resolve it. It's another cautionary tale about not relying too heavily on the Golden Rule to save you from conflicting card texts. Ultimately, the problem dragged on so long, it came within a few days of killing both this card (We Are The Metrons) and the Ferengi Cargo Ship (which does something similar).

At the last minute, the Rules Committee sent us this decision (it's an internal ruling, so it's not written up all fancy for inclusion in the CRD):

Go back to the 12-06 wording. [We've found] the answer to the critical question.

battle – affiliation restrictions, final paragraph. "When a card, such as Emblem of the Empire, removes affiliation attack restrictions from a group of cards, they may attack any affiliation, including their own."

*Removing* the AAR is a special thing, not equivalent to giving you someone else's. So it wins, i.e. if you're and this card gives you , but you use Emblem to *remove* your restrictions, then your restrictions are gone. No rules conflict.

(This is pretty much what commdecker said in this thread a few posts ago.)

This sidestepped the Golden Rule altogether, which saved both cards from the cut file.

So, at least as of release day, the understanding of the R.C. was that (practically speaking) Emblem of the Empire trumps Metrons. We were fine with that.

You'd have to ask Rules if that stands. Given the level of confusion about this and other battle interactions (does Captain Kirk trump Strategema??*), it's probably worth a Glossary note somewhere anyway.

*No, he doesn't beat Strategema, but proving it is non-trivial.

So with a lack of contrary evidence, I would consider this to be the ruler for this interaction

[frakkingoff]

Given that it both game up during design (apparently causing much confusion) and now has been an issue during actual gameplay, it seems like a clarification should be added to the Glossary for this interaction.