[MidnightLich]

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.

[Armus]

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 1, 2, or 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.

Minor quibble, but also important given the "officialness" and prominence of this post: you can only download three (or zero) people with this dilemma. The above statement is incorrect. This goes back to proofreading for Cold front where that was explicitly spelled out in the proof sheet for rules and language evaluation.

[MidnightLich]

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 1, 2, or 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.

Minor quibble, but also important given the "officialness" and prominence of this post: you can only download three (or zero) people with this dilemma. The above statement is incorrect. This goes back to proofreading for Cold front where that was explicitly spelled out in the proof sheet for rules and language evaluation.

You are correct. I made an assumption instead of fact-checking. I'll correct the top post.

-crp

[Armus]

Minor quibble, but also important given the "officialness" and prominence of this post: you can only download three (or zero) people with this dilemma. The above statement is incorrect. This goes back to proofreading for Cold front where that was explicitly spelled out in the proof sheet for rules and language evaluation.

You are correct. I made an assumption instead of fact-checking. I'll correct the top post.

-crp

[SudenKapala]

The short version is, if your opponent has no dissidents present when you encounter Enemies of the State, the dilemma is overcome.

Does this mean that there have to be dissidents present before the dilemma is encountered (which is how I would interpret the above sentence)?
Or (and this seems more logical to me, given the dilemma text) that there have to be dissidents present either before encountering OR after the opponent has had opportunity to download them?
In the latter case, the above wording seems a bit confusing to me -- but the "when you encounter" could then be interpreted to mean, "while you are encountering"... and I think in the context it will be clear anyway, that the latter is meant...? (So, perhaps a superfluous post, this.)

Hope I'm not confusing matters further. Just trying to help.

[Armus]

The short version is, if your opponent has no dissidents present when you encounter Enemies of the State, the dilemma is overcome.

Does this mean that there have to be dissidents present before the dilemma is encountered (which is how I would interpret the above sentence)?
Or (and this seems more logical to me, given the dilemma text) that there have to be dissidents present either before encountering OR after the opponent has had opportunity to download them?
In the latter case, the above wording seems a bit confusing to me -- but the "when you encounter" could then be interpreted to mean, "while you are encountering"... and I think in the context it will be clear anyway, that the latter is meant...? (So, perhaps a superfluous post, this.)

Hope I'm not confusing matters further. Just trying to help.

I'm guessing the intent is you encounter the dilemma, your opponent gets to download 3 Dissidents (or not) then you check requirements and if opponent doesn't have any people there, you auto-pass the dilemma and move on, or if they do you count up Integrity and see what happens.

That's the most intuitive reading given full context, if not the most obvious given the words on the page.

[BCSWowbagger]

[pfti]

It means that if after the opponent has had the chance to download (or is denied download due to a computer crash, OTF rules, etc. ) then if your opponent has no valid personnel present then you pass the dilemma.

[MidnightLich]

It means that if after the opponent has had the chance to download (or is denied download due to a computer crash, OTF rules, etc. ) then if your opponent has no valid personnel present then you pass the dilemma.

Thanks for clarifying.

-crp

[AllenGould]

Another quibble: this isn't a null case. We know how many personnel you're allowed (equal to the number of dissidents present: 0), and we know how much INTEGRITY you need (the total INTEGRITY of opponent's personnel present: 0). The problem is that there's no check that the opponent actually bothered to bring any people.

[Armus]

Another quibble: this isn't a null case. We know how many personnel you're allowed (equal to the number of dissidents present: 0), and we know how much INTEGRITY you need (the total INTEGRITY of opponent's personnel present: 0). The problem is that there's no check that the opponent actually bothered to bring any people.

Now you're just getting technical.

I've given up arguing logic when rules says "it works this way because we said so" and I can point to examples in both games where that happened. (Genesis Effect for 1e, War Games for 2e to name two of the more memorable ones).

All I ask is that a ruling be understandable, which this one is. No people = discard dilemma. Easy enough.

[nobthehobbit]

When encountered, I download either exactly three (3) of those personnel to the planet.

That should end with something like, "or zero (0) personnel".

Another quibble: this isn't a null case. We know how many personnel you're allowed (equal to the number of dissidents present: 0), and we know how much INTEGRITY you need (the total INTEGRITY of opponent's personnel present: 0). The problem is that there's no check that the opponent actually bothered to bring any people.

Minor quibble, number of personnel, not number of dissidents, in case they had some people camping out already.

[BCSWowbagger]

It is not unheard of for the 1E Rules Committee to issue a bluetext temporary ruling that rejects the technically "best" reading of a card, and instead adopts a reasonable reading of the card that happens to avoid a major gameplay calamity.

This is almost always done as a prelude to ban or errata.

And, indeed, there's now a whole listing in the CRD for "temporary rulings pending errata." (Well, not this month, because it finally emptied out this month, but generally.) Guessing that's the column where this ruling shows up next month.

[AllenGould]

Now you're just getting technical.

Well, yeah - it's a rules question.

All I ask is that a ruling be understandable, which this one is. No people = discard dilemma. Easy enough.

I've got no objections about the ruling - having an unbeatable wall is less than optimal for commercial activities, as Corbett used to say. But the only way the rules get less "cause we said so" long term is to make sure each new ruling is grounded. (Or that we're just errata'ing the blasted thing to remove the loophole.)

[Armus]

Now you're just getting technical.

Well, yeah - it's a rules question.

All I ask is that a ruling be understandable, which this one is. No people = discard dilemma. Easy enough.

I've got no objections about the ruling - having an unbeatable wall is less than optimal for commercial activities, as Corbett used to say. But the only way the rules get less "cause we said so" long term is to make sure each new ruling is grounded. (Or that we're just errata'ing the blasted thing to remove the loophole.)

You and I aren't in disagreement. I've just been on the losing side (still not convinced it was the wrong side) of enough "because we said so" rulings that I've had to lower the bar to "understandable"

I'd love for that to not be the case.