[edgeofhearing]

For the next few months, you got to pick either a skill, species, or affiliation. The problem was species like Ba'ku, or Son'a, or Talaxians, that have a mission or other card that gives them unrestricted free reports. We were afraid of a deck that turned all your people into Ba'ku, them vomited out personnel late in the game. Testers eventually confirmed that this was a problem, so we had to take away the species imitation.

I feel like unlimited free reports is almost certainly the power level an artifact needs to have in order to be playable. That's not necessarily to say that I think that artifacts should be playable, but I think that's the kind of thing it would take. After all, the most recently playable artifacts have said "You get a two mission win," and "Your opponent loses their ship with the most personnel aboard, permanently. Like, they can't even Isomag them back." In comparison, "You can play a couple more people a turn even though you already have enough to solve a mission" seems quite reasonable.

[Legate_Damar]

The ECS Horizon, as it originally existed in the file according to Design, let you The Book without any effort to acquire it at all. And it let you change your species.

Did you forget that “hologram” is a species? The original version of The Book would have let you turn all your personnel into nigh-unkillable holograms. That’s stupid powerful.

[Armus]

The ECS Horizon, as it originally existed in the file according to Design, let you The Book without any effort to acquire it at all. And it let you change your species.

Did you forget that “hologram” is a species? The original version of The Book would have let you turn all your personnel into nigh-unkillable holograms. That’s stupid powerful.

Good thing Design has a vetting process then, eh?

That said I'm not sure you're right. Does having the species "hologram" automatically convey the icon? If not I'm not sure it would be as powerful as you say.

But they didn't do that, so the question is academic.

[Legate_Damar]

It's not academic. He's claiming that the card is underpowered, and I'm claiming that if it was as powerful as was originally intended, it would have potentially been a broken card.

As for the hologram species thing, I couldn't find anything specifically regarding whether hologram species automatically conveys the icon, other than the fact that in the Hologram section of the Glossary, all icon cards are by default "hologram" species instead of what would be their normal species. I would assume that the sword cuts both ways, and if a personnel becomes a "hologram species", they would automatically gain the icon, since I don't see how you could logically be a hologram and NOT be a .

[Armus]

It's not academic. He's claiming that the card is underpowered, and I'm claiming that if it was as powerful as was originally intended, it would have potentially been a broken card.

As for the hologram species thing, I couldn't find anything specifically regarding whether hologram species automatically conveys the icon, other than the fact that in the Hologram section of the Glossary, all icon cards are by default "hologram" species instead of what would be their normal species. I would assume that the sword cuts both ways, and if a personnel becomes a "hologram species", they would automatically gain the icon, since I don't see how you could logically be a hologram and NOT be a .

Ok that's a logical fallacy. P -> Q being true does NOT mean that Q -> P is also true, which is the argument you just made.

If a person has the icon then they are Hologram Species is true.

Therefore, the contrapositive "If a person is NOT Hologram species then they do NOT have the icon" is also true. That's the only logical inference that you can draw.

[Legate_Damar]

That's not my point Armus. My point is, "If personnel is hologram species, they must gain ," because there is literally no example of a hologram not being a hologram (i.e. having .)

You're dodging the real issue... how could you have a holographic-species personnel that does NOT have the icon?

The point still stands... if The Book had been released as originally written, you would possibly be able to create an endless supply of holograms.

[Takket]

Holoprogram: 221B Baker Street talks about adding the icon but doesn’t say it actually makes you hologram species. The icon itself is preloaded with that specification. Not sure if that clears up the question or only makes it worse lol

[Latok]

That's not my point Armus. My point is, "If personnel is hologram species, they must gain ," because there is literally no example of a hologram not being a hologram (i.e. having .)

You're dodging the real issue... how could you have a holographic-species personnel that does NOT have the icon?

The point still stands... if The Book had been released as originally written, you would possibly be able to create an endless supply of holograms.

Yeah but holograms doesn't mean anything they have no special benefits or abilities, are different. Second, Lucas was talking about the power level an Artifact needs to have to be an Artifact not a on some ship, you didn't respond to his point at all just changed it.

[JeBuS]

Without a rule saying that hologram species provides hologram icon, you cannot logically assume it does. That would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmi ... consequent

The rule:
If a personnel is holo icon then it is holo species.
That does not equal:
If a personnel is holo species then it is holo icon.

[Armus]

Without a rule saying that hologram species provides hologram icon, you cannot logically assume it does. That would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmi ... consequent

The rule:
If a personnel is holo icon then it is holo species.
That does not equal:
If a personnel is holo species then it is holo icon.

Isn't that what I said?

[JeBuS]

Yeah and no. The first part of what you wrote was correct. But not the last.

"Therefore, the contrapositive "If a person is NOT Hologram species then they do NOT have the icon" is also true. That's the only logical inference that you can draw."

That's also a logical fallacy. You're affirming a conclusion from a negative premise.

[Armus]

Yeah and no. The first part of what you wrote was correct. But not the last.

"Therefore, the contrapositive "If a person is NOT Hologram species then they do NOT have the icon" is also true. That's the only logical inference that you can draw."

That's also a logical fallacy. You're affirming a conclusion from a negative premise.

No, if a statement is true, then its contrapositive is also logically true.

P-->Q is True
Therefore ~Q --> ~P is also true.

The fallacies are
Q --> P, and ~P-->~Q

[JeBuS]

You're right. I read it in reverse somehow.

[Armus]

You're right. I read it in reverse somehow.

No worries.

[LLAP emoji]

PS Go check your PMs...

[MidnightLich]

16 June Entertaining Display
There is a typo in the lore, but don't worry - it will be corrected for the final PDF and shortly thereafter online. Otherwise, this card didn't change a ton from it's original submission (with the playful title "let's have an orgy") to the finished version. The biggest change was requiring you to have more Anthropology present than females; originally, it required more males than females. Over the evolution of this card and Let Me Help, having two genders on the card was causing issues, so we made the choice to list just one gender.

-crp