This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568459
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:47 am
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 [Holo] 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.

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.
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.
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.
In 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.

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?

In my view, MH would discard for lack of target because this one personnel lacks either feature that would make them a target.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568460
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:05 pm In 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.

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.
Your logic seems flawed here. If "not having a thing" is equivalent to "0 of a thing", then it is 0 of a thing, which is greater than -1 of a thing, and less than 1 of a thing. And you can compare 0 to 0, which is what 'most [Feature]' is asking you to do.
Last edited by JeBuS on Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568462
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:05 pmIn 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.
Well, this is the fundamental difference of opinion. For me, there is no such requirement. All you need to have to have the "most of a thing" is the requirement that there is no one around who has more of that thing.
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:05 pmLet 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?
So Mortal Q then (doesn't have Treachery or CUNNING).

To me, he would be highest CUNNING since there is no one around with CUNNING higher than him. And he would also be the person with the most Treachery.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568463
Armus wrote: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?
Let's take them separately:
'NO CUNNING' = 0 CUNNING for purposes of comparison, per the glossary. So they have the most cunning, since we're doing a comparison.
'No printed Treachery' = Treachery x0, following the same logic.
Therefore, this hypothetical personnel is both the 'most CUNNING' and the 'most Treachery', and would qualify under both portions of the dilemma.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568465
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:46 am
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:27 am
As for Toral/Mortal Q/etc. I would argue that they have the listed skill at the printed multiplier level. So if Mortal Q or Toral were the only personnel with Leadership in a team that hits Gorn Encounter, they would be the target.
I did quote the dilemma resolution guide, regarding Gorn Encounter, did you notice that?


As for Toral/Mortal Q/etc. I would argue that they have the listed skill at the printed multiplier level. So if Mortal Q or Toral were the only personnel with Leadership in a team that hits Gorn Encounter, they would be the target.


Ok, so No Integrity (which is considered to be 0 in the glossary) and Leadership -1
would not count for you.

I already stated the Dilemma Guide, which is an unofficial rule document.

"GORN ENCOUNTER [P]
....
No Leadership is greater than Leadership -1."

So Gorn Encounter´s Glossary entry needs to be changed in your opinion?
And any and all dilemma requiring lowest skill or lowest attribute should ignore personnel with 0 Attribute or 0 or lower skills? Despite what Patrick found in the glossary?

And about the discussion attitude behind: Isn´t it always easier to ask questions and let others answer and find fault in them. Isn´t it more constructive and courage putting out once opinion immediately out, like I did here many posts ago and in the capture related forum? and also immediately correct oneselve if evidence show otherwise, like I did in the capture related discussion? Isn´t that constructive and courage competence?

Its in your power to ignore any other points of view, it´s not in our power. But if you do after so many people explained it to you again and again here, itsn´t then the issue simply that you are too proud to finally after many days admit that your opinion contradicts both glossary and dilemma resolution guide? Ain´t you the one being overconfident without competence and courage then here? Which is why people while caring for the facts and posting and explaining are so frustrated with you here? Again in your power. It is only in our power (@patrick Patrick, @JeBuS JeBus, me) to make sure the community sees whats correct, no matter if it means we have to painfully correct ourselves or painfully make a stand against your overconfidence when we know we are right. Its the classic effect of people showing confidence by simply ignoring the facts, vs. people who show confidence only when its appropriate and correct themselves when they are competent enough to see when they are wrong. its called the Dunning-Kruger-Effect. And you see it in all discussions. Its important to know it.
Re: the DRG: If my read of the Glossary is correct, then there's a contradiction between the Glossary and the DRG, with the Glossary controlling. So I guess the short answer to your question is "yes" the DRG would need to be corrected.

If my read of the Glossary is not correct, then there very well may be no contradiction and the DRG is fine.

Re: the rest of your post: I already explained that it's not about ego for me. You can choose to believe that or not. If I'm wrong I'm happy to acknowledge it, but I don't think it's been demonstrated that I'm wrong. As I pointed out a couple pages ago, there's a single glossary entry where one paragraph points to B and the very next paragraph points to A. Obviously both can't be true, so I've been endeavoring to parse that glossary entry in a way that avoids any contradictions with either part.

I think my approach of checking for the thing THEN evaluating who has the most of the thing satisfies both paragraphs in a way that leads to A being the correct answer.

If there's an explanation that also avoids contradictions that leads to B being the correct answer, I'm open to it. I just haven't seen it yet.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568466
patrick wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:12 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:05 pmIn 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.
Well, this is the fundamental difference of opinion. For me, there is no such requirement. All you need to have to have the "most of a thing" is the requirement that there is no one around who has more of that thing.
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:05 pmLet 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?
So Mortal Q then (doesn't have Treachery or CUNNING).

To me, he would be highest CUNNING since there is no one around with CUNNING higher than him. And he would also be the person with the most Treachery.
And this is where I think you're failing to consider the feature/target paragraph from the glossary that I cited upthread. That's where I'm having a hard time just going along with the prevailing opinion.

Also, Mortal Q doesn't have NO CUNNING. He has cunning of Q, which is an undefined variable, so effectively zero. If you give Mortal Q a PADD, he becomes Q+2 = 0+2 = 2 cunning. My hypothetical person has NO CUNNING, so there's no cunning variable to modify. That makes a difference if Cunning is a feature that a dilemma is looking to target.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568467
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:10 pm
you still post afterall and trying to make armus see how the rules work, I think its time to post about the underlying structure of the problem:

@Explaing to the community the dynamic of the discussion:
Isn´t it always easier to ask questions and let others answer and find fault in them. Isn´t it more constructive and courage putting out once opinion immediately out, like I did here many posts ago and in the capture related forum? and also immediately correct oneselve if evidence show otherwise, like I did in the capture related discussion? Isn´t that constructive and courage competence?

Its in Armus power to ignore any other points of view, it´s not in our power. But if Armus after so many people explained it to him again and again here, itsn´t then the issue simply that he is too proud to finally after many days admit that his opinion contradicts both glossary and dilemma resolution guide? Ain´t Armus the one being overconfident without competence and courage then here? Which is why people while caring for the facts and posting and explaining are so frustrated with him here? Again in his power. It is only in our power (@patrick Patrick, @JeBuS JeBus, me) to make sure the community sees whats correct, no matter if it means we have to painfully correct ourselves or painfully make a stand against Armus stubborn overconfidence when we know we are right and confusing everyone with constant anti-post to everyone here. Its the classic effect of people showing confidence by simply ignoring the facts/ refuses to correct themselves / refusing to accept others facts (Armus), vs. people who show confidence only when its appropriate and correct themselves when they are competent enough to see when they are wrong. its called the Dunning-Kruger-Effect. Those who never admit or see their faults pretend to be confident, like experts. while experts, really know something and are either confident based on competence and when they know enough that they see they are wrong they put their confidence down and show they courage to admit they where wrong, which is also competence. Knowing what not to know is wisdom. And you see it in all discussions wordwide. Its important to know the Dunning-Kruger Effect to distinguish the one from the other. Calling fake news and ignoring other points of view, is not worth talking to that person. But to the community so that the issue is solved. Noone will every agree to everything, as its in everyone's power to be stubborn. but its important to see that there are still facts. And to make a stand for the facts and explain to others both rules and how to uncover overconfidence of people who are simply to proud to correct themselves and experts who are competent enough to make a stand when they know they are right and the competence to see and admit when they are wrong.

Back to A or B Interpretation of MH.
See Gorn Encounter, Dilemma Resolution guide. B (no treachery can be the most treachery) is the right way to play Misinterpred history. Those are the current rule facts.

@Thread Question to all: To the Question of the Rule Master asked here if you want it to be changed so its more clear why its B or weaker A (e.g. do you wish it to be played A). Everyone is free to have their opinion/preference here.

@Armus, I see that we are right. And see that you don´t want to see it. Its called cognitive dissonance. Not wanting to see something subconsciously to avoid pain and believing to be better then reality shows. Since I know psychology I know that people are unable to be aware and able to lie to themselves so effectively they belive it themselves.

@pfti What part of the Zaldan rule are you refering? Zaldan does not require most diplomacy but diplomacy. Or do you refer to it being discarded if no no diplomacy are there? Would love to hear what you are referring to, to understand it.

@all And for others seeing the flaws in Armus current argument which is: (Mortal q is not like No Integrity from Kivas fajo): Howerver Mortal Q has q cunning. which is considered to be 0. While Kivas Fajo has NO Integrity, but is also considered 0, according to the glossary. Here are the references (facts) that Armus is simply not willing to bring to the table or accept: https://www.trekcc.org/op/1e_rulebook/G ... -attribute

In fact that has already be cited by Patrick, but apparently Armus is so good in not seeing that, that he does not see it to himselve. Please make sure you can distinquishe such people from competent people like the others showing the facts again and again with references that make sense.

@all It helps in real life: Please don´t fall for stubborn confidence of ignoring facts and follow those who explain it. take your time to see there difference. Experts either can make their point that makes sense (see majority here) or are competent and courage enough to immediately correct themselves when facts are presented to them (like I did in the capture related).

Discussing/listening to armus is pointless as he does not listen back or see our point of view. Making a stand as a community to show/explain the facts to the rest of the community and make a stand against stubborn ignorance and for constructive discussion/ correct rule explaination is worthwhile. As is to hear who wants the dilemma to be errataed or not so it stays as strong as it is (B) or becomes weaker due to text change (to be played A).

MOD EDIT (nobthehobbit, 2021-12-27): User was warned for this post.
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#568469
https://media.giphy.com/media/nWg4h2IK6jYRO/giphy.gif

We're on page 5 now......... think about putting a blue text bullet into the head of this argument and follow up with an errata. It should be A, because even though I read it as B, B is overpowered. You shouldn't get to pick anyone you want to die on this dilemma just because opponent doesn't have treachery.

Errata:

Personnel with highest CUNNING OR most Treachery (must be >0) is killed (opponent's choice). To get past requires Law and Archaeology OR Exobiology and 2 Leadership OR a President.

I think that will still fit on the card.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568470
Takket wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:07 pm https://media.giphy.com/media/nWg4h2IK6jYRO/giphy.gif

We're on page 5 now......... think about putting a blue text bullet into the head of this argument and follow up with an errata. It should be A, because even though I read it as B, B is overpowered. You shouldn't get to pick anyone you want to die on this dilemma just because opponent doesn't have treachery.

Errata:

Personnel with highest CUNNING OR most Treachery (must be >0) is killed (opponent's choice). To get past requires Law and Archaeology OR Exobiology and 2 Leadership OR a President.

I think that will still fit on the card.
:thumbsup:
for ending the endless loop. Already advocated for it, due to the dynamic I explained. Everyone explaining the same rules in different explamples and Armus calling fake news to all of them. I learned to stay more stubborn when my competence is qualified to it, to people whos stubbornness is not based on real competence. learned another social skill :) thx armus for showing me how to sell my competence and points of view and be assertive with the community. no irony. i mean it. i learned that from you here in practise what I knew in theory from dunning-kruger-effect vids. Do you thing, no matter if someone with fake news appears to be confident and tries to delude you; stick to the truth.

Everyone should be able to post if they want an errata or not though.

But the Moderator decides that.

And the errata should be clear enough so that most people do know what needs to be ">0", most treachery or also most cunning. Shoudn´t it?
Last edited by ShipNerd on Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568471
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:29 pm Also, Mortal Q doesn't have NO CUNNING. He has cunning of Q, which is an undefined variable, so effectively zero. If you give Mortal Q a PADD, he becomes Q+2 = 0+2 = 2 cunning. My hypothetical person has NO CUNNING, so there's no cunning variable to modify. That makes a difference if Cunning is a feature that a dilemma is looking to target.
Undefined attributes, including 'Q' and 'NO CUNNING' explicitly cannot be modified. They only have a default value of 0 for the specific case of comparison. Mortal Q doesn't change his CUNNING when he's with a PADD.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568472
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:39 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:29 pm Also, Mortal Q doesn't have NO CUNNING. He has cunning of Q, which is an undefined variable, so effectively zero. If you give Mortal Q a PADD, he becomes Q+2 = 0+2 = 2 cunning. My hypothetical person has NO CUNNING, so there's no cunning variable to modify. That makes a difference if Cunning is a feature that a dilemma is looking to target.
Undefined attributes, including 'Q' and 'NO CUNNING' explicitly cannot be modified. They only have a default value of 0 for the specific case of comparison. Mortal Q doesn't change his CUNNING when he's with a PADD.
Yeah you're right. Fair point.

I missed the change to the undefined attribute entry. I seem to recall that at one point, NO [Attribute] was treated as different from Q or * or whatever. This may have been 1997 (I'm sure @BCSWowbagger knows the history better than I do), and I missed one of the myriad updates along the way.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568473
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:41 pm
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:39 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:29 pm Also, Mortal Q doesn't have NO CUNNING. He has cunning of Q, which is an undefined variable, so effectively zero. If you give Mortal Q a PADD, he becomes Q+2 = 0+2 = 2 cunning. My hypothetical person has NO CUNNING, so there's no cunning variable to modify. That makes a difference if Cunning is a feature that a dilemma is looking to target.
Undefined attributes, including 'Q' and 'NO CUNNING' explicitly cannot be modified. They only have a default value of 0 for the specific case of comparison. Mortal Q doesn't change his CUNNING when he's with a PADD.
Yeah you're right. Fair point.

I missed the change to the undefined attribute entry. I seem to recall that at one point, NO [Attribute] was treated as different from Q or * or whatever. This may have been 1997 (I'm sure @BCSWowbagger knows the history better than I do), and I missed one of the myriad updates along the way.
@Armus Congratulation on courage to admit it and therefore greatness in this one point. And I mean it too. Do you still think A overall or B?

@JeBuS congratulation on listening to Armus for so long, that he started to listen to you in this one case.

@Armus: Is you being able to listen to what we have posted pages ago and you actually reading it trying to understand it on the table? Because that would be respectful and solves things here more quickly (would have and still could solve the issue without the discussion needed to be closed for the loop). What I bring to the table here is awareness of other and my (sub)councious ways. People get scared when I see through them, but that passes like all pain. I applied self-awareness to myself. painfully but useful :) If I had listed to you more (like JeBus) did, things would have resolved more quickly too. We are still waiting for you to see the whole point. Yet its so much of an effort to give you empathy, so I sometimes do shortcuts, after all you could give yourselves empathy too... Its not my job to cooperate with everyone and it would be a los for me if the other side is not willing to show up cooperativly too. Even if it would be the ideal solution for everyone, if we can agree on how the current rules are written. :) But I guess you need more empathy and understanding and listening too that you would be correct if rules hadn´t changed, in that one thing. I can help you see that if you let me. But I don´t have too. I can also just be proud of myselve, to know the rules, see thought people and be happy for me learning to make a stand and be glad I found a way to handle you without needing to block you. you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. (oh reminds me of needing to watch matrix4). it does not effect me much anymore emotionally. I do my thing. thank you for letting me learn that lesson.

Maybe you want to agree to JeBus more easily as he focuses more on the issue itselve, then the overall situation surrounding it.
Last edited by ShipNerd on Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:24 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568474
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:41 pm
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:39 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:29 pm Also, Mortal Q doesn't have NO CUNNING. He has cunning of Q, which is an undefined variable, so effectively zero. If you give Mortal Q a PADD, he becomes Q+2 = 0+2 = 2 cunning. My hypothetical person has NO CUNNING, so there's no cunning variable to modify. That makes a difference if Cunning is a feature that a dilemma is looking to target.
Undefined attributes, including 'Q' and 'NO CUNNING' explicitly cannot be modified. They only have a default value of 0 for the specific case of comparison. Mortal Q doesn't change his CUNNING when he's with a PADD.
Yeah you're right. Fair point.

I missed the change to the undefined attribute entry. I seem to recall that at one point, NO [Attribute] was treated as different from Q or * or whatever. This may have been 1997 (I'm sure @BCSWowbagger knows the history better than I do), and I missed one of the myriad updates along the way.
Does that information sway you at all on the idea of the same framework being at play for other features?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568476
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:45 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:41 pm
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:39 pm Undefined attributes, including 'Q' and 'NO CUNNING' explicitly cannot be modified. They only have a default value of 0 for the specific case of comparison. Mortal Q doesn't change his CUNNING when he's with a PADD.
Yeah you're right. Fair point.

I missed the change to the undefined attribute entry. I seem to recall that at one point, NO [Attribute] was treated as different from Q or * or whatever. This may have been 1997 (I'm sure @BCSWowbagger knows the history better than I do), and I missed one of the myriad updates along the way.
@Armus Congratulation on courage to admit it and therefore greatness in this one point. And I mean it too. Do you still think A overall or B?

@JeBuS congratulation on listening to Armus for so long, that he started to listen to you in this one case.
Yeah it's amazing how reading the glossary bolsters one's argument. In this case, I misremembered what I thought I knew and I was wrong on the facts. If I had refused to see *that* then your condescending pop internet psychoanalysis might be more defensible.

The thing is, I was also reading the glossary - not going from my obviously imperfect memory - when I made my argument.

To recap, here's the glossary entry, this time in its entirety:
Dilemma Resolution, Targets wrote: [1] The targets of a dilemma include the cards it affects (e.g., personnel selected to die), a personnel, ship, or facility that the dilemma is placed on, or a target destination for a relocation. Targets may be chosen by random selection, opponent's choice, or owner's choice. [2] When a dilemma specifies a superlative such as "strongest," "most CUNNING," or "highest total attributes," and there is a tie, the opponent of the player encountering the dilemma gets to choose. If no personnel remain to be targeted by a dilemma just encountered, because you used game text that allows you to remove them, replace that dilemma under the mission (the mission attempt ends). For example, Elim Garak ("May avoid any random selection") encounters Armus - Skin of Evil. If you choose to have Elim Garak avoid the random selection, there is no one left to be targeted by Armus, and it is replaced under the mission. Another card that might remove all personnel before you can resolve a dilemma is Flight of the Intruder.

[3] 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. (This does not include personnel with specific features which are required as a condition for overcoming the dilemma. See Conditions below.) [4] If two targets with different specific features are specified (e.g., one [Holo] personnel and one non-[Holo] personnel), and only one is present, target that one. A specified number of personnel is not a "specific feature;" if a card specifies that two target personnel are to be selected but only one personnel is present, it selects that one. Also discard the dilemma if there is no ship or facility to place the dilemma on, or no destination for a relocation (e.g., "furthest planet" when there is no other planet on the spaceline).
Emphases mine.

I think we're all on the same page that [1] applies here. The personnel in question are definitely being targeted by the dilemma, so it stands to reason that this is the core glossary entry that we need to look at (not to the exclusion of others, but probably primary to them).

Re-reading my exchange with @JeBuS, he's putting the emphasis on MOST - a superlative outlined in [2] - while I'm putting the emphasis on Treachery - a feature outlined in [3]. I can see where he's coming from, as IF you put [2] as the primary consideration, then all of the comparison stuff previously cited follows, and I wouldn't disagree with the reasoning or the conclusion that B is correct. But that's a big 'IF' and what's not clear from the glossary entry is whether or not superlatives take precedence over features. What persuaded me to take the increasingly strong position was the additional language of [4] in support of [3]. That seemed to line up very nicely with conclusion A.

So at least one of the following is true:

[SD] I made an incorrect inference when I read the glossary, and thus my conclusion is wrong.

[SD] I made a correct inference and my conclusion is correct.

[SD] The dilemma resolution - target glossary entry is ambiguous such that multiple conclusions can be drawn and supported.

I attempted to control for both paragraphs with my hierarchy (gotta have the feature (skill) to be a target, THEN evaluate who has the most), but that itself is an inference.

I'm guessing that when this entry was made, there were no cards that didn't fall into both categories without also having clarifying text saying how to resolve it (Gorn Encounter comes to mind).

Which leads me to think that the glossary entry is ambiguous.

So maybe the best resolution of this exercise isn't *just* to get clarity on MH, but *also* to edit/update/remove some of the identified glossary text so as to resolve whatever ambiguity exists.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation