User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#551236
Experience Bij -

If you watched both of my videos from yesterday you'll see that independantly - both Niall and Maggie say that this dilemma is a choice not to nullify by the player encountering another dilemma. However, as I state as a counterpoint - nullification is a choice made by any player who is able to make that choice and since it affects the opponent, it is the opponent who should essentially always have that ability to nullify it.

What was the intention of this dilemma when it was designed? What is the proper resolution of the dilemma? Should it be changed?


Sheliak

So this card got the full errata treatment and as such, a playtesting treatment. I assume it wasnt an oversight that since this card no longer targets, it becomes VERY easy for it to simply fail at its most basic function. Q was errata'd, so was wormhole - why was it decided that this dilemma would have the option to misfire? Its not intuitive that this dilemma would not reach its destination b/c of the particularities of the [Self] rules. This is just another example of bad complexity in this game.

If the powers that be are serious about trying to make this game better for new players than this dilemma needs to go on the list of things to correct/change so that it goes back to targeting its starting location.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551238
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:40 am Experience Bij -

If you watched both of my videos from yesterday you'll see that independantly - both Niall and Maggie say that this dilemma is a choice not to nullify by the player encountering another dilemma. However, as I state as a counterpoint - nullification is a choice made by any player who is able to make that choice and since it affects the opponent, it is the opponent who should essentially always have that ability to nullify it.

What was the intention of this dilemma when it was designed? What is the proper resolution of the dilemma? Should it be changed?


Sheliak

So this card got the full errata treatment and as such, a playtesting treatment. I assume it wasnt an oversight that since this card no longer targets, it becomes VERY easy for it to simply fail at its most basic function. Q was errata'd, so was wormhole - why was it decided that this dilemma would have the option to misfire? Its not intuitive that this dilemma would not reach its destination b/c of the particularities of the [Self] rules. This is just another example of bad complexity in this game.

If the powers that be are serious about trying to make this game better for new players than this dilemma needs to go on the list of things to correct/change so that it goes back to targeting its starting location.
Re: BiJ - If it's on a mission preventing an attempt, it *may* (i.e., doesn't have to be) be nullified by *any* player encountering a dilemma at another mission. The player encountering the dilemma makes the choice whether or not to nullify it. I don't think your "player affected by it" argument holds up since techically both players are affected by all copies - it's just in OTF where your opponent can't even attempt your missions without a card effect that, in practical terms, BiJ only affects you.

Re: Sheliak - This sounds familiar.... *checks threads* ... yup, it was discussed here and here from almost exactly a year ago. Obviously the errata team did not agree with the "let's go ahead and let the Sheliak overshoot their mark" objection, because yes, that's the way it works, and yes, I'm also of the opinion that that's pretty dumb.

However, I do like the conversion of the Sheliak to a [Self] dilemma in general, just not a fan of the wording that got put on there, as I ranted about when it came out.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#551243
Armus wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:33 am

Re: BiJ - If it's on a mission preventing an attempt, it *may* (i.e., doesn't have to be) be nullified by *any* player encountering a dilemma at another mission. The player encountering the dilemma makes the choice whether or not to nullify it. I don't think your "player affected by it" argument holds up since techically both players are affected by all copies - it's just in OTF where your opponent can't even attempt your missions without a card effect that, in practical terms, BiJ only affects you.

Re: Sheliak - This sounds familiar.... *checks threads* ... yup, it was discussed here and here from almost exactly a year ago. Obviously the errata team did not agree with the "let's go ahead and let the Sheliak overshoot their mark" objection, because yes, that's the way it works, and yes, I'm also of the opinion that that's pretty dumb.

However, I do like the conversion of the Sheliak to a [Self] dilemma in general, just not a fan of the wording that got put on there, as I ranted about when it came out.
Go and read "nullify" in the glossary. Its actually not in there saying who can and who cannot do the nullifying. As such, it seems implied and assumed that the person doing the nullifying would be a player who has an interest in doing so.

Now re-read Bij. "May be nullified by any player encountering another dilemma". It doesn't say "is nullified by you encountering..." Not does it say " A player may nullify this when they encounter..."

Therefore, when I, the player who encountered it reads it, I'm told if anyone encounters another dilemma, I may nullify it. This is the most logical interp that I'm surprised it's read differently by others.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551247
Design intent was covered by Paddy here.

The wording seems to fit the stated intent. Whoever faces another dilemma gains the option to nullify BiJ. If you feel errata is needed to clarify that intent, I won't argue with you.

@BCSWowbagger keeps a clarifying errata target list, so I'll refer you to him.
User avatar
Director of Organized Play
By LORE (Kris Sonsteby)
 - Director of Organized Play
 -  
Alpha Hunter
1E North American Continental Champion 2019
1E Andoria Regional Champion 2021
W.C.T. Chairman's Trophy winner 2014-2015
#551252
Armus wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:23 am Design intent was covered by Paddy here.

The wording seems to fit the stated intent. Whoever faces another dilemma gains the option to nullify BiJ. If you feel errata is needed to clarify that intent, I won't argue with you.

@BCSWowbagger keeps a clarifying errata target list, so I'll refer you to him.
Ok, wow. Now I see the confusion. If you hit my Bij! and then I go do some other mission, I can then choose not to nullify Bij! and still make you go try some other mission yourself to get the option to nullify. I guess I read it too much like Edo Probe the first few times. I feel like that "may" option actually makes this dilemma better, and I thought it was good to begin with.
User avatar
First Edition Creative Manager
By KazonPADD (Paddy Tye)
 - First Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Specialist
1E European Continental Semi-Finalist 2019
1E American National Runner-Up 2020
1E British National Runner-Up 2020
#551255
Think of it as “To get past this dilemma, you must face another dilemma.”

The “may” means an opponent can choose not to nullify it. But if it’s a shared mission, opponent can’t lock you out.

Early on it was called “Another Shrubbery” during testing, before we settled on the BiJ theme.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Socialite
#551257
I'd of just put this on the card:
Attempt ends. Place on mission; cannot be attempted or scouted. Nullified when another dilemma is encountered at another mission OR if Dead End is on this mission.
Other seems overly complicated. This would have just been plain and simple.
User avatar
First Edition Creative Manager
By KazonPADD (Paddy Tye)
 - First Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Specialist
1E European Continental Semi-Finalist 2019
1E American National Runner-Up 2020
1E British National Runner-Up 2020
#551258
HoodieDM wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:24 am I'd of just put this on the card:
Attempt ends. Place on mission; cannot be attempted or scouted. Nullified when another dilemma is encountered at another mission OR if Dead End is on this mission.
Other seems overly complicated. This would have just been plain and simple.
That wasn’t the intent though.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#551264
HoodieDM wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:24 am I'd of just put this on the card:
Attempt ends. Place on mission; cannot be attempted or scouted. Nullified when another dilemma is encountered at another mission OR if Dead End is on this mission.
Other seems overly complicated. This would have just been plain and simple.
I don't know it's more complicated, just more nuanced.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#551267
KazonPADD wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:59 am Think of it as “To get past this dilemma, you must face another dilemma.”

The “may” means an opponent can choose not to nullify it. But if it’s a shared mission, opponent can’t lock you out.

Early on it was called “Another Shrubbery” during testing, before we settled on the BiJ theme.
It's fine that was the intent and I support that idea...but that's not how the card is written in a plain read and the rules don't support it that I can find. This feels like a "playtesters were just told this is how it works and no one questioned it" situation.

This needs a rules decision and/or errata.

So let's just get this and sheliak so they actually work hmmmm?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Architect
Community Contributor
#551278
"May be nullified by" - okay, someone can nullify this under certain circumstances. Who and when?

"any player encountering" - either player, when that player is encountering something -- but what?

"another dilemma" - ah, okay. So when either player encounters a dilemma other than this specific copy of BiJ!, that player may choose to nullify BiJ!.

It's unquestionably a very strong dilemma, especially against Borg, especially against TNG Borg using Consume: Outpost (since they won't be able to re-target the same mission with that objective again).

Rules came up with this wording because the original wording ("Place on mission. Mission may not be attempted or scouted. Nullified when you encounter another dilemma.") created too-easily manipulated lockouts at shared missions.

At the time that we came up with this wording, I thought it was pretty clever that we managed to make it so clear while still fitting it on three lines and including the Dead End exception Playtesting had called for. Grammatically, I don't think there's any other way to read it. "Encountering" clearly modifies "player" and "player" is clearly the indirect object of "may".

Nevertheless, in the year since it came out, I have personally misread it. So there is something about this wording that is misleading our brains, despite what seems to me to be perfectly clear grammar. When a card unambiguously means something, but players routinely misinterpret it to mean something else, that's usually a good time to add a Glossary entry (and consider clarifying errata down the road).

EDIT: as for nuSheliak missing the target, Rules did raise that with Design and Design said it was intended, so we left it.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#551282
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:06 pm "May be nullified by" - okay, someone can nullify this under certain circumstances. Who and when?

"any player encountering" - either player, when that player is encountering something -- but what?

"another dilemma" - ah, okay. So when either player encounters a dilemma other than this specific copy of BiJ!, that player may choose to nullify BiJ!.

It's unquestionably a very strong dilemma, especially against Borg, especially against TNG Borg using Consume: Outpost (since they won't be able to re-target the same mission with that objective again).

Rules came up with this wording because the original wording ("Place on mission. Mission may not be attempted or scouted. Nullified when you encounter another dilemma.") created too-easily manipulated lockouts at shared missions.

At the time that we came up with this wording, I thought it was pretty clever that we managed to make it so clear while still fitting it on three lines and including the Dead End exception Playtesting had called for. Grammatically, I don't think there's any other way to read it. "Encountering" clearly modifies "player" and "player" is clearly the indirect object of "may".

Nevertheless, in the year since it came out, I have personally misread it. So there is something about this wording that is misleading our brains, despite what seems to me to be perfectly clear grammar. When a card unambiguously means something, but players routinely misinterpret it to mean something else, that's usually a good time to add a Glossary entry (and consider clarifying errata down the road).

EDIT: as for nuSheliak missing the target, Rules did raise that with Design and Design said it was intended, so we left it.
Re: Bij - it's that your brain understands the simple concept that "I'm the one encountering this, I'm the one reading it, I'm the one who has to deal with it, therefore it's talking to me" and your English grammar fascist argument about strict indirect objects simply don't carry water imho. This really is where your pretend lawyers get exposed against real lawyers as a real lawyer I would have (and I am now, again) told you - then you need to say "may be nullified by any player when they encounter a different dilemma".

"If you construct terms using implied indirect objects be ready for the judge to interpret it against you." Is something contract lawyers learn day one.

Change it and tell errata design they effed up worse on sheliak - colonizer's don't fly by the place they want to colonize then just simply keep going.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551283
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:00 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:06 pm "May be nullified by" - okay, someone can nullify this under certain circumstances. Who and when?

"any player encountering" - either player, when that player is encountering something -- but what?

"another dilemma" - ah, okay. So when either player encounters a dilemma other than this specific copy of BiJ!, that player may choose to nullify BiJ!.

It's unquestionably a very strong dilemma, especially against Borg, especially against TNG Borg using Consume: Outpost (since they won't be able to re-target the same mission with that objective again).

Rules came up with this wording because the original wording ("Place on mission. Mission may not be attempted or scouted. Nullified when you encounter another dilemma.") created too-easily manipulated lockouts at shared missions.

At the time that we came up with this wording, I thought it was pretty clever that we managed to make it so clear while still fitting it on three lines and including the Dead End exception Playtesting had called for. Grammatically, I don't think there's any other way to read it. "Encountering" clearly modifies "player" and "player" is clearly the indirect object of "may".

Nevertheless, in the year since it came out, I have personally misread it. So there is something about this wording that is misleading our brains, despite what seems to me to be perfectly clear grammar. When a card unambiguously means something, but players routinely misinterpret it to mean something else, that's usually a good time to add a Glossary entry (and consider clarifying errata down the road).

EDIT: as for nuSheliak missing the target, Rules did raise that with Design and Design said it was intended, so we left it.
Re: Bij - it's that your brain understands the simple concept that "I'm the one encountering this, I'm the one reading it, I'm the one who has to deal with it, therefore it's talking to me" and your English grammar fascist argument about strict indirect objects simply don't carry water imho. This really is where your pretend lawyers get exposed against real lawyers as a real lawyer I would have (and I am now, again) told you - then you need to say "may be nullified by any player when they encounter a different dilemma".

"If you construct terms using implied indirect objects be ready for the judge to interpret it against you." Is something contract lawyers learn day one.

Change it and tell errata design they effed up worse on sheliak - colonizer's don't fly by the place they want to colonize then just simply keep going.
C'mon, Kev. I'm sympathetic to both of your arguments on the merits, but when you start pulling out the #imalawyer card and calling people grammar fascists, you really undermine your own argument.

Doesn't the old trope of "When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table." Also apply to first year law students?

Why with the table pounding when there are better approaches available to get to your desired end?
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#551287
Armus wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:06 pm C'mon, Kev. I'm sympathetic to both of your arguments on the merits, but when you start pulling out the #imalawyer card and calling people grammar fascists, you really undermine your own argument.

Doesn't the old trope of "When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table." Also apply to first year law students?

Why with the table pounding when there are better approaches available to get to your desired end?
Your proving my point about indirect objects. I didn't call James a grammer fascist but you thought I did bc you injected it in your mind. ( You're also injecting an emotional pound the table that isn't there, which is I guess #rhetorical trick)

That's what is being asked when reading Bij - to inject an understanding of an indirect object (both players) when the straight read says otherwise bc both players aren't actually reading the dilemma - only the encountering player and the player whose mission it is..is...

This needs to be an understanding of how to write and resolve a dilemma.

Again, I support the dilemma being this way in execution, but more care is needed in writing these dilemmas bc again, new players, plain reading....
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551291
Sorry my bad. You didn't call James a Grammar Fascist, you just called him a pretend lawyer. I'm not sure that really weakens my case though.

I would submit that if you need a law degree to play star trek cards, then we have bigger problems with the game than a misread dilemma or an overshot sheliak.

Anyway, moving to the merits, I don't think your "I'm the one reading the dilemma" argument is as strong as you think it is.

There's plenty of counterexamples to that. Off the top of my head, pre-errata Borg Ship, Volcanic Eruption, and Horta all have ongoing effects that hit both players. It's a stronger argument to say the dilemma is talking to the player revealing it during the attempt - something that BiJ does as well. Unfortunately that part of the card only lasts for the first two words because after that the attempt is over.

Put another way, there's no reason that your reading is absolutely the correct one either.

But since it's clear that people are reading this card different ways, and James has already said he's open to a Glossary entry and/ or Future clarifying errata, you've basically already made your case, so at this point I'm not even sure what it is we're arguing about.

Generally yes, but I won’t be there!

Stupid Trek Jokes and Memes

One for the kiddies

im so fired up. im so ready for this cube draft

If you plan on attending, please pre-register! My […]