[geraldkw]

It appears that if I play with U.S.S. Enterprise-B and Workhorses of the Fleet, my ships won't get the attribute bonus because Enterprise-B is not universal.

A. This is because I read the card to say if all of your ships in play are universal Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth or K'tinga class or any Ambassador or Constellation class ships... get bonus.

B. What I want the compressed language to mean is that as long as all my ships are Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth, K'tinga, Ambassador or Constellation class regardless of Uniqueness or Universalness then -> Get Bonus.

So is it A or B?

[Armus]

It appears that if I play with U.S.S. Enterprise-B and Workhorses of the Fleet, my ships won't get the attribute bonus because Enterprise-B is not universal.

A. This is because I read the card to say if all of your ships in play are universal Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth or K'tinga class or any Ambassador or Constellation class ships... get bonus.

B. What I want the compressed language to mean is that as long as all my ships are Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth, K'tinga, Ambassador or Constellation class regardless of Uniqueness or Universalness then -> Get Bonus.

So is it A or B?

It's B. The bonus checks the class of all of your ships in play, not the uniqueness.

Uniqueness is only relevant for the free play.

[geraldkw]

It appears that if I play with U.S.S. Enterprise-B and Workhorses of the Fleet, my ships won't get the attribute bonus because Enterprise-B is not universal.

A. This is because I read the card to say if all of your ships in play are universal Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth or K'tinga class or any Ambassador or Constellation class ships... get bonus.

B. What I want the compressed language to mean is that as long as all my ships are Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth, K'tinga, Ambassador or Constellation class regardless of Uniqueness or Universalness then -> Get Bonus.

So is it A or B?

It's B. The bonus checks the class of all of your ships in play, not the uniqueness.

Uniqueness is only relevant for the free play.

thanks!

[AllenGould]

It's B. The bonus checks the class of all of your ships in play, not the uniqueness.

Uniqueness is only relevant for the free play.

I read it the other way - "those" = "❖ Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga-class ship"

[JeBuS]

I read it as:
"only those" = only those ships = ❖ Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga-class ship

So basically, Enterprise-B wouldn't qualify.

Now, if it said "only those classes or Ambassador...", then Ent-B would work.

[Armus]

Once each turn, you may play a ❖ Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga-class ship for free (once per game per class). While all of your ships in play are only those or Ambassador- or Constellation-classes, your ships are attributes all +X

It was designed to allow free plays of the relevant ❖ versions of those class ships while giving the bonus to all of your ships as long as you only had the listed class ships in play, whether or not they were ❖.

Here's how it parses:

Once each turn, you may play a ❖ (Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga-class ship for free (once per game per class).).

While all of your ships in play are those [classes] or Ambassador- or Constellation-class ships, your ships are all Attributes +X...

If that's not how it actually works, then I need @BCSWowbagger to give me some wording to make it go like we want it to, and then see if we can get @jjh and the art team on the line real quick before this card becomes street-legal tomorrow.

UP Notes are inconclusive... I don't see anyone asking about that part.

[JeBuS]

While all of your ships in play are those [classes] or Ambassador- or Constellation-class ships, your ships are all Attributes +X...

The problem with this reading is that neither sentence uses "classes" as the subject of the sentence. In both sentences "ships" is the subject. "You may play a ❖ ship... While all of your ships are those or some other ships..."

I'm beginning to think that any use of pronouns in 1E should send up a red flag in design.

[winterflames]

Workhorses of the Fleet
Seeds or plays on table. Once each turn, you may play a ❖ (List:Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga-/List)class ship for free (once per game per class). While all of your ships in play are only (List:those or Ambassador- or Constellation-/List) classes, your ships are attributes all +X where X = 1+the total number of missions any player has completed or placed a objective on.

I see the listing as indicated above. "Ships" are not part of the lists. Only "class."

[JeBuS]

Workhorses of the Fleet
Seeds or plays on table. Once each turn, you may play a ❖ (List:Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga-/List)class ship for free (once per game per class). While all of your ships in play are only (List:those or Ambassador- or Constellation-/List) classes, your ships are attributes all +X where X = 1+the total number of missions any player has completed or placed a objective on.

I see the listing as indicated above. "Ships" are not part of the lists. Only "class."

"Ships" doesn't need to be part of the list for "those" to refer to "ships".

[Iron Prime]

I defer to @BCSWowbagger of course. But I believe the card is fine as written. 'classes' keeps coming along for the ride in those sentences and the dashes keep stringing things along.

English gonna English...

[Takket]

Card looks fine to me. The sentence refers to classes. Unique/universal doesn't matter.

"classes"

What classes?

Ambassador, Constellation, and "those"

What are "those"?

Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga

unique/universal isn't a "class" so if you are looking to define "classes" then unique/universal doesn't matter.

[AllenGould]

Card looks fine to me. The sentence refers to classes. Unique/universal doesn't matter.

"classes"

What classes?

Ambassador, Constellation, and "those"

What are "those"?

Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, or K't'inga

unique/universal isn't a "class" so if you are looking to define "classes" then unique/universal doesn't matter.

But if we remove after the "or", you'd get:

Once each turn, you may play a ❖ Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth- , or K't'inga-class ship for free (once per game per class). While all your ships in play are only those, your ships are attributes all +X...

To my eyes it reads pretty clearly that "those" are "❖ Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth- , or K't'inga-class ship".

For comparison, look at maH nIv :

Plays on your crew or Away Team of at least three Klingons. Replace those Klingons...

Has anyone ever thought that the replace clause ignored the and you could swap any other random Klingons in that crew/AT? If not, why would you get to ignore the ❖?

[BCSWowbagger]

I read it as B and considered it to be B when I green-lit it.

Since it is release weekend, and confusion is bad, I'll bluetext it as such. I'm not convinced it actually needs bluetext, but better safe than sorry on the very day everyone wants to play the card, right?

I am still on vacation and can't do anything else about it until I am well home. In fact, if I weren't on vacation, I probably wouldn't issue the bluetext, but would instead calmly talk it out with Rules before doing anything! So consider this the vacation bluetext.

***
On Workhorses of the Fleet, to gain the attribute bonus, all your ships in play must be Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, K't'inga-, Ambassador, or Constellation-class. It does not matter for the attribute bonus whether they are unique or universal.

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 (or deemed unnecessary) by the next First Monday (March 6th 2023), it will be published in the Glossary's Temporary Rulings section as part of its monthly update.

[Hoss-Drone]

I read it as B and considered it to be B when I green-lit it.

Since it is release weekend, and confusion is bad, I'll bluetext it as such. I'm not convinced it actually needs bluetext, but better safe than sorry on the very day everyone wants to play the card, right?

I am still on vacation and can't do anything else about it until I am well home. In fact, if I weren't on vacation, I probably wouldn't issue the bluetext, but would instead calmly talk it out with Rules before doing anything! So consider this the vacation bluetext.

***
On Workhorses of the Fleet, to gain the attribute bonus, all your ships in play must be Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, K't'inga-, Ambassador, or Constellation-class. It does not matter for the attribute bonus whether they are unique or universal.

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 (or deemed unnecessary) by the next First Monday (March 6th 2023), it will be published in the Glossary's Temporary Rulings section as part of its monthly update.

Is this my opening to again point out that this is the same english convention issue on Recruit Mercenaries? The use of a qualifiers at the end of the description instead of the beginning? (only in this case its the word "those" instead "personnel") Can we be consistent? If only to have that consistency be design intent? (which was for Recruit Mercs to get any )

Not to mention that putting the ❖ qualifier at the beginning further highlights my point about if treachery was meant to apply to both sides it would have been at the beginning (download treachery personnel that are and/or with up to 7 total )

[stressedoutatumc]

I read it as B and considered it to be B when I green-lit it.

Since it is release weekend, and confusion is bad, I'll bluetext it as such. I'm not convinced it actually needs bluetext, but better safe than sorry on the very day everyone wants to play the card, right?

I am still on vacation and can't do anything else about it until I am well home. In fact, if I weren't on vacation, I probably wouldn't issue the bluetext, but would instead calmly talk it out with Rules before doing anything! So consider this the vacation bluetext.

***
On Workhorses of the Fleet, to gain the attribute bonus, all your ships in play must be Excelsior-, Miranda-, Oberth-, K't'inga-, Ambassador, or Constellation-class. It does not matter for the attribute bonus whether they are unique or universal.

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 (or deemed unnecessary) by the next First Monday (March 6th 2023), it will be published in the Glossary's Temporary Rulings section as part of its monthly update.

Is this my opening to again point out that this is the same english convention issue on Recruit Mercenaries? The use of a qualifiers at the end of the description instead of the beginning? (only in this case its the word "those" instead "personnel") Can we be consistent? If only to have that consistency be design intent? (which was for Recruit Mercs to get any )

Not to mention that putting the ❖ qualifier at the beginning further highlights my point about if treachery was meant to apply to both sides it would have been at the beginning (download treachery personnel that are and/or with up to 7 total )

Just want to understand the argument here. So are you saying the conversation about this card is whether the persons you download must have treachery? What's the current ruling?