#567982
I usually like the open-ended 1EFQ's, but the Rules Committee, Balance Team, and I actually need some concrete data from The World Of Players this week. So here goes:
What happens if you encounter Misinterpreted History while there is zero Treachery in the Away Team?
Misinterpreted History is one of the strongest dilemmas in the game. It has this gametext:
(A) If there is zero Treachery in the Away Team, you can't kill anyone with Treachery. You must kill highest CUNNING.
(B) If there is zero Treachery in the Away Team, then every member of the Away Team has 0 Treachery, which is "most Treachery." That means every member of the Away Team can be selected to die.
It has come to our attention that different playgroups are playing this card differently. I saw this firsthand at Worlds, where I saw different players quite comfortably using each interpretation. Interpretation B had usually never even occurred to most players who were using Interpretation A. When different playgroups are playing a card quite differently (without even realizing!), that's a problem, so the Rules Committee has investigated the issue.
The Rules Committee of 2019 ruled that interpretation B is correct. For what it's worth, I agree with their interpretation of the wording. The right way to play this card right now is, if zero Treachery is in Away Team, it targets everyone.
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. That aligns with the story of "The Omega Glory"... and also takes the edge off of what we recognized was already a pretty powerful dilemma.
We are considering clarifying errata for Misinterpreted History, which would make it clear to everyone how this card is supposed to be played. But we haven't firmly decided yet whether to follow the current official ruling (interpretation B) or Design's original intent (interpretation A). As always, we want to cause minimal disruption to playgroups worldwide when this card's text changes -- but we don't know which groups are using which interpretation!
So 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.
What happens if you encounter Misinterpreted History while there is zero Treachery in the Away Team?
Misinterpreted History is one of the strongest dilemmas in the game. It has this gametext:
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.There are two common ways of interpreting this:
(A) If there is zero Treachery in the Away Team, you can't kill anyone with Treachery. You must kill highest CUNNING.
(B) If there is zero Treachery in the Away Team, then every member of the Away Team has 0 Treachery, which is "most Treachery." That means every member of the Away Team can be selected to die.
It has come to our attention that different playgroups are playing this card differently. I saw this firsthand at Worlds, where I saw different players quite comfortably using each interpretation. Interpretation B had usually never even occurred to most players who were using Interpretation A. When different playgroups are playing a card quite differently (without even realizing!), that's a problem, so the Rules Committee has investigated the issue.
The Rules Committee of 2019 ruled that interpretation B is correct. For what it's worth, I agree with their interpretation of the wording. The right way to play this card right now is, if zero Treachery is in Away Team, it targets everyone.
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. That aligns with the story of "The Omega Glory"... and also takes the edge off of what we recognized was already a pretty powerful dilemma.
We are considering clarifying errata for Misinterpreted History, which would make it clear to everyone how this card is supposed to be played. But we haven't firmly decided yet whether to follow the current official ruling (interpretation B) or Design's original intent (interpretation A). As always, we want to cause minimal disruption to playgroups worldwide when this card's text changes -- but we don't know which groups are using which interpretation!
So 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.
Rules Manager | Official Rulings in blue. All else opinion. | Rules Archive
"We pledge our loyalty to the Glossary from now until death."
"Then receive this reward from the Glossary. May it keep you strong."
~Iron Prime
"We pledge our loyalty to the Glossary from now until death."
"Then receive this reward from the Glossary. May it keep you strong."
~Iron Prime