[Slayer07]

Yes they would be required to seed it to play borg.

Is a Dominion player required to seed White Deprivation to play Dominion? Is it required to be in play the instant a Jem'Hadar enters play?

[kingmj4891]

Yes they would be required to seed it to play borg.

Is a Dominion player required to seed White Deprivation to play Dominion? Is it required to be in play the instant a Jem'Hadar enters play?

No but its not quite the same either.

It was just a suggestion.

Another idea is just create non playable cards that could be brought to a game as references to some of the unique Borg Rules. Sort of like these.

[VioletBlaze]

I agree that the borg rules are mostly fine as they are, however... having a borg side deck has a few advantages. Such as taking the burden of defining what "playing Borg" means off the rules, as well as offloading things like deck construction rules onto another card.
You wouldn't be required to seed the doorway if you're playing borg, seeding the doorway would mean that you ARE playing borg.
*shrugs* I still say the mechanics and rules behind borg are fine the way they are, and I'm against changing them. Just like exploring alternatives too.

[Jono]

What about a Borg Only Side Deck? X cards that stores/download Borg Rules Cards. It could cost a seed slot but could give you one free objective or something that cancels out the loss of a seed that requires you to seed it when playing Borg.

Cards could include:

Genders are irrelevant (Borg Gender Rule)
Missions are irrelevant (Scouting Rule)
Assimilation Rule (attributes changes and how is determined)
Etc

And are Borg players required to seed that theoretical side deck? If a Borg player chooses not to, does that mean gender is relevant, they attempt missions like other affiliations and can't assimilate personnel? If the answer to the first question is no and the answer to every other question is yes then The Borg would be likely be like every other affiliation in the game, potentially taking away their uniqueness.

Much like the gender issue in the first place, the assimilation rules are one of those things I feel are one of the last things that would need to be tinkered with.

Yes they would be required to seed it to play borg.

Part of the attraction to the Borg is you can hide that you are actually playing them with your mission selection. That can really mess up dilemma selection.

Since doorways seed before dilemmas requiring the Borg to use such a doorway would actually be bad for them.

[kingmj4891]

Since doorways seed before dilemmas requiring the Borg to use such a doorway would actually be bad for them.

Fine Make it an incident that downloads the rules cards from out of play. It can be the players final seed card.

[Slayer07]

Yes they would be required to seed it to play borg.

Is a Dominion player required to seed White Deprivation to play Dominion? Is it required to be in play the instant a Jem'Hadar enters play?

No but its not quite the same either.

It was just a suggestion.

Another idea is just create non playable cards that could be brought to a game as references to some of the unique Borg Rules. Sort of like these.

Well for the record, I'd say they should be treated the same. As I recall originally the rule was 'built in' because the Jem'Hadar were pretty powerful personnel. With the theoretical side deck I could decide I don't want to scout but attempt missions and I want to get bonus points, but that wouldn't be allowed even though I want to assimilate and ignore gender related dilemmas.

The non playable cards are a good idea, although aside from the fact they look cooler why not just stick to a printed sheet with the rules?

[MidnightLich]

Guys, that was just an example...

Seriously.

This level of freaking out is not warranted, and honestly, discourages me from writing more about what the future might hold.

-crp

[Nu'Daq's Revenge]

I couldn’t be more of a “No” to this.

Whomever dreamt this up should lose 15 points and be forced to play as Videan in their next game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[admiral-mogh]

Guys, that was just an example...

Seriously.

This level of freaking out is not warranted, and honestly, discourages me from writing more about what the future might hold.

-crp

Hey, it's just a discussion. No one is freaking out. I think it's rather healthy?

[Tyberius_Deangelo]

I just had to post a Seven of Nine picture here because the costume designers of Voyager certainly played to Jeri Ryan's strengths in that Borg outfit. Certainly gender minded imo.

[Borg King]

Part of the attraction to the Borg is you can hide that you are actually playing them with your mission selection. That can really mess up dilemma selection.

Since doorways seed before dilemmas requiring the Borg to use such a doorway would actually be bad for them.

This and the fact that adding a side deck OR an Incident you have to seed (even if it's for free) still costs a seed slot which can be very costly depending on the type of Borg deck you're playing and the set up involved.

Bottom line; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Borg gender rules are fine as they currently are.

[karnstein]

Moving the Borg gender rule (or similar rules) off the rules documents onto cards probably would be good for my little group of infrequent players, ceteris paribus.

So, given the question, I voted "yes" because something like a Borg Side Deck could be very helpful, especially as a way to scaffold players' introduction to the rules.

At the same time, I imagine that creating a new mechanic for one or more Borg rules could entail a huge amount of work (e.g., assigning gender, addressing the risk of gender lockouts, preventing the loss of the affiliation's distinctiveness, and/or dealing with the possibility of Borg attempting missions, all while ensuring game balance).

Moreover, as others have said, fixing this may be a relatively low priority.

So, for me and my players, this seems like a good idea, and I get that other projects may be a better use of resources at this point.

BTW, I enjoy the brainstorming and all the insights.

[Armus]

Guys, that was just an example...

Seriously.

This level of freaking out is not warranted, and honestly, discourages me from writing more about what the future might hold.

-crp

Didn't you also write either in this thread or the main article thread that threats to quit aren't helpful?

And did you miss the thread explosion when the lack of transparency about 'what the future might hold' led to the blindsiding of the 1e player base with a major OTF rule change that most people didn't even know was even in the works?

You floated an idea. That idea touched a nerve and got a strong negative reaction. That's not a bad thing. For one, you got clear feedback on your idea and can now safely file it in the 'things we don't need to fix' drawer. The more things in that drawer the better. For two, you have your player base talking about the game. Passionately. Don't run away from that, embrace it. Were I in your shoes, I'd be feeling ENCOURAGED by the response.

When you float such a radical change and it's met with 'meh' or worse, silence, THEN it's time to get discouraged because that means that people aren't passionate about the game or nobody is playing anymore so it doesn't matter.

I bet if TCC were MORE open about what the future holds and MORE receptive to dialog and feedback, then we'd end up with a MORE engaged player base. I said something similar to Dan after the OTF-splosion, and I stand by it now.

[kingmj4891]

Guys, that was just an example...

Seriously.

This level of freaking out is not warranted, and honestly, discourages me from writing more about what the future might hold.

-crp

Didn't you also write either in this thread or the main article thread that threats to quit aren't helpful?

And did you miss the thread explosion when the lack of transparency about 'what the future might hold' led to the blindsiding of the 1e player base with a major OTF rule change that most people didn't even know was even in the works?

You floated an idea. That idea touched a nerve and got a strong negative reaction. That's not a bad thing. For one, you got clear feedback on your idea and can now safely file it in the 'things we don't need to fix' drawer. The more things in that drawer the better. For two, you have your player base talking about the game. Passionately. Don't run away from that, embrace it. Were I in your shoes, I'd be feeling ENCOURAGED by the response.

When you float such a radical change and it's met with 'meh' or worse, silence, THEN it's time to get discouraged because that means that people aren't passionate about the game or nobody is playing anymore so it doesn't matter.

I bet if TCC were MORE open about what the future holds and MORE receptive to dialog and feedback, then we'd end up with a MORE engaged player base.

I said something similar to Dan after the OTF-splosion, and I stand by it now.

[AllenGould]

Ah, such constructive feedback like "Whomever dreamt this up should lose 15 points and be forced to play as Videan in their next game." or "This is an absolutely terrible idea, and it should never have been born."?