This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#568391
Professor Scott wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:24 pm
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.
No, because then it would nullify the issue.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568392
patrick wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:24 pm
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 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.
:thumbsup: that's sounds like back to topic for everyone to decide if they want the card reworded/errated etc or if they don´t mind. Already said yes to errata myselve for the same reasons Patrick did.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#568393
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:15 pm 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.
I don't believe that's the case. The targets aren't identified until the result of the comparison has been found. The personnel who don't fit in that group are not targets any more than the personnel with -1 Treachery are targets when a personnel with 1x is around. The comparison is the act of finding the targets. You don't have targets until after the comparison.

The feature isn't 'Treachery', it's 'most Treachery'.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#568396
ShipNerd wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:40 pm @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.
Armus is pointing out that it is legitimate to interpret the rules in ways that make either reading of Misinterpreted History defensible. This is a perfectly valid argument to make.

It is equally permissible to take a stance opposite Armus', as JeBuS is, and argue that the rules require a particular interpretation of Misinterpreted History.

(Goodness knows First Edition rules are a tangled mess!)

Even if this discussion is going in circles, that is far from being grounds for any sort of Moderational action; nobody in this discussion has crossed the line into being a jerk. (Though openly calling for a ban when none is warranted might come close, frankly--and in any case, even if I were to act here, nobody involved would receive anything more than a warning at this time.)

I will continue to keep an eye on this thread to see if it devolves into something thoroughly unproductive, but in the meantime I see no reason to lock it. Hopefully the vigorous discussion has given the relevant actors a number of good arguments to consider when making a final determination regarding any potential rules changes or clarifications, or issuing an erratum to Misinterpreted History.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#568424
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:48 pm
Personnel with highest CUNNING OR most Treachery is killed (opponent's choice). To get past requires Law and Archaeology OR Exobiology and 2 Leadership OR a President.
But the intention of the The Cage Design team (which, full disclosure, I was a member of) was interpretation A. No-Treachery Away Teams should have a slightly easier time dealing with this.

So that's your Friday Question this week: do you have any strong opinions on how we should reword it?
Personnel with highest CUNNING OR most Treachery is killed (opponent's choice if tie or none). To get past requires Law and Archaeology OR Exobiology and 2 Leadership OR a President.

Now it would be clearly B and no one has to know obscure skill check, presence or compare rulings.

I prefer A but do not know how to reword it, so that it fits the rules.
Maybe "lowest integrity Treachery" will do the job.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568427
patrick wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 9:53 am Wouldn't just adding "(if any)" behind "most Treachery" be enough to get A?

The gametext-box is already pretty full, though. So I think even that would need four lines. Fortunately the lore is only two lines.
Yeah if the conclusion is that clarifying errata is necessary to get to A, then a simple "(if any)" is probably the cleanest, most word-efficient way to do it.

I agree with Patrick and @Ensign Q , who I think had this suggestion back on page 1.

However, I would still like some clarification on why the current glossary entry doesn't get to A anyway. Maybe there's an opportunity to clean up the glossary entry as well...
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#568443
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:15 pm 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.
@Armus I would like to try to understand where you're coming from on this. Where does the thought come from that targets are 'identified' before targets are 'chosen'?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568444
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:07 am
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:15 pm 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.
@Armus I would like to try to understand where you're coming from on this. Where does the thought come from that targets are 'identified' before targets are 'chosen'?
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.

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.

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.

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.

So in the case where there's no Treachery in the team, you'd still get a stack of people with CUNNING (i.e., everybody) and evaluate who has the most, but you'd have an empty stack of Treachery, so there'd be no evaluation for who has the most.

This is consistent with the part of the Glossary entry that says "if a dilemma targets two things and only one is present, target that one."

Does that help clarify at all?
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568446
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:46 am

This is consistent with the part of the Glossary entry that says "if a dilemma targets two things and only one is present, target that one."

Does that help clarify at all?
Following the philosphie of JeBus to still see where armus is coming from:

So you say you play A, because you think there is no most treachery, if all have no treachery?

Whats your point of view, if an away team hits: The Clown: My Festival
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?cardID=2248 (team count needs to be among lowest integrity to highest integrity)
And Kivas Fajo is there (no integrity). (and 3 other personnel with integrity 4 each)
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?cardID=1529
Would Kivas Fajo be a "target" in your langaue to be the lowest integrity? Or would he not count for lowest integrity and only other personnel/targets with at least 1+ integrity would? Would you get past The Festival in the example with Kivas Fajo + 3 Personnel with integrity 4 each?

Edit: Or in case of Gorn Encounter and the Mortal Q and Toral example that Patrick re-used from my former posts, in his next post?
Last edited by ShipNerd on Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:13 am, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568447
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:46 am
JeBuS wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:07 am
Armus wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:15 pm 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.
@Armus I would like to try to understand where you're coming from on this. Where does the thought come from that targets are 'identified' before targets are 'chosen'?
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.

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.

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.

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.

So in the case where there's no Treachery in the team, you'd still get a stack of people with CUNNING (i.e., everybody) and evaluate who has the most, but you'd have an empty stack of Treachery, so there'd be no evaluation for who has the most.

This is consistent with the part of the Glossary entry that says "if a dilemma targets two things and only one is present, target that one."

Does that help clarify at all?
I think I understand your reasoning, but how would you handle it if it was Leadership instead of Treachery (like Gorn Encounter, although that one says "tie or none") when Mortal Q and/or Toral are (in) the away team?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568450
@ShipNerd , @patrick

In your example, I would argue that Kivas + 3 Int 4 personnel WOULD pass Clown, as both the Highest and Lowest Integrity is 4, but I'm not sure it would be a particularly useful illustration, as even if Kivas was treated as 0 Integrity, that same team would STILL pass Clown. :wink:

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.
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568454
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:27 am @ShipNerd , @patrick

In your example, I would argue that Kivas + 3 Int 4 personnel WOULD pass Clown, as both the Highest and Lowest Integrity is 4, but I'm not sure it would be a particularly useful illustration, as even if Kivas was treated as 0 Integrity, that same team would STILL pass Clown. :wink:
Doesn't that contradict this glossary entry

(I was actually hoping that section was going to say something like 'ignore "no integrity" for comparisons', because that would make it a lot clearer. (As in, we could just pretend any card without Treachery as saying "no treachery", to get to A.))
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568455
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?
Last edited by ShipNerd on Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:15 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#568456
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.

. Agree with Armus. A5A is the worst offender. G[…]

MN 2024 Gatherings

Tentatively I can do the 28th. :thumbsup:

The 2020 Project

We have a couple of more for the project today[…]

Currently, my achievement list shows that there'[…]