User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#579498
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:02 pm
Seeds (limit one) or plays at a Neutral Zone Region mission.
I tend to read this text as a restriction, not a permission. Normally, you could seed Earth Outpost at any [Fed] mission in the Alpha Quadrant. "Not so fast!" says this gametext: you can actually only seed it at a [Fed] mission in the Alpha Quadrant in the Neutral Zone Region. Nothing about this text indicates to me that it is attempting to override the general rules. It just seems to add to them.

However, when player intuition cuts strongly against a rule or ruling, sometimes that means that the rule or ruling should be reconsidered, rather than telling all the players to correct their intuitions. So, I will try to sound out what the boundaries of this intuition are:

For those of you who think that this text is sufficient to override the rule: do you think Earth Outpost overrides all the rules about where you can build an outpost, or just the affiliation icon restriction?

By that, I mean: do you think that you could play Earth Outpost (from hand) (under your own control) at a Neutral Zone mission where you already own another facility?

By the same token, could you play Starbase One on Deliver Ancient Artifact (the Vulcan homeworld)?

For that matter, could you play Starbase One on Research Devastating Attack, the Starfleet homeworld?

(Could you still do this even if Office of the President is already there?)

Thanks for your intuitive guidance.
I read the text on Earth Outpost as saying where you can play it and not overriding the rules around multiple facilities. Also, the cards that download an outpost to a location I would assume couldn't override the rule about building multiple facilities at a location.
Homeworld rule form the rulebook wrote:However, Outposts may never be seeded at the homeworld of any affiliation
Building multiple facilities rule form the rulebook wrote:You may not seed (or build) a facility at a location where you already have one (unless permitted by a card that allows them to "co-exist").
I would expect the card to call out if you can alter the above rules like stating "even at a homeworld" or "even if you already have a facility here"

My default has been if it tells you where to play it then it overrides the affiliation icon requirement. Most of the ones that do this use the word "any", but I didn't connect the "any" to doing this. I had missed Starbase One as an example that doesn't use any, though its requirement to be a completed mission where you have a [SF] ENGINEER makes it less likely to go at a non [SF] mission. Lastly, I personally don't see a big difference between "a X mission" and "any X mission"... it might be just me, but when we have other outposts that call out affiliation restrictions in their game text I read "a Neutral Zone region mission"s lack of affiliation icon call out as meaning "any Neutral Zone region mission, regardless of affiliation"

Outposts that don't follow the standard seed one or build where you have X ENGINEER:
Borg Outpost - uses "any"
Transwarp Hub - uses "any"
Unicomplex - uses "any"
Internment Camp 371 - does not use "any". Calls out a specific mission
Primary Supply Depot - uses "any"
Earth Outpost - does not use "any". Calls out a specific region
Earth Spacedock - does not use "any". Calls out a specific region but also adds the required affiliation icon in game text.
Starbase 247 - uses any. also calls out required affiliation icon in game text.
Hirogen Outpost - uses "any" for non matching affiliation. Calls out matching affiliation icon in game text
Kazon Outpost - does not use "any". Calls out specific required affiliation icons.
Husnock Outpost - uses "any". Calls out specific required affiliation icon.
Nekrit Supply Depot - uses "any"
Neutral Outpost - uses "any"
Starbase One - does not use "any" and does not call out affiliation icon
Vidiian Outpost - does not use "any". Calls out specific required affiliation icons.

-James M
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#579503
Dukat wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:45 amWhere exactly does it say that 'you' having a facility means OWNING it, WITHOUT controlling it?
I thought the list it gave right after that ("even if uncontrolled, commandeered, or assimilated") made it clear that it was talking about ownership, not control. All three of those are situations where you own a facility but don't control it, and, in all three of those situations, you can't play another facility at that location. The reason you can't is because the phrase "you have in play" means ownership, not control.

However, there is a passage in the Rulebook that makes this explicit:
During a game, your opponent may take control of some of your cards (through commandeering, Brainwash, Alien Parasites, etc.). Such a card is no longer "yours." (It becomes your opponent's.) However, you still own it, and therefore you still "have it in play." For example, if your opponent assimilates your unique Jean-Luc Picard, you may not play another Jean-Luc Picard, because you still have the first one in play. At the end of the game, all cards are returned to their owners.

LINK: https://www.trekcc.org/op/1e_rulebook/# ... DOWNERSHIP
This principle became well-known thanks to the ruling on pre-errata Cardassian Liberation Front that an facility "you have in play" means a facility you own, not one you control.

However, on the other hand, enough people found it confusing that CLF was eventually given clarifying errata to just say "own," and Rules made a commitment to stop using the phrase "have in play" on new cards going forward. We should probably update this paragraph to say "where you already own a facility" instead of "where you already have a facility." I don't think you're crazy to find the current wording vague. It can be improved, and we should improve it.

P.S. Thanks Orbin and Boromir for your intuition-explanations. It's valuable feedback; I just don't have much to say to it right at this moment.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]