User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#554404
If you've been in this game for a long time you may have heard me soap box about how 1e has a serious ambiguity problem with a lot of cards bc the design template for dilemmas and events is just too small (and the various card designers fell into informal writing a lot because reasons..)

So I propose that we put in the work as a group and comb through the catalogue and find these "grammar weeds". Cards that are open to good faith interpretation bc informal language was used to save space. We do this for the purpose of having rules make sure all of them are clarified in the glossary.

I'll get us started:

- Experience BiJ :. See my prior post about this. Since the entries on nullify don't specify who can do it - I still contend that any player can trigger the nullify when any other dilemma is encountered.

- Bajoran Resistance Cell. Category: Adjectives in English formal writing only modify the object they directly proceed. The [Baj] symbol is used as an qualifying adjective here but doesn't necessarily modify "ship" bc it for sure isn't modifying the any Bajor region planet part and only the word "or" separates everything. It should be [Baj] facility, or [Baj] Ship,..."

- Recruit Mercenaries:. Another English adjectives problem. [NA] , [1E-Fer] and "treachery" are all qualifying adjectives and the use of "and/or" further muddies the water of what is modifying or qualifying what. I propose this is an opportunity to codify this card as essentially "any [NA] personnel OR [1E-Fer] treachery". Over the decades I've inadvertently played this card differently at different times and seen it played a couple different ways when I go through nthe ole memory banks...
Last edited by Hoss-Drone on Tue May 25, 2021 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
Socialite
#554405
On Bij, I think that's how it's been ruled.

On recruit mercenaries... I think I just played it wrong. Or, not wrong, but more strict that necessary. I thought even the [NA] had to be Treachery....
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#554406
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 9:03 am Adjectives in English formal writing only modify the object they directly proceed.
So, "English men and women" refers to all women? ;)

All on board for at least consistency in our wordings (if we're gonna cut a corner for space, it should be the same corner with the same result), but I think formal English (which da Googz describes as "long and complex") may not be the best standard.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#554407
Bajoran resistance cell: you will have to change that to "your [Baj] Facility, your [Baj] Ship, or any Bajor Region" because you don't get to pick and choose parsing the affiliation and parsing the your. If you decide the affiliation has to repeat, the your/any has to be stated each time as well.

Recruit Mercenaries: I always thought it was Treachery all the way. I never understood there to be any ambiguities.

Also, If you are going to discuss wording ambiguities of cards, please link them.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Architect
Community Contributor
#554421
I applaud the effort to collect ambiguities, I concur that there is plausible ambiguity in all three cases mentioned thus far, and I will make an effort to have all such ambiguities addressed -- whether through a Glossary entry, through clarifying errata, or through some other appropriate tool I'm not thinking of right now.

I won't comment on any of the particulars, since I think Kevin is right that our goal in this thread is to collect all the ambiguities, not so much to resolve them.
User avatar
 
By Keiimaster (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#554432
Can we take this opportunity to clarify how Experience Bij is ruled as opposed to how it might be interpreted?

If I understand both @Hoss-Drone and @JeBuS , they are advocating that any player may nullify when any player encounters another dilemma.

That is not what it says nor how I believe it is ruled:

May be nullified by any player encountering another dilemma

As written, the glossary rules on nullification states "May be nullified by..." - A card containing this phrase may be nullified by the card listed, as well as any other applicable nullifying cards. For example, Frigid is a Q-icon event which "may be nullified by Fire Sculptor." It may also be nullified by Kevin Uxbridge or by Q-Flash.

In this way Bij specifies both whom (any player) and when (encountering a dilemma).

This means that the ability to nullify is granted to the player that encounters another dilemma; not both players simultaneously, only the player that encounters another dilemma.

Put simply, when Player A faces another dilemma, Player A, and only Player A, may choose to nullify Bij, not Player B. On the next turn, Player B when facing another dilemma, and only Player B may choose to nullify Bij; assuming Player A did not nullify it the prior turn.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Architect
Community Contributor
#554436
On second thought, I will clarify the Current Official Understanding As Understood By Me, so that nobody leaves this thread more confused than they were when they came in.

We don't need to debate these understandings right here; I add them simply to explain what the current consensus is as I understand it:

Experience BiJ: The player facing the "another dilemma" may choose to discard BiJ!. (This is optional.) The other player may not. Keiimaster's explanation is correct.

Recruit Mercenaries: Everyone downloaded by this card must have Treachery.

Bajoran Resistance Cell: The [Baj] is distributed across both terms. So, if you use BRC to report to a ship, that ship must be [Baj].

None of this is statements is in Official Blue Text, but it's how I understand each of these cards, it's how I would rule each of these cards in an event, and it is how all or nearly all T.D.'s would rule each card (I believe). No need for me to speak ex cathedra when the ordinary and universal magisterium of T.D.'s already supports it. :)

But Kevin is right that it would be possible for a player to accidentally misread these, and so we will add the necessary clarifications.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#555680
Based on review of my SD regional:

End Transmission:

This card says to immediately end your turn and it was nerfed per its own watchlist entry to prevent it's use on consecutive turns. Here's the problems:

The rulebook defines the end of turn as basically a phase after executing orders where you must probe, tick countdowns and draw cards. Without the original clarifying wording on the original card being told to end my turn would, should or might mean going to the end of turn phase which would then mean, end transmission counts down. (This making its own countdown for nerf reasons pointless.

If that's correct, then as an interrupt it can play on opponents turn without the once each turn text. So then I could play this on the opponents turn, skip immediately to my end of turn get draws and countdowns, etc then the opponent starts their turn again . (Don't know why anyone would do this but creative ppl might find a reason)

So imho this card either A. Doesn't work under it's own wording as it was intended or B. Requires rules to make a glossary entry.

Again, All because someone thought that less words is just better when with a few more words "it is immediately your opponents turn, nothing further can happen on your turn " (or something to this effect) would have been fine.

*Edit:. So we are clear, I didn't play against Jason nor did anyone ask for a ruling. This is purely me seeing it and thinking about it a week later.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#555684
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:43 pm The rulebook defines the end of turn as basically a phase after executing orders where you must probe, tick countdowns and draw cards. Without the original clarifying wording on the original card being told to end my turn would, should or might mean going to the end of turn phase which would then mean, end transmission counts down. (This making its own countdown for nerf reasons pointless.
I think you might be overthinking it - there is a functional change in that you no longer "delay" anything, but it doesn't say that you go to your end-of-turn step, it says you "end your turn". Full stop. So you don't draw your card, you don't count down, you don't do end-of-turn stuff, because your turn is over. Finito. :)
So then I could play this on the opponents turn
Would fail for lack of target - it's not your turn, so you don't have a turn *to* end.

If your logic worked, then I could play Senior Staff Meeting on your turn and then immediately attempt a mission. ;)
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#555689
AllenGould wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:30 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:43 pm The rulebook defines the end of turn as basically a phase after executing orders where you must probe, tick countdowns and draw cards. Without the original clarifying wording on the original card being told to end my turn would, should or might mean going to the end of turn phase which would then mean, end transmission counts down. (This making its own countdown for nerf reasons pointless.
I think you might be overthinking it - there is a functional change in that you no longer "delay" anything, but it doesn't say that you go to your end-of-turn step, it says you "end your turn". Full stop. So you don't draw your card, you don't count down, you don't do end-of-turn stuff, because your turn is over. Finito. :)
So then I could play this on the opponents turn
Would fail for lack of target - it's not your turn, so you don't have a turn *to* end.

If your logic worked, then I could play Senior Staff Meeting on your turn and then immediately attempt a mission. ;)
Normally I would agree with you that yes, common sense understanding of end your turn is just that, except for the part in the rulebook that says when you say "I end my turn" that just means you are moving to the phase where you do the things mentioned above....thus ending your turn isn't that literal meaning but it's now a defined gameplay term no different than "beaming".
END OF TURN
When you are finished executing orders for the turn, announce that you are ending your turn. This section describes several things that normally happen at the end of your turn. You may address them in any order, with the exception that your end-of-turn card draw must be the very last thing you do.
Edit: Anyone coming from another game would readily interpret this rulebook excerpt and view it in terms of say, a Mtg card such as time stop which has reminder text that all things that happen at end of turn still happen. The card is not explicitly breaking the "end of turn" process.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#555691
So is the easy answer just a wording change to "Plays to immediately end your turn (skipping all end of turn phase actions, including your normal card draw)" or something to that effect?
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#555695
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:42 pm Edit: Anyone coming from another game would readily interpret this rulebook excerpt and view it in terms of say, a Mtg card such as time stop which has reminder text that all things that happen at end of turn still happen. The card is not explicitly breaking the "end of turn" process.
Ironically, End Transmission *does* work the same way as Time Stop, in that we skip past the "do things at the end of your turn" and go straight to "ending the turn".

<warning: MTG nerdery ahead>
Time Stop doesn't take you to the End Phase, or even the End Step. It takes you to Cleanup. And specifically, things that trigger "at the beginning of your end step" don't happen. (There's even a ruling that things that trigger at the end of your "next end step" will wait a turn, because you didn't have an end step this turn - it never happened).
</warning>

edit: also, all that text on Time Stop is reminder text - it's there to be helpful, not to give instructions. There are printings of Time Stop (or other cards that use "end the turn") that don't have the extra text, because all the MTG rules require are the three words. Mind, they can get away with it because they wrote it down in 717.1, so it's a fair cop (and a bit surprising) that End Transmission never got a Glossary entry.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#555701
AllenGould wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:48 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:42 pm Edit: Anyone coming from another game would readily interpret this rulebook excerpt and view it in terms of say, a Mtg card such as time stop which has reminder text that all things that happen at end of turn still happen. The card is not explicitly breaking the "end of turn" process.
Ironically, End Transmission *does* work the same way as Time Stop, in that we skip past the "do things at the end of your turn" and go straight to "ending the turn".

<warning: MTG nerdery ahead>
Time Stop doesn't take you to the End Phase, or even the End Step. It takes you to Cleanup. And specifically, things that trigger "at the beginning of your end step" don't happen. (There's even a ruling that things that trigger at the end of your "next end step" will wait a turn, because you didn't have an end step this turn - it never happened).
</warning>

edit: also, all that text on Time Stop is reminder text - it's there to be helpful, not to give instructions. There are printings of Time Stop (or other cards that use "end the turn") that don't have the extra text, because all the MTG rules require are the three words. Mind, they can get away with it because they wrote it down in 717.1, so it's a fair cop (and a bit surprising) that End Transmission never got a Glossary entry.
And ironically I think you've made my point as what the rulebook defines as what to do at the end of turn is arguably our "cleanup" phase. Countdowns, probing, draw as the literal last thing you do.

So yes, I thing a quick ruling for now, put in a glossary entry and then when there's time, errata the card to work as intended but clearly.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#555704
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:28 pm
AllenGould wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:48 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:42 pm Edit: Anyone coming from another game would readily interpret this rulebook excerpt and view it in terms of say, a Mtg card such as time stop which has reminder text that all things that happen at end of turn still happen. The card is not explicitly breaking the "end of turn" process.
Ironically, End Transmission *does* work the same way as Time Stop, in that we skip past the "do things at the end of your turn" and go straight to "ending the turn".

<warning: MTG nerdery ahead>
Time Stop doesn't take you to the End Phase, or even the End Step. It takes you to Cleanup. And specifically, things that trigger "at the beginning of your end step" don't happen. (There's even a ruling that things that trigger at the end of your "next end step" will wait a turn, because you didn't have an end step this turn - it never happened).
</warning>

edit: also, all that text on Time Stop is reminder text - it's there to be helpful, not to give instructions. There are printings of Time Stop (or other cards that use "end the turn") that don't have the extra text, because all the MTG rules require are the three words. Mind, they can get away with it because they wrote it down in 717.1, so it's a fair cop (and a bit surprising) that End Transmission never got a Glossary entry.
And ironically I think you've made my point as what the rulebook defines as what to do at the end of turn is arguably our "cleanup" phase. Countdowns, probing, draw as the literal last thing you do.

So yes, I thing a quick ruling for now, put in a glossary entry and then when there's time, errata the card to work as intended but clearly.
Just so I'm tracking, does my above theoretical wording scratch the itch?
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#555710
Armus wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:40 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:28 pm
AllenGould wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:48 pm

Ironically, End Transmission *does* work the same way as Time Stop, in that we skip past the "do things at the end of your turn" and go straight to "ending the turn".

<warning: MTG nerdery ahead>
Time Stop doesn't take you to the End Phase, or even the End Step. It takes you to Cleanup. And specifically, things that trigger "at the beginning of your end step" don't happen. (There's even a ruling that things that trigger at the end of your "next end step" will wait a turn, because you didn't have an end step this turn - it never happened).
</warning>

edit: also, all that text on Time Stop is reminder text - it's there to be helpful, not to give instructions. There are printings of Time Stop (or other cards that use "end the turn") that don't have the extra text, because all the MTG rules require are the three words. Mind, they can get away with it because they wrote it down in 717.1, so it's a fair cop (and a bit surprising) that End Transmission never got a Glossary entry.
And ironically I think you've made my point as what the rulebook defines as what to do at the end of turn is arguably our "cleanup" phase. Countdowns, probing, draw as the literal last thing you do.

So yes, I thing a quick ruling for now, put in a glossary entry and then when there's time, errata the card to work as intended but clearly.
Just so I'm tracking, does my above theoretical wording scratch the itch?
i dont know...probably......maybe start it with "Plays once each turn...."
1E OTSD Results thread

Orbin and I were to play yesterday but have had to[…]

1EFQ: What VPs need fixing?

Adding to eberlems' list of minor errata in reprin[…]

Oh Boy! A Quantum Leap Rewatch

Last Dance Before An Execution Original Air Date[…]

Trek is back to Ferenginar

After more then 18 months away from Trek in part d[…]