User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#580318
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:19 am Under that logic, DMfM does get around strategema because strategema says "your opponent cannot initiate battle" which implies "battle under the rules" and DMfM is as you say, pushing a different button. Basically, I played a card, the card initiated battle.
No, because you're still initiating a battle. Just because you used a different method doesn't change what you did (otherwise you wouldn't use the battle rules, right?)

Also: DMfM can trump the default rules under card > rules, but then Strategema still trumps DMfM under can't > can.

As a parallel - using HQ:Secure Homeworld doesn't let you cheat around Dead End just because you're not using the built-in rules. You're still attempting a mission.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
1E Andoria Regional Champion 2022
2E Andoria Regional Champion 2022
#580321
AllenGould wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:04 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:19 am Under that logic, DMfM does get around strategema because strategema says "your opponent cannot initiate battle" which implies "battle under the rules" and DMfM is as you say, pushing a different button. Basically, I played a card, the card initiated battle.
No, because you're still initiating a battle. Just because you used a different method doesn't change what you did (otherwise you wouldn't use the battle rules, right?)

Also: DMfM can trump the default rules under card > rules, but then Strategema still trumps DMfM under can't > can.

As a parallel - using HQ:Secure Homeworld doesn't let you cheat around Dead End just because you're not using the built-in rules. You're still attempting a mission.
Again though - where does it say in either the rules or glossary that can't>can? Everyone keeps saying this but where is that in the rules?

"Well everybody knows...". No, they don't. Different games can treat situations differently and someone newer to the game or new to card games in general doesn't just know this....
User avatar
 
By Dukat
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Semi-Finalist 2022
#580359
Again though - where does it say in either the rules or glossary that can't>can? Everyone keeps saying this but where is that in the rules?
Great question.

If the Glossary or the Rulebook does not state it anywhere, it does NOT exist as a rule. Period.

We cannot assume that something is a rule, just because 'everyone knows that'.


The Glossary and/or the Rulebook clearly needs a section with a kind of pathway on how to resolve rules conflicts.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#580385
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:49 pm Again though - where does it say in either the rules or glossary that can't>can? Everyone keeps saying this but where is that in the rules?

"Well everybody knows...". No, they don't. Different games can treat situations differently and someone newer to the game or new to card games in general doesn't just know this....
That is a good point - I know it's true for 1E because Major Rakal told me in person. (I think in a discussion around how "ignoring Computer Crash"), so I've always presumed it's in the rulebook somewhere.

But it might turn out we've all been playing the game entirely wrong all these years. ;)
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E The Void Regional Participant 2022
#580397
There used to be a Golden Rules section, but the current rulebook doesn't seem to have it. Something like "Cards trump rules, more restrictive cards trump less restrictive cards" but I don't remember which rulebook I got that out of, and I read a lot of rulebooks, so it may not even be this game.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
1E Andoria Regional Champion 2022
2E Andoria Regional Champion 2022
#580398
winterflames wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:47 am There used to be a Golden Rules section, but the current rulebook doesn't seem to have it. Something like "Cards trump rules, more restrictive cards trump less restrictive cards" but I don't remember which rulebook I got that out of, and I read a lot of rulebooks, so it may not even be this game.
Star wars destiny had that I know.

I randly thought of another example of direct conflict but then I took a long call and now I can't remember it.

One thing is will say is that it seems that glossary shows a pattern of presumption that can't>can as the situations where can trump's are called out: EG: Immune; ignore computer crash, TMW, etc. But unless it's actually codified, these are just examples that's not true.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Contender
Community Contributor
1E North American Continental Runner-Up 2022
#580513
winterflames wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:47 am There used to be a Golden Rules section, but the current rulebook doesn't seem to have it. Something like "Cards trump rules, more restrictive cards trump less restrictive cards" but I don't remember which rulebook I got that out of, and I read a lot of rulebooks, so it may not even be this game.
I think you're probably thinking of Magic, which has a full-blown Golden Rules section. A member of the R.C. who knows this topic well summarized them for me a few months ago:
Magic's Golden Rules wrote:1. If a card contradicts a rule, the cards have precedence

2. If a rule or effect says something can happen, and an effect says it can't, the can't wins out

3. Any part of an instruction that's impossible to perform is ignored

4. If both players are instructed to do something at the same time, they are carried out in Active Player, Non-Active Player (APNAP) order

5. If a player chooses a card in a hidden zone, those cards stay hidden while they're choosing (but must be made clear which ones are chosen)

6. Other than in that situation, a player knows the choices a previous player made

7. If a player makes more than one choice at the same time, they make them in the order specified, or chooses the order if not specified

8. If a choice made by a player causes the other player to have to make a choice, APNAP order is restarted for the outstanding choices

9. If both players would make choices or take actions before the start of the game, the starting player is considered the active player
I repeat, these are MAGIC's golden rules, not Trek's. #3 is wrong in Trek, and I believe #4 is inverted.

Trek has the "Keep in mind a few things as you begin" section of the About This Rulebook chapter, which dates back (in some form) to the Premiere Rulebook. That section contains (and has always contained) our one and only Golden Rule:
Trek Golden Rule wrote:A specific rule overrides a more general rule, and a card's specific text overrides an otherwise applicable rule.
The Rules Committee has actually debated a couple times in the past year whether we should add "can't > can" as an official Silver Rule. (That's actually why we were reading Magic's Golden Rules!) I've been somewhat reluctant because I've been worried about unforeseen side effects (for example, "does not work with" is currently overcome by a treaty, which seems to go against this Silver Rule). There also seems to be some "rule change fatigue," especially in Europe, which we don't wish to exacerbate with a big addition like this.

But this conversation is making me think we may need to bite the bullet.

FWIW, in the U.S. legal tradition, there are two prominent theories for how to resolve statutory conflicts at the same level of specificity and authority:

* The more recent law controls (the equivalent in a card game would be the card played most recently "wins")

* Neither law is given effect in the area where they conflict (which would seem to boil down to can't > can in practice).
User avatar
 
By Dukat
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Semi-Finalist 2022
#580514
(for example, "does not work with" is currently overcome by a treaty, which seems to go against this Silver Rule)
What?
I didn't know that.

So Fajo's Miles O'Brien can work with Cardassians if a Cardie/Fed treaty is in play?

I thought that is exactly what is not happening ...
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#580518
Dukat wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:46 pm
(for example, "does not work with" is currently overcome by a treaty, which seems to go against this Silver Rule)
What?
I didn't know that.

So Fajo's Miles O'Brien can work with Cardassians if a Cardie/Fed treaty is in play?

I thought that is exactly what is not happening ...
Miles O'Brien doesn't refer to affiliation only to "Cardassian" which is both Species and Affiliation. Under the treaty he could work with [Car] personnel who are not Cardassian species but could not work with [Car] who are Cardassian species.

-James M
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E World Semi-Finalist 2021
Grand Nagus
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2022
#580521
BCSWowbagger wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:40 pm I repeat, these are MAGIC's golden rules, not Trek's. #3 is wrong in Trek First Edition
FTFY :wink:
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Contender
Community Contributor
1E North American Continental Runner-Up 2022
#580523
Dukat wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:46 pm
(for example, "does not work with" is currently overcome by a treaty, which seems to go against this Silver Rule)
What?
I didn't know that.
Yes, in general:
Glossary: does not work with wrote: "Does not work with" restrictions that are completely affiliation-based are overcome by any card that allows incompatible cards to mix, such as Release This Pain, Brainwash, or an appropriate Treaty.

https://www.trekcc.org/op/1e_rulebook/G ... otworkwith
Orbin correctly notes the exception: if the restriction is not "completely affiliation-based," then this does not apply. (This covers Sisters of Duras, Solkar, and Fajo Miles).

However, he's very slightly incorrect about the effect: since Miles O'Brien's restriction is not "completely affiliation-based," my understanding is that the treaty doesn't overcome his restriction at all. It's correct that Miles can never ever work with Cardassian species personnel -- but he can't work with non-Cardassian-species personnel who are [Car] affiliation, either, even under treaty.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#580525
Dukat wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:46 pm
(for example, "does not work with" is currently overcome by a treaty, which seems to go against this Silver Rule)
What?
I didn't know that.

So Fajo's Miles O'Brien can work with Cardassians if a Cardie/Fed treaty is in play?

I thought that is exactly what is not happening ...
I think O'Brien still can't work with Cardassians even with a Treaty, because his restriction box calls out "Cardassians", not [Car] .

EDIT: Tallera might be a case in point here, if she can work with [Fed] personnel while in [1E-Rom] mode if you have a Federation/Romulan Treaty in play.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Contender
Community Contributor
1E North American Continental Runner-Up 2022
#580527
jadziadax8 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:30 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:40 pm I repeat, these are MAGIC's golden rules, not Trek's. #3 is wrong in Trek First Edition
FTFY :wink:
We're Trek, Second Edition is "Star." :P
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#580535
jadziadax8 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:30 pm
BCSWowbagger wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:40 pm I repeat, these are MAGIC's golden rules, not Trek's. #3 is wrong in Trek First Edition
FTFY :wink:
This IS a First Edition forum, so while you are Technically Correct (TBKOC), we don't need your 2e trash talk!!! J/K!! :D :D :D :D :D

3 lucky picks for Ben and 3 unlucky picks by me ca[…]

What in the world did Peter do? I don't see a to[…]

1E/2E Design Coordination

Wait, is this not a community vs community p[…]

1E Card Database - We need your help!

Promo version of Federation Flagship: recovered sa[…]