Hindsight: Q Continuum

by Charlie Plaine, Chairman

12th February 2014

Welcome to Hindsight, my weekly series where I take a look back at previous expansions for the Star Trek: Customizable Card Games with a fresh eye. My goal is to examine the decisions made in each of these expansions using modern eyes and design sensibilities in order to learn from those decisions. As mentioned in the announcement article, this is not an attempt to create a new game. Instead, I’m looking to better understand the game and how it can be improved in the modern era by studying its history.

The early years of First Edition were rocky, and Q Continuum didn't arrive on scene until almost a year after the previous expansion, and nearly two (2) years after the game's debut. However, Q Continuum was an aggressive expansion that introduced several new mechanics to the game that shaped future design for years to come.

Q Continuum (First Edition)
Released in October 1996
121 Cards (39 Common, 41 Uncommon, 41 Rare)

Card Types Introduced
Q Cards

Mechanics Introduced
Side Decks, Dual-Icon Missions, Stations, Restriction Boxes, and Personas

Affiliations Introduced
None

Lessons Learned

1. Don't interfere with core gameplay.
Every game has a victory condition and a central premise by which players are expected to achieve that victory condition. For example, in the board game Monopoly, the goal is to earn as much money as possible and bankrupt the other players; the central premise is to buy and develop the properties. In First Edition, the goal is to get one-hundred (100) points, and the central premise by which this occurs is by completing missions. While there are (and should be) other ways to reach this goal, they should never interfere with the central premise of the game: attempting and solving missions. Unfortunately, this is a mistake made by Q Continuum with The Sheliak.

The Sheliak is by no means an automatic thing, but it provides the oppotunity for a player to deny his or her opponent the ability to utilize the central premise of the game. By making a mission worth zero points, this card has the potential to eliminate mission solving as a path to victory. But given that mission solving is the central premise of the game, that is something that should never be allowed to happen, and something that design must avoid at all cost. That being said, there is a difference between being able to slow down or hinder progress on the central premise (e.g. dilemmas, interference) and hobbling it (this mission is worthless). The former is vital to the game, as every good game has obstacles and threats to slow down progress. Imagine First Edition without dilemmas; if it was simply a race to get out required personnel for mission solving, it wouldn't be worth playing! But design must avoid making cards which are disincentives to the central premise - solving missions must always be enabled.

2. Cards and mechanics have to serve a purpose.
Q Continuum introduced quite a few concepts to First Edition, as have most of the expansions to both of the games. And this is a good thing, because the games have to constantly be evolving. Expansions need to deliver the familiar as well as the new in order to satisfy the desires of the players. But the new things that are introduced need to be done so logically and in a way that is functionally relevant. When new cards or mechanics are introduced for the wrong reasons, they can be missteps for a game. An example from Q Continuum: Barber Pole. This event - quite literally - did nothing. If there had been cards in previous expansions (or in Q Continuum itself) that referenced the Barber Pole, then it would have at least been relevant. I believe a card game needs cards that are "bad" in order to provide a learning curve for players, but even "bad" cards need to do something.

A better example: the introduction of Transporter Skill. Here's a quick trivia question: how many cards in Q Continuum have or reference Transporter Skill? The answer - one (1) card and four (4) personnel. There were no dilemmas nor were there any missions that asked for Transporter Skill; it appeared in total on five (5) cards in the expansion where it was introduced. Now, to be fair, the skill came with a "loaded rule" (the ability to beam an additional personnel through cards like Atmospheric Ionization) so it did have a purpose in the game. But looking back, I feel this was a significant missed opportunity. Adding a skill or mechanic should be something special, and have meaning when it's added - this is the key lesson to take away. If design is adding something "for the sake of it," it should be questioned why it's being added.

Note: I do think there can be value in future-proofing and in broken links. Future proofing is the idea that you leave yourself space in a mechanic for later exploration. For example, you'll notice the card Reshape the Quadrant defines the icon for Nors as well as personnel and ships, although there is nothing in the game that uses this definition. The Emissary design team intentionally left this option open for future use. The card is still functional, it just provides a little extra functionality that isn't implemented yet. Broken links are similar; they allow the design team extra time to find the perfect ability to pair with a card, especially in the modern era of conversions. It is our belief that a good card will find a home, and it's not worth forcing a card into an expansion if it's out of place or not quite right. Leaving a broken link is both a "promise" (so to speak) from the design team that we will return to make the card, and a fun opportunity for the community to speculate on what might be coming in the future.

Honorable Mentions

In this section, I will talk about some smaller lessons, concepts, or cards that we should take note of and learn from, but don't really justify a lot of extra discussion. While I don't plan to use this section for every expansion, it will allow me to address some extra points and offer additional content in these articles.

The game can't see outside itself - While it's true that the games have long had (and continue to have) rich options for organized play, I believe it's true that the majority of games happen outside these structured frameworks - "kitchen table" games. Game designers should be aware of the state of tournaments and high level play, but cards and mechanics should always be designed without knowledge of these external structures. Cards like Terraforming Station should never exist, and should only affect the state of the current game.

Avoid too narrow of a scope - The give and take of the game and its power, the "meta," is a key component of card games and how they are played as well as how they evolve in design. The ability for design to create new cards that reward styles of play ("carrots"), enable strategies ("grease"), or challenge powerful mechanics ("sticks") is incredibly useful, as long as they are given the appropriate scope. Cards like Chinese Finger Puzzle are extremely narrow and will only have an effect in a very small percentage of games. While that may not have been true at the time, this card will do nothing in far more games than it will do something, and that makes it difficult for many players to justify using, except in the most specific of cases. And as our expansion sizes have gotten so much smaller in the modern era, these kind of narrowly focused cards should be avoided.

Good Stuff

1. Good affiliation development.
Q Continuum is the first expansion where Klingons and Romulans start to get more powerful cards, and more importantly, get cards that the other affiliations do not get. K'chiq, for example, gave the Klingons the ability to "dial-a-skill" which was unlike anything available to the Federation. And while the Romulans didn't get anything quite that unique, Q Continuum offered our green friends some very skill dense personnel and started to bring them up to par. Affiliation balance is a complex and perpetual process, but one that was done nicely in Q Continuum.

2. Card access.

If I were pressed to quickly name a single card that has had a profound effect on First Edition, there's a very good chance my answer would be Q's Tent. Though this is only a primitive version of "downloading" (that will arrive later), the ability to put meta-specific or situation-specific cards in your deck, without the risk that they will clog your hand, made entire swaths of cards more palatable. Of course, the ability to guarantee yourself access to a particular card was even more powerful... but more on this topic in a future discussion.

Conclusion
Q Continuum is an expansion with a lot of mixed reviews, but as a much maligned expansion it did a lot of good for the fledgling game. Looking back through the lens of time, I think Q Continuum has aged poorly as many of the cards are simply unusable in the modern game. But I suspect that at the time, this expansion offered many powerful cards that enhanced the gameplay and the fun had by the players. Even if it is disliked now, there are useful lessons to be learned from looking back at Q Continuum today.

In the next edition of Hindsight, we'll flip back over to Second Edition and look back at the introduction of two of Trek's most famous villain affiliations - the Borg, and the Dominion - as we take a look at Call to Arms. Thanks for reading, and don't forget to join the ongoing discussions about this article series on the forums!

Discuss this article in this thread.

Back to Archive index