[Majestic]

I've been reading through the Version 1.7 (August 2000) rulebook, which is listed as 'Rulebook (1E)' listed on the Site Index. I noticed that the Delta Quadrant isn't even shown or explained with that older version of the rules, so I started reading the 2.0.3 version instead.

Then I came across where it says that - in addition to scoring 100 points - a player has to score at least one space mission and one planet mission. The older versions of the rules never had that; in fact, they had a clause in there about both players' draw decks running out (something I've never seen happen), which I no longer see in the 2.0.3 rules.

So I'm wondering if anyone could summarize any of the major changes to the rules (like this) that might have happened in the post-Decipher era? Not a detailed explanation or a list of the cards that received an errata (I've seen those). Just brief bullet points of the major changes (like this one to the victory conditions).

[BCSWowbagger]

So I'm wondering if anyone could summarize any of the major changes to the rules (like this) that might have happened in the post-Decipher era? Not a detailed explanation or a list of the cards that received an errata (I've seen those). Just brief bullet points of the major changes (like this one to the victory conditions).

All of the most important changes are listed in this document:

https://www.trekcc.org/op/otf_rules.pdf

The release of the OTF rules were a seismic shift for the game. Nothing else compares except the massive rules overhaul in First Contact.

Also, 2EBC cards (which became a thing in 2002) are going to be removed from the game later this year. (All of the critical ones have been converted or will have been converted by then.) That's a big change for players who quit right around the time Second Edition started.

The [self] icon involved a pretty big new chunk of rules: http://ussexcelsior.com/stccg1e/rules_2 ... LLINGCARDS

...otherwise, not much has changed. Looking through last year's final CRD, it's three pages of minor clarifications, rewordings, obscure rulings, and another new icon. All important stuff, to be sure, but nothing that would jump out at you as a player re-learning the game.

P.S. The game does still end when both players "deck out." I honestly don't know why that's still a rule, since it's really fairly simple to prevent one or both players from decking out for eternity (just stock two Regenerates!), but it is bullet point #4 under Winning The Game in Rulebook 2.0.3.

[Majestic]

Thanks so much, BCSWowbagger! That's really helpful!

FWIW, at least upon first glace, those are some very practical, excellent sounding changes.

[Takket]

Thanks so much, BCSWowbagger! That's really helpful!

FWIW, at least upon first glace, those are some very practical, excellent sounding changes.

a lot of rule changes were anti-cheese decipher era cards that were made into rules so people didn't have the stock the cards anymore.

Namely:

The Big Picture
Intermix Ratio
Fair Play

and CC continued the tradition with...

General quarters
You Are a Monument

[frakkingoff]

P.S. The game does still end when both players "deck out." I honestly don't know why that's still a rule, since it's really fairly simple to prevent one or both players from decking out for eternity (just stock two Regenerates!), but it is bullet point #4 under Winning The Game in Rulebook 2.0.3.

Devil's advocate here: I think the "deck out" rule is intended to prevent an endless game from occurring - where neither players are in a position to score any more points (and thus reach 100), but neither player is willing to concede the game (especially the player who currently has fewer points).

As you said, 2 Regenerates can make this rule dicey - but putting that aside, can you think of a better set of conditions that can be used to declare an official "end state" of a stalled, unending game?

[nobthehobbit]

P.S. The game does still end when both players "deck out." I honestly don't know why that's still a rule, since it's really fairly simple to prevent one or both players from decking out for eternity (just stock two Regenerates!), but it is bullet point #4 under Winning The Game in Rulebook 2.0.3.

Devil's advocate here: I think the "deck out" rule is intended to prevent an endless game from occurring - where neither players are in a position to score any more points (and thus reach 100), but neither player is willing to concede the game (especially the player who currently has fewer points).

As you said, 2 Regenerates can make this rule dicey - but putting that aside, can you think of a better set of conditions that can be used to declare an official "end state" of a stalled, unending game?

Tournament time rules?

And if you're just playing casually, then sort it out between you.

[frakkingoff]

Tournament time rules?

And if you're just playing casually, then sort it out between you.

As a gamer, I find both such options to be deeply unsatisfying. The former because it's extremely susceptible to stalling (which is an all-too-real problem in Star Trek CCG tournaments), the latter because it's not really an answer within the rules.

[AllenGould]

And if you're just playing casually, then sort it out between you.

That's a feel bad when two people are learning, and it's a loophole rules-wise. Rules need to guarantee that the game will end eventually.

[BCSWowbagger]

And if you're just playing casually, then sort it out between you.

That's a feel bad when two people are learning, and it's a loophole rules-wise. Rules need to guarantee that the game will end eventually.

I agree with everyone that the deck-out rule is there to bring about the end of a game, but it doesn't currently serve that purpose. Like Allen says, the game rules should guarantee that the game ends, but 1E doesn't currently provide that. Very small decks (~30 cards) routinely include some combination of Regenerate / Isomagnetic Disintegrator / Nanoprobe Resuscitation / Two of Nine / Res-Q / Raktajino / Get It Done to ensure that they are never depleted -- all the moreso in metas where lockout is a successful strategy.

Frakkingoff is quite right that I can't think of a better stopping point, but the stopping point we currently have isn't much good. Maybe something like, "If neither player has completed a mission in 20 turns..." except that involves way too much bookkeeping.

[AllenGould]

I agree with everyone that the deck-out rule is there to bring about the end of a game, but it doesn't currently serve that purpose. Like Allen says, the game rules should guarantee that the game ends, but 1E doesn't currently provide that. Very small decks (~30 cards) routinely include some combination of Regenerate / Isomagnetic Disintegrator / Nanoprobe Resuscitation / Two of Nine / Res-Q / Raktajino / Get It Done to ensure that they are never depleted -- all the moreso in metas where lockout is a successful strategy.

There's an important difference here. If someone is combo-ing to keep their deck alive, then the game hasn't really ended yet. Double-deck out is a failsafe against a case where both players have no deck, no hand (and presumably don't have the cards on table to solve enough missions for a win). You're in this stalemate where no-one can do anything, but the game only ends when a player "quits" - and that's not exactly a great introduction to the game.

If one players is futzing around and preventing his deck from running out, then by definition there's still a game happening. Either the player has some means of forwarding the game, will eventually run out of ways to keep circulating the deck, or will get bored, or the opponent will get bored (or just leave to give you and your deck some privacy. ).

It's important to note that this rule is an OG Premiere rule (so deck wankery wasn't a thing), and AFAIK it's a bit unusual that it requires both players to deck out. (Magic stops when one player tries to draw and can't, and that player *loses*, B5 requires you to sacrifice characters or lose if you have to draw a card but can't, Pokemon words it funny but is similar to Magic, .hack ends the game when one player draws out (and high score wins).

If we were to change the rule, I'd argue that it should only require one player to deck out (which either eliminates the wankery-loophole or at least requires you to keep your opponent in the game as well), and either change it to a .hack style "game ends, use the scores", or a Magic/Pokemon "being unable to draw a card loses the game".

[CaptMDKirk]

or a Magic/Pokemon "being unable to draw a card loses the game".

I would not want to see mill as a primary path to victory in 1E.

[AllenGould]

or a Magic/Pokemon "being unable to draw a card loses the game".

I would not want to see mill as a primary path to victory in 1E.

*shrug* Given the distinct lack of ways to make an opponent discard a card (esp. compared to the plethora of ways to get cards back into the deck as folks have mentioned), I think we're a long way from it being remotely viable.

[nobthehobbit]

or a Magic/Pokemon "being unable to draw a card loses the game".

I would not want to see mill as a primary path to victory in 1E.

*shrug* Given the distinct lack of ways to make an opponent discard a card (esp. compared to the plethora of ways to get cards back into the deck as folks have mentioned), I think we're a long way from it being remotely viable.

And anyway, trust me: mill ain't exactly that viable in Magic, either. (As someone who plays that deck in Modern.)

I do not consider Lantern Control to be real mill.

[AllenGould]

And anyway, trust me: mill ain't exactly that viable in Magic, either. (As someone who plays that deck in Modern.)

I like the definition of mill as "you're attacking the deck, so now you need to do 40-ish damage instead of 20, and your creatures can't help". It's a thing, but not a great thing.

I do not consider Lantern Control to be real mill.

Lantern Control is Magic's equivalent of our first-turn half-hour games. Theoretically you're playing, but realistically you're just watching the other guy show off.

That said, I really want to build that deck one day for some select friends to encounter.

[CrimsonRavage]

There are mission persona now, based on the mission's quadrant and location in the lore box. You can only have one of the same unique mission in your deck. The only pair I will call out specifically is Break Prisoner and Search and Rescue, otherwise unique missions are fairly distinct from each version.