This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
North American OP Coordinator
By The Ninja Scot (Michael Van Breemen)
 - North American OP Coordinator
 -  
1E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E World Champion 2023
Tribbles World Champion 2022
The Traveler
1E North American Continental Champion 2023
2E North American Continental Champion 2023
  Trek Masters 1E Champion 2024
1E American National Champion 2023
1E Canadian National Champion 2023
2E Canadian National Champion 2023
2E  National Runner-Up 2023
2E American National Second Runner-Up 2023
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
2E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
#581940
So,

Here's a thought I've been working through - If there are multiple different affiliations present that are working together without a treaty (for example, Children of the Light would a possible infiltrator have to be Non-Aligned if there's Hirogen, Federation, Cardassian, etc. holograms together? As far as I know, Non-Aligned would be the only option but I just wanted to double-check.

Michael,
having random Trek thoughts at work
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#581947
non alligned works. part of why NA infiltrators are so dangerous.

Although you can also use an alligned infiltrator to create house arrest fun
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#581975
Keep in mind that the [NA] infiltrator has to see [NA] to begin infiltrating.
The Glossary wrote: If your opponent has not played or seeded face-up a card of that affiliation or faction, you may not infiltrate their cards with that personnel. See faction.
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#582045
Dukat wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:23 am I do not get it ... are you talking about infiltrators or intruders?
Infiltrators, but this came up in a game where I sent my Martok founder to my opponent's empty KCA outpost.

Since he was [Kli] he could go there, but since he wasnt [KCA] my opponent's non- [Kli] or [NA] KCA could no lonter enter the facility because it would create a compatibility problem
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#582048
pfti wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:42 am
Dukat wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:23 am I do not get it ... are you talking about infiltrators or intruders?
Infiltrators, but this came up in a game where I sent my Martok founder to my opponent's empty KCA outpost.

Since he was [Kli] he could go there, but since he wasnt [KCA] my opponent's non- [Kli] or [NA] KCA could no lonter enter the facility because it would create a compatibility problem
Is that correct? This bit in the glossary has me wondering...
If an incompatibility situation arises where your infiltrator would be placed under house arrest by your opponent, the infiltrator may choose to be exposed instead.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#582050
Armus wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:55 am
pfti wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:42 am
Dukat wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:23 am I do not get it ... are you talking about infiltrators or intruders?
Infiltrators, but this came up in a game where I sent my Martok founder to my opponent's empty KCA outpost.

Since he was [Kli] he could go there, but since he wasnt [KCA] my opponent's non- [Kli] or [NA] KCA could no lonter enter the facility because it would create a compatibility problem
Is that correct? This bit in the glossary has me wondering...
If an incompatibility situation arises where your infiltrator would be placed under house arrest by your opponent, the infiltrator may choose to be exposed instead.
I think the point was that since the Klingon Empire Outpost was empty and Martok Founder entered first, the cards going under house arrest would have been the opponent's cards, not the infiltrator.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#582053
Professor Scott wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:10 am
Armus wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:55 am
pfti wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:42 am

Infiltrators, but this came up in a game where I sent my Martok founder to my opponent's empty KCA outpost.

Since he was [Kli] he could go there, but since he wasnt [KCA] my opponent's non- [Kli] or [NA] KCA could no lonter enter the facility because it would create a compatibility problem
Is that correct? This bit in the glossary has me wondering...
If an incompatibility situation arises where your infiltrator would be placed under house arrest by your opponent, the infiltrator may choose to be exposed instead.
I think the point was that since the Klingon Empire Outpost was empty and Martok Founder entered first, the cards going under house arrest would have been the opponent's cards, not the infiltrator.
I get the logic, I just don't necessarily agree with it. The glossary says I can't voluntarily create a House Arrest situation with my cards.
Personnel under house arrest may not staff a ship, attempt missions, participate in battle, etc. (See present.) You place under house arrest only cards you control - never your opponent's intruders, captives, etc. House arrest may also occur when you acquire an incompatible personnel aboard a ship (e.g., from a Cryosatellite or The Naked Truth). However, you may not voluntarily place your personnel in a house arrest situation. For example, without a treaty, you may not report a Klingon to a Romulan Outpost or Romulan headquarters (or to a Neutral Outpost where you have Romulans present), beam your Klingons aboard your Romulan ship, allow your Klingons and Romulans to stop at the same site, report Dr. Telek R'Mor aboard your Klingon ship, or switch Major Rakal's affiliation to Federation while she is aboard a Romulan ship. See treaties.
Emphases added. An infiltrator is still my opponent's card and they still have control of them.
The infiltrator is part of your opponent's crew or Away Team, but is still under your control. For example, your opponent may not treat the infiltrator as "his personnel" to benefit from hand weapons. (Your infiltrator may not take your equipment into your opponent's Away Team.)
And while my opponent's infiltrator may benefit from compatiblity related cards...
The infiltrator is subject to your opponent's cards which allow compatibility. For example, your Lovok Founder may infiltrate your opponent's [Fed] cards if your opponent is playing Romulan and has a Federation-Romulan Treaty in play.
...it doesn't necessarily follow that they can hinder my own personnel from reporting with compatibility-related cards.

Therefore, my opponent's infiltrator shouldn't be able to create a house arrest situation for purposes of me playing people to my outpost.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#582058
Ok let's clear this up some..... first off you are answering as the opponent of the infiltrator, but the OP asked the question as the owner of the infiltrator, so let's try to keep the same perspective.

OP (Player 1) says they report Martok Founder to Player 2's empty Klingon Empire Outpost.

MF is now part of 2's crew but is controlled by 1.

As you quoted above "You place under house arrest only cards you control - never your opponent's intruders, captives, etc. " this means that MF cannot be placed under House Arrest as it is 2's opponent's (1's) infiltrator. Player 2 attempts to report to/enter the outpost with a personnel that is incompatible with MF. This would cause 2's personnel to enter a house arrest with the existing force (1's MF). Since 2 cannot voluntarily create a HA situation, 2 cannot report to/enter that outpost with that particular personnel.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#582059
Professor Scott wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:33 am Ok let's clear this up some..... first off you are answering as the opponent of the infiltrator, but the OP asked the question as the owner of the infiltrator, so let's try to keep the same perspective.

OP (Player 1) says they report Martok Founder to Player 2's empty Klingon Empire Outpost.

MF is now part of 2's crew but is controlled by 1.

As you quoted above "You place under house arrest only cards you control - never your opponent's intruders, captives, etc. " this means that MF cannot be placed under House Arrest as it is 2's opponent's (1's) infiltrator. Player 2 attempts to report to/enter the outpost with a personnel that is incompatible with MF. This would cause 2's personnel to enter a house arrest with the existing force (1's MF). Since 2 cannot voluntarily create a HA situation, 2 cannot report to/enter that outpost with that particular personnel.
Yeah and that's where I'm saying it's not a house arrest situation because player 2 doesn't control player 1's infiltrator per my above citations.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#582060
Professor Scott wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:10 am
Armus wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:55 am Is that correct? This bit in the glossary has me wondering...
If an incompatibility situation arises where your infiltrator would be placed under house arrest by your opponent, the infiltrator may choose to be exposed instead.
I think the point was that since the Klingon Empire Outpost was empty and Martok Founder entered first, the cards going under house arrest would have been the opponent's cards, not the infiltrator.
And I don't think house arrest matters at all to the example (kinda surprised that Decipher even bothered with the loophole). If it was your Founder, you can't just walk rando KCA in and say "oh, they're in house arrest", so pretty sure you can't also do that with an infiltrating Founder.

The test in the rulebook is also worded a bit differently:
Clarification: Infiltrators and House Arrest
If an infiltrator is ever in a position where he or she would be placed in an incompatibility situation while infiltrating, that infiltrator's owner may freely choose exposure instead of house arrest.
I'm wondering if that sections needs a bit of cleanup to allow exposure via incompatibility?
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#582068
Worf on the Defiant shortly after a Devil showed up: "What, why is Martok here? Our treaty was nullified, put him in quarters under house arrest until we find somewhere to dump him! What ho! That's not Martok at all!"

After Kejal beams back up from the planet, to Iden: "Um, boss, who is this solid chick?"
Iden: "Oh, my old Resistance buddy, Kira! What! That isn't Kira! That's not even a solid chick! She's gelatinous!"

Solkar joins Sarek on the Vulcan Lander: "Ah, Sarek, old friend, tell me who is this young Logician?"
Sarek "Oh, she is my son's protege, Valeris! Oh Mindmeld! She's a terrorist assassin spy!"
Last edited by winterflames on Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#582070
winterflames wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:32 am Worf on the Defiant shortly after a Devil showed up: "What, why is Martok here? Our treaty was nullified, put him in quarters under house arrest until we find somewhere to dump him! What ho! That's not Martok at all!"
I'm hoping someone knows the story behind that rule, because it does sound like someone Devil'ed themselves to lock down and strand an infiltrator, and that sounds badass.
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#582655
AllenGould wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:42 am
winterflames wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:32 am Worf on the Defiant shortly after a Devil showed up: "What, why is Martok here? Our treaty was nullified, put him in quarters under house arrest until we find somewhere to dump him! What ho! That's not Martok at all!"
I'm hoping someone knows the story behind that rule, because it does sound like someone Devil'ed themselves to lock down and strand an infiltrator, and that sounds badass.
I do not follow ...
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#582670
Dukat wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:18 am
AllenGould wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:42 am I'm hoping someone knows the story behind that rule, because it does sound like someone Devil'ed themselves to lock down and strand an infiltrator, and that sounds badass.
I do not follow ...
Consider:
1. I can't infiltrate you unless you're playing someone matching (so you can't infiltrate with an incompatible card)
2. You can't voluntarily put people in house arrest (and you count my infiltrator as yours, plus I get to choose if I move anyway).
3. Yet, Decipher felt the need to put in a rule to cover what happens to an infiltrator in house arrest.

That suggests to me that:
1. You were playing a treaty deck (gonna just say A/B for generalities)
2. You arranged to have the my B-affiliated infiltrator alone with your A-affiliated crew
3. Then removed the treaty, which would force that house arrest, letting you lock down my infiltrator. (And that somehow this happened in a situation public enough - or just in front of the right Decipher folks - to prompt a *rule* that I get to instead expose my infiltrator.)

It's just such an oddly specific set of circumstances, that it feels like there's a story there.
Online CM RELEASE TOURNAMENT

I get the FW 100 - 100. Really good game!

Thermokinetic explosion

It would hit because your total attibutes at the t[…]

1EFQ: Random Releases

I'll add one more thing. If this becomes more of[…]

Klingon Neelix ponderings

I am collecting data at this point. Someone aske[…]