User avatar
 
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2024
#624106
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:50 pm
JeBuS wrote: Is there any rule that says the reverse; that the icons and points on the other end are not affected by the player?
There's no rule saying a dog can't attempt a mission.

This entry from the rulebook seems to seal it for me:
A [Self] card does not need matching personnel or a leader to attack, and may attack any affiliation, but needs usable WEAPONS and is subject to restrictions that affect all cards, such as "We Are The Metrons".
That seems to imply that it's checking the side of the impacted player, in the same way that your opponent would need to respect your side of the mission when determining attack restrictions.

My Trek sense objects, but that seems pretty clear.
But... the restriction you're referencing doesn't affect all cards. The restriction is specifically about players.

Metrons affects all cards because it says it affects all cards. The other rules don't.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Participant 2024
#624109
JeBuS wrote:But... the restriction you're referencing doesn't affect all cards. The restriction is specifically about players.

Metrons affects all cards because it says it affects all cards. The other rules don't.
In this case I'm referring to the order of operations rather than any specific language.

Imagine I seed all [1E-Rom] and seed We Are The Metrons on Inspect Strategic Snare. When [Self] shows up at Inspect Strategic Snare, it's going to do a check to determine attack restrictions. Unless we're saying We Are the Metrons cannot work on asymetric missions, the only conclusion I can draw is that it's checking the side of the impacted/attacked player.

The same would happen with Spaceborn Entity. It would arrive at a location and check whether it can attack. Unless you are suggesting it could override a card like We Are the Metrons because the mission was asymmetric, I'm not sure I can draw any other conclusions.

As I say, my Trek sense agrees with you, but I don't see another way for this to work given the existing rules.
User avatar
 
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2024
#624110
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:15 pm
JeBuS wrote:But... the restriction you're referencing doesn't affect all cards. The restriction is specifically about players.

Metrons affects all cards because it says it affects all cards. The other rules don't.
In this case I'm referring to the order of operations rather than any specific language.

Imagine I seed all [1E-Rom] and seed We Are The Metrons on Inspect Strategic Snare. When [Self] shows up at Inspect Strategic Snare, it's going to do a check to determine attack restrictions. Unless we're saying We Are the Metrons cannot work on asymetric missions, the only conclusion I can draw is that it's checking the side of the impacted/attacked player.
Why can you only conclude that it checks the side of the attacked player? I admit, I'm lost now.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Participant 2024
#624111
JeBuS wrote:Why can you only conclude that it checks the side of the attacked player? I admit, I'm lost now.
Because otherwise you could never play We are the Metrons on an asymetric mission, right? I realize that right now this difference is academic, but I could see a future where an asymmetric mission exists that you might seed WatM on. When the [Self] shows up, it needs to determine the attack restrictions on the mission to decide if it can attack or not, right? If it's got [Fed] on the side of seeding player and [Hir] on the other side, which restriction does it respect? By your argument this mission has more than one icon, therefore invalidates WatM entirely, actually.

I feel like WatM only works (based on the printed rules), if [Self] only interacts with the side of the affected player. Or perhaps you're right and WatM will never work on asymmetric missions.
User avatar
 
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2024
#624112
@phaserihardlyknowher Walk me through how you got there about We Are The Metrons. I genuinely don't understand.

Here's my understanding:
I seed We Are The Metrons on Inspect Strategic Snare.
During a turn, WAtM (a card that I control) tells me that I have to check my missions to see if they have a single affiliation icon. The rule says that I (as a player) can only see the icons on my side. Therefore, it doesn't matter what is on the other side of the missions.

This rule doesn't appear to have any impact on [Self], because it's not mine. It's not me or you looking at the mission. It's [Self],
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Participant 2024
#624119
JeBuS wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:42 pm @phaserihardlyknowher Walk me through how you got there about We Are The Metrons. I genuinely don't understand.

Here's my understanding:
I seed We Are The Metrons on Inspect Strategic Snare.
During a turn, WAtM (a card that I control) tells me that I have to check my missions to see if they have a single affiliation icon. The rule says that I (as a player) can only see the icons on my side. Therefore, it doesn't matter what is on the other side of the missions.

This rule doesn't appear to have any impact on [Self], because it's not mine. It's not me or you looking at the mission. It's [Self],
I don't think that's the intent of the card. The idea, as I understand it, is that if I seed all [Fed] missions with no other icons, now cards at my location cannot attack me because they have [Fed] attack restrictions. So yes, [Self] is absolutely limited by WatM, it's right there in the rules. I'm not sure I like where any other logic takes me. Could I argue We are the Metrons is actually a mis-seed because the mission has two icons, one on each side?

This is a fascinating discussion, and I'm eagerly awaiting the ruling.
User avatar
 
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2024
#624121
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm
JeBuS wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:42 pm @phaserihardlyknowher Walk me through how you got there about We Are The Metrons. I genuinely don't understand.

Here's my understanding:
I seed We Are The Metrons on Inspect Strategic Snare.
During a turn, WAtM (a card that I control) tells me that I have to check my missions to see if they have a single affiliation icon. The rule says that I (as a player) can only see the icons on my side. Therefore, it doesn't matter what is on the other side of the missions.

This rule doesn't appear to have any impact on [Self], because it's not mine. It's not me or you looking at the mission. It's [Self],
I don't think that's the intent of the card. The idea, as I understand it, is that if I seed all [Fed] missions with no other icons, now cards at my location cannot attack me because they have [Fed] attack restrictions. So yes, [Self] is absolutely limited by WatM, it's right there in the rules. I'm not sure I like where any other logic takes me. Could I argue We are the Metrons is actually a mis-seed because the mission has two icons, one on each side?

This is a fascinating discussion, and I'm eagerly awaiting the ruling.
I need you to walk me through it, slowly. I'm not getting how you got there.
#624122
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:17 pm
JeBuS wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:42 pm @phaserihardlyknowher Walk me through how you got there about We Are The Metrons. I genuinely don't understand.

Here's my understanding:
I seed We Are The Metrons on Inspect Strategic Snare.
During a turn, WAtM (a card that I control) tells me that I have to check my missions to see if they have a single affiliation icon. The rule says that I (as a player) can only see the icons on my side. Therefore, it doesn't matter what is on the other side of the missions.

This rule doesn't appear to have any impact on [Self], because it's not mine. It's not me or you looking at the mission. It's [Self],
I don't think that's the intent of the card. The idea, as I understand it, is that if I seed all [Fed] missions with no other icons, now cards at my location cannot attack me because they have [Fed] attack restrictions. So yes, [Self] is absolutely limited by WatM, it's right there in the rules. I'm not sure I like where any other logic takes me. Could I argue We are the Metrons is actually a mis-seed because the mission has two icons, one on each side?

This is a fascinating discussion, and I'm eagerly awaiting the ruling.
This We are the metrons example is a red herring to this discussion and is clouding the issue.

We are the metrons checks when it seeds if it qualifies.
It does.
It broadcasts globally what it knows (federation attack restrictions for example)
Spaceborn comes along and does what we say it does and tries to attack everyone at the asymetric mission (feds and whatever the other side is showing).
We are the metrons says "hold on, here's a restriction - feds can only attack borg, no borg, cant attack anyone".
Spaceborn does not attack because it cant under the restriction.

HOWEVER, the point is that it still would have tried to attack everyone at the mission that had an affiliation icon on either end. That doesnt change.

Now lets put this side example to bed.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Participant 2024
#624124
JeBuS wrote:I need you to walk me through it, slowly. I'm not getting how you got there.
For the sake of completeness, it's below:

The World Championship deck last year seeded We are the Metrons. It contained six missions, all [Fed] only. I don't know which mission We are the Metrons was seeded on, but all cards at that location had [Fed] attack restrictions, right? And the rules explicitly call out We are the Metrons' relationship to [Self] cards, so we can assume that [Self] cards have [Fed] attack restrictions while at that mission. Does that seem right to you? If not, we already have an issue with the rules.

We are the Metrons actually says "If each of your missions has exactly one affiliation icon and all match". You're suggesting that when a [Self] shows up at a location it can look at both sides of the card. Right away we have a problem. All of those missions actually have two (seriously, go count them) affiliation icons! Now, they are both [Fed], but there are two. So right away, we've broken this card.

Now imagine a situation where they might be asymmetric. This doesn't exist now, Inspect Strategic Snare was the closest I could find, but given this situation, we'll need to decide which icons both [Self] cards and opponents need to respect when deciding attack restrictions. If I seed all [1e-Rom] missions, do my opponents have [1e-Rom] attack restrictions while at Inspect Strategic Snare? What side do [Self] and other players respect regarding this mission? It really feels like things go downhill quick if we open up the rules to any card looking at both sides of the mission if it's not explicitly allowed to.
Hoss-Drone wrote: This We are the metrons example is a red herring to this discussion and is clouding the issue.
Considering it's the only real example we have of how [Self] attacks work, I respectfully disagree, but I've said my piece on the matter above.
Hoss-Drone wrote: HOWEVER, the point is that it still would have tried to attack everyone at the mission that had an affiliation icon on either end. That doesnt change.
In the case of an asymmetric mission, would it attack the other side?

Anyway, I'm content to let that by my last word on the issue as you request, but I do think it's an interesting exercise nonetheless.
#624126
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:47 pm
For the sake of completeness, it's below:

The World Championship deck last year seeded We are the Metrons. It contained six missions, all [Fed] only. I don't know which mission We are the Metrons was seeded on, but all cards at that location had [Fed] attack restrictions, right? And the rules explicitly call out We are the Metrons' relationship to [Self] cards, so we can assume that [Self] cards have [Fed] attack restrictions while at that mission. Does that seem right to you? If not, we already have an issue with the rules.
We agree up to this point. It calls it out, but is only identifying how to resolve the effect.
We are the Metrons actually says "If each of your missions has exactly one affiliation icon and all match". You're suggesting that when a [Self] shows up at a location it can look at both sides of the card. Right away we have a problem. All of those missions actually have two (seriously, go count them) affiliation icons! Now, they are both [Fed], but there are two. So right away, we've broken this card.
Dude, what are you even saying here? We are the metrons is an event, its controlled by a player, it identifies what side it looks on "yours"! Spaceborn is a [Self] and thus un-controlled and can look at both sides (one of the things we all agree on here). Neither of those truths contradicts the other and i have no idea at what you mean by "we've broken this card". You are comparing apples and oranges and telling me we've broken fruit. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

Now imagine a situation where they might be asymmetric. This doesn't exist now, Inspect Strategic Snare was the closest I could find, but given this situation, we'll need to decide which icons both [Self] cards and opponents need to respect when deciding attack restrictions. If I seed all [1e-Rom] missions, do my opponents have [1e-Rom] attack restrictions while at Inspect Strategic Snare? What side do [Self] and other players respect regarding this mission? It really feels like things go downhill quick if we open up the rules to any card looking at both sides of the mission if it's not explicitly allowed to.


This paragraph makes me think you dont understand how We are the metrons works. Player A seeds it. It looks at the mission icons on 'your' (player A's) side. Then globally sets all attack restrictions at that mission based on that. Nothing more, nothing less. Hypothetically, player A could 6 copies of a ❖ space assymetric mission all with [Fed] on their side and [1E-Rom] on the opponents side and We are the metrons would set the attack restrictions at the mission its on to [Fed] .
Hoss-Drone wrote: HOWEVER, the point is that it still would have tried to attack everyone at the mission that had an affiliation icon on either end. That doesnt change.
In the case of an asymmetric mission, would it attack the other side?

Anyway, I'm content to let that by my last word on the issue as you request, but I do think it's an interesting exercise nonetheless.
Again, i feel like you dont understand how We are the metrons works. If the side we are the metrons is on is [Fed] (b/c as an event saying your its only looking at one side) all attack restrictions at the mission is now [Fed] .

This is why its a total red herring. You are trying to use an [Evt] that uses "your" as a precedent when trying to figure out how to analyze a card that is [Self] and is un-controlled.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#624159
JeBuS wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:31 pm "those icons don't exist for you or your personnel" -> So this is another area where it doesn't mention ships at all. Nor does it mention [Self]. So far, no rules or rules-adjacent text says that [Self] only look at a single side.
Given that there's no rules saying that ships work differently, and it'd be quite a weird place for an icon to not exist for you, your personnel, but *does* exist for the ship you control with your personnel on board, seems a fairly safe guess that you can extend that precedent.

And I think folks are getting too far down the rabbit hole, because a [Self] *has* to see one side (and only one side) of a mission, because Warped Space
(reminder for folks who don't want to click the link - this mission is special in that it has Span 5 on owner's side, Span 1 on opponent's side).

* If the [Self] card is a "third player" who doesn't respect either the owner or opponent's side, then it can never move or do anything because it has no text to read. So that's easily dismissable.

* If [Self] reads *both* sides, then what Span does it use to move? Only sane way that respects "both sides" would be to add the numbers together, but then I think we just broke every Self dilemma by doubling the span it has to move. (Plus, y'know, the whole "there is no rules text even hinting at doing it that way" bit). So, I think we can dismiss that one.

* Which means that a [Self] dilemma has to be reading one side of the mission - it either moves 1 or 5 span. And whatever the answer to that is, is also the answer to which affiliation icons it sees for Entity, because there's no reason why the rule would be different.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E World Quarter-Finalist 2024
#624161
AllenGould wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 3:17 pm * Which means that a [Self] dilemma has to be reading one side of the mission - it either moves 1 or 5 span. And whatever the answer to that is, is also the answer to which affiliation icons it sees for Entity, because there's no reason why the rule would be different.
well *that* added to my brain hurt, thank you. :).

I *do* agree that for [Self] they have to know which range to use. And the answer per Glossary is
Gloss:Warped Space wrote:]Any card that moves like a ship with RANGE, such as Calamarain or The Sheliak, uses the span on the end toward the moving card's owner.
However... I do not know that I agree that it's the same for attacking. I think there's two valid ways of interpreting this.

Option A: SE looks at the mission, and then asks "do any ships match the icon here, if so - attack". In which case, liked Warped Space, I lean to only the owner's side icons matter.

Option B: SE looks at each ship and asks "do you match the AFF icon on the mission? If so - attack.". For *that*, I would argue that each ship sees the icon on their side, so that's what matters.
Attacks all ships matching mission's affiliation icons, then moves.
Because SE "targets" the ships, then I agree that the owner of the ships is who matters, not the owner of the SE.


To put it more concretely:

Abduction Plot
I have two ships here. A [Fed] and a [1E-Rom] ship. My opponent also has a [Fed] and a [Car] ship here.

SE looks at the ships. My [1E-Rom] matches the mission and is attacked. My [Fed] ship does not match the mission and is not.

My opponent's [Fed] ship does match the mission and is attacked, their [Car] ship is not.


In fact, I see a parallel in Line of Defense. If both players had that, the ships that would have the higher shields are the ships that would be attacked.
#624188
Warped Space might have the glossary ruling saying use the Owner's side, but SE should not work the same way (using Owner's side). I mean that from a strictly gameplay/balance perspective, regardless of how rules says this works (in other words, if rules says it works that way, the card needs to be errataed).

If SE is using Owner's side that make it worthless because why the hell would i ever seed a dilemma that is only going to predominantly attack MY cards and not the opponent's? The odds my opponent's ship matching the affiliation icons on my (Owner's) side are pretty small, and the odds of my ship matching the affiliation icons on my side are pretty high.

Dilemmas are always read by the encountering player per rulebook 7.2.2.0.1 clarification. So it seems likewise SE should be looking at the icons on the side of the person who encountered the dilemma.

I would just ditch the warp space ruling and put in a more generic ruling "Whenever Calamarain or a [Self] card are effected by traits of a mission, such as span or affiliation icons, use the side of the mission facing the player who encountered (or, in the case of Calamarain, played,) the card in question."
Thoughts after NACC

(There's a fascinating interview with one of SWC[…]

What overrules what? And why?

. OK thanks

Is this GooeyChewie pile for real?

@Brak_ copied that pile for a local. I played a […]

Singha Refugee Camp

Now we need a cgi de-aged [1E-AU] Morn with [1E[…]