[Boffo97]

It seems to me this is an easy fix. Change the greater than sign on EotS to a greater than or equals sign.

0 is greater than or equal to 0.

[Takket]

It seems to me this is an easy fix. Change the greater than sign on EotS to a greater than or equals sign.

0 is greater than or equal to 0.

[BCSWowbagger]

It seems to me this is an easy fix. Change the greater than sign on EotS to a greater than or equals sign.

0 is greater than or equal to 0.

Quite possibly. But you can't do an erratum overnight, the 1E Department does not do emergency errata, and Continentals is next week.

The issue arose way too late for this month's errata window, so the earliest there could be errata fixing this, realistically, would be Monday, August 5th. That presumes Errata does the minimal possible change on Enemies (unlikely, given that it's a watchlist card), that Playtesting fast-tracks it (unlikely, given the number of reports filed in the past six weeks), and that Art is ready, willing, and able to make space in its pipeline.

Even the easiest of changes takes a number of weeks to go to press, and requires other balls to get dropped to get there. (And, given Errata's very wise "measure twice, cut once" approach to problem cards, I don't think Enemies is an easy change at all -- too much about it is problematic, not just nullgate.)

So, realistically, the options for right now were "bluetext ruling" and "emergency ban." Fortunately, the bluetext ruling isn't some outrageous reinterpretation of the card. It may even be correct! (Otherwise, emergency ban would probably have been the right move. You don't want rulings that go directly against card text.)

[Armus]

You don't want rulings that go directly against card text.

Tell that to The Genesis Effect...

[BCSWowbagger]

You don't want rulings that go directly against card text.

Tell that to The Genesis Effect...

Hey, there's no official ruling on Genesis Effect. (In part, I think, for that reason.)

[Armus]

You don't want rulings that go directly against card text.

Tell that to The Genesis Effect...

Hey, there's no official ruling on Genesis Effect. (In part, I think, for that reason.)

It may not have been in the SACRED HOLY BLUE LETTERS but people are playing it that way now so it may as well have been.

[Iron Prime]

Armus, you are not sanctioned to use blue letters. Don't make me use my red letters...

[Resistance-is-futile]

Question

Does temper advancement work to stop ? Or still on planet stopped need to pass?

[sexecutioner]

Armus, you are not sanctioned to use blue letters. Don't make me use my red letters...

UNOFFICIAL MOD NOTICE

Suplex for Sykes!

hqdefault.jpg (31.39 KiB) Viewed 1424 times

[Armus]

Armus, you are not sanctioned to use blue letters. Don't make me use my red letters...

UNOFFICIAL MOD NOTICE

Suplex for Sykes!

hqdefault.jpg

Wow... I think that may have been my first Suplex.

Was it as good for you as it was for me, Niall?

[bhosp]

Hi,

This is important, so I'm making a sticky thread for it. Recently, there has been a question about how the dilemma Enemies of the State works if there are no personnel in an opponent's Away Team. There was enough confusion that Jon Carter (pfti), our Rules Master, has issued a temporary ruling. The short version is, if your opponent has no dissidents present when you encounter Enemies of the State, the dilemma is overcome. The exact text of the temporary ruling is:

If your opponent has no personnel, you pass this dilemma.

Please help us spread the word ahead of this weekend's regional and Austrian National Championship, and the Continental Championships next weekend.

-crp

Additional Details for Those Who Want It
The dilemma Enemies of the State, from Cold Front, has the following game text:

Opponent may download three dissidents to planet. To get past, must have INTEGRITY > opponent's INTEGRITY from up to the number of opponent's personnel on planet.

The standard use is that I seed this dilemma in a deck that has at least three (and likely more) dissidents in the deck/tent. When encountered, I download either exactly three (3) of those personnel to the planet. To pass the dilemma, you have to have more INTEGRITY on that number of personnel than I do. As dissidents tend to have higher INTEGRITY values, this can be a tough wall. Of course, the dissidents are then vulnerable, so there's lots of potential interaction available.

Recently, it was brought up that 0 personnel (and 0 INTEGRITY from 0 personnel) could be interpreted as a null case, and thus an impossible requirement. There is some support for this both in the rules and in mathematical theory, so the temporary ruling is designed to establish this is not a null and impossible condition. Instead, as intended, the dilemma is discarded if no opponent's personnel are present; this makes the condition invalid instead of impossible.

Longer term, it's likely we'll take action to correct this mistake on the dilemma or issue a more permanent clarification. But in the short term, you should rest easy that this dilemma doesn't become an impassable wall if there are no opponent's dissidents present. You just discard the dilemma and continue on with the mission attempt.

In other words, exactly what I thought the rule was before any of this was brought up.

[SudenKapala]

In other words, exactly what I thought the rule was before any of this was brought up.

Actually (and surprisingly, given my novice-ness in this game) the same, here. I've been wondering about that.

In all honestly, I'll admit I've so far not even understood how it could be interpreted differently (and don't waste your time & effort explaining, because this is on a Not-Need-To-Know basis for me) -- but I think that's because of my lack of understanding of that "null-case"- thing.

But I think I understand the need for such debate and a ruling, where high-level OP is concerned.

[Takket]

a little off topic for this thread but........ does this work? is there a flaw in this?

So, when you have compatible people on a planet, they form a single away team. only if they are incompatible, or become stopped (e.g. by a dilemma) do they form separate away teams.

So that being said........ I seed a Q-flash with The Naked Truth followed by enemies of the state

With Naked Truth, I give my opponent a person, who is stopped in a separate away team. They then hit enemies, I DL a couple dissidents, they get stopped.

Hopefully they don't have another away team beam down and immediately kill my dissidents, and they survive until the next turn.

Next turn they will want to kill my dissidents. Their away team tries to attack at which point I remind them "you have a person in your away team with attack restrictions. You can't attack me."

So they try to beam up the and I play Barclay Transporter Phobia and the person is now stuck on the planet. Since they cannot segregate the person I don't see any way they can attack my dissidents, and they are now locked out of the mission unless they somehow come up with the Integrity.

The one out I thought of was attempt the mission with the person and at least 1 other person, hit enemies, get stopped, THEN beam down a second away team and attack (since the Fed person is now stopped in a separate away team).

[commdecker]

The Naked Truth doesn't make the new person compatible with their other personnel. So their later attempt with their, say, personnel would not have the new in the away team.

[Takket]

The Naked Truth doesn't make the new person compatible with their other personnel. So their later attempt with their, say, personnel would not have the new in the away team.