>If that's what you need to do to keep people in the game so be it. However, bear in mind that the official ruling is what it is and if you are running a sacntioned tourney, you are obligated to follow it. Not to sound harshe or anything, but I'd hate to see players getting discouraged because you are making incorrect rulings.
Hmmmm ..... I wasn't aware there was an "offical ruling" on this. As I said in the last post, I hold the opinions of you and several other folks on this BBS in high regard. However, I have never found, nor has anyone given me a rulebook/glossary/current rulings quote on this issue. I realize the Major has to bypass comments on many issues (not enough hours in the day I suppose), when someone has already responded correctly - but until I hear differently, this call is just your opinion, however well informed it might be.
>Also, bear in mind that what you're proposing requires you to have either every single card in the game on hand during a tournament to ensure consistent play or an encyclopedic knowledge of every card. Each scenario can be extremely frustrating to a new player as well. If I were to say, "Personnel X is an admiral because Card Y says so," and I don't have card Y in play or even in my deck and neither does my opponent, what's to prevent my opponent to think I'm making it up?
I really don't think so - or at least I sure hope not. I have a good grasp of the fundamentals of the game - but many of my players bring up points I have missed or never thought of. The issue with Mendak was one of those cases. I was ready to rule that Mendak could NOT report for free at Office of the Proconsul, when my player refered me to the lore on the Devoras the mentioned "Admiral Mendak". Sorry, but if a player shows me that kind of conclusive evidence on a STCCG card - I would think it is incumbent on me to support his claim. To be able to rebutt his claim under these circumstances requires ME to have an "encyclopedic knowledge" of every ruling - which I freely admit I don't have.
>In terms of following the series exactly, bear in mind there are players who don't watch the show. The owner of a local card shop is an avid ST:CCG player and didn't start watching ST:TNG untill *after* he started playing and still hasn't seen anywhere near all the episodes. To ensure consitency in gameplay, you have to follow the cards exactly and forget about the show. Even if it doesn't make much Trek sense.
Your point about players knowledge of the show is fair - but bear in mind there is strong representation in our game from folks who HAVE a detailed knowledge of the series. And they will definitely sound off when Decipher violates "Trek sense". I understand that there has to be some trade-offs for gameplay that violate "Trek sense", but in my opinion, this one isn't even close. To my admittedly incomplete knowledge, "Admiral" Mendak and "Chancellor" Gowron are the only ones affected by this issue for Headquarters and Going to the Top. You know as well as I do (and probably better), that the Romulans are close to last on the number of folks that can report for free to their HQ - and the effect of two more cards on Going to the Top are minimal.
I guess my bottom line is that I have spent alot of my own time and money over the last couple of years building and maintaining a stable of 8-10 players here locally - most are junior high through college aged - and they have ALOT of other options available to them for their entertainment $$$. Issues like this, and the recent banning of opaque covers, make it real hard to convince the kids that this is a "fun" game worthy of their time and limited funds. I tell enough kids that even though the card says "Admiral" he really isn't; or "Sorry, the rules say you can't have your neat looling red covers on your Klingon Deck" - I'm gonna start loosing them.
|
Re: Re: For Taibak on HQ/Going to the Top ... Klauser ... [5/13/99 00:01]
