User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#548580
Right. The issue is that the glossary is the only reason points score at a location for Recruit Mercs. It is not otherwise intuitive that they do (or should). This is 100% a glossary induced game mechanic.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#548582
I disagree that it's a Glossary-induced game mechanic. I think the question, "Does Recruit Mercenaries score points at the location where it is played?" is a close one, with good arguments on both sides. Faced with genuine ambiguity, Decipher had to make a ruling one way or the other. This is the way they decided to go.

FWIW, it's also the way I would go; I don't think "pay them" should be read as simply flavor text, but as the card saying, "you are giving these mercs your points..." and you are by definition doing that at the location where the mercs are.

But it's a close enough call that I can understand your perspective as well. Since it's genuinely ambiguous, and matters for games, if we didn't have a Glossary entry saying that Recruit Mercs is scoring points at a location, then we would instead have to write a Glossary entry saying that Recruit Mercs isn't scoring points at a location.

(A Glossary-induced game mechanic, IMO, is one where the Glossary clearly and unambiguously overrides the application of the general rules for a specific case, like it did for pre-errata Diplomatic Conference. These can be deleted to simplify the game.)

(By contrast, cases where the Glossary appears to be actually trying to apply the general rules correctly to ambiguous situations are just clarifications. They may be bad clarifications, for any number of reasons, and we maybe should change them, but clarifications of ambiguous interactions are what the Glossary exists for. These can't be deleted to simplify the game, because the ambiguity will continue to exist whether it's clarified or not.)

I tend to agree that the problem here is Altonian Brain Teaser, a card that introduced several problematic rules concepts -- both scoring points at a location and points that "do not count toward winning," all while being one of the more confusing cases of a condition ("if their CUNNING < 15") that isn't legally one of the "conditions" that can stop you. I dislike ABT for this messiness, but am not certain what can be done about it even with an erratum.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#548587
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:13 pm I dislike ABT for this messiness, but am not certain what can be done about it even with an erratum.
[Dual]
Countdown: 3

Unless a personnel with cunning > 15 present, place on mission. At the end of turn, place all cards from each players point box facedown. When this card leaves play, turn them face up.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#548589
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:36 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:13 pm I dislike ABT for this messiness, but am not certain what can be done about it even with an erratum.
[Dual]
Countdown: 3

Unless a personnel with cunning > 15 present, place on mission. At the end of turn, place all cards from each players point box facedown. When this card leaves play, turn them face up.
"Unless" would make it a condition and a stopp, with >15 a pretty reliable one. But of course pointing out problems is easier then being constructive.

How about
[Dual]
Countdown: 3
Discard a person with cunning>11. If no such person [then your text], place on mission. At the end of turn, place all cards from each players point box facedown. When this card leaves play, turn them face up.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#548597
Sorry, I should have specified: I was thinking of a clarifying erratum, which cleans up its wording without (significantly) changing its functionality. (Because that is the kind of erratum I have the power to implement.)

Both you guys had interesting ideas, just both are outside the scope of what I can do -- and I'm guessing Balance won't want to take away a popular card and turn it into something quite different just because the Rules Manager finds it irritating.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#548601
okidoki. I saw in the dilemma resolution guide there is a spelling error "5" instead of "15".

for the re-wording to make the effect more clear, i currently have no idea. I thought "unless" and "to get past" are conditions so "if" strikes me as obiously not a condition.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#548602
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:05 pm Sorry, I should have specified: I was thinking of a clarifying erratum, which cleans up its wording without (significantly) changing its functionality. (Because that is the kind of erratum I have the power to implement.)

Both you guys had interesting ideas, just both are outside the scope of what I can do -- and I'm guessing Balance won't want to take away a popular card and turn it into something quite different just because the Rules Manager finds it irritating.
"Popular card" is a small stretch. Useful but only for shenanigans is a better description. I've been advocating for a long time that maybe the cc takes a set off and actually prioritizes a full errata and rules wishlist "set".
User avatar
 
By Ensign Q
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#548607
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:13 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:05 pm Sorry, I should have specified: I was thinking of a clarifying erratum, which cleans up its wording without (significantly) changing its functionality. (Because that is the kind of erratum I have the power to implement.)

Both you guys had interesting ideas, just both are outside the scope of what I can do -- and I'm guessing Balance won't want to take away a popular card and turn it into something quite different just because the Rules Manager finds it irritating.
"Popular card" is a small stretch. Useful but only for shenanigans is a better description. I've been advocating for a long time that maybe the cc takes a set off and actually prioritizes a full errata and rules wishlist "set".
+100
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#549207
Actually, the problem with ABT is that it effects all bonus points, which it shouldn't. It should effect only POSITIVE bonus points.

So simply change it to:
Most CUNNING personnel present is "stopped." If their CUNNING<15, positive bonus points scored at this spaceline location do not count toward winning. Discard dilemma.
Easy enough...
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#549211
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:13 pm I disagree that it's a Glossary-induced game mechanic. I think the question, "Does Recruit Mercenaries score points at the location where it is played?" is a close one, with good arguments on both sides. Faced with genuine ambiguity, Decipher had to make a ruling one way or the other. This is the way they decided to go.

FWIW, it's also the way I would go; I don't think "pay them" should be read as simply flavor text, but as the card saying, "you are giving these mercs your points..." and you are by definition doing that at the location where the mercs are.

But it's a close enough call that I can understand your perspective as well. Since it's genuinely ambiguous, and matters for games, if we didn't have a Glossary entry saying that Recruit Mercs is scoring points at a location, then we would instead have to write a Glossary entry saying that Recruit Mercs isn't scoring points at a location.

(A Glossary-induced game mechanic, IMO, is one where the Glossary clearly and unambiguously overrides the application of the general rules for a specific case, like it did for pre-errata Diplomatic Conference. These can be deleted to simplify the game.)

(By contrast, cases where the Glossary appears to be actually trying to apply the general rules correctly to ambiguous situations are just clarifications. They may be bad clarifications, for any number of reasons, and we maybe should change them, but clarifications of ambiguous interactions are what the Glossary exists for. These can't be deleted to simplify the game, because the ambiguity will continue to exist whether it's clarified or not.)

I tend to agree that the problem here is Altonian Brain Teaser, a card that introduced several problematic rules concepts -- both scoring points at a location and points that "do not count toward winning," all while being one of the more confusing cases of a condition ("if their CUNNING < 15") that isn't legally one of the "conditions" that can stop you. I dislike ABT for this messiness, but am not certain what can be done about it even with an erratum.
This is unnecessarily complicated. It introduces yet another cognitive load on the game that is already bogged down in such things. The card doesn't say it plays at a location. It doesn't say it scores at a location. Recruit Mercs leaves the table to go to the scoring area once it has its effects. But because the glossary tells us it does both (playing and scoring at a location), now the players have to remember where the points were scored, because maybe it becomes relevant later.

Bad juju ™.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#549222
JeBuS wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:30 am It doesn't say it scores at a location.
It does, though. That is my point. Not saying that's how I would have designed the card, just that that's what the card indicates by its own text. The cognitive complexity is bad, but comes from the card text, not the Glossary.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#549226
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:19 pm
JeBuS wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:30 am It doesn't say it scores at a location.
It does, though. That is my point. Not saying that's how I would have designed the card, just that that's what the card indicates by its own text. The cognitive complexity is bad, but comes from the card text, not the Glossary.
The card doesn't say the points score at the location. The card has been interpreted to say the points score at the location.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#549230
JeBuS wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:28 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:19 pm
JeBuS wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:30 am It doesn't say it scores at a location.
It does, though. That is my point. Not saying that's how I would have designed the card, just that that's what the card indicates by its own text. The cognitive complexity is bad, but comes from the card text, not the Glossary.
The card doesn't say the points score at the location. The card has been interpreted to say the points score at the location.
Yes: the card has been correctly interpreted to say that.

Analogy: the United States Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, and it is not immediately obvious that this power is healthy for a republic, but the court of Marbury v. Madison correctly interpreted that the Constitution implicitly granted this power anyway (in a brilliant if oft-misunderstood-today ruling). Marbury had its skeptics (still does, if you know where to look), and I'm sure Recruit Mercs will still have its skeptics after this thread is over, but it seems to me that Decipher's ruling was the correct reading of the card.
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#549235
Every event plays somewhere (re the glossary)
It may play on and affect another card, or may play on the table to have a widespread effect on various aspects of the game.
any even that has a localized effect plays on that location/ship/personal. Otherwise, it plays to table
The ambigous one here is cards that play to manipulate your hand or discard. Do they play "on" your hand
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]