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]
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 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!