This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#583715
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:49 pm
AllenGould wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:46 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:28 pm Fair or unfair we live in a world where many of not all of us play other games. Become effects in most other games are permanent. Given that the become entry doesn't say that they end, and doesn't even imply it - I question whether or not yours and rules interpretation is fully thought out in this matter.
By that logic, Space Amoeba permanently changes all ship and personnel stats?

Other games are handy for looking around, but different games are just that - different games.
Actually it might be because the bigger issue here then is simply consistency and actually making sure the rules are the rules.
It often is.

Most games start on a "civil law" basis and stay there -- the rules are the rules, and the rules are fully specified by the rulebook. Ambiguities are minimal and clarified by the game company releasing an updated rulebook or errata to the original. You find out how things work by pulling out the rulebook and saying, "Here are the rules."

The Star Trek CCG started out with a somewhat vague rulebook that was then "explained" by a series of "FAQs," which is kind of like civil law, but the game gradually devolved into pure common law: this is how it works because a judge ruled it this way at a tournament ten years ago, or this is how people play it, or here's what the precedent is. By the time the CC took over, not even the Glossary could really even pretend to represent the full rules of the Star Trek CCG. There were a lot of unwritten rules of how to read cards that you just were supposed to know.

We have been moving back in the direction of having all of our rules actually written down, but it is a slow and often tricky process -- and those of us who know all the unwritten rules sometimes don't notice very quickly that they are, in fact, unwritten.

(Also, I assume this happens in all card games, but we just have a lot of players who come up with new interpretations all the time!)

Because of this, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to say that the "becomes" Glossary entry needs to be clarified, and I plan to ask the Rules Committee next month to clarify it. To be clear, I'm not blaming any players for getting this wrong. If multiple players read a rule wrong, that's almost always the rule's fault, not the players'.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#583725
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:28 pm Fair or unfair we live in a world where many of not all of us play other games. Become effects in most other games are permanent.
Counterpoint: 1E has typically used "once in play" to denote permanent effects. See Mortal Q, The Earring of Li Nalas and Commander Charvanek.

To me, the use of "if" on Kyle implies a binary toggle. If the condition is true (your Khan is in play), Kyle is [NA] . If the condition is false (your Khan is not in play), Kyle is [Fed] .

If Kyle's restriction box (which, it seems to me, should be a special skill like what Mortal Q's became after its erratum, but that's another discussion) said "Becomes [NA] once your Khan in play", then I'd agree that the affiliation change is permanent. But as it is I'd say that it only takes effect for such time as you have Khan in play.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#583726
nobthehobbit wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:01 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:28 pm Fair or unfair we live in a world where many of not all of us play other games. Become effects in most other games are permanent.
Counterpoint: 1E has typically used "once in play" to denote permanent effects. See Mortal Q, The Earring of Li Nalas and Commander Charvanek.

To me, the use of "if" on Kyle implies a binary toggle. If the condition is true (your Khan is in play), Kyle is [NA] . If the condition is false (your Khan is not in play), Kyle is [Fed] .

If Kyle's restriction box (which, it seems to me, should be a special skill like what Mortal Q's became after its erratum, but that's another discussion) said "Becomes [NA] once your Khan in play", then I'd agree that the affiliation change is permanent. But as it is I'd say that it only takes effect for such time as you have Khan in play.
I'm also looking at more than just Kyle and how he is worded in what I'm saying here. I'm just pointing out that it seems like rules and players alike seem to be filling in a lot of gaps in the rules with "because unwritten reasons" when there isn't anything in the rules or glossary that can give a definitive answer.
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#583728
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:31 pmYou should not read anything into the absence of the "even if not in play" text. That text snuck into the game partially by mistake, it was never essential, and, to avoid misleading people, we have stopped using it. (It is Rules' hope that Assignment: Earth will be the last card to use that phrase.)

If Khan leaves play at any point (or becomes in play "for uniqueness only", or you lose control of him while retaining control of Commander Kyle, or otherwise stops being able to maintain Kyle in [NA] mode), Commander Kyle switches back to [Fed] mode. This is consistent with how other "becomes" cards work. However, this is the second time in three months that I've come across players who read the "become" glossary entry and think that "become" effects are permanent even if the underlying card is nullified, so I think probably the "become" glossary entry needs a minor clarification. *adds to the list*
Does that mean if I have Khan in play, and complete Establish Relations, I can DL Commander Kyle as my [NA] person?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#583730
Takket wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:16 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:31 pmYou should not read anything into the absence of the "even if not in play" text. That text snuck into the game partially by mistake, it was never essential, and, to avoid misleading people, we have stopped using it. (It is Rules' hope that Assignment: Earth will be the last card to use that phrase.)

If Khan leaves play at any point (or becomes in play "for uniqueness only", or you lose control of him while retaining control of Commander Kyle, or otherwise stops being able to maintain Kyle in [NA] mode), Commander Kyle switches back to [Fed] mode. This is consistent with how other "becomes" cards work. However, this is the second time in three months that I've come across players who read the "become" glossary entry and think that "become" effects are permanent even if the underlying card is nullified, so I think probably the "become" glossary entry needs a minor clarification. *adds to the list*
Does that mean if I have Khan in play, and complete Establish Relations, I can DL Commander Kyle as my [NA] person?
Yes.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583749
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:31 pm I held onto this reply over the weekend so I could run it by Rules and make sure it's correct.
I am not going into rule discussions anymore for multiple reasons, one is i am sure you and rules can handle it.

yet a suggestion i´d aleady liked to make to @Orbin and also now to you @BCSWowbagger and @Design Department in general:

Would it be a crazy idea, that every designer is *required* to explain how he *thinks* *his* designed card works internaly, and then Rule Department is mandatory checking, if they come to the same conclusion or not: -> to detect misunderstandings before cards even hits playtesting and far before it hits the public, so that clearity is reached long before release events?

Me and another german denied internal work for trekcc, the other said: "a 1e lead (back in the day) is resistent to advice, so why bother" and i agree to a large degree. Sad he is not even playing anymore. So i bring the suggestion directly to the departments, here. Or do you wish me to stop giving advice to you, as well?
Last edited by ShipNerd on Tue Aug 23, 2022 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#583752
ShipNerd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:26 pm Would it be a crazy idea, that every designer is *required* to explain how he *thinks* *his* designed card works internaly, and then Rule Department is mandatory checking, if they come to the same conclusion or not: -> to detect misunderstandings before cards even hits playtesting and far before it hits the public, so that clearity is reached long before release events?
It's not a crazy idea. In fact, it's not-crazy enough that Design has tried it on a couple of different occasions.

Doing something like this prevented problems once or twice -- but, perhaps surprisingly, it didn't stop the majority of problems. As it turns out, the game is just very complex, and most rules questions arise because of interactions that nobody in Design or Rules anticipated. Explaining them doesn't help in those cases, because nobody had the interaction on their radar.

You may think, "Now, c'mon, how did nobody consider the timing of Commander Kyle's affiliation change in light of the restriction on the freaking Genesis Device? Are you all morons? Do you even play this game?" There are days when I'm pretty sure I am a moron who doesn't play this game. But! Rules and Design (and Testing and Proofing and Creative) anticipate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of possible rules questions in every set. A few are bound to slip through, including even some obvious ones.

Thanks for the suggestion, though! As I said, it's a good enough suggestion that we've tried it more than once.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583753
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:40 pm
Thanks for the suggestion, though! As I said, it's a good enough suggestion that we've tried it more than once.
Ok, no longer have internal insight. wasn´t used back at the day. If it works sometimes its better then nothing.

Making mistakes is normal. Some are better in some ereas and some in others. I just remember that back in the day proofreading feedbacks for rules and especially game balance where strongly discouraged. Thats why, now i give advice only to people who appreciate them and do not attack me for it. And morn that the once guy left and never came back. Well guess we have to play with the player still here.

Gladly will continue that with you, if you don´t mind.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583755
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:40 pm You may think, "Now, c'mon, how did nobody consider the timing of Commander Kyle's affiliation change in light of the restriction on the freaking Genesis Device? ... But! Rules and Design (and Testing and Proofing and Creative) anticipate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of possible rules questions in every set. A few are bound to slip through, including even some obvious ones.
@BCSWowbagger regarding of what i might think:
Well I tend to be very blunt, direct and also considering the skill level of the person behind. People i consider incompetent may dislike me for it, people who i consider compement may like it. so i understand why you think i could think or say something like that *laughts* :)

What i am actually thinking is there are designer with an very bad eye for the power curve of their cards. Gameplay is complex, yet if a guy not competent enough for gameplay thinks being a designer is a good idea AND even being hostile to feedback, i really dislike that behavior, because i love the game. Only some designer though. None of them is a designer of this set.

And regarding rules, I think I have more understanding empathy / acceptence if someone says rules are complicated for me. I can recall a lot of obviously overpowered cards being released (even many that i pointed out in playtest, like continuing mission 14 years ago), but not a lot of obviously overseen rule issues.

I also have a lot of sympathy for those who consider gameplay too complex, which is why i designed easier formats, since i see that still lacking in trekcc.
because my buddies would not longer play 1e at all, they have tried trekcc formats and refused them because they are casual player.
Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]

Question for noob

Awesome. Thanks everyone for all the help!

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

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