This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
  • 178 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 12
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#394781
jrch5618 wrote:Yeah - those who were ripped out of the late 23rd Century into the 24th could be [CF] non- [1E-AU]. But not Spock or McCoy who went 'the long way'. It's only those 4 cards, right? I can't think of any other examples.

Also, the [22] non- [1E-AU] ... the _only_ example I could think of that'd make _any_ sense would be a Chef Riker.

Anyway - any thoughts about the actual broken link list? I'm looking for feedback on it. (Or anything I might've missed.)
A [Holo] [22] Enterprise crew to go with Chef Riker could also work.........
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#394837
jrch5618 wrote: "Return" Objectives: downloaded by [Obj] Seek Hidden Reliquary
Only one such card exists: [Obj] HQ: Return Orb to Bajor (and one that makes NO sense with this story as a note.)
When we were designing this card it was a multi step set of objectives, of which the next objective in the line was "Return Kir'Shara". Making the next download do a generic Return card opened it up for more use by expanding it to include Bajorans and other future Return type objectives.

As the design around Seek Hidden Reliquary changed we still liked having the extra hook to make this card more appealing for different decks and opening up the possibility of doing additional Return type objectives.

- James M
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#405632
Looks like the latest expansion fixes one broken link (a second Federation president) and adds one (Dr. Pel's holoprogram, Make-Out Point).
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#405710
Yes, thank you frakkingoff, for stealing my thunder. :P

Anyway, the Holiday Warp Pack update.

New broken link: Holoprogram: Make-Out Point: [DL] by [Vid] [Fed] Dr. Pel

Closed link: Federation Presidents. Now that we have [Fed] Hiram Roth with two Federation presidents, I call it closed.

(A new thing I'm doing: new broken links are in red, old links are struck out and in gray till the next update.)
User avatar
 
By OLE_ALE
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#406410
EHCCGPP wrote:
jrch5618 wrote:I'd approve of that Scott, Bateson, the Soyuz, and that version of Kirk being [CF] without [1E-AU] because, yes, they were just there yesterday before wibbly-wobby timey-wimey... ... ... stuff.

But not the TNG McCoy. He went the long way.
Agreed. Same with Spock/Ambassador Spock.
The awkward "or James T. Kirk" text on the Enterprise A could be eliminated if this is done too.
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#408911
While preparing for Cold Front's huge change, saw another one - Jonathan Archer (Homefront 3) is referred to as captaining the Enterprise NX-01. Sorry, but that counts as a different ship title and thus is a broken link - albeit it one that may never be fixed.

The Suliban Cloaking Device refers to Suliban ships - there are none yet.

And... there is only one Sovereign-class ship in the game. The U.S.S. Enterprise-E - yes, it has 3 versions but it's the same ship. Quantum Torpedo cares about this.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#410703
Jenna D'Sora has a romantic relationship with "Lt. Commander Data." Since there's no such card, and no version of the Data persona mentions a romantic relationship with D'Sora, I'd call it a broken link.

(I'm tempted to call "ditto" on Tasha Yar, but her lore does not fall under the romantic partners rule.)
 
By Slayer07
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#410706
BCSWowbagger wrote:Jenna D'Sora has a romantic relationship with "Lt. Commander Data." Since there's no such card, and no version of the Data persona mentions a romantic relationship with D'Sora, I'd call it a broken link.

(I'm tempted to call "ditto" on Tasha Yar, but her lore does not fall under the romantic partners rule.)
Premiere is full of this, rather or not they count it is another matter. Neela Daren was romantically involved with Captain Jean-Luc Picard which does not exist. It also says Beverly Crusher is mother to Ensign Wesley Crusher and this does not exist, though it might not matter in this case. Premiere Alyssa Ogawa lists Dr. Beverly Crusher which does not exist though might also not be relevant. How far does this go really? Jadzia Dax is married to Worf, not Lieutenant Worf (as seen on Premiere) or Lt. Commander Worf (as seen on First Contact.) Or even Worf, Son of Mogh or Captain Worf.

Come to think of it, anything like this is relevant as far as Temporal Benefactor goes.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#410708
Honestly, updating Premiere (and other early set) lore to fix these sorts of things might not be such a bad idea (in the abstract, anyway; I realize it would take up a lot of Art's limited resources).
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#410709
BCSWowbagger wrote:Jenna D'Sora has a romantic relationship with "Lt. Commander Data." Since there's no such card, and no version of the Data persona mentions a romantic relationship with D'Sora, I'd call it a broken link.

(I'm tempted to call "ditto" on Tasha Yar, but her lore does not fall under the romantic partners rule.)
This is not a broken link. The relevant phrase is 'romantically involved' according to the Glossary (with the following synonyms: "husband", "wife", "mate", "married", "wedded", "imzadi", "mistress", "widow", "divorced"). Jenna D'Sora's lore does not correspond to this pattern.

(Beside, Lt. Commander Data's already on the list in a far more important capacity - the matching commander section.)
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#410711
Matching commanders are neither more nor less important than romantic partners. They are both game terms which define a relationship between two cards for other cards to play on and exploit for profit.

I support lore links in the same way i support marriage. Universally, for a profit.
 
By Slayer07
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#410763
The one thing I can say is that matching commanders do serve game purposes. So far romantic and familial links have only been for flavor, no other card takes advantage of that.

And in a way I feel that is something that should be amended in future sets but that is beside the point. But how about that for a Valentine's Day boutique product, cards that have the theme of boosting cards that mention romantic interest?
User avatar
 
By Maelwys (Chris Lobban)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#410764
Slayer07 wrote:The one thing I can say is that matching commanders do serve game purposes. So far romantic and familial links have only been for flavor, no other card takes advantage of that.
There is indeed one card that makes use of romantic links... ;-)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 12
NE Oklahoma, SE Kansas?

Yes, it was at Redeemer in Bartlesville. Unfortuna[…]

Apologies for the delays in the results. They will[…]

MW for doctorjoya over tykajada 35-0. GG! :cheers[…]

The sacred cow in 1E for me is: Not Oversimplifiyi[…]