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?
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 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.