User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#566403
The following scenario happened in my game with @bhosp at DRUNK WORLDS on Saturday night:

He assimilated one of my Venatic Hunters using Assimilate Starship and scored 35 points from Contingency Plan.

He also had Locutus' Borg Cube in play, downloaded with They Will be Coming.

He scouted a space mission where he encountered Emergent Life Form, where I then proceeded to move his cube over to my Black Hole where it was schlorped at the end of the turn.

He tried to flip Federation Flagship: Recovered to replace his Locutus Cube with another Cube.

At this point I pointed out that he couldn't do that because he still had an assimilated Venatic Hunter in play. With no other way to play people and only 3 randos on the Venatic Hunter he declined to continue the game and we recorded it as a win for me 100-60, which was his current score when that happened (He assimilated a planet in addition to my ship).

Here's the question: Did we get that one right? Or did our collective 2e brain kick in and end up with a crossed wire, and he should have been able to use FF:R as he intended?

Thanks! :cheersL:
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#566414
Is an assimilated ship "my" ship or is it still yours??? Since the "you have in play" discussion from Cardassian Liberation Front I am complete unsure and confused what is my and what is yours.

But what is for sure is, that he would still able to play personnel to the assimilated Venatic hunter, since its affiliation changes to [Bor] after assimilation and They will be coming allows a ❖ report per turn to a [Bor] Ship.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#566416
Enabran wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:34 pm Is an assimilated ship "my" ship or is it still yours??? Since the "you have in play" discussion from Cardassian Liberation Front I am complete unsure and confused what is my and what is yours.
If you play a ship, and your opponent later assimilates it, the ship is no longer "yours" (it's now your opponent's), but "you have it in play" still.

This is the same rule that says if you assimilate your opponent's Soval, you can play Cortical Node Implant on Soval (because he's "your Borg"), but your opponent can't play another copy of Soval (because your opponent still "has Soval in play"). The basic ruling goes back a very, very long time -- 1996 or 1997, not sure which.

This is a very ugly language trap and I would like to entertain suggestions that might fix it. It works this way, but it is bad that it works this way.
User avatar
 
By Enabran
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2022
#566417
er......

I once asked:
Cardassian Liberation Front

"Plays on a Cardassia Region [P]; discard if you have a facility in play. ..."

Okay..., what if my opponent downloads a facility with Test for Weakness (which is downloadable with Taking Charge)? As I see it, it is a game over :?
Answer: no because he has it now under control but it is not his....

Federation Flagship has the same wording: If opponent's card just destroyed your only ship in play...

and now the answer is yes?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#566418
This wording is different.

Fed Flag: Recovered says "Your... [noun] in play"

Cardassian Liberation Front says "you have a [noun] in play."

These wordings are different. The first cares about control. The second cares about ownership.

If you get out a pen and diagram the sentence, you can see the difference. But once the rules require people -- especially non-native English speakers!! -- to diagram a sentence, the rules have failed.

So I repeat:
This is a very ugly language trap and I would like to entertain suggestions that might fix it. It works this way, but it is bad that it works this way.
The easiest way to fix this would be to say that "you have in play" cares about control, not ownership. However, that would change the whole persona rule to care about control (not ownership) as well, which would mean that you can play a second copy of Soval after your opponent captures or assimilates your first copy of Soval -- and you could keep both copies of Soval in play if you rescued him later on (with, say, Rescue Captives). Would that be too much of a change? Would players revolt?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#566420
That would also make TOS Romulans an Autowin against Cardassian Liberation Front.

To me, a card play that ends a game against an already underpowered faction is a more egregious sin than two Sovals running around.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#566421
The problem is we need two terms - one for "I control Bob" and one for "my copy of Bob is in play".

Because I very much like the 1E system of "If I capture your guy, you can't play another because yours is still in play", but as James noted, the terminology has been amazingly fuzzy on denoting if we're talking about ownership or control.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#566422
Armus wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 5:37 pm That would also make TOS Romulans an Autowin against Cardassian Liberation Front.
Assume that, for any proposed solution, we can do up to three (3) errata to make existing cards work with the proposed solution. Given the extremely ugly language trap here, I think I could sell that to the Department -- assuming the solution were clean enough. The Department of First Edition likes "not screwing over non-native English speakers" enough to expend resources on it, as long as it really will help, doesn't make things worse, and isn't cost-prohibitive.

(Incidentally, this is basically how I conduct threads in the R.C. forum. Question --> Answer --> That answer sucks --> How can we fix it --> Here are the cost constraints --> Let's hammer it out --> Okay we hammered it out; do we have anything that sucks less? So consider this thread an attempt at transparency at how Rules goes about its business!)
Because I very much like the 1E system of "If I capture your guy, you can't play another because yours is still in play", but as James noted, the terminology has been amazingly fuzzy on denoting if we're talking about ownership or control.
Yeah, I like this mechanic, too. But I could be convinced to sacrifice it to make @Enabran's life easier!
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#566456
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 5:34 pm However, that would change the whole persona rule to care about control (not ownership) as well, which would mean that you can play a second copy of Soval after your opponent captures or assimilates your first copy of Soval -- and you could keep both copies of Soval in play if you rescued him later on (with, say, Rescue Captives). Would that be too much of a change? Would players revolt?
Personally, I would hate that. The idea of my Soval still being in play but under my opponent's control is easy to grok and it's the flavor supported by mechanics that make me love 1E.

Wouldn't a "simple" solution be errating CLF to say "discard if you OWN a facility"?
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#566460
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:28 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 5:34 pm However, that would change the whole persona rule to care about control (not ownership) as well, which would mean that you can play a second copy of Soval after your opponent captures or assimilates your first copy of Soval -- and you could keep both copies of Soval in play if you rescued him later on (with, say, Rescue Captives). Would that be too much of a change? Would players revolt?
Personally, I would hate that. The idea of my Soval still being in play but under my opponent's control is easy to grok and it's the flavor supported by mechanics that make me love 1E.

Wouldn't a "simple" solution be errating CLF to say "discard if you OWN a facility"?
This just requires the player to know the game's definition of "own"(/owner) but seems like a good change whether the other changes being discussed are made or not.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#566469
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:28 pm Wouldn't a "simple" solution be errating CLF to say "discard if you OWN a facility"?
I would sooner errata Test for Weakness, because enough mechanics care about what you have in play that letting your opponent just give you cards is pretty powerful.
User avatar
 
By Ensign Q
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#566519
BCSWowbagger wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:53 pm
Enabran wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:34 pm Is an assimilated ship "my" ship or is it still yours??? Since the "you have in play" discussion from Cardassian Liberation Front I am complete unsure and confused what is my and what is yours.
If you play a ship, and your opponent later assimilates it, the ship is no longer "yours" (it's now your opponent's), but "you have it in play" still.

This is the same rule that says if you assimilate your opponent's Soval, you can play Cortical Node Implant on Soval (because he's "your Borg"), but your opponent can't play another copy of Soval (because your opponent still "has Soval in play"). The basic ruling goes back a very, very long time -- 1996 or 1997, not sure which.

This is a very ugly language trap and I would like to entertain suggestions that might fix it. It works this way, but it is bad that it works this way.
in magic there is "own" (its your card)
and "control" (you control the card)
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation