User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583841
Professor Scott wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:49 am
ShipNerd wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:20 am
Rulebook
Stasis
direct quote: "However, unlike disabled cards, ships and personnel in stasis cannot be attacked in battle and cannot be targeted by other cards. "
Ergo disabled cards CAN be attacked in battle and CAN be targeted by other cards.
"Sokath, his eyes opened" quotes Tamerian First Officer :)

I will never discuss again but only quote myself from now on, its a lot more fun 8)
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#583842
Armus wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:47 am
ShipNerd wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:44 am
ShipNerd wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:20 am
Rulebook
Stasis
direct quote: "However, unlike disabled cards, ships and personnel in stasis cannot be attacked in battle and cannot be targeted by other cards. "
Just quoting myself out of boredom. Don´t mind listening to me, i am used to it :wink:
Nah I think you, me, and @AllenGould are on the same page, while @pfti (and maybe @Rachmaninoff ? Maybe not.) are on the other side.

I'm sure he's at work right now, but I would like to hear the @BCSWowbagger rule master take when he's available, because if we're wrong, then we should probably work with the 1e staff components to come up with wording that better meets Design intent.
Put me on your side as well. Which means it's probably the kiss of death since rules seems to bend over backwards to disagree with me.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#583843
It seems to me, at first blush, and I will talk to the R.C. about it (before release day!), that, if there is a problem here, it is with the way the rule is worded, and not with the way the card is worded, or with the general behavior of the card.

The basic wording here is very old. The operative text for has been pretty much the same since 2002 (although a "much like" got changed at some point to a "just like," which may be causing a problem). However, even old rules text sometimes has gaps or misleading clauses in it. We'll take a look.

Conceptually, a disabled personnel is unconscious. They cannot do things, but they can have things done to them.

Will update this thread before release day. One way or another (whether we deem a change necessary or useful or not), Galactic Army of Light will work correctly.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#583847
Armus wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:02 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:58 am Galactic Army of Light will work correctly.
And just so we're clear... "correctly" = "play your affiliated [CF] goobers at Nimbus III and 'wake them up' with Release This Pain" ... correct?
As described in the companion article, yes.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583850
Hoss-Drone wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:57 am
Put me on your side as well. Which means it's probably the kiss of death since rules seems to bend over backwards to disagree with me.
Oh i think James has already shown greatness, (hope that is well translated, its a german expression) in his next post after yours AND is going to make the rule text in "disabled entry" more clear :)
maybe into something like:
disable cards can not use their intrinsic abilities/features in any way by the controlling player (e.g. beaming, walking, use their gametext etc.) (but they can still be effect e.g. cards can be played on them and then can be moved around like equipment) etc. see stasis for comparison.
Last edited by ShipNerd on Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583851
Armus wrote:Nah I think you, me, and @AllenGould are on the same page, while @pfti (and maybe @Rachmaninoff ? Maybe not.) are on the other side.
Sorry for being unclear.

My take is that the rules text is inconsistent and, on its own, can support either reading. (*) But given two possible readings of the rules text we ought to side with the one that lets the cards do what they were clearly intended to do. By analogy to Data's Body and cards that target captives (where the intent is fully clear), I would rule that you can Release this Pain on a disabled personnel.

(*) By this, I mean part of the stasis entry implies that disabled personnel are in play for uniqueness only; and cards in play for uniqueness only cannot be targeted (or else they would be in play for other purposes too). But another part of the stasis entry implies that disabled personnel can be targeted (and hence are not just in play for uniqueness only), a contradiction.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583852
pfti wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:35 am
Cards in stasis may not take actions, use gametext, or characteristics, and are considered in play for uniqueness only. In this respect, they are just like disabled cards.
Yeah that sentense is odd, because in disalbed there is no reference that they are in "in play for uniqueness only". And the "In this respect they are like disabled cards" actually only applies to the former part of the sentence. "In play for uniqueness only" should only be applyed for stasis cards, only (which is clear to me but the text is in deed not @Rachmaninoff ).

New Enry:
Cards in stasis may not take actions, use gametext, and characteristics.. In this respect, they are just like disabled cards.
In addition, cards in stasis are in play for uniquness only.

Didn´t read that post, as i went away to do other things and it was already clear to me that disabled cards can be affected by other cards and are in play, based on game experience and what i posted. good that i do not need to spend my time being in rules cleaning up messy texts, thx for your spending your time doing this job :)
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#583855
I agree that conceptually disabled cards should likely be allowed to have stuff happen with them, but the Stasis entry needs to be cleaned up. Because if we take all of the rules as written as true, the ONLY thing you can do to diabled cards is attack them and move them as equipment. No other permissions override the in-play for uniqueness only rules that conceptually blank the card.

I am fine with rules to clean up, I am merely pointing out that by the logic of the rules it cannot be done now as written. Also no one has provided rules-based evidence that refutes my interpratation.

Yay for James and Rules for fixing this.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583866
pfti wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:28 pm I am fine with rules to clean up, I am merely pointing out that by the logic of the rules it cannot be done now as written. Also no one has provided rules-based evidence that refutes my interpratation.
Rulebook, "stasis":
However, unlike disabled cards, ships and personnel in stasis cannot be attacked in battle and cannot be targeted by other cards.

This pretty clearly implies that disabled cards *can* be targeted by other cards.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#583867
Rachmaninoff wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:00 pm
pfti wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:28 pm I am fine with rules to clean up, I am merely pointing out that by the logic of the rules it cannot be done now as written. Also no one has provided rules-based evidence that refutes my interpratation.
Rulebook, "stasis":
However, unlike disabled cards, ships and personnel in stasis cannot be attacked in battle and cannot be targeted by other cards.

This pretty clearly implies that disabled cards *can* be targeted by other cards.
I think it's the sentence before that's causing the issue:
Cards in stasis may not take actions, use gametext, or characteristics, and are considered in play for uniqueness only. In this respect, they are just like disabled cards.
Problem being that the disabled entry doesn't say anything about "in play for uniqueness", so that entry is actively wrong. (And frankly unnecessary to refer to each other in the first place IMO).
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583870
pfti wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:28 pm Also no one has provided rules-based evidence that refutes my interpratation.
Yay for James and Rules for fixing this.
I think you mean this interpreation:
Yeah the sentence in rulebook: stasis that disabled cards are also "only in uniquness only" means, if taken seriously, no one can ever do anything with disabled cards, until it's deleted (no more brainwash, or escorting prisoners). That way you found something that needs fixing, text wise for clearty. Haven't released that by my own, glad i am not responsible for the current glossary/rulebook, which is why i do not search for fixes there on my own. James and friends will handle it.

I focus on making sure my multiplayer rules are consistent. For simplicity reasons there are no cards ATM that disable or put in stasis, to avoid the rules discussions all together.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583873
AllenGould wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:04 pm
Rachmaninoff wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:00 pm
pfti wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:28 pm I am fine with rules to clean up, I am merely pointing out that by the logic of the rules it cannot be done now as written. Also no one has provided rules-based evidence that refutes my interpratation.
Rulebook, "stasis":
However, unlike disabled cards, ships and personnel in stasis cannot be attacked in battle and cannot be targeted by other cards.

This pretty clearly implies that disabled cards *can* be targeted by other cards.
I think it's the sentence before that's causing the issue:
Cards in stasis may not take actions, use gametext, or characteristics, and are considered in play for uniqueness only. In this respect, they are just like disabled cards.
Problem being that the disabled entry doesn't say anything about "in play for uniqueness", so that entry is actively wrong. (And frankly unnecessary to refer to each other in the first place IMO).
Exactly how I see it -- the current rules text is contradictory. Until the contradiction is resolved, I would rule towards the interpretation consistent with design intent.

Some suggests for Rules if this is looked at futher:
1. The "disabled" entry should fully describe what that means; you shouldn't have to make inferences from the "stasis" entry.
2. "In play for uniqueness only" is certainly not the right wording for disabled. I also don't think it's right for stasis either (Dead in Bed needs to be able to target those cards)
3. I agree that the interpretation should align with "things can happen to disabled cards, but they can't initiate those things." Without further thought I do not know how to translate this into good rules text.
4. This might be a good time to look at the several "impaired" states personnel can be in -- stasis, disabled, captured, abducted -- and make sure they relate to each other in the way we want.
5. Some corner cases to consider in this process: Data's Body, which is tricky because the gametext on Data's Body needs to be active while the card is disabled, in order for Data's Head to un-disable it; Dead in Bed, already mentioned; the story of Suicidal Attack suggests that a captive card is taking an action, even if the game text doesn't directly say it.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#583972
I promised an update by release day, and, according to the server, release day started 30 minutes ago! (It's still only 11:30 here, whoops.)

Some of the rules text involved here is very old -- that line about a card in stasis being in play for uniqueness only goes back to at least Glossary 1.8--so it may take us a minute to untangle without breaking anything. But for now, let's make sure this card works:

Disabled cards may be targeted by cards and actions that target their card types. For example, disabled personnel may be battled by an opponent, captured by Ilon Tandro, or targeted by Release This Pain.

This ruling is official. It is binding in all sanctioned events, and it supersedes any and all contrary rulings by tournament directors, effective immediately. (Games already played are unaffected.)

This ruling is temporary. It is not fully fleshed-out, does not use final wording, and may be completely reversed in a regular First Monday rules update. If not resolved by the next First Monday (5 September 2022), it will be published in the Glossary's Temporary Rulings section as part of its monthly update.


Thanks to the Rules Committee for quickly coming together to make this, and particularly to [REDACTED], who did the draft for this wording, and deserves the credit.

Oh, and kudos to @Dukat. I think it may be mandatory for the Rules Manager to thank anyone who finds a rules problem egregious enough to warrant a bluetext.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583980
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:28 am
Disabled cards may be targeted by cards and actions that target their card types. For example, disabled personnel may be battled by an opponent, captured by Ilon Tandro, or targeted by Release This Pain.
Does this include Dilemmas? So M-113 creature can kill disabled personnel at the location?

I realize they are separated so they aren't affected by Dilemmas that only affect participants in the mission attempt but it seems like they would be affected by M-113 creature since it specifies here rather than the generic language that would mean it only affects someone in the attempting/scouting away team/crew.

Also, Symbalene Blood Burn kills disabled personnel?

Crystalline Entity is used as an example of something that can kill separated personnel but that's more of a blanket effect vs things that clearly target someone.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation