[princedetenebres]

And doing some digging I found the article with that rules update which says:

In an effort to make the rules more simple we have deleted the "frool rule." Copies of the same universal personal may now contribute to Duck Blinds, mission specialist points, Colonies, etc. After reviewing all of the potential issues, the rules team believes that this will simplify the game with minimal impact to gameplay.

So it sounds like the intent of the rules change was to have them count. I presume the example princedetenebres quoted from the ASM entry should have been removed when that change went into effect but was not.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that change to the Frool rule, well spotted. I think you're correct.

Weapon. Yeah, forgot that. Thanks.

AND Proconsul Neral

[Armus]

er.... NO!

The Mission Requirements are Diplomacy x5 OR Honor x4 OR Treachery x4

"OR" not "and"
The best result would be 70 points

If you want an over 100 poins mission try it with Investigate Anti-Time Eruption

According to the way this discussion is going, 10 Treachery Mission specialists with AoD and a Hand Weapon can solve the Diplomacy side for +50 points.

That's dumb AF.

[JeBuS]

According to the way this discussion is going, 10 Treachery Mission specialists with AoD and a Hand Weapon can solve the Diplomacy side for +50 points.

That's dumb AF.

Is it just the result that you object to (which I'm not sure I like, either) or the logic to get there?

[patrick]

Is it just the result that you object to (which I'm not sure I like, either) or the logic to get there?

I don't like that the "Kahless is not forced to meet the entire Honor x2 by himself" line from the glossary doesn't really address if a person with Honor x1 can choose to use only half of it was well...

[Armus]

According to the way this discussion is going, 10 Treachery Mission specialists with AoD and a Hand Weapon can solve the Diplomacy side for +50 points.

That's dumb AF.

Is it just the result that you object to (which I'm not sure I like, either) or the logic to get there?

I think it's dumb AF that mission specialists get full bonus points for using half a skill.

[AllenGould]

Is it just the result that you object to (which I'm not sure I like, either) or the logic to get there?

I don't like that the "Kahless is not forced to meet the entire Honor x2 by himself" line from the glossary doesn't really address if a person with Honor x1 can choose to use only half of it was well...

Given that the Glossary does say that 1/2 skill doesn't count as a skill until you find another half, I'd argue that a 1/2 skill can't "help" at all, since they don't have "a skill".

[Professor Scott]

er.... NO!

The Mission Requirements are Diplomacy x5 OR Honor x4 OR Treachery x4

"OR" not "and"
The best result would be 70 points

If you want an over 100 points mission try it with Investigate Anti-Time Eruption

Er...Yes! He said 10 Treachery (assuming Tagus x10)which would convert to 5 Diplomacy with The Art of Diplomacy, a hand weapon, and if we are assuming , then also Proconsul Neral. That would be 10 mission specialists at +5 each, so 45+50 = 95.

Mind you I am not happy about it, but the math checks out unless there is some rule that says this doesn't work, which so far no one has produced.

[pfti]

Is it just the result that you object to (which I'm not sure I like, either) or the logic to get there?

I don't like that the "Kahless is not forced to meet the entire Honor x2 by himself" line from the glossary doesn't really address if a person with Honor x1 can choose to use only half of it was well...

The glossary doesnt say half a skill doesnt count as a skill, it says it alone doesnt satisfy a requirement. it is still a skill and still used. Two combined satisfy the requirement each are using their one skill to do that. and the precident is mission specialist skills work no mater the positve multiplier on them.

Given that the Glossary does say that 1/2 skill doesn't count as a skill until you find another half, I'd argue that a 1/2 skill can't "help" at all, since they don't have "a skill".

[Professor Scott]

The problem is that, nowhere does The Art of Diplomacy explicitly state that 1 Treachery equals 1/2 Diplomacy. It might be fair to say it's implied, however, implied and fact are not the same. The 1/2 entry in the glossary only applies to explicit 1/2 skills such as Toral and Ja'rod.

[Armus]

The problem is that, nowhere does The Art of Diplomacy explicitly state that 1 Treachery equals 1/2 Diplomacy. It might be fair to say it's implied, however, implied and fact are not the same. The 1/2 entry in the glossary only applies to explicit 1/2 skills such as Toral and Ja'rod.

It's de facto what it is.

Two Treachery mission specialists combining to use their Treachery as though it were 1 Diplomacy to meet a mission requirement is still TWO mission specialists using their skill to meet a mission requirement (despite the fact that it's only ONE skill requirement).

And forget Wormhole Negotiations... go look at Evacuation... 60 points and steal-proof? Yes please!

[pfti]

The problem is that, nowhere does The Art of Diplomacy explicitly state that 1 Treachery equals 1/2 Diplomacy. It might be fair to say it's implied, however, implied and fact are not the same. The 1/2 entry in the glossary only applies to explicit 1/2 skills such as Toral and Ja'rod.

It's de facto what it is.



Two Treachery mission specialists combining to use their Treachery as though it were 1 Diplomacy to meet a mission requirement is still TWO mission specialists using their skill to meet a mission requirement (despite the fact that it's only ONE skill requirement).

And forget Wormhole Negotiations... go look at Evacuation... 60 points and steal-proof? Yes please!

Prove to me it is somehow worse than the myriad other ways to two mission win. Then we can talk

[JeBuS]

The multiplier of their skill is meaningless in this, actually. The only thing that matters is that they use their skill.

[Armus]

The problem is that, nowhere does The Art of Diplomacy explicitly state that 1 Treachery equals 1/2 Diplomacy. It might be fair to say it's implied, however, implied and fact are not the same. The 1/2 entry in the glossary only applies to explicit 1/2 skills such as Toral and Ja'rod.

It's de facto what it is.



Two Treachery mission specialists combining to use their Treachery as though it were 1 Diplomacy to meet a mission requirement is still TWO mission specialists using their skill to meet a mission requirement (despite the fact that it's only ONE skill requirement).

And forget Wormhole Negotiations... go look at Evacuation... 60 points and steal-proof? Yes please!

Prove to me it is somehow worse than the myriad other ways to two mission win. Then we can talk

So just so we're clear, both of the following are true:

1.) Two mission specialists using their skills to meet a single requirement both score AMS points

2.) With the Frool Rule gone, multiple copies of the same ❖ Mission Specialist can score AMS points on the same solve.

Are both of those correct?

If so, challenge accepted.

[Armus]

Also for the record, I'm not claiming it's broken - that remains to be seen - I'm claiming it's dumb.

[pfti]

It's de facto what it is.



Two Treachery mission specialists combining to use their Treachery as though it were 1 Diplomacy to meet a mission requirement is still TWO mission specialists using their skill to meet a mission requirement (despite the fact that it's only ONE skill requirement).

And forget Wormhole Negotiations... go look at Evacuation... 60 points and steal-proof? Yes please!

Prove to me it is somehow worse than the myriad other ways to two mission win. Then we can talk

So just so we're clear, both of the following are true:

1.) Two mission specialists using their skills to meet a single requirement both score AMS points

2.) With the Frool Rule gone, multiple copies of the same ❖ Mission Specialist can score AMS points on the same solve.

Are both of those correct?

If so, challenge accepted.

I no longer have the authority to proclaim things true. But that would seem the case to me