User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
#495280
Boffo97 wrote:Future Guy being a Romulan spy from the future makes sense...
I just want a hero of the empire-esq objective for him now.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#495281
BCSWowbagger wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xe8gYdljY#t=8s
Was thinking more this, tbh...
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#495304
Boffo97 wrote:Future Guy being a Romulan spy from the future makes sense...
Pretty sure Enterprise show runners said Future Guy was actually Archer himself
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#495305
DarkSabre wrote:
Boffo97 wrote:Future Guy being a Romulan spy from the future makes sense...
Pretty sure Enterprise show runners said Future Guy was actually Archer himself
So I have seen, but these are the same showrunners who wrote the Enterprise finale... so I think we can safely ignore them, y'know? :D
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#495306
AllenGould wrote:
DarkSabre wrote:
Boffo97 wrote:Future Guy being a Romulan spy from the future makes sense...
Pretty sure Enterprise show runners said Future Guy was actually Archer himself
So I have seen, but these are the same showrunners who wrote the Enterprise finale... so I think we can safely ignore them, y'know? :D
I mean they wrote the whole show so I can safely say we could ignore all of them.

I mean I was rooting for Q at the end showing Picard a big red button and asking if he really wanted this version of Star Trek to happen and he hits the red button resetting it
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#495314
DarkSabre wrote:
Boffo97 wrote:Future Guy being a Romulan spy from the future makes sense...
Pretty sure Enterprise show runners said Future Guy was actually Archer himself
So this is actually why Temporal Benefactor is the way it is. SirDan was pretty sure Future Guy was going to be a Romulan, and wanted to build the Temporal Cold War around Romulans (to fit the theme of the set). I argued that we shouldn't lock ourselves into that narrative, because there were so many other valid ones: Brannon Braga said Future Guy was going to be Future Archer; the books claimed that he was some dumb mope named Jamran Harnoth; I always secretly hoped he'd turn out to be Wesley Crusher gone evil.

It was Dan who had the (brilliant) idea to take Future Guy off the [Rom] / [NA] personnel template and put it on a Doorway instead. Then you could put anyone you wanted under Temporal Benefactor and tell your own story! Admiral Mendak was built to support the version of reality where Future Guy was Romulan, and Jonathan Archer (Cold Front) was built to support Braga's crazy story about Archer being Future Guy. And there's zillions of others you can use instead, too (including Wesley!).

This was a really good moment for 1E's storytelling powers, I thought.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#495420
Empathic Touch stops the Empathy and removes her from the Away Team, along with the personnel she saved. However, since she has already encountered the dilemma, been targeted by it, and resolved all direct responses to it, she can no longer escape Barclay's targeting and dies anyway.

This should be intuitive. As Jason notes at the top, this is the TrekSense on the card. Jason made the ruling he thought best, but even he noted that the outcome of his ruling is bizarre.

It is not intuitive right now, though, which is why this is even a question. I believe this confusion is at least partly because the proliferation of bugouts and other suspends-play cards has established the (erroneous) idea that removing a ship or personnel from a dilemma encounter will always and everywhere protect that ship or personnel from the dilemma's effects, even in defiance of TrekSense. This is often true, but not always. Even a [DL] bugout will fail if played too late in an encounter. (See footnote.)

The principle is the same as in ship battle: if you (somehow) cloak a ship after both forces have used WEAPONS and scored hits, but before damage is actually drawn from Tactics decks and applied, you are no longer part of the battle (because you cloaked), but you still took a hit and will still take the damage. (Rules was asked about that during work on The Neutral Zone, so we recently studied that issue.)

We're considering whether we need to modify actions - step 3: results to make this situation with Empathic Touch (and similar cards, like Sickbay: Menagerie) clearer; whether this is such an obscure situation that we can treat it as a one-off and leave it as a bluetext; or whether some other part of the Glossary should be modified to explain this issue better.

Jason, of course, made the best ruling he could, about a tricky bit of timing, on his own, without two days to pore over several different Glossary entries. I know Kris has no beef with Jason (and good on Kris for being a good sport about it), but I want to make clear that the Rules Committee supports T.D.'s on the ground, even when they get a close call wrong.

***

FOOTNOTE

Here's an example of a bugout failing due to late timing, and I'll try to be as clear as I can about a very tricky bit of timing:

Suppose that your Away Team faces Barclay's on a planet, while Anastasia Komananov is on a ship in orbit. You fail the dilemma. You have one key personnel in the Away Team whom you cannot afford to lose, so you play Empathic Touch. Opponent plays Amanda Rogers to nullify Empathic Touch.

You then decide that you really need to save this one personnel, so you're going to burn your bugout on this. You use Anastasia to [DL] Smoke Bomb to your Away Team on the planet.

Since Empathic Touch can only be played during the results step of the encounter, that means you are currently in the results step. That means it's too late: your personnel are already "about to die," and it is too late to modify the dilemma's targets (per actions - step 3: results). It's exactly like the situation we had in this ruling. Smoke Bomb stops your personnel and removes them from the Away Team. Then, they all die. Discard dilemma.

If you'd done the [DL] before playing Empathic Touch, you could still claim it was happening during the response step, when the dilemma is "just encountered," and targets can still be modified. ( [DL] have no enforced timing of their own, so, whenever they are played at a boundary between timing steps, the player is free to declare which step the [DL] is happening in.) In this case, your Away Team would be stopped and removed, and Barclay's would no longer have any targets. Per dilemma resolution - targets, the dilemma would be reseeded, and you'd get off scot-free -- all because you burned your bugout before trying Empathic Touch.

This timing weirdness also applies to other [DL] cards, including the "bug-in" cards that pull skills, personnel, or equipment into a dilemma encounter. They, too, can fail if used too late, with "too late" being determined by other seemingly unrelated actions. But the Empathic Touch situation is closer to a bugout than a bugin, so I built a "bugout" example.
User avatar
Director of Organized Play
By LORE (Kris Sonsteby)
 - Director of Organized Play
 -  
Prophet
W.C.T. Chairman's Trophy winner 2014-2015
#495425
BCSWowbagger wrote:Empathic Touch stops Lwaxana and removes her from the Away Team, along with the personnel she saved. However, since she has already encountered the dilemma, been targeted by it, and resolved all direct responses to it, she can no longer escape Barclay's targeting and dies anyway.
Thanks for working this out and giving us a firm ruling, your Grace.

Again, I have no issue with the incorrect ruling being applied last weekend (I make them all the time too!) nor the outcome of the game (Joe won because LWax had Dip to pass Shaka, When the Walls Fell on the following turn.) This was a simple local gig not a big time tournament, and all else being equal Joe probably wins regardless. It was just a case of Jason and I both going, "huh... this card seems really poorly written. How does it actually work?" and asking the question on the forums for discussion's sake.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#495427
LORE wrote:Thanks for working this out and giving us a firm ruling, your Grace.
'twas our pleasure, mi'lord.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#495430
BCSWowbagger wrote:
LORE wrote:Thanks for working this out and giving us a firm ruling, your Grace.
'twas our pleasure, mi'lord.
Oh man, it's gone to his head already!

:lol:
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#495455
Running out the door so this is a real quickie.

No, it plays in the optional responses to death. You can look at it like this:

1. Dilemma initiation
2. Dilemma responses (e.g. flipping Shades of Gray: Brutality)
3. Dilemma resolution (failure), comprised of three sub-steps:
3.1. Initiate resolution (everybody dies)
3.2. Responses to resolution (this is the only time Empathic Touch is allowed to play)
3.3. Resolution of resolution (dead people are discarded)

A response played at Step 2 that removes you from the attempt will save you. A response played at Step 3.2 that removes you from the attempt is too late.
Is Sedis a captain?

He's already a [Univ] fucking skill hoss (tm)... […]

I don't! Game ain't fun, IMO! But, you're rig[…]

Alpha Argratha

If I have Alpha 5 Approach plus Argratha as […]

Nelvana Trap

Wait ... what? Since when does battle during […]