[JeBuS]

Let's say Spaceborne Entity is at Construct Depot.

On the "owner's" side of Construct Depot, the player has an Alpha Attack Ship. Spaceborne Entity can obviously see that the ship matches the mission's affiliation icon(s). So it would attack that ship at the end of the turn.

Now, let's say the Alpha Attack Ship is on the opponent's side of the mission, where there are no affiliation icons. Will the Entity attack that ship? Why or why not?

Does it matter who owns the Spaceborne Entity?

Does it matter whose turn it is, as far as "seeing" affiliation icons?

[Professor Scott]

It is my belief that it will attack all regardless of which side they are on or who owns the Spaceborne Entity.

By the same reasoning, if SE were at Internment Operations, I would it expect it to attack all , , , or ships regardless of which side of the mission they are on and regardless of SE's ownership.

I see no reason why a would care who seeded the mission or which way it is presently oriented. SE would only care about which affiliation icons are present on any side of the mission.

[JeBuS]

What is the basis of your answer? (I agree that's how I'd rule it, but I can't find any real supporting rules yet.)

[JeBuS]

So far, this text in the glossary is the closest I've found.

A personnel matches a mission's affiliation if they haves one of the affiliation icons printed on the card (or added conceptually by a card such as Bribery or Arandis). A personnel matches a homeworld's affiliation if they are of the affiliation that belongs to that homeworld. For example, Cloaked Mission (Romulus) is the Romulan homeworld, but has a affiliation icon. Gowron matches the mission's affiliation (icon), while Tomalak matches the homeworld's affiliation.

I haven't found a particular analogous entry for ships yet.

So, a new question based on that text:

Would Spaceborne Entity attack a ship at Study Protonebula?

The affiliation icon is printed on the mission card, right?

[Professor Scott]

I have only my gut to go on for my answer above.

As for attacking no, as it's a Borg Icon but not an Affiliation Icon. Affiliation icons denote who can attempt a given mission. If for no other reason than Borg don't attempt missions, ergo there is no such thing as a Borg affiliation icon on a mission; but specifically, Study Protonebula has no affiliation icons denoting who can attempt it. It has Any crew may attempt mission in place of any affiliation icons.

[JeBuS]

In the glossary it is listed as an affiliation icon.

[JeBuS]

The rulebook also calls those icons affiliation icons.

[JeBuS]

In the case of Study Protonebula, it seems like the rules state that it has a printed Borg affiliation icon on it, for the purposes of matching personnel.

Does this extend to ships? I do not know at the moment.

[JeBuS]

Sorry, I was misremembering which icon was on Study Protonebula, making it a bad example. Pretend I wrote Salvage Borg Ship instead.

[Professor Scott]

Switching from to , you might have something. @BCSWowbagger, any thoughts?

[Takket]

so the words used here matter. it says "mission's affiliation icons" not "affiliation icons appearing on the mission".

For a mission, it's affiliation icons are those which appear in the icon box on the card, as demonstrated in rulebook section 2.1

https://www.trekcc.org/op/1e_rulebook/#MISSIONS(2.1)

So SE will attack anything that matches an icon on either end of the mission.

[JeBuS]

so the words used here matter. it says "mission's affiliation icons" not "affiliation icons appearing on the mission".

For a mission, it's affiliation icons are those which appear in the icon box on the card, as demonstrated in rulebook section 2.1

https://www.trekcc.org/op/1e_rulebook/#MISSIONS(2.1)

So SE will attack anything that matches an icon on either end of the mission.

Unless you know of a ruling that redefined the English possessive, I don't think that is a logically sound argument. The rule cited isn't exhaustive or exclusive in its reference to affiliation icons. In fact, it is demonstrative, instead.

The rule is providing an example of a usage of affiliation icons. It is not defining a game term.

I will agree with you, however: the words used do matter. The only rule I can find that seems to define what it means for a card to match a mission's affiliation icons specifically uses the words "printed on the card", without specifically mentioning where on the card. Its wording is actually like probing, where it doesn't seem to matter where on the card.

[Takket]

rulebook > normal grammar

if there was nothing telling what the specific "affiliation icons" are on a mission card, you'd be right, but rule 2.1 takes precedence.

Just like Elim Garak (Dogs of War) isn't a personnel even though that affiliation icon appears on his card.

[JeBuS]

Your interpretation of 2.1 still doesn't appear to be logically correct. Nor are your analogies.

Garak isn't Dominion because the rules for personnel and ships specify they have an affiliation and it is denoted by the affiliation icon in the upper left corner of the card. An icon appearing elsewhere on the card doesn't mean anything in relation to the affiliation of those card types.

2.1 doesn't say that about missions. 2.1 says:

they show which affiliations may attempt the mission, usually through affiliation icons

2.1 does not specify anything about matching. That is handled by a separate rule, quoted earlier in this thread.

[FranklinKenter]

Would Spaceborne Entity attack a ship at Study Protonebula?

The affiliation icon is printed on the mission card, right?

No.

affiliation icon
A round icon in the upper left corner of a Personnel or Ship card or lower left corner of a Facility card, indicating the card's affiliation. Also, a rectangular icon on a Mission card indicating which affiliations can attempt the mission.

Study Protonebula isn't as it does not have an icon to allow to attempt that missions.

Likewise,
Chula: Crossroads isn't
Sniper isn't and
Treaty: Alpha Quadrant Alliance isn't

The mere presence of an icon does not grant that card an affiliation, even for the purposes of "matching".