Instigate Dissension | openCards

You are here

Instigate Dissension

    (4) Instigate Dissension

    Dual Dual Dilemma

    Randomly select two personnel to be stopped. Unless you command one or less headquarters missions, your opponent places this dilemma on one of your headquarters missions. You cannot play personnel at this mission. At the end of each of your turns, you may reveal three different non-Non-Aligned personnel from hand who could by played at this headquarters to remove this dilemma from the game.

    Characteristics: dilemma with a cost of 3 or more, "headquarter related" dilemma, "randomly select" dilemma, "randomly stopper" dilemma, "specific affiliation related" dilemma, remove cards from the game (this card).
    Requires: headquarters.

    Card logging info: Logged by openCards team at Jan 1st, 2008.
     

    Instigate Dissension

    This Card-Review article was written by openCards user Tribble at Apr 9th, 2008.

    Stopping two personnel with a dual four-cost dilemma isn’t bad, it’s about the average outcome of an “Agonizing Encounter”. But that’s only the worst-case scenario for this dilemma’s owner. If your opponent has more then one headquarters missions (which you should be able to surmise before adding this dilemma to your stack), the dilemma is not overcome (which makes it even better then “Agonizing Encounter”), but is placed at one of those headqurters missions, where your opponent may have difficulties during the next turn to report his personnel (note the evil “end of turn” twist). And if your opponent is playing one of those strategies where a headquarters mission is more or less only the humble abode where one Malcolm Reed, Brunt or Carolyn Palamas resides, he or she may altogether forget about that headquarters mission. I’m publicly known as a friend of multiple-headquarters-decks, but I would seldom play a second (or third) headquarters mission just for one personnel to get into play there. But all those who do (the M-faction: Mark Schütze, Michael Mittelstedt and half of Minnesota), will get punished severely by this card. Like with “Necessary Execution” or “Agonizing Encounter” the mere existence of this card will probably keep those players from trying these strategies all the time, but - as with those examples named - it’s a dilemma well worth to be put into your pile - not like 1E’s “Balancing Act” just eating up a card slot.