[BCSWowbagger]

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:

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.

[JeBuS]

(B)

[The Ninja Scot]

B

[Iron Prime]

B

[KazonPADD]

B

[MidnightLich]

I only play it as B because that's how I was told it works. I think it should be A. As a member of The Cage's design team, I intended it to be A.

-crp

[jadziadax8]

I've been playing it as B because I was aware of the ruling. However, I would support clarifying errata to bring it in line with the designers' intention.

[AllenGould]

A, because it doesn't have the "opponent's choice if tied or none" text that Gorn Encounter and the other cards that care about "most skill" has.

Not surprised that everyone prefers seeding the "B" version, since it's strictly better.

[ShipNerd]

I played B because that the one "everyone" or everyone I know plays it.

For the sake of balance it would be great if it would be played A.

Now when I thought about it what the rules say, according to current glossary, I would still come to the conclusion that B would be more congruent.

Basicly of how a NO INTEGRITY of Palor Toff is handled. Its considered to be 0 Integrity, but cannot be modified.

https://www.trekcc.org/op/1e_rulebook/G ... -attribute
If that is how an undefined attribute work, I would use it as a template for an undefined (non-existent) skill.

So a personal without Treachery is a Skill I consider 0 Treachery for comparing of how many Treachery that personal has, thus equal to other non-treachery personnel. And not modifiable by doubling etc.

The missing of "opponents choice of none or tie" is not an argument for or against A or B. . Misinterpreting History is simply using the default ruling from the Glossary "tie".
When it comes to Toral Leadership x1/2 (0.5) its not enough to be be a leader for initiating attack, as requiring Leadership is short for having 1.0 Leadership or more. but I would say its more Leadership then 0 leadership for "Most leadership" on the Gorn Encounter (see Dilemma resolution guide: "No Leadership is greater than Leadership -1." so 1/2 is more then 0. Alien Encounter says Most Connung but "owners choice if tie", so it depends on the dilemma what is used when there is a tie. If the dilemma does not specify, like Misinterpred History (in comparison to Gorn Encounter and Alien Encounter who have 2 different solutions), the solution is stated in the glossary: ties
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 (unless the dilemma states otherwise). See selections.

So if rules are changed regarding to Misinterpreted History that would make sense to me to leave the same logic as undefined attribute for rule consistency. B.

So it could be done by ruling or errata.

How to do Errata is clear, if that is wanted:
"OR most Treachery (but at least x1)"

if its fixed via rules I would add the clarification that "most Treachery" referees to "most 1.0 Treachery" or "most Treachery x1" and that skills in dilemmas always refer to level 1.0. That way it would work to make it A. Then Toral would no longer be "most leadership" for Gorn Encounter as he is not the most leadership x1.0.

I´d prefer errata. Because that way the current rules stay consistent in my qualified opinion.

[Hoss-Drone]

I played it A at the beginning because I was aware of how it was intended but suspected it was B and was not surprised when it was ruled B.

[jjh]

I'm pretty sure I've always played it (incorrectly?) as A.

[Ensign Q]

B

it needs "most treachery (if any)" to work as A

[BanditKeith]

This is, of course, extremely naive, but: given the general "Guess Who" nature of the away team rules, aren't there situations where I, as the opponent, wouldn't have any idea whether or not there was any Treachery in that away team? So I name the Treachery option (since I'm trying to weed them out because I know there's a wall dilemma coming up that will require it) and then the active player has to reveal their away team and say "oops, there's no valid target, you have to pick the CUNNING option instead"? That's how I would have understood it before I read this thread.

[Takket]

B - and that was explained to me by the previous rules guru the first time I ever encountered this card, and that made perfect sense to me as the card was written.

[jadziadax8]

This is, of course, extremely naive, but: given the general "Guess Who" nature of the away team rules, aren't there situations where I, as the opponent, wouldn't have any idea whether or not there was any Treachery in that away team? So I name the Treachery option (since I'm trying to weed them out because I know there's a wall dilemma coming up that will require it) and then the active player has to reveal their away team and say "oops, there's no valid target, you have to pick the CUNNING option instead"? That's how I would have understood it before I read this thread.

You get to see everyone before you make the choice.