#568459
So for X <> 0 I think we're all on the same page.
It's the X=0 case that is the source of tension in our positions.
This is why I asked earlier if having zero of a thing and not having a thing were logically equivalent. You stated that they were. So having zero of a feature = not having a feature. Not having a feature = not a target for the dilemma.
If Mortal Q had Treachery -1 and he was the only person in an away team with Treachery facing MH, he'd be eligible to be killed as being the personnel with the most Treachery.
Let me try a different angle. Let's say we had a Hypothetical personnel with no printed Treachery and a printed Cunning Attribute of NO CUNNING. What would happen if this hypothetical personnel encountered MH in a one-person mission attempt?
JeBuS wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:47 amIn order to have the most of a thing, you have to have the thing. At least in the context of being a target for a dilemma.Armus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:46 am The way I read the above-cited glossary entry, you can't choose a target (in this case, a personnel) with a feature without first evaluating whether or not they have that feature.I'm still not seeing where you get the interpretation that you're forced to eliminate that clause without evaluating the comparison. Nothing in the quoted rule leads me to believe you would do so. One thing I've been accused of in the past is ignoring the context of the rules by citing specific sentences. I think a similar situation is happening here when you're willing to ignore the context of 'most [Feature]' vs '[Feature]'. There is additional context to that qualifier, which the rule you quoted is not meant to, nor is it trying to address. You're basically taking the view that the most general case overrides the most specific case. The general case being 'any mention of [Feature]' and 'any kind of comparison', with the specific case being 'a comparison of [Feature]'.
However, if a dilemma targets cards with specific features (e.g., a personnel with Empathy, a male, a non-Cardassian), and there are no cards present with those features, discard the dilemma immediately without effect, as when a trigger is not present....
<snip of irrelevant text>
...If two targets with different specific features are specified (e.g., one personnel and one non-[Holo] personnel), and only one is present, target that one.The two features in question are CUNNING and Treachery. When you flip MH during a mission attempt you evaluate each personnel against each feature to see if they're valid targets for the dilemma.Here's where I ask why you think 'Treachery' is the feature, rather than 'most Treachery'?
Since there's no personnel with NO CUNNING that I'm aware of, everybody is going to have CUNNING. So everyone is a potential target for the CUNNING side of the dilemma.But you don't need Treachery to have the most Treachery. There's a distinction here. Because it's possible to have a personnel with negative skills, any personnel who doesn't list the skill would have more than them, by default, whether or not it is printed on their card. That ship sailed when negative skills were introduced to the game in Q-Continuum. It doesn't even matter that no '[Feature] x-1' is present. The math always works the same for comparisons. x2 > x1 > x0 [or not printed] > x-1 > x-2.
However since it's possible that not everyone is going to have Treachery, to include the possibility that NOBODY has Treachery, it's possible that the list of eligible Treachery targets is a subset (to include an empty subset) of the crew/AT.
Once you've identified the potential targets for each side, THEN you do the comparison check to see who has the most CUNNING or most Treachery, and those personnel (including any ties) become the targets that the opponent can choose to be killed.Again, I think you're ignoring that choosing the potential on both sides must include the comparison of 'most Treachery', not 'Treachery', but I won't belabor that point any further.
So for X <> 0 I think we're all on the same page.
It's the X=0 case that is the source of tension in our positions.
This is why I asked earlier if having zero of a thing and not having a thing were logically equivalent. You stated that they were. So having zero of a feature = not having a feature. Not having a feature = not a target for the dilemma.
If Mortal Q had Treachery -1 and he was the only person in an away team with Treachery facing MH, he'd be eligible to be killed as being the personnel with the most Treachery.
Let me try a different angle. Let's say we had a Hypothetical personnel with no printed Treachery and a printed Cunning Attribute of NO CUNNING. What would happen if this hypothetical personnel encountered MH in a one-person mission attempt?
"I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you." - Batman
#RenewTheOrville
#RenewTheOrville