This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569603
JeBuS wrote: The rules say that in the first sentence, which I'll repeat for effect, emphasis mine (and others).

The winner of a ship battle (for the purposes of cards like Data's Medals) is the player whose ships and facilities sustained the least HULL damage.
For which I'll say again that since the battle becomes one side vs one side then the attacking player and the defending player are considered two separate sides and one of them wins while the other loses. It doesn't become a tie.

Because it doesn't say WHICH player but rather THE player meaning, IMO the player who was attacking vs the player who was defending. Until the whole entire battle is completed, which includes damage and finding a winner if there is one, the sides are separate and you can name a winner in that instance.

You are welcome to your interpretation but it isn't any less valid than mine unless BCW makes a clear ruling over this issue.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569604
BCSWowbagger wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:15 pm Yep. A compelling textual argument vs. a very well-established precedent is a classic recipe for T.D. confusion and conflict, so that got my attention.
It's also the very archaic Decipher wording from probably very early in the game and the fact that personnel battle was a higher priority than ship battle.

I'm really going to enjoy your breakdown of this rule.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#569605
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:22 pm
JeBuS wrote: The rules say that in the first sentence, which I'll repeat for effect, emphasis mine (and others).

The winner of a ship battle (for the purposes of cards like Data's Medals) is the player whose ships and facilities sustained the least HULL damage.
For which I'll say again that since the battle becomes one side vs one side then the attacking player and the defending player are considered two separate sides and one of them wins while the other loses. It doesn't become a tie.

Because it doesn't say WHICH player but rather THE player meaning, IMO the player who was attacking vs the player who was defending. Until the whole entire battle is completed, which includes damage and finding a winner if there is one, the sides are separate and you can name a winner in that instance.

You are welcome to your interpretation but it isn't any less valid than mine unless BCW makes a clear ruling over this issue.
At no point do the rules suggest that the player develop multiple personality disorder, clone theirself, or use bodily temporal displacement to become multiple players. That alone disqualifies your logical train of thought. A player is only a single player in this game's rules.

I believe your argument is baseless in the rules.

That being said, your argument has the weight of historical baggage behind it, being that it's the way folks have played it. So it does have a basis there.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569608
JeBuS wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:27 pm
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:22 pm
JeBuS wrote: The rules say that in the first sentence, which I'll repeat for effect, emphasis mine (and others).

The winner of a ship battle (for the purposes of cards like Data's Medals) is the player whose ships and facilities sustained the least HULL damage.
For which I'll say again that since the battle becomes one side vs one side then the attacking player and the defending player are considered two separate sides and one of them wins while the other loses. It doesn't become a tie.

Because it doesn't say WHICH player but rather THE player meaning, IMO the player who was attacking vs the player who was defending. Until the whole entire battle is completed, which includes damage and finding a winner if there is one, the sides are separate and you can name a winner in that instance.

You are welcome to your interpretation but it isn't any less valid than mine unless BCW makes a clear ruling over this issue.
At no point do the rules suggest that the player develop multiple personality disorder, clone theirself, or use bodily temporal displacement to become multiple players. That alone disqualifies your logical train of thought. A player is only a single player in this game's rules.

I believe your argument is baseless in the rules.

That being said, your argument has the weight of historical baggage behind it, being that it's the way folks have played it. So it does have a basis there.
We will have to agree to disagree. I do believe my argument is firmly in the rules. You are free to disagree with me but how you are talking during this discussion is not correct at all. Stating I ignore the rules or my argument is baseless is a very low passive-aggressive stance to take.

I forgot how toxic this board had become.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#569610
JeBuS wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:27 pm
That being said, your argument has the weight of historical baggage behind it, being that it's the way folks have played it. So it does have a basis there.
I think it's more than mere "historical baggage" - while I don't at all disagree with the conclusion that you cant win a battle against yourself in this game based on the text of the rule, I think it's a really dumb rule - ESPECIALLY in light of the [Self] interaction. Players don't battle, ships and personnel do (in fact a player battle would probably result in at least one if not multiple disqualifications under the tournament code of conduct!).

Aligning the ship battle rule with the personnel battle rule, which looks at "Forces" vs. "Players" would be both more intuitive AND more consistent with current rules conventions.

But props to @WeAreBack for pointing this little nugget out and starting the discussion... I definitely learned something today! :cheersL:

Now to start cracking that 4-in-4-with-4 code... :shifty:
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#569611
Armus wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:38 pm
JeBuS wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:27 pm
That being said, your argument has the weight of historical baggage behind it, being that it's the way folks have played it. So it does have a basis there.
I think it's more than mere "historical baggage" - while I don't at all disagree with the conclusion that you cant win a battle against yourself in this game based on the text of the rule,
There is no defensible argument based on the rules to conclude that it works in any other way. Therefore, the weight of the argument is in the historical baggage that some people have been playing it incorrectly (as written in the rules).
I think it's a really dumb rule - ESPECIALLY in light of the [Self] interaction. Players don't battle, ships and personnel do (in fact a player battle would probably result in at least one if not multiple disqualifications under the tournament code of conduct!).

Aligning the ship battle rule with the personnel battle rule, which looks at "Forces" vs. "Players" would be both more intuitive AND more consistent with current rules conventions.

But props to @WeAreBack for pointing this little nugget out and starting the discussion... I definitely learned something today! :cheersL:

Now to start cracking that 4-in-4-with-4 code... :shifty:
This I agree with. I think the rule can happily be changed to say that the "force" wins.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#569612
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:35 pm We will have to agree to disagree. I do believe my argument is firmly in the rules. You are free to disagree with me but how you are talking during this discussion is not correct at all. Stating I ignore the rules or my argument is baseless is a very low passive-aggressive stance to take.

I forgot how toxic this board had become.
Again, I'll tell you that I'm not arguing against a person. I'm arguing against the logic you applied to your argument. The only way to get to your conclusion is to ignore a clearly written rule. Since that is the case, the argument has no basis in rules. And so an argument to be contrary to the rules should come from some other direction. Namely, that it's a dumb rule that should be changed.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569613
JeBuS wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:43 pm
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:35 pm We will have to agree to disagree. I do believe my argument is firmly in the rules. You are free to disagree with me but how you are talking during this discussion is not correct at all. Stating I ignore the rules or my argument is baseless is a very low passive-aggressive stance to take.

I forgot how toxic this board had become.
Again, I'll tell you that I'm not arguing against a person. I'm arguing against the logic you applied to your argument. The only way to get to your conclusion is to ignore a clearly written rule. Since that is the case, the argument has no basis in rules. And so an argument to be contrary to the rules should come from some other direction. Namely, that it's a dumb rule that should be changed.
I don't see the rule clearly written as you do since it doesn't define the player and specifies that there are sides to a battle. I do think the concept of multiple away teams on a planet could be made to apply here (multiple away teams vs multiple sides to a battle even though owned by the same player) I'll admit it is a weak argument and it is focused on a specific wording but that's how rules discussions are.

But remember you are talking to another person and I do not find it okay how you have treated me during this discussion. It doesn't cost anything to be kind and courteous to others.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#569616
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:58 pm
JeBuS wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:43 pm
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:35 pm We will have to agree to disagree. I do believe my argument is firmly in the rules. You are free to disagree with me but how you are talking during this discussion is not correct at all. Stating I ignore the rules or my argument is baseless is a very low passive-aggressive stance to take.

I forgot how toxic this board had become.
Again, I'll tell you that I'm not arguing against a person. I'm arguing against the logic you applied to your argument. The only way to get to your conclusion is to ignore a clearly written rule. Since that is the case, the argument has no basis in rules. And so an argument to be contrary to the rules should come from some other direction. Namely, that it's a dumb rule that should be changed.
I don't see the rule clearly written as you do since it doesn't define the player and specifies that there are sides to a battle.
Before I dive too deeply into this, I'll ask this question: Do you have any evidence that the rules of the game, as written, allow a single player to be more than one player?
I do think the concept of multiple away teams on a planet could be made to apply here (multiple away teams vs multiple sides to a battle even though owned by the same player) I'll admit it is a weak argument and it is focused on a specific wording but that's how rules discussions are.
I think the concept of multiple forces should be applied to the rule if it's being rewritten in the future. Unfortunately, because the personnel battle and ship battle rules are completely disparate and defined in their own rules, the personnel battle rules do not apply at all to the current situation. (Except, as I said, as a guide for future rules changes.)
But remember you are talking to another person and I do not find it okay how you have treated me during this discussion. It doesn't cost anything to be kind and courteous to others.
You are being treated exactly as I would treat anyone worthy of debating. Your arguments are being refuted in detail, as is custom in debate. You must provide support to each assertion you make and refute each assertion you do not agree with.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569619
JeBuS wrote:Before I dive too deeply into this, I'll ask this question: Do you have any evidence that the rules of the game, as written, allow a single player to be more than one player?
Nowhere did I say that you are becoming more than one player. I am saying that you are the player on both sides of the battle and therefore at the end of the battle you are both the player of the side that won and the player of the side that lost. Until the battle is over and everything is declared there are still two separate sides and one of those sides is going to be the winner and the other is going to be the loser, unless its an actual tie in terms of damage considered.

I admit it's a weak argument. But it is an argument based on the exact wording of the rule as I am reading it. Just because you disagree with it or find it without merit doesn't mean you can become come across as a toxic individual to someone else on these boards.
You are being treated exactly as I would treat anyone worthy of debating. Your arguments are being refuted in detail, as is custom in debate. You must provide support to each assertion you make and refute each assertion you do not agree with.
No, you are being toxic and argumentative because you are acting that you are the only person who can be correct. You are being as bad as any person on this board that has been accused of toxic behavior IMO. If you do not mean to come across like that then perhaps you need to reassess how you are replying to people on an online forum.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#569621
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:29 pm
JeBuS wrote:Before I dive too deeply into this, I'll ask this question: Do you have any evidence that the rules of the game, as written, allow a single player to be more than one player?
Nowhere did I say that you are becoming more than one player. I am saying that you are the player on both sides of the battle...
If you are only one player, then when you determine how much damage you as a player have sustained in a battle, how do you do it? Keeping in mind that you are only one player and all of the ships that took part in the battle were yours, what rules would you quote to support the argument that you are not getting one total, and only one total, to do a comparison with?
and therefore at the end of the battle you are both the player of the side that won and the player of the side that lost.
Again, I agree that the (one) player is both sides of the battle. However, the rule states that the winner is determined by the player (and you've admitted there is only one player), who sustained the least damage. Sides and forces don't matter in determining the winner, only total damage sustained.
Until the battle is over and everything is declared there are still two separate sides and one of those sides is going to be the winner and the other is going to be the loser, unless its an actual tie in terms of damage considered.
There is nothing to suggest that "sides" win. The player wins. The 2nd sentence simply declares that if the sides are equal in damage, they tie and there is no winner or loser. It does not state that sides that are unequal result in a winner and loser. It is a logical fallacy to conclude so.
I admit it's a weak argument. But it is an argument based on the exact wording of the rule as I am reading it. Just because you disagree with it or find it without merit doesn't mean you can become come across as a toxic individual to someone else on these boards.
I have given every one of your arguments here my full and complete attention. I have not once called you any sort of names or applied any sort of label to you. But that is what you do to me, and that is well outside the bounds of customary and civil debate.
You are being treated exactly as I would treat anyone worthy of debating. Your arguments are being refuted in detail, as is custom in debate. You must provide support to each assertion you make and refute each assertion you do not agree with.
No, you are being toxic and argumentative because you are acting that you are the only person who can be correct. You are being as bad as any person on this board that has been accused of toxic behavior IMO. If you do not mean to come across like that then perhaps you need to reassess how you are replying to people on an online forum.
Being argumentative is the point of a debate. While I agree with your sentiment that the rules shouldn't be what they are, I wholeheartedly disagree with the logic you have used to support the claim that the rules support the effect you desire. And I also take umbrage with the idea that as a Tournament Director, you would use what I can only conclude is logic based on ignoring the rules.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#569624
I will point out that one of you has called the other toxic, and that other has done nothing of the sort. I leave you both to determine which of you is which.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569628
We will just have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and it’s a shame that you can’t respect someone else’s or seem to have to belittle them over it. Have a good night JeBuS.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#569629
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:59 pm We will just have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and it’s a shame that you can’t respect someone else’s or seem to have to belittle them over it. Have a good night JeBuS.
I am confused how you can call someone else toxic, and yet they are the one that is belittling?

For the record, I believe you both made valid points, and I happen to be inclined towards @JeBuS's interpretation. You both pointed out that the rules should not be the way they are, however he has refuted all your points as you have his and are at an impasse. I don't feel he said anything to promote your calling him toxic, and the very fact that you did is the toxic behavior that your are speaking out against.

Perhaps you can be the same player and both win and loose. #smh
User avatar
 
By WeAreBack
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#569630
So I’m going to admit that in my real life, I’m an appellate attorney and debating what rules is basically what I do for a living.

My view is that rule text is going to win over some prior rulings.

But I’m also going to ask the question the lawyer asks when you asks what 2+2 is: “What do you want the answer to be?”

So, what do we want the answer to this rules question to be as a community?

Do we want people scoring 40 points and getting 4 card draws a turn by destroying their own shuttlecraft?
I don’t think we do.

I’m also a huge Star Trek nerd, and I like when the game has some trek sense. And if someone asks “So what did you do to become the leader of the Terran Empire?” it makes sense that the answer is at least a little impressive.

Blowing up your own shuttlecraft feels like more of a Zap Branningan move — or even a Ben Finney, Nick Locarno, Tom Paris move that ruins your career— than an important stepping stone to being the leader of a major power.

Even if all you did was blow up a Space Amoeba, that’s at least something to brag about when you’ve secured your homeworld.
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[…]