User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#595949
Dukat wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:38 am I don't understand the problem here ...

Is it the fact that Computer Skill is the only skill and when Dix ignores it, there is nothing left, so to say?
I'm confused too. If this is the case, there's a whole swath of missions Dix doesn't work with and that's dumb.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#595950
Dukat wrote:I don't understand the problem here ...

Is it the fact that Computer Skill is the only skill and when Dix ignores it, there is nothing left, so to say?
jadziadax8 wrote:I'm confused too. If this is the case, there's a whole swath of missions Dix doesn't work with and that's dumb.
You both seem to be on the right track.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#595965
Dukat wrote:Dixon's special skill is quite clear and if the only requirement is a skill and he may ignore that, the mission is solved.

I see no reason why not.
JeBuS wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:15 pmWhat mission requirements do you meet if you ignore them all?
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#595968
The requirement of at least one personnel that meets the requirements in the affiliation box (matching or, if 'any away team', than it can be any non- [Bor] personnel).

That is a requirement and that one is met.
Last edited by Dukat on Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#595969
Dukat wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:25 am The requirement of at least one personnel that can solve the mission (matching/or ANY personnel if no matching icon).

That is a requirement and that one is met.
There are two problems with this answer:
1) A valid away team is a separate check from mission requirements.
2) "one personnel that can solve the mission" is what's in question here. It's circular logic to say that Dixon Hill can solve the mission because Dixon Hill can solve the mission.
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#595971
Just edited it ...

The requirement of at least one personnel that meets the requirements in the affiliation box (matching or, if 'any away team', than it can be any non- [Bor] personnel).
That is a requirement and that one is met.


And if there ARE no mission requirements to be met, than it is a mission with no mission requirements and the mission is solved by just meeting the requirements in the affiliation box.


If a vendor offers something for free, do you ask: 'And how to I give you zero dollars? I want to give you zero dollars!'.
That is what is happening here.


The mission requirement is 'none'. And you can meet it be having 'nothing'.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#595972
@Dukat I'll quote the rulebook again:
Once all seed cards under a mission have been encountered, and there are no dilemmas remaining beneath the mission, check your remaining personnel present. If they still have a personnel whose affiliation matches one of the mission's, still meet additional conditions for attempting the mission (from Homefront, for example), and meet the mission requirements, they solve the mission;
So, as you see, "meet the mission requirements" is a separate thing from the affiliation away team stuff. That point is really academic and tangential to the issue at hand.

The issues at hand are simple:
What mission requirements does Dixon Hill actively meet if you ignore all mission requirements?

Is there any supporting evidence in the rules to say that meeting zero requirements is meeting any requirements?

Is there any supporting evidence in the rules to say that at least one requirement actually needs to be met?
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#595998
Is there any supporting evidence in the rules to say that meeting zero requirements is meeting any requirements?
No, but that applies to the opposite neither.
Is there any supporting evidence in the rules to say that at least one requirement actually needs to be met?
No, there is not.

So you want to 'prove a negative', which is impossible ... perhaps you have a legal background and know it from that angle either.
I have, and therefore I say: We cannot prove a negative and as a result, we do not have to at the moment.

Unless the rules document is specifically changed, I do not see why it does NOT work, because nothing in the rules stands in the way, specifically.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#596002
Dukat wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:52 pmSo you want to 'prove a negative', which is impossible ...
That's... not accurate. I'm not asking to 'prove a negative'. I'm asking if there's any rules evidence to back up either assertion. Besides, if there was a rule that said "you can't do that thing", then that's "proving the negative", but not by the logical connotation you are ascribing. (And amusingly enough "You can't prove a negative" is unproven by its own logic, is it not? :D "You can't prove a negative" is wrong, so shouldn't be the end-all-be-all of your arguments. Because the rules of 1E are finite and we have the ability to fully inspect them, you can, in fact, prove that something does not exist within them. For instance, I can prove that there are no rules covering the use of midi-chlorians to shuffle my draw deck.)
Unless the rules document is specifically changed, I do not see why it does NOT work, because nothing in the rules stands in the way, specifically.
This is likely true, though I've used the same line of thought before and folks have argued against it. (You yourself have, in fact.)
Dukat wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:27 am If we start having this 'the Glossary doesn't explicitely forbid it' discussion, we are getting into some really dumb waters.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#596070
You solve the mission because all of its requirements are (vacuously) met, in exactly the same way that Not So Demilitarized works when you have no facilities in play. This is consistent with the plain reading and design intent of the cards, consistent with how vacuous truths are treated in formal logic, and is the simplest solution:
JeBuS wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:27 am There are two approaches that I can see:
1) Check if there are any unmet requirements. If there are no unmet requirements, that means you have met all requirements.
2) Check for requirements. If there are no requirements, that means you can't meet any requirements.
"All requirements are met" is always equivalent to "no requirement is unmet" without having to add an exception for the empty case. (This is exactly why we have "vacuous truth" in logic and not "vacuous falsehood", so that de Morgan's laws always apply.)

Is it now that we talk about the dream card forum?[…]

German Nationals 2024 (1E)

Done. Your complete decklist. Can't have your […]

Unser Turnier in Köln gestern war ebenfalls[…]

Online CM RELEASE TOURNAMENT

Hello, Here are the 2nd round pairings, courtesy […]