Opponent chooses to either increase score required to win the game by 25 points or lose 10 points and discard event.

Is this what you mean? (I'm just putting it in different words, to see if I understood correctly.)

Exactly. Either they call (-10 points) or raise the stakes.

The problem is that this errata does not present an actual choice. One "choice" affects players symmetrically, one only hurts the player who is choosing. I posit that there would be no fundamental difference between this text and one that simply reads:

"Plays on table, each player needs 25 more points to win the game."

I didn't understand at first what Edge wrote, but now I do. Indeed, he has a point.

Just thinking out loud -- really raising stakes for both players (but not necessarily symmetrical, in practice?) might be if one of the options read,
"all missions with a point box, when solved, are worth +X (or double??) points"...

Or:
"at start of each mission attempt, that player loses X points".

I certainly would make a phonecall to Quinn, for such a card.

(Or, if line busy: 0800-555-UXBRIDGE.)

Or try each mission is now worth double points, with some text phrasing to make it only after event is played. Other player may lose 10 points to prevent this from occuring or 1900CANCELIT

The idea was if they think they might havea way to remove it later they might choose to raise the stakes rather than call and lose points

Or...



Then its a tough choice!

~D

Personally I'm in favour of leaving the card as-is and completely banned in everything as an example of What Never, Ever, Ever To Do.

I just thought the name and picture was so evocative it would be nice to revive it with new replacement text.

I agree with Morty, mostly.

And I agree with Nob that such an example might be important. But the fact that the card was banned for decades, could be that reminder in itself.

Have our cake and eat it?