This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#568034
Klauser wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:49 pm A. And honestly missed the discussion on this interpretation.
It's pretty simple, really. If everyone has 1x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them. If they all have 0x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them.
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#568037
B, because I'm aware of the ruling that ruled it so.

So to be clear, this question isn't measuring which option isn't more intuitive, it's measuring people's awareness of the ruling.

I think it's fine to errata the text to A, although I would say that would make it substantially easier (not just slightly easier) for non-Treachery decks.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#568039
I, and at first we, played it A because when there is no one, I cannot choose one. Even at my last worlds in Vienne I played it A until there were some others from the US that told me it is B. So we played it A or B. After worlds we played it B.

I'am still for A
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#568063
I have only played it B as I was aware of the ruling and so has all of my opponents when this card was used.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#568069
PantsOfTheTalShiar wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:25 am So to be clear, this question isn't measuring which option isn't more intuitive, it's measuring people's awareness of the ruling.
TBH, I don't mind hearing everyone's opinion "on the merits", too. That's helpful.

But I believed if I didn't strongly emphasize the "are you aware?" part, the thread would be nothing but opinions.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568075
BanditKeith wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:11 pm 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.
If it’s an opponents choice, you are allowed to see the entire away team, just fwiw. It’s really never a game of guess who for this reason. If it’s a random you do not, and of course they have to verify passing requirements.
 
By Klauser
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568345
JeBuS wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:07 am
Klauser wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:49 pm A. And honestly missed the discussion on this interpretation.
It's pretty simple, really. If everyone has 1x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them. If they all have 0x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them.
No argument - what you say makes sense. Everyone in our playing group went with what we THOUGHT it said rather than what it ACTUALY said.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568346
Klauser wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:59 pm
JeBuS wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:07 am
Klauser wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:49 pm A. And honestly missed the discussion on this interpretation.
It's pretty simple, really. If everyone has 1x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them. If they all have 0x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them.
No argument - what you say makes sense. Everyone in our playing group went with what we THOUGHT it said rather than what it ACTUALY said.
Actually, I think I will argue this point, because it has me thinking...

If what @JeBuS describes is the basis for how MH works, why does Zaldan ever discard for lack of target? If nobody in the away team has Diplomacy, then wouldn't any away team member be eligible to be killed?

If having zero Treachery counts for having the most Treachery, why wouldn't having zero Diplomacy count as a Diplomacy personnel?

The implicit assumption in the argument is that every personnel has every skill, even if it's at the x0 level. If that's true, then there's never a case where somebody isn't a valid target for any dilemma targeting a specific skill.

Given the context of the rest of the cards in the game, I'm really starting to question whether or not B is the correct read after all...
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#568351
Well "most" makes you compare all the personnel to each other, as opposed to the "normal" method of just searching for targets. Zaldan just cares if a personnel has Diplomacy. It doesn't care whether or not anyone else does.

Whereas MH doesn't actually care if a personnel has treachery, just whether it has more or less than the last one you looked at.

How much treachery do you have Picard? 0? okay. Who's next. Riker? You also have 0, okay you are tied with Picard. Crusher, also 0? etc etc........ No one gets eliminated as a target until you find someone with Treachery.

Searching there are two other cards that reference the most of some skill

Alice
Gorn Encounter

Both of those actually tell you what to do if there is "none"

But here is where this might break down.........

Make Us Go
Unscientific Method

On Make Us Go......... if I have no Engineer........ is not the "most cunning engineer" simply the person with the most cunning and engineer x0??? Yet this card has always been played that if you have no engineer, you are stopped.........
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568356
Takket wrote:But here is where this might break down.........

Make Us Go
Unscientific Method

On Make Us Go......... if I have no Engineer........ is not the "most cunning engineer" simply the person with the most cunning and engineer x0??? Yet this card has always been played that if you have no engineer, you are stopped.........
I don't see a problem for these two. They are just combinations of the other rules.
You grab all your SCIENCE/ENGINEER personnel (meaning at least 1 SCIENCE/ENGINEER), and check who has the "most" cunning. (Even if they all have 0 cunning.)
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#568358
JeBuS wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:07 am
It's pretty simple, really. If everyone has 1x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them. If they all have 0x Treachery, they all have the same amount of Treachery, so you get to choose from all of them.
Oh yes! Really? I like that logic.

Archer
Away Team member with highest total attribute numbers is shot and dies unless SECURITY and MEDICAL present. Discard dilemma.

Following your "Zero is a number rule" no one will ever die. I can show you 0 SECURITY and 0 MEDICAL if neccesary. The dilemma does not say "show me at least 1 SECURITY and 1 MEDICAL. :shifty:
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568364
I agree with Jesbus, here that when it comes to comparrions (lowest/highest) refers to a number game. I agree to Enabran, that when a dilemma requires/refers to a skill (without lowest/hightest) it refers to x1.

So it depends on the reference:

Do you have a dollar refers to $1.
Do you have more or less $ then your friend compares numbers +X to -X, with all the decemals like $0.5, $0, -0.5$ etc.

@JeBuS logic applies correctly to comparrsion.
@Enabran Be clear if a dilemma requires a skill/attributes OR compares an attriubtes/skill, you mixed them up and used jesbus logic in a totally different scenario.

Nooone would seriously claim that Unless ENGINEER refers to 0 ENGINEER. Noone would seriously claim Kivas Fajo who has No Integrity (=0) therefore not less then 5 for firestorm.
0 is less then 5 and equal to another persons 0.
Requring / having / reloacting (a) ENGINEER = ENGINEER 1x,
less/more/weakeset/strongest/highest/lowest = comparrsion +X to -X, including 0 and decimals. It applies both to comparrison attributes and skills depending on what the dilemma stats.

To me a dilemma or rule requiring skill referees to x1 (Leadership x1 for initiate battle, Toral doesn´t have it, only Leadership x1/2 (0.5)). most or lowest refers to the math of comparison +X to -X, so including 0, decimals and negative numbers, like Toral has more Leadership then someone with 0 leadership, mortal q has less leadership (-1) then someone with 0 leadership. while a leader (leadership x1) is needed for battle or for dilemmas requiring leadership).

Make us go: refers to: (most+cunning) engineer, so it refers to having ENGINEER (x1), with most+cunning (compare +X to -X). The most refers to attributes here, not to the skill! Edit: While skills may be negative, attributes are limited to 0. "Attributes may not be reduced to less than 0" Yet 0 cunning is still less then 1 cunning and 1 Cunning ties 1 Cunning and 0 Cunning ties 0 Cunning. Of course to get past requires (a) engineer on dilemmas refers to Engineer x1, if not referred to as "most/lowest" (which means comparison by numbers both for skills/attributes, depending on what the dilemma says). Always be clear if Most/Lowest refers to the attribute or the Skill. In make us go the comparison refers to the attribute cunning.

The most on Misinterpred HIstory refers to Skill/Treachery, therefore to +X to -X Treachery, like who has more/less $Money or more/less attributeCunning.

In the aspect of "most" + "Skill" Misinterpred History is equal to Gorn Encounter, which is already part of the rules (Dilemma guide):
"GORN ENCOUNTER [P]
Locate Away Team member with most Leadership. ...
No Leadership is greater than Leadership -1."

There is a difference in Gorn encounter, that Allen and other state:
(opponent's choice if tie or
none).
and
Misinterped history:
(opponent's choice)

But that is part of the freedom of the choice-paramater in dilemmas. In Gorn encounter its only opponents choice if tie or none. In Misinterpted history its always opponents choice (tie, none, or otherwise). A dilemma that does not specifies what happens in case of a tie (e.g. The Cytherians, "far" end of speceiline") and equal / tied span for "far", is not defined and the rules in the glossary state what to do "see ties".

Button line: The difference in gorn encounter and misinterpred history is about who chooses when, not in the determination of "most+skill". So don´t bother. most/lowest refers to comparison math, while unless/to get past/reloactes ENGNINEER refers to Engineer x1
"most+skill" is already clear, its equal to Gorn Encounter. Most/lowest in skill/attribute is comparison math (+X to -X), while having skill refers to 1x. See dollar in real life.

. So I am for errata the dilemma to make it weaker and keep the coherence of the current rules, as we play it correctly, that most treachery means: 0 treachery and 0 treachery is an equal tie for most treachery if no others
Last edited by ShipNerd on Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:43 pm, edited 27 times in total.
Question for noob

I still think I'm misunderstanding TMW. By saying […]

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the[…]

Hey all, we are running a "Warum-up" fo[…]