[Faithful Reader]

Should B-4 be reported and gain a skill due to not playing Federation, if he infiltrates, thus gaining the affiliation icon, what happens to the skill?

[boromirofborg]

My take on it is that to select the skill, you are not now, nor have ever played , but not that the skill would go away.

This is a good question for rules, @BCSWowbagger right now as I read Infiltration, if my Lovok Founder infiltrates my opponent's romans, I am now "playing ". This feels opposite of trek-sense, and I'd nominate an exception to the glossary entry stating that infiltrators do not count.

Imagine the following scenario:
I am playing Dominion. My opponent is playing Rom/Kln.

If I use Martok Founder to infiltrate him, my opponent can now use Kell to infiltrate me, if I have a NA party. This feels weird....

[Armus]

Should B-4 be reported and gain a skill due to not playing Federation, if he infiltrates, thus gaining the affiliation icon, what happens to the skill?

<Fed> !=

B-4 as infiltrator is still (or ) for purposes of what you're playing.

[boromirofborg]

Should B-4 be reported and gain a skill due to not playing Federation, if he infiltrates, thus gaining the affiliation icon, what happens to the skill?

<Fed> !=

B-4 as infiltrator is still (or ) for purposes of what you're playing.

When your personnel starts infiltrating, its affiliation changes to match that of the infiltration icon (or gains that icon, in the case of a faction) and it becomes an infiltrator.

You are "playing [affiliation or faction]" or are an "[affiliation or faction name] player" if you control or have controlled at least one card belonging to that affiliation or faction (or any Borg Use Only card, if Borg), or used a multi-affiliation card you have controlled in that affiliation mode at any time during the game, regardless of whether any such cards are still in play.

Based on that, I regretfully agree that infiltrating Fed become Fed, and seem to qualify.

[Armus]

Huh. Maybe I'm wrong. Since I've played infiltrators exactly never (and probably drove @pfti crazy with my constant glossary checks when he played them against me last summer), that wouldn't be particularly surprising.

But even if that's true, playing prevents you from gaining the skill. However, at the time you gain the skill you AREN'T playing (which has to be true for you to do it in the first place), then there's nothing that says (and no reason to assume) that he loses the gained skill if you suddenly ARE playing .

So I think the answer to the question asked is: he keeps the gained skill.

[Takket]

You are "playing [affiliation or faction]" or are an "[affiliation or faction name] player" if you control or have controlled at least one card belonging to that affiliation or faction (or any Borg Use Only card, if Borg), or used a multi-affiliation card you have controlled in that affiliation mode at any time during the game, regardless of whether any such cards are still in play.

Wait a second... did that rule change at some point? Because I specifically remember this being discussed in the past that you were only playing an affiliation if YOU played the card of that affiliation. This kept you from being screwed by, say, seeding Genesis Device and being unable to use it because someone gave you a person with The Naked Truth

Regardless, I'm not sure infiltrating means you are playing the affiliation of that infiltrator. You aren't even allowed to use that affiliation other than moving and mixing with opponent. You can't attempt a mission on your own, or attack your own cards. There's no official ruling on this (that I'm aware of), but to me that personnel is the affiliation I played them as, and not the one they use as a "mask" as an infiltrator.

[boromirofborg]

Wait a second... did that rule change at some point? Because I specifically remember this being discussed in the past that you were only playing an affiliation if YOU played the card of that affiliation.

Sorry, the next lines in the glossary specify it only matters for cards you own. I didn’t quote that because it wasn’t relevant to this question.

I would agree that infiltration shouldn’t count, but I would argue that as written, it does.

Especially if you play the character infiltrated, it enters as that affiliation.

[Takket]

Wait a second... did that rule change at some point? Because I specifically remember this being discussed in the past that you were only playing an affiliation if YOU played the card of that affiliation.

Sorry, the next lines in the glossary specify it only matters for cards you own. I didn’t quote that because it wasn’t relevant to this question.

I would agree that infiltration shouldn’t count, but I would argue that as written, it does.

Especially if you play the character infiltrated, it enters as that affiliation.

geez i literally read that entry in the glossary but stopped before I read the last sentence of that paragraph.

I think a clarifying ruling is needed on that since it is not written anywhere.

Like, here's an interesting question... Establish Dominion Foothold can only play if none of my cards have been in that quadrant. What if I reported Bashir Founder as a to my opponents Fed outpost? Can I still play EDF??? That's probably never come up in the history of the game lol

[BCSWowbagger]

My :

@boromirofborg is correct that, if your B-4 (card links, gents!) infiltrates , B-4 becomes and you are now playing . You can no longer select a B-4 skill (or use The Genesis Device, etc.).

This avoids the problem @Takket mentioned with Bashir Founder and Establish Dominion Foothold: since Bashir Founder reports as and is never , you still haven't had any cards in the quadrant and Establish Dominion Foothold still works.

@Armus is correct that, if your B-4 has already selected a skill when he starts infiltrating, he keeps the skill. This is cold comfort in situations where B-4 reports as an infiltrator directly to a outpost, since he will then never have an opportunity to select his skill.

I sympathize with those who say that this is a counterintuitive rule, and I will ask the R.C. to look at it in the coming month. An "infiltrator exception" to "playing an affiliation" does not strike me (at first blush) as a crazy idea. Adding an exception would technically be adding complexity to the rule, but, as PantsOfTheTalShiar is fond of saying, better an intuitive complexity than a confusing simplicity (or words to that effect). But I don't know how the R.C. will react, nor what we might uncover during the research phase. We shall see.