Posted: 28 October 2007 at 3:54am | IP Logged

I agree the crewman would have to be transported, you can only play it in reaction to your own fleet without trans, like a marine.

It would be like playing a marine out of your hand to another fleets location, that does'nt work.

Posted: 29 October 2007 at 8:50pm | IP Logged

Aramax wrote: Gekonauak wrote: The Crewman would have to be played to your fleet and transported to the opponent location. But, is the transportation of the Crewman a factor? Does the osc. transporter (don't have it in front of me, and you didn't quote the rules on that one) cease to function? However, "When played in reaction, may substitute himself for another crew card which has been affected by an opponents card play." The Marine is not a card play, it is a card action. So, no the Crewman could not substitute himself. yes the marine is being played to the ship, but he is against the crewman else he could not be played in reaction to attack the crewman.     That is not true. A reaction card needs to perform one of its functions in order to be played. When player A fires at Player B, Player C may, as a reaction, play a shuttle and move his crew. at last the voice of reason

Andy, you fell into the same trap that caused the rules argument. Under definitions page 42 of the Universe 2.0 rulebook:

Card Play -The act of actually playing a card on the play area.

Card Action -The operation of a card in play. This is not a card play. (emphasis is added.)

When a Marine is played in reaction it cannot, by definition, be performing a Card Action. It is being played in reaction mode. If the Marine was already in play, and performing a there-and-back to perform its function, THEN it is a Card Action.

The argument was over the whole Card Play vs Card Action situation.

As it stands, the Crewman could not have been used anyway because it didn't have transportation... Oscillating Transporters can only move 1 crew and had been used to transport the Boarding Party already. 

Mike's call was the right call for the wrong reason. ;)

Posted: 30 October 2007 at 1:02pm | IP Logged

Well, thanks for your input. We'll let Harry know a little later on.

I already know how he'll take the answer, so...

Posted: 31 October 2007 at 1:56pm | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: I know. He likes to argue for the arguments sake sometimes. The fact remains, Ryan's use of the crewman was correct, as it was reacting to a card being played by an opponent. Your action of playing a Marine to to your ship, and then having the marine fulfill it's reaction requirements of doing something was to have it use it's first card function to kill (discard) a crew of equal or lesser strength. He was played, and then acted. As I have said before, if you had played a Vac effect or crinkled timeline, and he played the crewman, the crewman would have been vacced or crinkled. That's just the way it is.

couldnt agree more