This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#569632
Agreed, I think most the above posts have been a battle of how the situation has been ruled in the past vs. how it appears they should have been ruled and why each side believes they are correct. I think we have all been simply awaiting @BCSWowbagger and the rules committee to decree which, if either, interpretation is correct. That still only determines how it is to be interpreted going forward. Once that it determined then we can discuss whether that interpretation needs to be changed.

Does blowing up your own shuttle makes sense in terms of the [Obj] ? Absolutely.

Do current ship battle rules support it? Perhaps not.

Should the Objective be errata'd to support this? Probably

Should ship battles be changed to forces and not players? Maybe

If not, should the player be able to play both sides in all ship battles? Probably not.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#569635
Do the current rules support the IM:AA/ Consolidate Power (aka Voyager cheese) combo? No. They clearly do not.

Are the current ship battle rules intuitive? Or do they even make sense? I would argue no, per my above reasoning.

Should they be changed to be more in line with the commonly- played understanding of how winning a battle works (and *is* already spelled out that way for personnel battles)? In my opinion, yes. Especially since you can't even blow up a Space Amoeba for GLORY if you want to use @WeAreBack 's trek sense reasoning, since the current rules don't even let you do *that*

Would that mean that Voyager cheese is back on the menu? Yes.

Is that bad? Not necessarily. It's a good deck, but it's hardly overpowered in the context of the game in which it exists. It's only been around during the eras of [22] dominance (2018-mid 2019) and [OS] dominance (mid 2019- present), and compared to those decks at their peak, Voyager cheese needed the cheese just to stay on par.

Is that the right power level for the game to be at? Probably not, but that's a MUCH larger conversation than can be covered by one rule and a few card interactions.

So now what? If there's "problem cards" that need to be addressed, address them directly. If you want to short-circuit Voyager cheese specifically, then address it either on Consolidate Power (require a win over an opponent's ship or [Self] card) or on IM:AA (require targeted ship to target an opponent's ship present).

Bottom line, the ship battle rules need changed as soon as practicable, and if the Balance Team (@SirDan , @JasonRed3 , &co.) Wants to look at the pieces of the combo to address it, they can do so.

My :twocents:
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#569636
DarkSabre wrote:. 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.
Except that in ship battle, "winner" isn't decided by the side, it's decided by the *player*.

So, if your two ships damage each other, you (the player) count up all your ships and facilities that took damage. And that would be *both* ships. There'd be a single "DarkSabre's ships and facilities took X damage" figure, and ties are called out as causing no winner *or* loser.

You could look at it from the other angle - in order to be the winner, you have to do more damage than the player you were in battle with. If there's no second player, there's no-one for you to have "won" against.

I actually think the text on personnel battle is wrong, in that it should also declare a player the "winner" as opposed to the force.
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#569640
WeAreBack wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:08 pm 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.
This right here is the most important thing. I think we can all agree regardless of what side we are on, that the rules need a little bit of clarification of what it means when you are battling your own cards.

Personnel battle actually says "force".

If I had to vote, I'd say battling your own ship shouldn't "pass" Consolidate Power, mainly because I think the point of this card is you took over a ship, now you are taking over a fleet (so two ships in a battle attacking an opponent's ship).

Either way you need to answer that question because if "yes, blowing up your own shuttle should pass CP" is the answer, you need the rules to clarify who the winner is when you battle your own cards. CP itself is probably fine.

If the answer is "No, blowing up your own shuttle should not pass CP", then CP may need an errata to say you have to defeat a force you don't control, or you can clarify in the rules that if you battle your own cards it is always a tie for hull damage given and received by you only (then you can't win).

I can't find any other cards that reference a winner in ship battle that is ambiguous and effected by this, except Data's Medals. Klingon Civil War calls out "opponent's" specifically.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#569641
Takket wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:01 pm
I can't find any other cards that reference a winner in ship battle that is ambiguous and effected by this, except Data's Medals. Klingon Civil War calls out "opponent's" specifically.
Ferengi Military Operations?

Not that anybody uses that card for that function, but it's there...
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#569643
Armus wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:06 pm
Takket wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:01 pm
I can't find any other cards that reference a winner in ship battle that is ambiguous and effected by this, except Data's Medals. Klingon Civil War calls out "opponent's" specifically.
Ferengi Military Operations?

Not that anybody uses that card for that function, but it's there...
yup! :thumbsup:
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#569645
WeAreBack wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:08 pm 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.
I don't have a deep position on this one way or the other, but I will say blowing up your own shuttlecraft feels more like the infighting and backstabbing assassinations that lead to being the Terran Emperor.

It's not about blowing up the biggest target, but inserting the right knife in the right back and the right time.


Plus, 99% of the time, if you battle your opponent or a [Self], you are not fighting the same affiliation as you are - which that's what becoming the leader of the Empire is about.

So from a purely Trek Sense POV, I kind of like the current situation better.

But all that said, I will shed no tears if it's changed.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#569674
Takket wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:07 pm
AllenGould wrote: I actually think the text on personnel battle is wrong, in that it should also declare a player the "winner" as opposed to the force.
but wouldn't that screw up Arbiter of Succession?
Arbiter doesn't care which player won, just which Klingon.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#569683
AllenGould wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:36 am
Takket wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:07 pm
AllenGould wrote: I actually think the text on personnel battle is wrong, in that it should also declare a player the "winner" as opposed to the force.
but wouldn't that screw up Arbiter of Succession?
Arbiter doesn't care which player won, just which Klingon.
I don't know who y'all play with up north, but in my experience, I've never had a game against an actual Klingon... :wink:
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#569684
The whole Ship Battle Rulebook entry must be rewritten, as it is not designed to deal with fights with own ships.
The Rulebook says in the Control and ownership entry: Similarly, the word "opponent's" is used as shorthand for cards your opponent controls.

:thumbsup: Good.

The Ship Battle entry talks from players, enemies, opponents, participants...

For example, when I am attacking my own force (another synonym), maybe 2 of my ships attack one of my ships, I can do steps 1 Declaration and 2 Initiation (I assume) and 3 Responses. Step 4 Tactics gives us the first problem. The rules say "Each player who has a Battle Bridge side deck may draw one or two Tactic cards from the top of that side deck." I could say there is only 1 player (me) and I will use the tactic for the attacker or the defender.
Step 5 Open Fire is easy. Step 6 Return Fire is talking about a defending player. Am I in this scenario a defendeing player? Maybe the entry should use the word Defender instead.
Step 7 Damage is a complete mess. "If you scored a hit or direct hit on your opponent's ship or facility, apply damage as follows:..." According to the Ship battle rules I cannot do damage. There is no Opponent in our Scenario. The enemy is me, because I control the attacked card.

Even IF I would damage my own ship, to complicate the whole thing now the DAMAGE Rule kicks in, and the OPPONENT would be the one to place HIS damage marks on my ships or do default damage.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#569686
Armus wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:48 pm I don't know who y'all play with up north, but in my experience, I've never had a game against an actual Klingon... :wink:
Been telling y'all for over a decade, our meta is weird...
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#569697
Not that my opinion carries much weight but I'll chime in quickly in case the RC wants to know what I think:

- Both battle types should be force not player for cleanliness in rules and other existing cards.
- Prior rulings were apparently wrong
- But it should be allowed to happen via rules/errata (see above)
- the deck in question is not super powerful and should be allowed to exist, it's exactly the kind of good but great there should be more of...
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#569853
For now:

The winner of a ship battle (for the purposes of cards like Data's Medals) is the force (not the player) whose ships and facilities sustained the least HULL damage.

In other words: IM:AA + Consolidate Power still works.

Discussion:

WeAreBack presented a textual argument (supported by JeBuS) that, under current rules text, it is not possible to "win" a battle against your own cards. Therefore, Consolidate Power + IM:AA does not work. We all found this textual argument convincing, and recognized that, if we took no action, T.D.s would have to immediately start using this ruling, because it is the best interpretation of the current text.

However, we aren't currently convinced that the current text is either

[a] what Decipher actually intended this text to mean (Decipher often forgot edge cases when writing rules),

[ b ] intuitive, or

[c] good gameplay.

(We have a consensus on [a] but not [ b ] or [c].)

So, while we discuss those issues among ourselves and probably with Design, we are bluetexting this. This bluetext directly overrides the questionable rule so that the currently accepted gameplay continues to work.

We may still end up reversing it, but y'all needed a ruling now and we're siding with the status quo while we discuss.

Okay, let me do my boilerplate now:

This ruling is official. It is binding in all sanctioned events, and it supersedes any and all contrary rulings by tournament directors, effective immediately. (Games already played are unaffected.)

This ruling is temporary. It is not fully fleshed-out, does not use final wording, and may be completely reversed in a regular First Monday rules update. If not resolved by the next First Monday (February 7th 2022), it will be published in the Glossary's Temporary Rulings section as part of its monthly update.


As with all temporary rulings, we hope and plan to reach a final resolution in weeks, not years.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]