[AllenGould]

Presumably they used "discard" because they didn't want stuff like Klingon Death Yell to trigger?

I'll agree using "discard" for both "from table" and "from hand" ain't great (if nothing else, because it means you can never "discard a personnel" - you have to specify somehow whether you mean from hand or from table.)

[Ensign Q]

yeah QaC should not be a reason to protect the term "discard" which should be exclusive to hand cards in the first place

And dilemmas, and all sorts of other cards that leave play. Do we make a new term for each card type when it leaves play?

thats what we currently have. like how many game terms of "put personnel from table into discard pile" are there already?

kill, discard, erase,destroy what else?

discard dictionary definition: [ I or T ]
to get rid of a card you are holding during a card game

[9of24]

yeah QaC should not be a reason to protect the term "discard" which should be exclusive to hand cards in the first place

And dilemmas, and all sorts of other cards that leave play. Do we make a new term for each card type when it leaves play?

thats what we currently have. like how many game terms of "put personnel from table into discard pile" are there already?

kill, discard, erase,destroy what else?

discard dictionary definition: [ I or T ]
to get rid of a card you are holding during a card game

Is it uncommon for this to be the case for card games? I'm only especially familiar with one other card game's rules, MTG, but they also have multiple terms: destroy sacrifice, and dies. Even bury if you look at printed text exclusively.

[Jesseon]

In just about every card game I play, "Discard" exclusively means to get rid of a card from your hand unless it tells you a different specific location to discard from.

However, a lot of the time they use different terms for getting rid of a card from a location other than your hand so "Discard" stays unambiguous.

[Ensign Q]

And dilemmas, and all sorts of other cards that leave play. Do we make a new term for each card type when it leaves play?

thats what we currently have. like how many game terms of "put personnel from table into discard pile" are there already?

kill, discard, erase,destroy what else?

discard dictionary definition: [ I or T ]
to get rid of a card you are holding during a card game

Is it uncommon for this to be the case for card games? I'm only especially familiar with one other card game's rules, MTG, but they also have multiple terms: destroy sacrifice, and dies. Even bury if you look at printed text exclusively.

it was pftis argument it would clutter the game if discard would be exclusive to discard from hand. i just pointed out, that there are already enough terms to chose from.
also in mtg, sacrifice, destroy and dies are very different things.
you can only sac cards you control. its the closest thing to discard in ccg terms, hence my added confusion why crell could target opponents cards.
destroy is the effect and dies is the result. bury was once lost from the game, then reintroduced and is now obsolete, because regeneration got axed.

[AllenGould]

also in mtg, sacrifice, destroy and dies are very different things.
you can only sac cards you control. its the closest thing to discard in ccg terms, hence my added confusion why crell could target opponents cards.
destroy is the effect and dies is the result. bury was once lost from the game, then reintroduced and is now obsolete, because regeneration got axed.

Dies isn't actually a "thing you do to a card" - it's shorthand for "went into the graveyard (discard pile) from the battlefield (in play)."

Bury is the opposite case - "Bury target creature" was shorthand for "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated", and at some point they decided that having a second term wasn't worth it and just spelled it out.

[Ensign Q]

also in mtg, sacrifice, destroy and dies are very different things.
you can only sac cards you control. its the closest thing to discard in ccg terms, hence my added confusion why crell could target opponents cards.
destroy is the effect and dies is the result. bury was once lost from the game, then reintroduced and is now obsolete, because regeneration got axed.

Dies isn't actually a "thing you do to a card" - it's shorthand for "went into the graveyard (discard pile) from the battlefield (in play)."

Thats what i said?

Bury is the opposite case - "Bury target creature" was shorthand for "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated", and at some point they decided that having a second term wasn't worth it and just spelled it out.

Bury came and go a few times iirc. It wasnt there in alpha 1993. unlike decipher, wizards wasnt afraid to go back and forth with rules updates.

anyway, the topic isnt mtg, but 1e. we know that mtg managed to clear up its rules. now its time for 1e to catch up with 2021

[AllenGould]

also in mtg, sacrifice, destroy and dies are very different things.
you can only sac cards you control. its the closest thing to discard in ccg terms, hence my added confusion why crell could target opponents cards.
destroy is the effect and dies is the result. bury was once lost from the game, then reintroduced and is now obsolete, because regeneration got axed.

Dies isn't actually a "thing you do to a card" - it's shorthand for "went into the graveyard (discard pile) from the battlefield (in play)."

Thats what i said?

Not really, especially for the non-MTG players in the house.

If you "sacrifice" or "destroy" a creature, it *also* "dies".

It is a fair point that MTG has been willing to make pretty severe and broad-ranging errata to make things simpler down the road.

[HoodieDM]

anyway, the topic isnt mtg, but 1e. we know that mtg managed to clear up its rules. now its time for 1e to catch up with 2021

Ummm that's pretty naïve to say. The CC HAS been clearing up rules. They just haven't cleared this one up "yet" (if they even will). I suggest putting together a more constructive reply instead of bit piecing things together trying to put arguments together on the perceived problem you see (which up to this point is mainly just you, most people don't have a problem with the way this card works). Don't compare the game to Magic b/c Magic makes millions of $$ a year while you have volunteers working on items for a game that just celebrated being "dead" 15 years ago.

[sexecutioner]

I just don't see what isn't clear about 'discard a personnel present'

Crell is with A guy. Doesn't have to be 'your' guy, just any guy, and you can discard the guy.

This isn't MTG

[Ensign Q]

and we are back to "I played 1e for 30 yrs and i know and understand all its quirks" vs "i played other cardgames for 30yrs and 1e is messy with its rules"

and my reply is the same. if you want the game to slowly die due to lack of new players, dont change it.

[princedetenebres]

I just don't see what isn't clear about 'discard a personnel present'

Crell is with A guy. Doesn't have to be 'your' guy, just any guy, and you can discard the guy.

This isn't MTG

Bingo. I don't think I've ever seen anyone dispute this reading before, and I've played him a lot (well, more back in the day, but still).

"Your personnel are present with your opponent's personnel if they are on the same planet (but outside a facility or landed ship), or on the same ship, facility, or site."

If Crell's text had any restriction as to whose personnel were eligible targets he would say so, as do the numerous personnel who specifically state their special skill is limited to your (or opponent's) personnel.

Without doubt, were the CC starting from scratch on the game there would be a lot greater clarity and consistency of wording and terms to flatten the learning curve, but it's not so simple to 'change' the game, when so much of the lexicon is already baked in. Yet, where they can, they clearly are (see recent errata). However, Crell is not within the same parsec as any of the cards whose text leads to confusion, or at least anywhere near enough to justify even considering any change.

Though having said that, the 'present' rules as they exist are pretty effing stupid in some cases, but again, not with Crell.

[KazonPADD]

Rules are working to clear up wording. See the latest batch of errata. But there’s a lot of work to do. It will take time.

[sexecutioner]

Discarding is a very clever premise.

It's easy to understand, like Pope said. But it goes beyond Crell

Dilemmas like Spatial Rift and Talosian Cage 'discard' personnel. This bypasses hologram deactivation, and cards like Live Long and Prosper and Valuable Prisoner , both of which give benefits to killing.

Did you have rule disputes when you discarded personnel with the above Dilemmas? Including the classic Tarellian Plague Ship? Did you demand the opponent discard the personnel form hand?

[Ensign Q]

Niall, your strategy to win is to be better at the rules and knowledge of unchecked fringe strategies. thats fine, but not an enjoying experience

Discarding from Dilemma is clearly found in the rules. Id still argue there should be a better term.

Rules commitee has worked on "scouting" lately. That never felt unclear to me.