[boromirofborg]

Alas, Poor Queen

Plays if Borg Queen (or Bluegill Queen) was just killed. All Borg (or Bluegills) in play of same player also die.


So, *if* Bluegill Queen existed, and th same player had Borg in play (say Borg), could it theoretically be played to kill all Borg when a Bluegill queen died?

The way I read it, yes.

It doesn't seem to require both parenthetical to match.

[Rachmaninoff]

Hm... I see your point, the intent of the card is clear, but does the wording accomplish it? In mathematical writing at least it is acceptable to condense parallel phrases like this, something like "if x is positive (negative) multiply by 2 (-2)" rather than "if x is positive multiply by 2, and if x is negative multiply by -2." 1E cards are not a technical journal but it seems like they are using that style here. At least that's how I would explain it.

[Takket]

Alas, Poor Queen

Plays if Borg Queen (or Bluegill Queen) was just killed. All Borg (or Bluegills) in play of same player also die.


So, *if* Bluegill Queen existed, and th same player had Borg in play (say Borg), could it theoretically be played to kill all Borg when a Bluegill queen died?

The way I read it, yes.

It doesn't seem to require both parenthetical to match.

I'd say yes, though I don't see how this could ever happen. Someone would have to stock APQ, and their opponent would have to be playing NA Borg and bluegills, and the bluegill queen would have to be killed, which seems like a one in a million chance. Unless you want to play it on yourself, which is possible, but still tricky to kill the BGQ..... but I don't know why someone would do that.......

[nobthehobbit]

It might not be proper game terminology and it probably wouldn't fit on the card, but adding "respectively" in the second parenthetical would be one way to resolve the question.

As written, I suspect that if it ever did happen that someone was playing Borg personnel and Bluegill Infestation, and you happened to hit the Bluegill Queen, you'd get to take out all their Borg, too.

EDIT: This would also mean that if you're playing with Bluegill Infestation, you're increasing your exposure to Alas, Poor Queen, since the Queen can't be a Bluegill. (She's an Enigma, not unique.)

[BCSWowbagger]

I tend to think that the parentheses are doing something, making it work like the math thing Rachmaninoff mentions is what comes to mind.

If the card would work exactly the same way with or without parentheses, why put them in?

Just my soft thought. This does seem extreeeeeeemely theoretical (which is one reason I feel safe weighing in on it).

[AllenGould]

The problem with the parens plan is that you could then argue that "(Immune to Amanda Rogers)" is only part of the Bluegill clause, not the Borg one?

[winterflames]

Is is normal for only one part of an interrupt gets immunity? The Nullify Regenerate part seems to lack the immunity to Amanda.

[boromirofborg]

Is is normal for only one part of an interrupt gets immunity? The Nullify Regenerate part seems to lack the immunity to Amanda.

huh. I did a search and there is only one other Interrupt with an OR where the Immune comes before the OR.

Wormhole Navigation Schematic

I would say for both of those, the immunity is only for one of the two uses of the card.

Now, the bigger question this made be think of, is it automatic that if it's after the OR that the immunity is for the entire card, or are there some that should be read as only immune for the second function?

Oof! is the only one that comes to mind. The other two interrupts are Kevin and Amanda themselves, where the OR is weirdly placed, as it modifies the one function the card has instead of being a different function

(Nullifies any one Interrupt card just played OR any other card just played as an Interrupt card. (Immune to Amanda Rogers.).



On the event side of things, Calamarain feels to me like only the second function is immune to Kevin,

We Are the Borg could go either way. There my gut feel is that the download is not immune to Kevin, but the play on table version is.

[Professor Scott]

Correct on We are the Borg. Everything before the OR is separate function. Only the second function is immune.

The immune clause would have to appear on both sides of the OR for both uses to be immune.

In the case of Calamarain, however, the entire usage is immune as the OR is separating 2 options of a single action.

[AllenGould]

Is is normal for only one part of an interrupt gets immunity? The Nullify Regenerate part seems to lack the immunity to Amanda.

No, but it's also not normal for a card to interleave two texts in the same sentences.

[winterflames]

I think the location of the Immunity parenthetical is key? Oof and We Are the Borg have it placed differently. One is in the sentence, one is separate from the preceding sentences. The one inside, I posit, is only part of that effect. The one outside the sentence is possibly covering the whole card?

[SirDan]

I like this wording trick and have used it elsewhere when pressed for space. With the understanding that the paired parentheticals are related.

[AllenGould]

I like this wording trick and have used it elsewhere when pressed for space. With the understanding that the paired parentheticals are related.

In that case though, removing the parens don't actually change the meaning. (Mainly because sure, you could choose to give your personnel RANGE +1 to no effect instead of the CUNNING*, but who would bother?)

[Professor Scott]

I like this wording trick and have used it elsewhere when pressed for space. With the understanding that the paired parentheticals are related.

In that case though, removing the parens don't actually change the meaning. (Mainly because sure, you could choose to give your personnel RANGE +1 to no effect instead of the CUNNING*, but who would bother?)

So my Borg and Androids could move from Bajor to the Bajoran Wormhole without a ship?

[AllenGould]

So my Borg and Androids could move from Bajor to the Bajoran Wormhole without a ship?

If you can figure out some way to put a personnel in space and to give them a defined RANGE so that it can get a +1. (Remember, undefined attributes can't be changed, so unless that android already had RANGE 0 or better giving it +1 doesn't do anything.)

But one day I'll get the "Scotty with Shuttlecraft" dual personnel/ship printed, and then this card will be awesome!