[Mr.Sloan]

trying to catch my rule knowledge... i always have problems with allow battle vs. affiliation cards..

Captain Kirk, Admiral Leyton, Admiral Riker, Sanders, Lon Suder, Ometiklan
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... cardID=780 (Kirk)
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... cardID=535 (leyton)
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=3045 (Riker)
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=4539 (sanders)
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=1019 (ometiklan)
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=1622 (lon Suder)

*post not finsihed yet, formulating questions* edit...

So Lon Suder allows his entire awayteam/crew to initate personal battle against any opponents cards present? without any leader requried?

Ometiklan, Georg Sanders allow all cards on their mission / time location to iniate personal or ship battle aginst the named affiliation? , without any leader required?
What if / opponents include a ? would it prevent the ability to battle?
What if there is a / mixed force, can leyton allow your Federation to initate battle? Does leyton allow your romulans to iniate battle vs. romulans including 1 dominion personal?

Riker same thing, just leaders are required on each ships?

Captain Kirk may initate battle vs. non-fed... so any force that does not include one fed, is attackable? but only kirk´s awayteam/crew or his one ship ? Also possible: Kirk with Romulans mix may attack a pure Romulan force?

Edit: add: Gowron of Borg (new errata) allows a battle ANYWHERE? not just where he is?

[BCSWowbagger]

I'll wait 'til you're finished your edits before trying to answer, but the Glossary entries for Lon Suder and Captain Kirk may be helpful.

Admiral Leyton's skill (which is broader than the other two and is imitated by the other cards on your list) is discussed under Battle: affiliation restrictions

[Mr.Sloan]

post finished

[BCSWowbagger]

I haven't consulted with the Rules Committee, so this is all just my opinion, and my opinion is routinely wrong. (That's why there's a Committee and not just a Manager.) With that said:

So Lon Suder allows his entire awayteam/crew to initate personal battle against any opponents cards present? without any leader requried?

Per his Glossary entry, Lon Suder allows you to attack without a leader, but he still has to follow affiliation attack restrictions. (Presumably, you will want to put him in mode, so he doesn't have any.), EDIT: and he can attack anyone of any affiliation (at the very least, when he is alone and not blocked by a card like Strategema).

Omet'iklan, George Sanders allow all cards on their mission / time location to iniate personal or ship battle aginst the named affiliation? , without any leader required?

These guys allow you to start a battle against the named affiliation (or faction) regardless of affiliation attack restrictions -- but you still need a leader. (Fortunately, both these personnel are leaders, so no worries.) Since all your cards "here" can battle, you can include them all.

What if / opponents include a ? would it prevent the ability to battle?

No. See the last paragraph of battle: affiliation restrictions:

If a card allows you to attack a specific affiliation or faction, then you may attack any forces that include that affiliation or faction, even if other cards are working with them. For example, Admiral Leyton allows you to attack a Dominion/Cardassian force.

What if there is a / mixed force, can leyton allow your Federation to initate battle? Does leyton allow your romulans to iniate battle vs. romulans including 1 dominion personal?

Yes and yes, respectively, as long as Leyton is at the location, per the Glossary quote above.

Riker same thing, just leaders are required on each ships?

Yes.

Captain Kirk may initate battle vs. non-fed... so any force that does not include one fed, is attackable?

Actually, if I read the Glossary correctly, Captain Kirk can attack any force that includes one non-Fed. That seems extreme, though, so maybe I'm reading it wrong.

but only kirk´s awayteam/crew or his one ship ?

Yes.

Also possible: Kirk with Romulans mix may attack a pure Romulan force?

Yes. While a mixed force is ordinarily subject to the restrictions of all its members, Captain Kirk overrides those restrictions for his entire force, including the Romulans he's mixing with (who could not normally attack other Romulans).

Edit: add: Gowron of Borg (new errata) allows a battle ANYWHERE? not just where he is?

No, he only allows his hive to battle. A Borg "hive" is considered to be any and all Borg at the same location. (glossary entry link) So Gowron has to be present.

[Mr.Sloan]

thank you, that clearifys stuff.

Will use this thread for reference in the futre for allowing-battle.

[AllenGould]

I haven't consulted with the Rules Committee, so this is all just my opinion, and my opinion is routinely wrong. (That's why there's a Committee and not just a Manager.) With that said:

So Lon Suder allows his entire awayteam/crew to initate personal battle against any opponents cards present? without any leader requried?

Per his Glossary entry, Lon Suder allows you to attack without a leader, but he still has to follow affiliation attack restrictions. (Presumably, you will want to put him in mode, so he doesn't have any.)

Omet'iklan, George Sanders allow all cards on their mission / time location to iniate personal or ship battle aginst the named affiliation? , without any leader required?

These guys allow you to start a battle against the named affiliation (or faction) regardless of affiliation attack restrictions -- but you still need a leader. (Fortunately, both these personnel are leaders, so no worries.) Since all your cards "here" can battle, you can include them all.

I'm wondering how we slice the difference between "may initiate battle" not requiring a leader vs. "allows your cards here to initiate battle" requiring a leader?

[BCSWowbagger]

I'm wondering how we slice the difference between "may initiate battle" not requiring a leader vs. "allows your cards here to initiate battle" requiring a leader?

I'm prepared to call this "Decipher parsing fine gametext distinctions and getting too cute by half about it."

It's the rule because it's the rule, but I'm not convinced it's the right rule. (I could be convinced, just amn't right now.)

[pfti]

I'm wondering how we slice the difference between "may initiate battle" not requiring a leader vs. "allows your cards here to initiate battle" requiring a leader?

I'm prepared to call this "Decipher parsing fine gametext distinctions and getting too cute by half about it."

It's the rule because it's the rule, but I'm not convinced it's the right rule. (I could be convinced, just amn't right now.)

I tried to come up with a meaningful distinction, but everything I thought through just doubled back on itself and exploded.
So yeah...

[Mr.Sloan]

Per his Glossary entry, Lon Suder allows you to attack without a leader, but he still has to follow affiliation attack restrictions. (Presumably, you will want to put him in mode, so he doesn't have any.)

Well Lon Suder cards read "vs any affiliation".So rule allow without a leader and card against any affiliation.

Also i assume:
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=2448
Wartime Conditation allows any FED-Mixed force to attack any-Mixed force as long as it includes one personal of the ships affiliation that originaly attacked the FED ship?

[Takket]

Per his Glossary entry, Lon Suder allows you to attack without a leader, but he still has to follow affiliation attack restrictions. (Presumably, you will want to put him in mode, so he doesn't have any.)

Well Lon Suder cards read "vs any affiliation".So rule allow without a leader and card against any affiliation.

Also i assume:
https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=2448
Wartime Conditation allows any FED-Mixed force to attack any-Mixed force as long as it includes one personal of the ships affiliation that originaly attacked the FED ship?

Wartime Conditions specifically says "ship's affiliation", so only that matters, not the affiliation of any of the personnel on said ship.

[AllenGould]

Wartime Conditions specifically says "ship's affiliation", so only that matters, not the affiliation of any of the personnel on said ship.

Not quite: it says "the Federation may battle the attacking ship's affiliation at will".

So it's a Madlibs kinda thing: The Feds can attack ___, where the blank is whatever the attacking ship's affiliation was. (Which means if a bunch of Klingons drive a NA ship into the Federation, this would only let the Feds attack NA. Which is weird.)

[Mr.Sloan]

Rules do not need to make sense...

Lets point to the issue again:

Wartime Conditions:
So, assuming an ship attacked you, then your mixed force may attack any mixed force that includes a , even other s ?

[Discovery rox]

Per his Glossary entry, Lon Suder allows you to attack without a leader, but he still has to follow affiliation attack restrictions. (Presumably, you will want to put him in mode, so he doesn't have any.)

this is definetely wrong.

the glossary entry clarifies that he doesnt need a leader, which is a point left ambiguous by the card text. but the glossary entry is clearly not meant to specify taht he doesnt ignore affiliation attack restrictions by virtue of it not mentioning that he does ignore affiliation attack restrictions. it doesnt need to mention one way or the other because the card text itself is veyr clear on this point already.

lon suder, by allowing you to attack any affiliation as lon suder, allows you to ignore built in federation affiliation attack restrictions, which normally prevent you from attacking any non borg affiliation except as a counter attack.

otherwise the gametext would just be "may initiate personnel battle".

now whether or not he allows you to ignore other affiliation attack restrictions imposed by other cards is up for debate, i think the answer is no because more restrictive game text trumps less restrictive game text.

also a shoutout to the glossary links ont he card pages, its already making these discussions easier.

[BCSWowbagger]

Per his Glossary entry, Lon Suder allows you to attack without a leader, but he still has to follow affiliation attack restrictions. (Presumably, you will want to put him in mode, so he doesn't have any.)

this is definetely wrong.

Huh. So it is. Normally, this is the part where I slap myself for not reading the cards, but I did read this card, several times.

Sheer brain-fart, then. I'll edit my original comment.

now whether or not he allows you to ignore other affiliation attack restrictions imposed by other cards is up for debate, i think the answer is no because more restrictive game text trumps less restrictive game text.

Depends which restrictions we're talking about. Mixed-force restrictions? Probably, going by the Captain Kirk precedent. We Are The Metrons restrictions? Probably not, and for the reason you mentioned.

[Mr.Sloan]

Captain Kirk may initate battle vs. non-fed... so any force that does not include one fed, is attackable?

Actually, if I read the Glossary correctly, Captain Kirk can attack any force that includes one non-Fed. That seems extreme, though, so maybe I'm reading it wrong.

To double check this: Is that true or any other thoughts on it?