[Hoss-Drone]

I play card A that says: "you may do x and that results in y and z"

My opponent has card B that says you can't do x. My opponent also points out that Rules L and K also work together to prevent you from doing x. Oh, and Rule M prevents you from doing y and z.

What controls? Why? Why are these issues not specifically addressed in the rules or glossary? (Unless you can show me where it's codified how to resolve the "I can/I can't" conflict)

An example that came up in a playtest game:

- I play Dial martok for murder. My opponent refs for strategema. He says they can't battle now. I respond: well I already couldn't bc my infiltrator is the same affiliation as his targets and he wasn't a leader, yet the card is allowing it, so it's clearly meant to override any rules/cards that would normally stop it. The entire point of the card is to break anything stopping it.

[Armus]

The general rules are:

Cards override rules

specific overrides general

Can't overrides can

If you evaluate along those 3 axes, you can usually come to a good answer.

It's not perfect, but it's a start, and a pretty good rule of thumb.

[Hoss-Drone]

The general rules are:

Cards override rules

specific overrides general

Can't overrides can

If you evaluate along those 3 axes, you can usually come to a good answer.

It's not perfect, but it's a start, and a pretty good rule of thumb.

But where is that in the rules? Why does "can't override can" - especially if it's two cards interacting since, prima facie, the entire point of writing a card is for it to be able to do it's thing if it's already breaking rules to do it?

As a TD, I need more than just "a rule of thumb" to rule whether the Dial Martok for murder wins or the strategema wins. Especially since the argument both players will make to me is:. My Card is overriding a rule, it is saying what I can specifically do affect the situation and while strategema says can't, DMfM doesn't specifically say can as it specifically does something which actually makes it more specific than strategema. So if I buy into the rule of thumb, DMfM wins because I would say it wins at specific over general but the next TD might say that a card saying can't always wins.

One last problem: this rule of thumb has already been rejected by TMW's "can" overiding a "doesn't work with" can't........and case precedent holds a lot of sway with me

[Armus]

The general rules are:

Cards override rules

specific overrides general

Can't overrides can

If you evaluate along those 3 axes, you can usually come to a good answer.

It's not perfect, but it's a start, and a pretty good rule of thumb.

But where is that in the rules? Why does "can't override can" - especially if it's two cards interacting since, prima facie, the entire point of writing a card is for it to be able to do it's thing if it's already breaking rules to do it?

As a TD, I need more than just "a rule of thumb" to rule whether the Dial Martok for murder wins or the strategema wins. Especially since the argument both players will make to me is:. My Card is overriding a rule, it is saying what I can specifically do affect the situation and while strategema says can't, DMfM doesn't specifically say can as it specifically does something which actually makes it more specific than strategema. So if I buy into the rule of thumb, DMfM wins because I would say it wins at specific over general but the next TD might say that a card saying can't always wins.

One last problem: this rule of thumb has already been rejected by TMW's "can" overiding a "doesn't work with" can't........and case precedent holds a lot of sway with me

Last point first: Sure, there's a specific exception to the general rule that a card-specific "Can" trumps a card-specific "Can't" -- but that's clearly spelled out in the glossary.

So yeah, first step to resolving a given rules question is see if it's already specifically addressed. If it's not, then apply the general rules.

Let's look at your Dial Martok for Murder example.

DMfM allows your Infiltrator to initiate a battle against up to two personnel without being exposed. You are correct that the card text overrides the rule about when you can initiate battle. So if your Infiltrator and your opponent's personnel were hanging out on, say, Fever Emergency, then the card would have its effect, and at least one of your opponent's personnel present would likely die (assuming you played it properly, which I'm granting for purposes of this example).

Now, same fact pattern, but instead of being on Fever Emergency, we're on Qo'nos, the Klingon Homeworld. You play DMfM to initate your battle. Again, the card allows you to do so. However, in this case, your opponent pops Q the Referee to download Strategema. Now you have a card saying you can do a specific thing and another card saying you can't do that specific thing. Cant trumps can, so you can't initiate that battle against a force.

...But WAIT! There's more! Strategema only protects a force at Qo'nos. So if your infiltrator is present, and your opponent has any non- personnel there, then, because DMfM allows you to target one or two personnel, I would argue that you would be able to initiate battle against those specific personnel even with Strategema in play.

Definition of Force:

A group of cards belonging to one player which may participate in a battle. In personnel battle, a force may be an Away Team or crew. In ship battle, a force may consist of one or more ships and/or facilities, including their crews (or your Away Team in your planet facility).

All cards in a force (including all crew members) must be compatible.

A force may include one or more affiliations which can restrict it from initiating battle or prevent it from being attacked. For example, any force which includes at least one Federation-affiliation card, such as a Non-Aligned ship with a mixed Non-Aligned/[Fed] Federation crew, is a Federation force and may not initiate battle except against Borg and self-controlling cards. A Klingon ship with a mixed Klingon-[Rom] Romulan crew is both a Klingon force and a Romulan force. It may not initiate battle against Romulans or be attacked by the opponent's Romulan force.

Emphasis added and Strikethrough added to highligt the general rule that DMfM overrides.

So if your opponent has, a bunch of personnel and, say, Barry Waddle on Qo'Nos, you can DMfM Barry, and since he's the only opponent's personnel targeted, he's a force, and can be battled as such.

In this case specific trumps general.

Does that evaluation make sense?

[Hoss-Drone]

Does that evaluation make sense?

Yes, but it's not supported by anything in the rules or the glossary. The TMW example is both a precedent that shows that your rule of thumb isn't absolute and it implies that it exists.........but neither of those things makes me, a TD confident that I've ruled correctly regardless of which way I would rule it. MTG has it codified in their rulebook that in a direct can/can't situation, the player whose turn it is decides which controls. We simply need it codified in our rulebook how do you resolve the conundrum.

[AllenGould]

DMfM allows your Infiltrator to initiate a battle against up to two personnel without being exposed. You are correct that the card text overrides the rule about when you can initiate battle.

I'm gonna give a dissenting opinion here - I don't think Dial overrides a rule at all, it just gives you permission you don't ordinarily have.

If we treat battle as permissive rather than restrictive, then Dial is just the battle version of HQ: Secure Homeworld or WNOHGB - it gives permission you don't get by default, but it's not overriding any rules.

TMW is a bugbear in any of these can/can't arguments, but the vibe I've always had is that Decipher just wanted it to override can't and thus it does. But the volume of other cards that depend on a can't trumping a can is a *lot* higher. To pick an easy example: the game would be very different if HQ: Secure Homeworld trumped Dead End.

To @Hoss-Drone 's MTG point, can't always trumps can. (Adding and removing is a whole other bucket of tribbles, which might be what you're thinking of.)

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

[Hoss-Drone]

DMfM allows your Infiltrator to initiate a battle against up to two personnel without being exposed. You are correct that the card text overrides the rule about when you can initiate battle.

I'm gonna give a dissenting opinion here - I don't think Dial overrides a rule at all, it just gives you permission you don't ordinarily have.

If we treat battle as permissive rather than restrictive, then Dial is just the battle version of HQ: Secure Homeworld or WNOHGB - it gives permission you don't get by default, but it's not overriding any rules.

TMW is a bugbear in any of these can/can't arguments, but the vibe I've always had is that Decipher just wanted it to override can't and thus it does. But the volume of other cards that depend on a can't trumping a can is a *lot* higher. To pick an easy example: the game would be very different if HQ: Secure Homeworld trumped Dead End.

To @Hoss-Drone 's MTG point, can't always trumps can. (Adding and removing is a whole other bucket of tribbles, which might be what you're thinking of.)

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

DMfM absolutely overrides rules: specifically the affiliation attack restriction rules bc to play the card they must be infiltrating and while infiltrating they are the same affiliation. Unless rules wants to hand down the ruling that it doesn't in which case this particular example is moot and DMfM is only good while infiltrating Klingons and Kazon. (Or they again write another glossary exception OR we get an errata to the card).

If the consensus is we.need can't to override can every time unless we make an exception via glossary entry then fine.....but right now, I don't have anything as a TD that gives me that definitive answer.

[Armus]

DMfM allows your Infiltrator to initiate a battle against up to two personnel without being exposed. You are correct that the card text overrides the rule about when you can initiate battle.

I'm gonna give a dissenting opinion here - I don't think Dial overrides a rule at all, it just gives you permission you don't ordinarily have.

If we treat battle as permissive rather than restrictive, then Dial is just the battle version of HQ: Secure Homeworld or WNOHGB - it gives permission you don't get by default, but it's not overriding any rules.

TMW is a bugbear in any of these can/can't arguments, but the vibe I've always had is that Decipher just wanted it to override can't and thus it does. But the volume of other cards that depend on a can't trumping a can is a *lot* higher. To pick an easy example: the game would be very different if HQ: Secure Homeworld trumped Dead End.

To @Hoss-Drone 's MTG point, can't always trumps can. (Adding and removing is a whole other bucket of tribbles, which might be what you're thinking of.)

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

DMfM absolutely overrides rules: specifically the affiliation attack restriction rules bc to play the card they must be infiltrating and while infiltrating they are the same affiliation. Unless rules wants to hand down the ruling that it doesn't in which case this particular example is moot and DMfM is only good while infiltrating Klingons and Kazon. (Or they again write another glossary exception OR we get an errata to the card).

If the consensus is we.need can't to override can every time unless we make an exception via glossary entry then fine.....but right now, I don't have anything as a TD that gives me that definitive answer.

I think it was @BCSWowbagger who said something to the effect of "If there's more than one way to rule on something, the ruling that maximizes the legality (playability?) of all cards involved is likely the correct one"

This is basically an extension of the 3-axis evaluation I outlined above, and how I got to my conclusion of DMfM working at a homeworld against non-matching personnel even if Strategema is on the table.

As a general example, if you have something that says "you can do X" and something else says "you can't do X," then if can trumps can't, then the "you can't do X" card is pretty much blank. Conversely, the "you can do X" card grants playability absent the "you can't do X" card, so both are playable and legal.

James can correct me if I'm misquoting or misinterpreting him.

[BCSWowbagger]

I think it was @BCSWowbagger who said something to the effect of "If there's more than one way to rule on something, the ruling that maximizes the legality (playability?) of all cards involved is likely the correct one"

...

James can correct me if I'm misquoting or misinterpreting him.

I don't remember saying this, but it does sound like something I'd say. Verba cum effectu sunt accipienda: words are to be taken in such a way that they have an effect.

(Fun trivia: the Latin phrase for the Golden Rule is generalia specialibus non derogant: the general does not disparage the specific.)

(This post should not be interpreted to mean more than it says.)

[AllenGould]

DMfM absolutely overrides rules: specifically the affiliation attack restriction rules bc to play the card they must be infiltrating and while infiltrating they are the same affiliation.

True, but that's if you want to push the built-in "attack someone" button. DMfM gives you a second button - it doesn't replace the existing rules, just gives you a new option. (In the same way that HQ:Secure Homeworld doesn't replace or remove your ability to attempt the mission normally - it just gives you an second means to do so.)

[Hoss-Drone]

DMfM absolutely overrides rules: specifically the affiliation attack restriction rules bc to play the card they must be infiltrating and while infiltrating they are the same affiliation.

True, but that's if you want to push the built-in "attack someone" button. DMfM gives you a second button - it doesn't replace the existing rules, just gives you a new option. (In the same way that HQ:Secure Homeworld doesn't replace or remove your ability to attempt the mission normally - it just gives you an second means to do so.)

Under that logic, DMfM does get around strategema because strategema says "your opponent cannot initiate battle" which implies "battle under the rules" and DMfM is as you say, pushing a different button. Basically, I played a card, the card initiated battle.

All this to say, I don't agree with that logic - especially since strategema's glossary entry would require its own new interpretation then also.

In case anyone is thinking about this vis a vis continentals, Right now, I will rule that strategema does control but not because of this discussion, but because of strategema's glossary entry and the implication that DMFM removes a restriction. Though my larger concern about rules completeness stands.

[Armus]

DMfM absolutely overrides rules: specifically the affiliation attack restriction rules bc to play the card they must be infiltrating and while infiltrating they are the same affiliation.

True, but that's if you want to push the built-in "attack someone" button. DMfM gives you a second button - it doesn't replace the existing rules, just gives you a new option. (In the same way that HQ:Secure Homeworld doesn't replace or remove your ability to attempt the mission normally - it just gives you an second means to do so.)

Under that logic, DMfM does get around strategema because strategema says "your opponent cannot initiate battle" which implies "battle under the rules" and DMfM is as you say, pushing a different button. Basically, I played a card, the card initiated battle.

All this to say, I don't agree with that logic - especially since strategema's glossary entry would require its own new interpretation then also.

In case anyone is thinking about this vis a vis continentals, Right now, I will rule that strategema does control but not because of this discussion, but because of strategema's glossary entry and the implication that DMFM removes a restriction. Though my larger concern about rules completeness stands.

So just so I'm following... would you rule that Strategema trumps DMfM if a one or two person non-matching force can be created by playing DMfM?

Because if so I'm not sure how you got there.

[Armus]

Alternate question, which could also end up being relevant to Continentals...

Would the that allow battle (e.g., Assimilate Counterpart, Assimilate Species) be able to circumvent Strategema?

If so, that would be a fairly large departure. I think it's more likely correct that those cards remove the battle restrictions and thus Strategema controls.

[Hoss-Drone]

True, but that's if you want to push the built-in "attack someone" button. DMfM gives you a second button - it doesn't replace the existing rules, just gives you a new option. (In the same way that HQ:Secure Homeworld doesn't replace or remove your ability to attempt the mission normally - it just gives you an second means to do so.)

Under that logic, DMfM does get around strategema because strategema says "your opponent cannot initiate battle" which implies "battle under the rules" and DMfM is as you say, pushing a different button. Basically, I played a card, the card initiated battle.

All this to say, I don't agree with that logic - especially since strategema's glossary entry would require its own new interpretation then also.

In case anyone is thinking about this vis a vis continentals, Right now, I will rule that strategema does control but not because of this discussion, but because of strategema's glossary entry and the implication that DMFM removes a restriction. Though my larger concern about rules completeness stands.

So just so I'm following... would you rule that Strategema trumps DMfM if a one or two person non-matching force can be created by playing DMfM?

Because if so I'm not sure how you got there.

No, I'm agreeing with you that DMfM creates a separate force and strategema is moot in that situation. I'm just talking about if it's against a matching force.

[Hoss-Drone]

Alternate question, which could also end up being relevant to Continentals...

Would the that allow battle (e.g., Assimilate Counterpart, Assimilate Species) be able to circumvent Strategema?

If so, that would be a fairly large departure. I think it's more likely correct that those cards remove the battle restrictions and thus Strategema controls.

Those both say "may battle" so they are just getting a rule out of the way and are not initiating the battle and do not need the battle to happen to resolve their text.