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
#568371
JeBuS wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:58 am A comparison is different than a check for precense.
I don't see how in the context of your numerical paradigm. If having zero of a thing is the same as not having a thing, then MH shouldn't hit non-treachery personnel.

On the other hand, if having zero of a thing is NOT the same as not having a thing, then Zaldan should never discard for lack of target.

That's true whether you're doing a single point binary or a point to point comparison.

You can't have it both ways and the B ruling attempts to do just that.
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568372
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:37 pmYou can't have it both ways and the B ruling attempts to do just that.
"Do you have any money" will clearly be "no" if you have 0, or -X.
But if you want to know who in a group is the richest person, there will still be a valid answer, even if everyone has 0 or is in debt.

For me "who has the most money" is the same question as "who is the richest", but I can see how people might disagree.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568373
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:37 pm
JeBuS wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:58 am A comparison is different than a check for precense.
I don't see how in the context of your numerical paradigm.
Yep a checking for presence is different then comparrsion.

I do see it. But I cannot make you see it Armus, yet I try once more, as truth is more important to me then subjective pseudo arguments.

Long version see my last post that I finished editing.

Short version: To get past requires Treachery = True if Treachery x1 or greater.
Most/lowest treachery means comparrsion +X Treachery to -X Treachery, including 0. Ties may be a result.
In terms of real life math:
Do you have Treachery = do you have Treachery x1 (or more)
Which personnel are most Treachery (> or < or equal then the other personnel can be the results). Which results in a sorted list of 1-X personnel for most treachery.

Anytime a card says most/lowest you compare the numbers. (greater >, smaller < or tie).
Anytime it just says Engineer it means Engineer = 1x.

Thats the simple version.
Last edited by ShipNerd on Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:12 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568374
patrick wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:45 pm
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:37 pmYou can't have it both ways and the B ruling attempts to do just that.
"Do you have any money" will clearly be "no" if you have 0, or -X.
But if you want to know who in a group is the richest person, there will still be a valid answer, even if everyone has 0 or is in debt.

For me "who has the most money" is the same question as "who is the richest", but I can see how people might disagree.
I think some people disagree because they are comparing 2 different things and lose themselves in it (Enabran). others (armus) might (subconsciously) not want to see it because they don´t want to be seen as wrong (because that meant punishment in schools) and continue to have their own opinion over being logicly applying math or current rule principels. Changing mind and admitting to be wrong is painfully to the human psyche it requires courage. Just admitted to be wrong in a different post recently, but I decided to be thankful to be corrected.

I stop posting now, as I learned if someone cannot see something or does not want to see something there is nothing I can do. Glad you do see it, that "do you have money/a dollar Dollar/Cunnning/Skill" is different from "who has more/less money/Dollar/Cunning/Skill" :)

Button line:
The current Rule Master BCSWowbagger also interprets its the following way (B). Please don´t let you confuse by posts (next one etc.) from armus who is just trying to spread doubts, trying to provoke and abusing rhetoric. Waiting for him to make up his mind and be constructive himselve is like waiting for corona to end ; )
@JeBuS @patrick @BCSWowbagger BCSWowbagger, @Klauser (and some others) thx for being constructive here by explaining how current rules/math work:)

"most+skill" is already clear in rules, its equal to Gorn Encounter (see dilemma resolution guide). Most/lowest in skill/attribute is comparison math (+X to -X), while having skill refers to 1x. See dollar in real life.

Solution: So I am for errata the dilemma to make it weaker (reword it to fit the intend of the creators) and keep the coherence of the current rules and math logic, as we play it currently correctly (B), that most treachery means: 0 treachery and 0 treachery is an equal tie for most treachery if no others
That way rules stay consistent AND the dilemma is weaker as many wished AND the designer have a chance to reword it to what they have intended it. WinWinWin
Last edited by ShipNerd on Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:20 pm, edited 12 times in total.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568375
ShipNerd wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:49 pm
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:37 pm
JeBuS wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:58 am A comparison is different than a check for precense.
I don't see how in the context of your numerical paradigm.
Yep a checking for presence is different then comparrsion.

I do see it. But I cannot make you see it Armus, yet I try once more, as truth is more important to me then subjective pseudo arguments.

Long version see my last post that I finished editing.

Short version: To get past requires Treachery = True if Treachery x1 or greater.
Most/lowest treachery means comparrsion +X Treachery to -X Treachery, including 0. Ties may be a result.
In terms of real life math:
Do you have Treachery = do you have Treachery x1 (or more)
Which personnel are most Treachery (> or < or equal then the other personnel can be the results). Which results in a sorted list of 1-X personnel for most treachery.

Anytime a card says most/lowest you compare the numbers. (greater >, smaller < or tie).
Anytime it just says Engineer it means Engineer = 1x.

Thats the simple version.
I get your argument. I think whether or not I agree with it depends on the answer to the fundamental question I posed:

Is having zero of a thing the same as not having a thing?

Logically I would think that those two things are equivalent, but in the context of 1e, maybe they aren't?
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568377
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:58 pm I get your argument. I think whether or not I agree with it depends on the answer to the fundamental question I posed:

Is having zero of a thing the same as not having a thing?

Logically I would think that those two things are equivalent, but in the context of 1e, maybe they aren't?
I'd say not having a thing is the same as having zero of a thing.

But when 1e does a presence check, it's for at least one of a thing.

Comparison checks are not the same as presence checks. The most or least of a thing can be zero. In the same way, if you had a personnel lose their [SD] , they'd still be eligible as the personnel with the fewest [SD].
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568380
ShipNerd wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:53 pm others (armus) might (subconsciously) not want to see it because they don´t want to be seen as wrong (because that meant punishment in schools) and continue to have their own opinion over being logicly applying math or current rule principels. Changing mind and admitting to be wrong is painfully to the human psyche it requires courage. Just admitted to be wrong in a different post recently, but I decided to be thankful to be corrected.

<snip>

Button line:
The current Rule Master BCSWowbagger also interprets its the following way (B). Please don´t let you confuse by posts (next one etc.) from armus who is just trying to spread doubts, trying to provoke and abusing rhetoric. Waiting for him to make up his mind and be constructive himselve is like waiting for corona to end ; )
@JeBuS @patrick @BCSWowbagger BCSWowbagger, @Klauser (and some others) thx for being constructive here by explaining how current rules/math work:)

"most+skill" is already clear in rules, its equal to Gorn Encounter (see dilemma resolution guide). Most/lowest in skill/attribute is comparison math (+X to -X), while having skill refers to 1x. See dollar in real life.
Wow... really?

Going with appeals to authority and ad hominems? That's some pretty week beer. You were on stronger ground with math and logic.

Still, I feel the need to address this:

James @BCSWowbagger is the Rules lead, but he's not the Rules dictator - far from it! And bluetext rulings like this one are temporary in nature, meaning the final word hasn't been laid down yet. And given that he's asking for community input in the OP of this thread, it strikes me that asking the "did we actually get this right?" Question and testing it against Devil's advocate arguments is exactly what we should be doing.

It's not about my ego (at least not this time! I'm not above an ego trip but this ain't it), but thanks for ascribing bad motives to me anyway, that's always fun... [/sarcasm] :thumbsdown:

Now that that's out of the way,

Let's talk about what's established in the Rules...

I think the most relevant section of the Glossary is the Target part of Dilemma resolution:

The very first sentence is:
The targets of a dilemma include the cards it affects (e.g., personnel selected to die)...
Ok so I hope we can all agree that the Most Cunning and Most Treachery personnel are targets of MH. That should be a safe premise.

Then we get to the part that everybody is citing:
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.
I'm pretty sure this is the basis for everyone's argument that 0 Treachery in the team = opponent's choice kill, which is consistent with B as defined in the OP.

But then there's this other part a little further down in the same entry:
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.
THIS passage, from the SAME GLOSSARY ENTRY would seem to go the other way with it and be consistent with A as defined in the OP.

So maybe it's not as obvious as it first appears.

If skills are features for Targets (as defined in the glossary entry above), then I'm not sure how B holds up. To the contrary, given the entirety of the Dilemma targeting entry in context, I'm now more convinced that A was correct all along and Design was on solid ground with their intent and wording when they made the card!

I say this as somebody who has played it using B even before the bluetext ruling came down, so if I was scared about being wrong, I'm really bad at it! :wink:
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568382
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:30 pm But then there's this other part a little further down in the same entry:
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.
THIS passage, from the SAME GLOSSARY ENTRY would seem to go the other way with it and be consistent with A as defined in the OP.

So maybe it's not as obvious as it first appears.

If skills are features for Targets (as defined in the glossary entry above), then I'm not sure how B holds up. To the contrary, given the entirety of the Dilemma targeting entry in context, I'm now more convinced that A was correct all along and Design was on solid ground with their intent and wording when they made the card!

I say this as somebody who has played it using B even before the bluetext ruling came down, so if I was scared about being wrong, I'm really bad at it! :wink:
The rule you quoted here is referring to a presence check, which the dilemma isn't doing. It's not checking if an attribute is present, it's checking what personnel has the most of an attribute. It's not targeting the attribute, it's targeting a mathematical result of the comparison of an attribute.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568384
@JeBuS just give Armus up? @Global moderators I think this thread is cycling for quite a while now, multipole People explaining the rules and armus calling "fake news" in different forms, that others feel a need to explain to others why their statement is correct and what he misintererpted. How about ending this loop? Personaly I do not feel the need to respond to armus or anything else, I made my point above to errata it. maybe calling it a day and close the thread? Sorry for staying in the loop for too long. put Armus on the ban list so it doesn't happen again.
Last edited by ShipNerd on Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568386
JeBuS wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:29 pm
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:30 pm But then there's this other part a little further down in the same entry:
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.
THIS passage, from the SAME GLOSSARY ENTRY would seem to go the other way with it and be consistent with A as defined in the OP.

So maybe it's not as obvious as it first appears.

If skills are features for Targets (as defined in the glossary entry above), then I'm not sure how B holds up. To the contrary, given the entirety of the Dilemma targeting entry in context, I'm now more convinced that A was correct all along and Design was on solid ground with their intent and wording when they made the card!

I say this as somebody who has played it using B even before the bluetext ruling came down, so if I was scared about being wrong, I'm really bad at it! :wink:
The rule you quoted here is referring to a presence check, which the dilemma isn't doing. It's not checking if an attribute is present, it's checking what personnel has the most of an attribute. It's not targeting the attribute, it's targeting a mathematical result of the comparison of an attribute.
The key words you're looking for isn't attribute. It's feature and target.

A skill is a feature of a personnel. So is an attribute. When you're facing a dilemma, you have to identify targets before you make selections. In the case of MH, you need to identify people with the feature of Cunning (basically everybody, minus anyone with NO CUNNING) and the feature of Treachery (which in the parlance of this thread would mean Treachery >0).

So to use your term, you do the 'presence' check FIRST, and only once you've identified what's a valid target, THEN you do the (again, to use your term) 'comparison' check to evaluate who has the most of each feature.

If I'm wrong, then I'm going to need somebody to explain to me what I missed in my reading of the Glossary entry.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#568387
JeBuS wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:29 pm The rule you quoted here is referring to a presence check, which the dilemma isn't doing. It's not checking if an attribute is present, it's checking what personnel has the most of an attribute. It's not targeting the attribute, it's targeting a mathematical result of the comparison of an attribute.
But how do you check how much of something exists without checking for the presence of that thing? Before you can ask "do you have the most NFL touchdowns this season", you have to ask "how many NFL touchdowns did you score?". And if you're asking a bunch of basketball players that question, I don't think the answer is "oh, they're all equally the best at scoring touchdowns", it's "you've asked a silly question".
:twocents:

edit: One related question - if we're saying that you get zeros for non-existent traits, so long as we're comparing, would that not mean that any time we look at "lowest attribute" (Q: Enter the Supernova, for example) the answer would always be zero, because you can say the ship has 0 CUNNING?
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568388
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:48 pmSo that's your Friday Question this week: how are you playing Misinterpreted History? (And do you have any strong opinions on how we should/shouldn't reword it?) We will make our decisions based on a variety of factors, but community input is hugely valuable.
I noticed I (and others) haven't actually answered the second question.

I have strong opinions on if it should be reworded: Yes, do it. :-) It clearly needs rewording as there is no consensus on how it currently works at all. (If there was no ruling, that is.)

I have less strong opinions on how it should be reworded. Even though I am in "camp B" on how I think it works as worded now, I feel like it should be reworded to do A, since that appears to make more thematic sense, it feels more balanced to me (still a great dilemma), and because that was the designers' intend.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#568389
AllenGould wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:20 pm it's "you've asked a silly question".
No, it's you've asked a stupid question.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation