trekcc.org

A question that looks simple on the surface, but perhaps has a few hidden wrinkles:
Can Dixon Hill solve Access Archives?

Let's say that Dixon Hill is the lone survivor of his away team. All of the dilemmas are gone. So, according to the rulebook (7.2.5), the away team moves immediately into the "Solving the mission" portion of the attempt.

The rulebook says:

Once all seed cards under a mission have been encountered, and there are no dilemmas remaining beneath the mission, check your remaining personnel present. If they still have a personnel whose affiliation matches one of the mission's, still meet additional conditions for attempting the mission (from Homefront, for example), and meet the mission requirements, they solve the mission;

Let's take them in order:
1) "Personnel whose affiliation matches one of the mission's" - Not exactly, since the mission doesn't show any affiliations. But it certainly is "any away team". (By the way, where are the rules for "any away team"? I can't find anything that explicitly allows us to bypass this "affiliation matches" portion of the rules with "any away team". Does this mean all missions that are "any away team" are actually NOT SOLVABLE?! *)
2) "Still meet additional conditions for attempting the mission" - Eh... does not apply? Or maybe "any away team" is the additional condition?
3) "Meet the mission requirements" - Here's the rub... Dixon Hill doesn't have Computer Skill, which is the only mission requirement on the mission. So, Dixon Hill would use his special skill to "ignore non-attribute requirements". This means, the mission no longer has requirements to meet, because Computer Skill is a non-attribute requirement, and when you ignore something, you treat it as though it doesn't exist. So, in this instance, no mission requirements exist for Access Archive.

Can you solve a mission with no mission requirements?

A more fundamental question with larger implications for the game:
How do you check that you meet all requirements? Not just mission requirements, but also staffing requirements, dilemma requirements, trigger requirements, effect requirements, etc.

There are two approaches that I can see:
1) Check if there are any unmet requirements. If there are no unmet requirements, that means you have met all requirements.
2) Check for requirements. If there are no requirements, that means you can't meet any requirements.

For #1, we have staffing requirements (7.1.3). You can fully staff a Type VI Shuttlecraft, even though it doesn't have any staffing requirements. Which leads me to believe that for the sake of internal consistency within the game itself, #1 is the proper (and most understandable) approach to "meet all requirements". This would mean that Dixon Hill can solve Access Archives, since there would be no unmet mission requirements.

I cannot provide a concrete example for school-of-thought #2. It is only theoretical. But such an approach would mean that Dixon Hill cannot solve Access Archive, because there would be no mission requirements to meet.


* footnote:
Or is this related to #1 approach as well: there are no affiliations listed, therefore, there are no unmet affiliation requirements for solving the mission, as such, you have met all affiliation requirements for solving the mission?

it is 1. The mission has requirements, DH just let's you ignore them. But they aren't gone.

"Do you have computer skill?"

"No, but i'm using DH's special skill to ignore the computer skill requirement"

"okay, you solved it"

Dixon Hill's glossary entry says:

Ignoring requirements is not the same as meeting requirements

Does that change your answer at all?

Takket wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:46 pm it is 1. The mission has requirements, DH just let's you ignore them. But they aren't gone.

"Do you have computer skill?"

"No, but i'm using DH's special skill to ignore the computer skill requirement"

"okay, you solved it"

follow up, does one personnel have different classification?

JeBuS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:51 pm Dixon Hill's glossary entry says:

Ignoring requirements is not the same as meeting requirements

Does that change your answer at all?

No because that's the second sentence of a three sentence entry. The other two make it pretty clear you can solve the mission.

I agree, but before I continued, I wanted to be sure that didn't play a role in your thinking.

Takket wrote:No because that's the second sentence of a three sentence entry. The other two make it pretty clear you can solve the mission.

Now, back to your main answers:

Takket wrote:The mission has requirements, DH just let's you ignore them. But they aren't gone.

What do you think the definition of "ignore" is in 1E?

Takket wrote:"No, but i'm using DH's special skill to ignore the computer skill requirement"

"okay, you solved it"

There is a universe of uncertainty in between those sentences. But to start with...

What mission requirements do you meet if you ignore them all?

For the affiliation requirements - the "any crew may attempt" language overrides that, in the same way an Espionage would.

AllenGould wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:50 am For the affiliation requirements - the "any crew may attempt" language overrides that, in the same way an Espionage would.

Is that in the rules somewhere that I'm overlooking? This is really a tangential question, not a main point I'm trying to make here.

JeBuS wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:23 pm

AllenGould wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:50 am For the affiliation requirements - the "any crew may attempt" language overrides that, in the same way an Espionage would.

Is that in the rules somewhere that I'm overlooking? This is really a tangential question, not a main point I'm trying to make here.

Card trumps rules. The card says you can attempt it.

If that text doesn't work, than every "any crew" mission ever printed doesn't work. So.. pretty safe guess that it does?

(That doesn't mean the rules couldn't say it more cleanly - that's true of a lot of old rules and exception-y cards.)

@AllenGould
The card says you can attempt it. Doesn't say you can solve it. Same as Espionage, right? Or am I confusing old rules and OTF stuff?

JeBuS wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 2:06 pm @AllenGould
The card says you can attempt it. Doesn't say you can solve it. Same as Espionage, right? Or am I confusing old rules and OTF stuff?

I'd suggest that since "solve a mission" isn't an action (it's a side-effect of attempting), that giving permission to attempt includes the rules giving permission to solve. But importantly, the card isn't giving you any special or overriding permission to solve, so things like Fair Play would still kick in to prevent Espionages* from overriding OTF or Fair Play.

* can we just standardize "espionages" as the term for all cards that grant permission to attempt?

I would say ...
He can solve, brings in one classification and gets 10 points.

JeBuS wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:15 pm I agree, but before I continued, I wanted to be sure that didn't play a role in your thinking.

Takket wrote:No because that's the second sentence of a three sentence entry. The other two make it pretty clear you can solve the mission.

Now, back to your main answers:

Takket wrote:The mission has requirements, DH just let's you ignore them. But they aren't gone.

What do you think the definition of "ignore" is in 1E?

Takket wrote:"No, but i'm using DH's special skill to ignore the computer skill requirement"

"okay, you solved it"

There is a universe of uncertainty in between those sentences. But to start with...

What mission requirements do you meet if you ignore them all?

I don't know that "ignore" has been formally defined in 1E. But it is defined in the dictionary which governs the definition (Merriam Webster says "to refuse to take notice of") unless rules decides it should mean something else.

While "meeting mission requirements" is a requirement to solve a mission, Dixon Hill lets you "refuse to take notice of" them. As I said earlier the mission still has requirements, Computer Skill, you just are allowed to ignore them.

To be completely clear the rulebook could says:

If they still have a personnel whose affiliation matches one of the mission's, still meet additional conditions for attempting the mission (from Homefront, for example), and meet the mission requirements (if any), they solve the mission;

The only thing I can think of that is close to being analogous is ignoring when using Crossover. Crossover does not make a person an alpha quadrant person, is let's you ignore the icon when reporting.

Takket wrote:To be completely clear the rulebook could says:
If they still have a personnel whose affiliation matches one of the mission's, still meet additional conditions for attempting the mission (from Homefront, for example), and meet the mission requirements (if any), they solve the mission;

I agree, that if it said that, it'd be a simpler question to answer. But, is there anything in the rules today which would support either interpretation?

I don't understand the problem here ...

Is it the fact that Computer Skill is the only skill and when Dix ignores it, there is nothing left, so to say?