[BCSWowbagger]

They can say it just the way the rule you quoted says it!

I'm not saying that to be glib. Nor is my suggestion that you draft a proposed new text sarcastic. In all sincerity, it's a complex rule, I'd love to see a better version of it, and, while I'm skeptical that better options exist, your idea (which is, very basically, "aliases for a personnel given in that personnel's lore should count as their name for named-in-lore purposes") is promising enough for me not to rule it out out-of-hand. There might just be a formulation of that that works.

[JeBuS]

They can say it just the way the rule you quoted says it!

I'm not saying that to be glib. Nor is my suggestion that you draft a proposed new text sarcastic. In all sincerity, it's a complex rule, I'd love to see a better version of it, and, while I'm skeptical that better options exist, your idea (which is, very basically, "aliases for a personnel given in that personnel's lore should count as their name for named-in-lore purposes") is promising enough for me not to rule it out out-of-hand. There might just be a formulation of that that works.

My main point for making this argument is that it was the intent of Decipher's design for these two cards to refer to each other. Pretending otherwise not only breaks common sense, but Trek sense.

[BCSWowbagger]

They can say it just the way the rule you quoted says it!

I'm not saying that to be glib. Nor is my suggestion that you draft a proposed new text sarcastic. In all sincerity, it's a complex rule, I'd love to see a better version of it, and, while I'm skeptical that better options exist, your idea (which is, very basically, "aliases for a personnel given in that personnel's lore should count as their name for named-in-lore purposes") is promising enough for me not to rule it out out-of-hand. There might just be a formulation of that that works.

My main point for making this argument is that it was the intent of Decipher's design for these two cards to refer to each other. Pretending otherwise not only breaks common sense, but Trek sense.

Certainly! But there is, so far, no version of this rule that does not, somewhere along the line, either

(a) violate Trek Sense / common sense / Decipher's intent, or
(b) result in a gigantic, 30-page document that explicitly lists every named-in-lore reference in the game because there's no consistent rule for them.

But there could be a better version of the rule out there, as yet unknown. I don't think you're crazy to try to improve the current rule. I think your basic approach of making aliases in lore count is promising, as long as it doesn't run smack into the persona rule and isn't impossible to explain to a newbie (we're already real close to the line on newbies). I encourage you to take a crack at it.

[JeBuS]

The language for the rule is already there, it's just in two separate glossary entries. Merge the Persona entry with language from Named in Lore.

Persona - Two personnel, ship, or facility
cards are instances of the same persona if
they are duplicates (copies); or if they have
the exact same card title; or if one has the
other’s name in boldface type in its lore;
or if they both have the same persona name in
boldface type in their lore;
or if one's lore refers to itself by a different name matching any of the above.

[Latok]

The language for the rule is already there, it's just in two separate glossary entries. Merge the Persona entry with language from Named in Lore.

Persona - Two personnel, ship, or facility
cards are instances of the same persona if
they are duplicates (copies); or if they have
the exact same card title; or if one has the
other’s name in boldface type in its lore;
or if they both have the same persona name in
boldface type in their lore;
or if one's lore refers to itself by a different name matching any of the above.

That doesn't actually change anything because Lieutenant Worf isn't in boldface type.

[JeBuS]

You're right. The merge would need to happen in Named in Lore.

named in lore - ...A card's lore may refer to its own subject by
a different name, which may be the name of
a different personnel or ship card. Though
this does serve as a reference to the other
card (if it exists), according to the above
rules, it may also be used to identify the
card's subject for other purposes (like
establishing a personnel as matching
commander of a ship that is named in lore, or establishing a persona).
For example, the lore of Jean-Luc Picard
(Premiere) begins "Captain Jean-Luc Picard
of the U.S.S. Enterprise." This sentence
would serve as a reference to a personnel
card named "Captain Jean-Luc Picard", if one
existed, but it also identifies the card's
subject, Jean-Luc Picard (Premiere), as a
matching commander of U.S.S. Enterprise.
Use context to determine when a card is
referring to its own subject.

[Latok]

Now you have two rules for establishing a persona, one that says text in boldface is a persona and one that says any reference to a personnel in lore can be a persona.

So that situation makes Worf into Lieutenant Worf for the purpose of making K'Ehleyr his romantic partner butit also makes The Intendant into Odo's romantic partner as well, along with likely dozens of other non-trek sense interactions.

[JeBuS]

Now you have two rules for establishing a persona, one that says text in boldface is a persona and one that says any reference to a personnel in lore can be a persona.

It may put information in two places in the glossary, but that's quite common. Put a bold reference to "see Persona" just to be safe. Contrary to your statement, it doesn't make something a persona simply because a reference is in lore. You still have to use the rest of the rule and see if the name in lore is referring to the card itself.

So that situation makes Worf into Lieutenant Worf for the purpose of making K'Ehleyr his romantic partner butit also makes The Intendant into Odo's romantic partner as well, along with likely dozens of other non-trek sense interactions.

I don't see how it makes Odo and Intendant romantic partners. The rule for Romantic Partner still stands and is quite specific in that the lore on either card must both name the other card and state that they were romantically involved. The lore on neither Odo nor Intendant do that.

[AllenGould]

My main point for making this argument is that it was the intent of Decipher's design for these two cards to refer to each other. Pretending otherwise not only breaks common sense, but Trek sense.

Note that even the first instance of "named in lore" mechanics had problems because they wrote a bunch of lore and then tried to reverse-engineer a mechanic around them. (This is true of pretty much *all* "named in lore" mechanics)

[Latok]

Now you have two rules for establishing a persona, one that says text in boldface is a persona and one that says any reference to a personnel in lore can be a persona.

It may put information in two places in the glossary, but that's quite common. Put a bold reference to "see Persona" just to be safe. Contrary to your statement, it doesn't make something a persona simply because a reference is in lore. You still have to use the rest of the rule and see if the name in lore is referring to the card itself.

So that situation makes Worf into Lieutenant Worf for the purpose of making K'Ehleyr his romantic partner butit also makes The Intendant into Odo's romantic partner as well, along with likely dozens of other non-trek sense interactions.

I don't see how it makes Odo and Intendant romantic partners. The rule for Romantic Partner still stands and is quite specific in that the lore on either card must both name the other card and state that they were romantically involved. The lore on neither Odo nor Intendant do that.

You're right I didn't look at Odo properly, as I said dozens of other examples though, Lt. (j.g.) Picard and Anij.