Again, using my reasoning above:

friendly AND (adjacent OR Klingon) = friendly adjacent OR friendly Klingon.

Meaning, the Klingon keyword does not need to be adjacent because the word adjacent does not occur before the choice needs to be made.

If it said, instead, "modify defense +1 on himself and all adjacent friendly characters that are 100 points or less or have the Klingon keyword," then adjacency would apply for both choices.

Wow, you really have not taken the time to even read the prior posts, please keep rehashing the same line over and over without addressing the facts presented. You can't use “qualifier” in English grammar because it a mathematical term as you are using it. So if your using it as a grammar rule it don't work, which is why you are confused. Don't believe me, ask your colleges at work….. Apply all the mathematical logic you want, because grammatically it don't work, period. The word structure does not meet the following two rules:

Grammar: Qualifier. 1) A word or phrase, especially an adjective, used to attribute a quality to another word, especially a noun. 2) (in systemic grammar) a word or phrase added after a noun to qualify its meaning.

As a descriptor it is barley up for debate, and the reason why is you don't generally place a descriptor prior to the subject. Example incorrect: If the def girl can't hear, why should we talk to her? Example correct: If a girl whose def can't hear, why should we talk to her? These examples are broken down to the 6th grade level, because you should never just use a descriptor when referring to a disability. Should read; Janet whom is def can't hear, why should we talk to her? As a teacher you should of had training in this. So I have some how clearly offended you, and if such, I'll apologize. However, please reread the posts, consult your colleagues, maybe they can describe it better than I when you are not defensive.

As for Daven, thank you I was looking for clarification from an official source, it is one of the rulings we located when discussed among my play group. I'm not saying this is correct, I'm not the expert here, however the discussion was among the four of us, three who are state champions and myself who is just a stubborn, just shy of twenty years dual certified teacher. The thought was that the wording in conjunction with the “unique” descriptor allowed this rule to function, along with the ruling from WIN.

Once again you would be able to use the terminology of “qualifier” to describe “unique” because it is modifying one word and not a complete sentence. The SSO officer ability as written has two distinct phrases because the sentence is separated by an “or”. A Qualifier in grammar applies basically to another word, usually a noun. Of course there are always exceptions, or oddities. I don't believe this to be the case, but others disagree, hence the confusion.

And I can see JJ’s point as well, among our group we are split as to the interpretation. That's why I asked if there was a official clarification. All I can contribute is to grammatically address the structure of the sentence, and let people know why I see it as grammatically wrong. Like anything else you can find other educators who can disagree, but they should state why using appropriate data. We all learned to state our hypothesis, then use the data to deconstruct if what we stated is accurate. Not always after looking at the results is the hypothesis correct.

I have no problem having an academic discussion, just apply why you think my hypothesis is incorrect using appropriate data. If I counter your statement with facts, please apply opposing data. That's the professional way.

Once again using the definition of “or”, you must have two alternatives to choose from. In this wording the alternative are:
A: When an adjacent friendly character that's 100 points or less
“Or”
B: has the Starfleet keyword
(Next part of sentence is “would”, the past tense of will which definition of is: “expressing probability or expectation about something in the present”.) would be KO'd, you may instead KO Starfleet Security Officer. If you do, turn the friendly character to its last non-KO click.

Using the definition of Qualifier, which I hate doing, as apposed to descriptor: adjacent can only apply to a word, phrase, and most the time only to a noun. Not to two phrases, words or nouns, of course there are exceptions. However since the “or” is in the sentence and adjacent is in the beginning it should not apply as a qualifier to anything after the “or” because they are grammatically two separate alternatives.

Since the majority of people write as they speak, the intent is the key here. Just because it sounds correct does not grammatically make it structurally correct.

I'll end my post once again clearly stating I can be whole heartedly wrong if the intent of the writers is otherwise

I think we are both in agreement with your assessments of this wording Kolgoth, as long as the Klingons are within the rules of Perplex they get the +1 to defense. In this case the rules and guidelines are determined by the Perplex. This is why on the FF STOS their unique abilities apply across the board.

The point I'm making, that you don't seem to get is that these cards are meant to be logically correct, not grammatically correct. If they were trying to be grammatically correct, they would need much more space on the cards. They are written in a way to get across the most information they can in the least space as possible. Again, you like to blather. Come back with the ruling when and if they get back to you. Then let's talk.


Here is your problem. This is not the only way to read this, but you seem somehow stuck on this. I've clearly shown you why this thinking is wrong, but you can't seem to get it.
Re-read my post to see why this is wrong. It is.

Did you just say you can have a logical statement and be grammatically incorrect in the written form, especially as it pertains to technical writing? You might want to pause and let that sink in. I will concede to this; there are always exceptions, but are never the best practice. I even agree with you as to why they might of condensed wording, however to do so at the sake of grammar is not appropriate. Why, because we get arguments like we're having know, between stubborn people. Also there was plenty of room left on the SSO card for further text.

I have read your post, I have conceded to what extent you could both be correct and why you could be wrong. I have backed up with facts, not opinion why you could possible be wrong, and in my opinion why you are. You have done neither, except for this.

The issue you have, that despite being provided a logical and supported argument, your basis of the ruling is from your opinion of what the intent of the author is. Therefore if you are not the author you are inherently wrong, period. If you want to be insulting and say I'm blathering, that is fine. I thought I was speaking to a fellow educated colleague, you proved to me I am wrong in that assumption. You have yet to prove your argument. If you want to be closed minded, intolerant, and bullish continue slinging your insults. If you want to have a conversation as educated colleagues, state your argument respectfully. If you just want to repeat the same argument, I suggest you precede it with, “in my opinion the author means this…….”.

Hopefully, you are willing to have a more tolerant debate with your students, good day.

Again, come back with your ruling and then we'll talk. You claim to be an academic, yet you can't seem to grasp a simple point, that many others have already grasped. This is so clear an answer, it's amazing you're even arguing your point.


Let me make it easier for you. There is an unwritten word in the statement on SSO's card. Read this and tell me how it should be read? This is the intention on the card (as it is on every other card that is worded this way):

This is what the statement is saying. I know you are placing the either before the phrase "an adjacent" but again, going by your counter example and Draven's example, that's NOT where wizkids puts it.

Meaning either friendly adjacent or friendly Klingon.

I do see your point, and I have proven why it is wrong. I have even been kind enough to provide why I and how I could be incorrect. All you have provided is esoteric reasons of what the intent of rulings are based upon how you believe the writers meant to word it. You can keep placing nonexistent wording into the sentence and ignore grammar, it will not make you correct. You may express your opinion, does not make you correct, rulings from WIN may. I am sure you don't want me to go off on another “blathering”, regarding grammar because of your placement of “either”. But thank you for giving me the opportunity, because in the sentence of the example you provided where you placed it grammatically applies to just “100 points or less”. I'm at a lost as to how you could of passed any type of state certification for teaching, without dissecting a sentence grammatically. However I admire you for beating the system. I am impressed in how you can provide me with a simple example, you may just want to try for a simple correct one. I am concerned, maybe I should withdraw my question from official ruling by support because I'm a bit distraught over your reaction if the ruling does not go your way, I pray I'm wrong here. Moreover you are so correct in one regard, you have made things easier for me, way too easy.

Rest assured I do owe you my gratitude, after stressful days I come home and read your responses and literally laugh aloud, and I needed that lately.

So here is a toast: let's hope I am wrong, and you are correct, and we get a official ruling before Augusts tournaments, so I know how to arrange my tactics for the games.

Official ruling thread can be found here:

http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....12c5238cf412bf

Seems they have been receiving a few inquires regarding this topic. JJ’s opinion is correct in his assumption on how the SSO works. Characters with the Starfleet keyword must be adjacent to the SSO to KO the SSO instead.

I have played a few games using both interpretations, and in my opinion without the adjacent ruling it makes the Starfleet keyword, anywhere on the board unbalanced.

By the time I got to the end of this comment thread I forgot what I was gonna write. Next time, please take it to the rules section, y'all, thanks.

I'll take the blame for this, I did not realized there was a rule section. I'll look for it. It's a moot point now because we have an official ruling.

While not as offensively oriented as their 25-point counterparts from other OS factions, the Redshirt trait makes one (or more) of them invaluable when your Starfleet team relies on a tentpole (Title Kirk) or on a particular bonus (OS starter figures). The stats are somewhat lackluster, but with boosts from the OS starter Misters Spock and Scott they can deliver more punch. As far as dial design: if the Incapacitate was either removed (lowering cost) or replaced with Sidestep, these would be 5-star figures for Starfleet.