[Mogor]

# BanBorg

[Armus]

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."?

Honestly, would you prefer apathy and/or silence?

You might want to think that one through a bit...

[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."?

Honestly, would you prefer apathy and/or silence?

You might want to think that one through a bit...

Well, you yourself said "it should never have been born". So you seem to be on Team Silence yourself, no?

[MidnightLich]

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."?

Honestly, would you prefer apathy and/or silence?

You might want to think that one through a bit...

Did you get whiplash from going from one extreme to the other?

I just want a discussion that isn't rooted in panic and jumping to conclusions. I want to write articles and talk about places the game could go without having to worry about setting off a panic. That was all my point was, nothing else. Of course we want discussion and conversation.

Also, I have been working to share as much information as I can with people. What more would you like to see done?

-crp

[Armus]

Yes, I had a strong negative reaction to the concept presented. In all candor, I still do. But I don't blame you for floating such a crazy idea as a test balloon. To the contrary, I think it's a great idea to get feedback for pre-development concepts before you invest valuable Design resources in pursuing them. Just don't be surprised or dismayed when such a concept falls flat; at that early stage of the game, it's ok (and even beneficial) to fail.

And to be fair, TCC communication has increased, a fact that I appreciate. But given previous communication shortfalls, it shouldn't be a shock that some community members react reflexively.

[AllenGould]

But I don't blame you for floating such a crazy idea as a test balloon.

Perhaps a bit more thought before posting "This is an absolutely terrible idea, and it should never have been born." would be useful if you want to hear ideas.

[Armus]

But I don't blame you for floating such a crazy idea as a test balloon.

Perhaps a bit more thought before posting "This is an absolutely terrible idea, and it should never have been born." would be useful if you want to hear ideas.

Ok Allen, next time I won't tell yet how I really feel.

[AllenGould]

But I don't blame you for floating such a crazy idea as a test balloon.

Perhaps a bit more thought before posting "This is an absolutely terrible idea, and it should never have been born." would be useful if you want to hear ideas.

Ok Allen, next time I won't tell yet how I really feel.

Point proven.

[BCSWowbagger]

When you float such a radical change

Boy, if "offload the Borg gender rule to a card" is a "radical change," what would be an example of a rules change that is not radical?

Was OTF -- six radical rule changes plus a ban list -- a mistake?

I don't think offloading the Borg gender rule to a card is a good idea, but the idea that any changes to Borg should be taken totally off the table is a really bad sign for the future of this game. Decipher made far more sweeping changes to the game every few months, without a second thought. (Unfortunately, they should have given many of those changes a bit more thought, but going from constant change to NO CHANGE EVER is not an improvement.)

[Armus]

When you float such a radical change

Boy, if "offload the Borg gender rule to a card" is a "radical change," what would be an example of a rules change that is not radical?

Was OTF -- six radical rule changes plus a ban list -- a mistake?

I don't think offloading the Borg gender rule to a card is a good idea, but the idea that any changes to Borg should be taken totally off the table is a really bad sign for the future of this game. Decipher made far more sweeping changes to the game every few months, without a second thought. (Unfortunately, they should have given many of those changes a bit more thought, but going from constant change to NO CHANGE EVER is not an improvement.)

James, it disappoints me to have to say this to you, of all people: Context is for Kings.

1.) My visceral reaction was limited to this particular idea. At no point did I say anything resembling 'All change is bad' or 'no change ever'. If anything, the overall theme of what I've been saying is that communication and feedback is a key part of change; if I was anti-change, that entire point would be moot.

2.) There should probably be a relationship between the magnitude of change and the magnitude of the need (or at least desire) for change. OTF WAS a radical change, but the game was basically dead with the exception of a few die hards, so there was a radical need for change. You've seen me post multiple times that TNG Block and OTF brought me back to the game. Clearly the RIGHT kind of change can be good.

3.) Do I really need to go dig up all of the threads where a change was announced and people blew up the boards? Look at the last modification to the OTF rules. On the merits, it was a relatively small change (especially compared to the creation of OTF itself), but people went nuts. Why? Because of the way it was handled.

There's good change and there's bad change. OTF is a good change, this idea would be a bad change. But that's not the whole story. There's also good change management and bad change management, and change management is at least important as the change itself, if not moreso. The concept of 'Hey, here's a crazy idea, what do you all think?' is good change management. Applied here, it gave 'management' the information it needed to (I hope) reach the conclusion that this particular change wasn't worth pursuing. That allows them to focus on other changes that are more needed and/or will be better received.

The OTF change was the opposite. The lack of communication and feedback led to a (for arguments sake, though I happen to agree with it) good change being poorly received. That's a case of bad change management.

Hopefully that helps clarify where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to deter change, I'm just pushing for better change management.

[BCSWowbagger]

James, it disappoints me to have to say this to you, of all people: Context is for Kings.

I, too, am disappointed! I think you're equivocating more than a little bit here about context. I will explain:

The concept of 'Hey, here's a crazy idea, what do you all think?' is good change management. Applied here, it gave 'management' the information it needed to (I hope) reach the conclusion that this particular change wasn't worth pursuing.

The problem is that the community reacts this way for virtually all changes. Have you read the boards from the day General Quarters was spoiled? That thread was Ragnarok. And not the good kind, with Chris Hemsworth in. The board reacted similarly when:

* Downloading was declared an order.
* Kathryn Janeway (The Sky's The Limit) was teased with an icon
* The Always A Chess Game VP had a CCG logo.
* An extra staffing icon was placed on Liberty by errata
* Revised limited each deck to 2 copies of an interrupt.
* War Council was banned
* OTF came out.

(Here's a post I like to revisit from time to time. Respectful, cogent, detailed, written by an excellent player, something I absolutely agreed with at the time, and far more constructive than certain inflammatory comments in this thread... yet, IMO, still totally wrong.)

Some of those decisions were good (we agree about OTF being good). Some of them were bad (Liberty was a mistake, I still feel, and I said so at the time). Some were major, sweeping changes. Some were very minor. Some were rolled back. Others are now as natural to the game as breathing. Some were carefully communicated and rolled out. Some came abruptly.

But all of them met with the same community reaction: vigorous, visceral, angry blowback from a significant portion of the community, while another significant portion of the community supported the changes, but more quietly. You can predict a lot of the responses, without knowing any of the change's content, just by looking at usernames. Big or small, right or wrong, pushed through or not, the reaction is always the same.

So the model you propose for change management in the CC doesn't work. If Design had listened to community blowback about OTF when OTF was first proposed, OTF wouldn't exist. Heck, if Design listened on a regular basis to community blowback the way you propose, the game would still be the broken game it was in 2003. That's the context in which I view your comments here.

I think the evidence is much stronger that the community routinely overreacts to proposed changes, imagining both ill intent by Design and worst-case scenarios on the table that almost never materialize. (And, when they do materialize, they are swiftly corrected.) At this point, it's difficult to explain why Design should communicate with the community prior to deciding on a change, since the reaction will be the same no matter what. This issue (it is hard not to further conclude) is a paradigm case of that.

On that note, I'd still like to hear how on Earth you can call "offloading a Borg rule that covers a handful of dilemma interactions to a card" a "radical change." By even the most conservative standard, this change would be a minor one in the annals of CC rules updates. I ask again: if this is radical, can you name a rules change that was not radical? Because all I can think of are the totally pro forma rules updates like this month's update of the intelligence skills to include V'Shar.

I'd also like you to explain more why tailoring the rules a little more carefully to make it easier for new players to understand them wouldn't contribute to the same kind of renaissance that helped bring you back to 1E. With OTF, the CC placed the needs of a then-hypothetical potential playerbase over the desires of a good chunk of the actual playerbase at the time. The same concept is at the root of Charlie's Borg idea: simplify the rules to bring in new players of this (still nearly dead) game. The state of the game is less dire than it was in 2010, but not so much less dire that we're out of the woods and no longer urgently need to make it more newbie-friendly.

[Boffo97]

Personally, I don't see a problem with Brian's answer here. Yes, it was a hard no, but sometimes that's as constructive an answer as can possibly be given. He didn't make it personal about Charlie or anything like that. He just disagreed.

On the topic itself, my one concern is that I wouldn't want Rules foibles that one gets "for free" now suddenly having a cost in terms of a card you need to seed or play. But I think that could be nullified by a side deck (maybe even seedable for free) where you could include such cards and bring them out as needed. You could errata cards like White Deprivation and Cybernetics Expertise to have a proper icon to go into such a side deck, since they are also former baked in rules that have been offloaded onto cards.

Also, would there be any cases where, without a card to make the Borg genderless in play, that the image itself would be unclear as to what the gender should be?

[Se7enofMine]

I think change can be a good thing. There are certainly rules in 1E that could be changed (Nors, some Borg rules, etc). I wasn't around for the implementation of OTF but it appears to have done a lot for the game so, clearly, it was good.

Change can also be bad. No one has suggested this but change for the sake of making change is silly. It serves no purpose. But, change is why people freak out. People fear change in most forms. Most people tend to be creatures of habit. So when something screws with that, the panic button is hit.

If the idea of upcoming changes is to bring up the player base, cool. I'm fine with that. There are ways to change the game while not making it completely mind numbing to play. I think we can all agree on that. But, as James pointed out, a certain subset of people will freak out no matter what the change is. No matter how big or small, they will cause the most grief. It's what some people do.

I learned long ago that change, be it good or bad, in inevitable. So there is no sense in getting worked up over it. Roll with the punches a bit and it gets easier.

I suppose my perspective here is a bit different. I just recently came back to the game after a 15+ year absence. So my passion for it is at an all time high. I'm loving the game again and I'm loving the community. I'd probably be pretty forgiving for many things at this point.

[Slayer07]

On the topic itself, my one concern is that I wouldn't want Rules foibles that one gets "for free" now suddenly having a cost in terms of a card you need to seed or play. But I think that could be nullified by a side deck (maybe even seedable for free) where you could include such cards and bring them out as needed. You could errata cards like White Deprivation and Cybernetics Expertise to have a proper icon to go into such a side deck, since they are also former baked in rules that have been offloaded onto cards.

Also, would there be any cases where, without a card to make the Borg genderless in play, that the image itself would be unclear as to what the gender should be?

That was my thought here too, and why I pointed out a Dominion player is not required to seed White Deprivation. Granted, the 'gender card' is a benefit so a Borg player might want to seed it. The White Deprivation is a negative so unless a Dominion player wants to keep with the spirit of the affiliation why would they willingly seed it? But the end result is it would be a rules offload that isn't needed. Cybernetics Expertise is an even less needed required seed/side deck slot I think. Also wasn't HQ: Defensive Measures one of those offloaded cards?

As for unclear Borg, try pretty much any Borg who isn't the Queen, a counterpart, the Borg kids, or the 'Of Nine' group. Take Six of Eleven and Two of Eleven for instance; I always though their former genders were female. Yet there is no proof. The rules would normally say in any inconsistency like that the card defaults to male but that doesn't feel right in this case. I'd call that unclear.

I still say though if changes needed to be made with The Borg, start with scouting missions, that is far more complex than lack of Borg Gender or even assimilation.

Now I wasn't here for OTF discussion so I can't say much there. Suffice it to say I've watched the game for a long time after Decipher gave it up but I haven't played in a long time, partly because I have never found a place to do so. Part of me dislikes the idea of the block stuff for what it's worth (after all splitting the Federation like that defeats the purpose of a Federation I think) but I fully understand why it's needed (makes smaller cards more useful). I do agree that any change is often met with some resistance as I was one of (perhaps too many) designers for a CC version of the Buffy CCG way back when and the stories I could tell. Many of which aren't a big deal, some that might have been more of a thing but everyone with an opinion.

[Dizzle of Borg]

So, I think removing gender irrelevancy (or any Borg irrelevancy) is not contructive. It just makes them more like every other faction. The Borg are supposed to feel...alien. Think of when the federation first encountered the Borg. They had no clue how to deal with this new species because they did EVERYTHING differently. I think the design team did a really great job of translating this to cardstock.

That being said: I think the idea of a borg only side deck could solve a number of "problems" that I have seen with the lists on the site. Most of my observations come from playing mostly open for the last 20 years,

Here's the setup.

Q's Tent and the Borg
Q's Tent was originally designed to be a super cool in-game sideboard style deck. You could stock some zingers in there for specific opponents and a few cards you really wanted to get at. Then you could stock some Q's tents and have a contingency plan for anything. The borg have never had this luxury. The Borg are saturated cards that are way too bad to draw on your turn but are you required to play the game or accomplish borg things. (assimilation table, transwarp network gateway, unusable objectives, etc) This has always traditionally led to Q's tent being nothing more than a "download hub" for them, often still with not nearly enough slots, taking away it's core functionality. The addition of Q's Tent:Civil War appears to help a bit with the zingers aspect, but it is definitely not ideal.

Borg Queen in deck construction
There is an absolute disconnect in reality between the number of Borg Queens a player could own and stock in the days when the game was produced VS now in this virtual environment. Sixteen to twenty Borg Queens is unrealistic. I never knew anyone with that many when the game was in print, and our state champ played Borg. I remember being super jealous when he had 9 of them.

This seems to be mostly due to the fact that OTF has streamlined play to the point that you have to be VERY careful what cards are included in your deck list, and you need to have very consistent draws. That makes sense and is applied in every card game. This really seems to come down to needing to download "we are the borg" and "a change of plans" to get the deck rolling, however. In fact, in looking through the decklists on the site, it seems this is the ONLY valid strategy for playing borg competitively. This leads to massive restrictions in deck construction and originality. with a 40-50 card draw deck, nearly half are Borg Queen. I'm not saying it's degenerate, but it is discouraging to creative deck building.

The loss of Delta Quadrant Spatial Scission
DQSS is too powerful, for sure. In the scope of things it can make some factions insane. As far as the borg are concerned though, it gave them options to stock their deck with unique personnel and go scout objectives that are irregular from the standard borg game plan. The number of unique personnel other factions take for granted dwarf the borg options. While DQSS allows many of those factions to take unfair advantage of the plethora of exceptional personnel they have on deck, its loss severely limits borg deck construction. it is also important to note that borg typically do not have more than 3-4 skills on the unique personnel. It's not like we were cloning the Voyager crew. I also felt it made sense in a borgish way, they ARE part of the collective, after all.

Homeworld assimilation
The loss of the ability to scout your opponents missions, particularly their homeworld, is felt sharply by the Borg. It makes stocking cards like assimilate counterpart irrelevant, as most homeworlds don't have a point box worth enough to allow you to target it with assimilate homeworld under the OTF rules. This leads to less interaction between the players. The Borg are an invasive species. They get on your ship and they take your people back with them. The OTF homeworld scouting rules (or lack thereof) lend to a complete irrelevance of that line of play. With the number of factions without a printed counterpart, and the ability to only seed 6 missions, the chance of assimilating outside the big three is 0.

I've always lived by the adage "Don't talk about problems, talk about solutions"

My "solution" version 0.01


One with the Collective
Doorway
Seeds during the facilities phase. You may not stock more than six copies of Borg Queen in your deck. You may not seed They Will Be Coming. You may have an additional copy of your unique drones in play. You may scout homeworld missions your opponent seeded if you have completed assimilate counterpart targeting a personnel of that faction AND your opponent has scored at least 40 points this game. You may stock 10 cards beneath doorway, face down. Once each turn you may place a drone beneath your deck to add one of these cards to your hand.



I know it is a little restrictive, but hey, I thought I'd take a stab at it. Let me show everyone my thought processes, since I'm new here.

deck/Q's Tent- Adding the ten card spots for cards frees up space in the Q's Tent side deck for non zingers and flavor card stocking. Could theoretically free up space for Counterparts as well. I chose a drone for the ability because I felt they are more difficult to get into play. This was an attempt to ensure it was not abusable. I considered adding another condition to the card fetching, (draw no cards this turn? card play?) but was worried it might be considered unplayable. I also worried it might make Stop First Contact a little too quick, reason number one for the limit to They Will Be Coming.

Borg Queen- Limiting the number of copies stocked in the deck solves the construction limitation problem. It opens up room in the deck for more borg activities, which should lead to a more diverse play experience, but does leave a void in the personnel section.

Drone copies/DQSS- Obviously did not want this to duplicate counterparts or the borg queen, but the void left from stocking a realistic number of copies of the queen needed filled. Enter the drone duplicate text. This also allows for competitiveness from a deck using this doorway.

Homeworld Assimilation- The wording is massively restrictive while allowing one to assimilate species who's homeworld you do not stock. You must complete the objective to create the counterpart first, and then the opponent must have at least gotten rolling, having scored 40 points. I was still worried this might be too "good" thus reason number two for the They Will Be Coming restriction.

These are my thoughts on the biggest "problems" facing the Borg as an Open to OTF convert joining and reviewing your meta. The Borg Queen numbers are particularly concerning to me. What other card is seeing x16 play? x8 play? I'm not asking for any kind of natural card limit. I'm asking for incentive to think outside the box and break from the norm whilst remaining competitive.