[Kova4H9]

I think I know the answer to this, but the cumulative rules always fill me with anxiety whenever I have to approach them

I have 5 ❖ Sybo's sitting on a colony. Do I score 5 points?

For cards like Assign Mission Specialists and Preserver Obelisk, if I have multiple copies of a given AMS or Native (i.e., 4 ❖ Batrells at a Wormhole Negotiation or a fistfull of ❖ Tepo's at Reallocate Dividends), do I score 5 points for each that helps solve? The Glossary was a hairbreadth away from explaining this- the example given under Assign Mission Specialists had an away team with two ❖ Batrells, but it never explicitly stated whether or not you could use both to score 5 points each.

Both of these seem to be cases of "one card [AMS, Colony, Preserver Obelisk] targeting multiple copies of the same card [the universal]," which seems to have the blessing of the cumulative rules. But I feel like my interpretation of the cumulative rules is almost never correct. And something seems to be nagging at me that we don't like duplicating AMS's in practice for some reason... Maybe it's instead AMS is causing the multiple universals to target a single mission, and therefore only one counts?

As I said, cumulative rules, anxiety. I feel like this is an answer I should know at this point, but I'm having a hard time getting to the correct answer from the Glossary.

Thanks!

[Kova4H9]

I did a bit more research, and what I think is going on is that, pre May 2018, the Frool Rule said the answer to all these questions was no. The May 2018 ruling nixed the Frool Rule, so now the answer to all these questions is yes. Is this correct?

[BCSWowbagger]

Is this correct?

I try to let these threads get answered by others, but you did your research and waited patiently for 12 hours, so I'll tell you:

Yes.

[Ensign Q]

what actually was the frool rule? ive seen it menitoned a million times, but its nowhere to be found.

[AllenGould]

what actually was the frool rule? ive seen it menitoned a million times, but its nowhere to be found.

It was that two copies of a universal personnel didn't count as two for some card texts.

The trick that was being plugged was this:
Play Ferengi Trading Post.
Play a lot (and I mean, a *lot*) of Frool - they play for free to the Post, and since this was before The Great Play/Execute Division, you could do various shenanigans to draw more Frools. You want more Frools than your opponent has cards in hand.
Play 211th Rule of Acquisition and then start your various Q Bypass cheese - your opponent can't do anything to stop you, because 211th requires them to discard X cards *first* (X = waiters - opp. personnel present).

If you knew or suspected this was coming, you just flipped your Q-Ref and did the downloads before they got 211 down - but the first time you saw this trick it was pretty auto-lose.

So, the "Frool rule" said that because Frool wasn't cumulative, 2 Frools only counted as one waiter. The confusion came because they also said that 2 Frools could still contribute all their skills (and some other things), so it wasn't super clear exactly where the line was.

Thankfully that's all gone now.

[Kova4H9]

Alright, I'm slowly trying to convince Tomek97 that after years of having to deal with the Frool Rule, it's no longer a thing. He believes me that I can use multiple ❖ Tepo's to earn points on Reallocate Dividends, but we're still disagreeing whether you can use 6 ❖ Tepo's on the Cunning >32 requirement to score 30 points. It seems to me like there should be no reason why not, but Tomek97 doesn't agree. He seems to think that you could use at most one, if not none.

Does Preserver Obelisk allow you to score points for universals that help meet an attribute requirement?

[Boffo97]

Even with the Frool Rule, multiple copies of the same ❖ personnel could contribute attributes to solving a Dilemma.

Unless I've always been playing wrong, which is sadly always a possibility.

[Enabran]

Does Preserver Obelisk allow you to score points for universals that help meet an attribute requirement?

As far as I know, the answer is yes.

In your example you can use 8 Tepos. 7 for the cunning and one for the Acquisition.
hmm... you can try to make your personnel more dumb with a selfseeded Distracted by Thoughts of Home or so to use more Tepos.

[JeBuS]

In your example you can use 8 Tepos. 7 for the cunning and one for the Acquisition.

You sure about that? As soon as you assign 1 of them to the solve, you are automatically counting their Acquisition and their Cunning. So if you've assigned 7 of them to the solve for Cunning, you've already got Acquisition x7, and can't really apply an 8th.

[Enabran]

Now that you ask me I am not sure any more. In the last Minutes I found no Rule that gives you right and no rule that gives me right, but it is late, I am tired and will go to bed now. Maybe someone else finds an answer in between.

[BCSWowbagger]

Alright, I'm slowly trying to convince Tomek97 that after years of having to deal with the Frool Rule, it's no longer a thing. He believes me that I can use multiple ❖ Tepo's to earn points on Reallocate Dividends, but we're still disagreeing whether you can use 6 ❖ Tepo's on the Cunning >32 requirement to score 30 points. It seems to me like there should be no reason why not, but Tomek97 doesn't agree. He seems to think that you could use at most one, if not none.

Does Preserver Obelisk allow you to score points for universals that help meet an attribute requirement?

This works. My understanding is that this is why there was more careful management of natives in The Neutral Zone and A Private Little War: any planet with a ❖ native could not have an attribute requirement. (Unique natives, sure, but not ❖.)

There are several natives you can do this with in The Cage, though: Yeoman Colt (with General Order 7), Leila Kalomi, and, of course, the notorious Tepo. Preserver Obelisk's text was in flux for so long, until so late in the process, that these interactions only became clear quite close to release.

I'm not certain, off the top of my head, whether JeBuS or Enabran is right about the contribution thing.

[JeBuS]

I'm not certain, off the top of my head, whether JeBuS or Enabran is right about the contribution thing.

Neither am I, but there's a specific rule about using skills for requirements. There doesn't appear to be a similar rule for using attributes. (Though I admit I may have missed it.) This would lead me to believe that you can't choose not to use the attributes of a personnel who is using their skills to meet a requirement.

[BCSWowbagger]

I'm not certain, off the top of my head, whether JeBuS or Enabran is right about the contribution thing.

Neither am I, but there's a specific rule about using skills for requirements. There doesn't appear to be a similar rule for using attributes. (Though I admit I may have missed it.) This would lead me to believe that you can't choose not to use the attributes of a personnel who is using their skills to meet a requirement.

Which rule do you have in mind here?

From my brief re-scan of mission attempt and meeting requirements, I don't see anything that forces a personnel to apply ALL that personnel's skills and attributes to a solve. If Jean-Luc Picard is affected by Picard's Artificial Heart and is trying to solve Avert Solar Implosion with a large Away Team, he can contribute Leadership + OFFICER but withhold his Honor so that Kle'eg can swoop in and score the specialist points, and he can withhold his STRENGTH (as long as the rest of the Away Team has STRENGTH > 38) so as to avoid triggering the Heart.

Right?

Which seems to imply you can use 8 Tepos.

[JeBuS]

@BCSWowbagger Use Skills
This particular entry seems to be what that argument is based on, but at no point does it mention attributes.

In fact, I would take your reasoning a step further. "I don't see anything that forces a personnel to apply ALL of that personnel's attribute". So why wouldn't I say that all of my Tepos only contribute CUNNING=1 to the requirements, which means that 33 Tepos could all contribute a portion of their attributes to the mission attempt.

[BCSWowbagger]

So why wouldn't I say that all of my Tepos only contribute CUNNING=1 to the requirements, which means that 33 Tepos could all contribute a portion of their attributes to the mission attempt.

Because SHUT UP that's why!!

J/k. I'm actually about to go cook dinner, so I'm going to think about that while I do so. I just don't think attributes are divisible like that. It would make things like In The Pale Moonlight fall apart, because anyone with INTEGRITY 7 could just "contribute" less than full INTEGRITY to it.

By the same token, Jean-Luc Picard can contribute OFFICER while withholding Leadership, but he can't contribute Leadership x 1/2 while withholding the other half. The Leadership (like his attributes) is indivisible.

Or that's my knee-jerk answer, anyway. As I said, we'll see what answers dinner holds.