For posting text-only dream cards (no graphical cards or links to sites hosting such cards) and for speculation on future sets.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362767
I keep dreaming of a multiplayer-focused boutique set. So eh, I'm gonna make one. I'd rather make cards that that are soft-enforced (weaker or not that useful in 2player games but much better in 3+ player games) than hard-enforced (text like "if you have 2 or more opponents...") but we'll see. Hopefully after the move I'll be able to refine the 2e plugin for MSE and actually make some of these. I'm aiming for 6-9 cards for each affiliation. For now, all the major affiliations except TNG since they're already a near-perfect multiplayer faction. Maquis, Relatives and all the non-aligned groups will be handled in the 2nd set.

Also if I've copied a dream card you made, it was unintentional (the concept was probably stuck in my head and I forgot the source). Just let me know and I'll be happy to give you full credit for it.

First up, neutral cards. (8 currently)

Can't decide whether "treaty" should be a token card (can't begin engagements and combats against each other, or play capture cards targeting each other) or a keyword on events.
[Int] Render Fleet Assistance
Fleet. Maneuver. Plays when an engagement not involving your ship begins. Your staffed ship may move to that mission (range permitting) and join a side of your choosing.
Yeah I know, but this card is more for...
[Evt] (#) •Joint Raid
Fleet. Maneuver. Plays in your core.
Order - Destroy this event to begin an engagement involving your non- [Bor] 2 Leadership personnel at a planet mission. Each player may play a Maneuver interrupt from outside the game. Each winner of the engagement may draw 2 cards and is not stopped.
Can't decide between all getting interrupts or the initiating player choosing which other players get free interrupts (or maybe players with lower points get to join in). To encourage more people to participate, WHOEVER wins gets the reward. Same deal with...
[Evt] (#) •Joint Strike
Fleet. Maneuver. Plays in your core.
Order - Destroy this event to begin an engagement involving your non- [Bor] 2 Leadership personnel at a planet mission. Each player may play a Maneuver interrupt from outside the game. Each winner of the engagement may destroy one event commanded by a loser.
Given all the events that will probably be on the table, there should be some general destruction anybody can use. So why not a card that nukes events by encouraging interaction?
[Evt] (#) •Joint Battle
Fleet. Maneuver. Plays in your core.
Order - Destroy this event to begin an engagement involving your non- [Bor] 2 Leadership personnel at a planet mission. Each player may play a Maneuver interrupt from outside the game. Randomly kill a personnel on each losing ship. The winners are not stopped.
And then one "traditional" engagement card. This will probably be the first to drop if there's too much.
Code: Select all
Possible outside game rules: only cards that started the game in your deck can be placed in your discard pile. If you play a card from outside the game, and it would enter your discard pile, it is removed from game instead. (basically a way to tack on extra functionality into a card without adding reams of text)  If an action allows you to play a card from outside the game, you must still meet all requirements to play that card.  If you cannot or otherwise choose not to play the card, you cannot play it after the action has finished.
Conceptually simple enough, extend the effects of some cards and allow flexibility. You get an effect then it vanishes. Most of the wording is to account for possible other card interactions. It's a way to allow lesser played cards to be useful.
[Int] Give Us Aid!
To play this interrupt, you must command 1 ship and no [H] missions.
Order - Ask if any other player with a [H] will give you aid. If any agree that player draws a card (your choice if more than 1 agrees) then you may place your ship at one of that player's headquarters, remove a damage card from your ship, and end your turn.
Ok the homeless affiliations will get 1 card.
[Int] Suicide Run
Order - Destroy your staffed ship to destroy another ship at the same mission with equal or fewer staffing requirements.
Thought about making it even simpler until I realized that would allow scout ships, runabouts and shuttlepods to run around the galaxy, blowing up borg cubes - and the powers that be just worked so hard to encourage us to run with big ships. So a tweak so you can't take out something bigger. Torn whether it should be staffing icons or if the game should adopt a "staffing value" to the ships - or maybe go by cost instead of staff? Think dominion should have an exception in there or their own version of this card? Same with maquis? (Chakotay did it in that pilot.) Should any of these interrupts have "Maneuver" on them?

Yes you can also use this to blow up 2 of your own ships with this. I figured if you really want to, why stop you? And if there's some way people figure out how to abuse that, I think you've earned that combo.
[Int] Return Fire!
Maneuver. When an engagement ends that involved your ship but you did not begin, begin an engagement involving that ship. Randomly kill a personnel on board each losing ship.
Eh, an idea I'd like to see but I don't know if the rules can handle an engagement out of turn but it seems like something that should be doable. Obviously not playable with the above (since the window to play it doesn't match its play requirement). Will have to think on it.

What does everyone think of something like "bombard homeworld" - engagement targeting a headquarters? (it is shields = 20? 24? 30?) And what should the prize be?
[Evt] (#) •Stop and Search
Conquest. (Limit 1 card with conquest per mission.) Plays on an opponent's space mission. When an opponent's ship moves to this mission, if your staffed ship is here, you may examine each card aboard that ship. This mission's owner may begin engagements involving their ships here. If he or she wins, destroy this event.
Neutral conquest card inspired by Way of the Warrior. Sisko had a few things to say about this practice...
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:01 pm, edited 13 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362768
[Baj]
Goals - Poor bajorans had to cope with either allying with stronger powers or fighting them off. So how to represent? If I can figure out how to represent conquering worlds in the other affiliations this one may then be the best at liberating those worlds, so you'll want them on your side in case you have to fend off invaders. May also have a way to share victory with another player. Still thinking on it.

Space reserved.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362769
[Bor] card count: 7
Goals - Thinking more that the borg player at the table should be the sleeping giant. Not much for alliances and dangerous to cross. But also dangerous not to cross and let them go on unchallenged.

So first I guess we'll need to give them reasons to go interact with other players.
[Evt] (#) •We Know of Your Plans
To play, you must command 6 [Bor] personnel. Plays to your Core. When you begin a mission attempt, subtract 1 from the number that can be spent on dilemmas for each other player who owns a personnel you command.
Yeah will probably have to tweak wording. Essentially, the more people you steal personnel from, the less dilemmas you'll have to face.
[Int] Temporal Vortex
Temporal. To play, you must command Unicomplex. Plays when 6 of your personnel are facing a dilemma. Return that dilemma to its owner's pile and select an opponent. That player reveals dilemmas from the top of their dilemma pile until they reveal a dilemma that can be faced at this mission (discard the rest). Your personnel now face that dilemma (it is cost 0). Remove this interrupt from the game.
Seemed thematic, and in character for Borg to replace 1 problem with a different one. In a 2-player game, you'll probably never want to do this as the opponent's pile could still "work" even randomized. But in a multiplayer game you could pick out the player who has a pile you know your crews are strong against. Also wanted something to encourage Borg mega-teaming since we know the Sphere in 1st Contact wasn't lightly staffed.

UPDATE: realized the card worked against assimilated people attempting. Adjusted requirements.
[Evt] Relentless Advance
Maneuver. Plays to your Core.
Order - Destroy this event to begin an engagement involving your [Bor] ship. If you win, randomly select an opponent's personnel involved and place him or her on your [Bor] ship (you now command them). You may then spend that ship's Range to move to another mission and repeat this action against another player's ship until you have no more Range or you have attacked all other players or you lose an engagement.
Does that make sense and work? Basically an engine to allow the borg to do mass assimilating to the table. And yes this could be "fun" with the Queen's Borg Cube.
[Bor] (3) •Locutus, Tactical Mastermind
[Cmd]
[SD] 2 Diplomacy [SD] 2 Leadership [SD] Officer [SD] Programming
Commander: LBC. While Locutus is participating in an engagement, you may prevent and discard an interrupt just played by an opponent. You may do this once per engagement.
Always have backup plans against Locutus. If the table is going to come after the Borg, they should have SOME defenses.
[Bor] (7) Tactical Cube
[Stf] [Stf] [Stf] [Stf] [Stf] [Stf] Cube
This ship is range +1 for each opponent who owns a personnel you command. While this ship is in an engagement, it is weapons +2 and shields +2 for each opponent involved.
R:10 W: 12 S: 11
Can you believe we never have gotten the tactical cube in this game?!? Well time to fix that. And how about a cube that likes a big table? (though it does require 1 more staffing than normal) Can't decide to leave it as is or combine all the stats boost onto the assimilation feature.
[Bor] (2) •Borg Queen, Expansionist Monarch
[Cmd] Borg
[SD] 3 Leadership [SD] Treachery
When you play this personnel, you may download a conquest card. This personnel is the corresponding Commander of your [Bor] ship that she is aboard.
I: 3 C: 8 S: 6
Might do more with her. Seemed obvious to have a new queen with a new Locutus.
[Bor] (2) Talon Drone
[Stf] Borg
[SD] Medical [SD] Security
When you take command of a personnel that you do not own at this mission, you may discard a card from hand to randomly select an opponent's personnel present with them, take command of him or her, and place them at the same destination as the first personnel.
I: 5 C: 5 S: 5
Yes! A 2e version of the beloved Three of Nineteen! (well I liked him) A kind of updated and modified Harvest Drone. Hopefully the text is clear, wanted to be sure it worked whether you stole by combat or by engagement.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:55 pm, edited 5 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362770
[Car] card count: 4
Goals - Poor cardassia. Either running off to join a stronger power or conquering other worlds. Some punishment cards already go pretty well in a multiplayer game but could make you a big target. Should probably aim for either creating a conquering engine or broader capture abilities with some narrow focused treaties that could allow you to spare a chosen friend.

Upon studying cardi cards in more depth, I realized Tribunal Sentencing, Psychological Pressure, and Makbar, Chief Archon are set up for easy multiplayer. To that end, will probably put off some kind of conquering theme for a later release and instead focus more on capturing and focused treaties. To that end...
[Evt] (#) •Friend of the Union
Treaty. To play this card, you must command [H] Cardassia Prime and no other [H] mission. Plays to another player's core (they now command this event) then discard all other Friend of the Union cards you own.
You and your personnel are not affected by Capture and Punishment cards commanded by this card's owner and cannot be placed in this card's owner's brig.
So basically you get to make a friend with someone but only 1 person. Should allow somebody at the table to escape the effects of the previously mentioned cards. Though I'm still refining the wording. Easiest would be to let all that player's captives out of your brig, but then Garak was left to rot in jail when Dukat made friends with the Dominion...
[Evt] (#) Tactical Questioning
Punishment. Draw a card for each player who has a captive in your brig. Destroy this event.
Simple enabler to encourage you to go wide against the board and diversify your jail. (not married to the title, open to better ideas)

And technically yes, this is a neutral card, anybody who does capturing could use it. But since cardies do the most...
[Car] (#) •Lemec, Smug Adversary
[Cmd] Cardassian
Commander: Reklar. Gul. When an engagement ends in which a personnel was placed in your brig and this personnel was involved, the ship he is aboard and each of your [Car] personnel aboard it are not stopped. You cannot begin any other engagements against a player that was involved in that engagement this turn.
Simple idea with text that spiraled out of control. Anyway, it always bugged me that the Reklar loved captives, but Lemec, her captain, did not. So I thought a version of Dukat only 1) you had to take a captive for the text to work, and 2) to encourage the set themes, you can still do engagements, just not against the same player.
[Evt] (#) •Occupation
Conquest. (Limit 1 card with conquest per mission.) Plays on an opponent's planet mission. At the start of your turn, if you have 3 [Car] personnel on this planet, draw 2 cards. This mission's owner may begin combat here with their personnel. If he or she wins, destroy this event.
Maybe that's how conquest and conquering can work.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:01 am, edited 11 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362771
[Dom] card count: 3
Goals - Debating as I see 2 possibilities: 1) less alliances and more "non-aggression pacts." (treaties that last 1 round) 2) General trolling - They're already a bit like the reverse TNG with some of their cards and HQ. Considering doing more of that with some defensive strategies to "fend off the table" that will probably gang up on them.

Ironically while treaties will probably slow down engagements, combats, and captures, infiltrations should not be affected. Curious what to do with that...

Possibly TNG flip:
[Dom] (3) •Borath, Limit Tester
[Cmd] [AU] Vorta
[SD] Diplomacy [SD] Programming [SD] Treachery
Founder.
When you play this personnel, you may download up to 2 cards. Those cards must be Friction, Spiteful Strategy, Diplomatic Obstruction, or Moving Fleets.
"To see how they'd respond to an attempt by the Dominion to gain a foothold into the Alpha Quadrant."
Integrity 4 Cunning 6 Strength 4

[Evt] (3) Moving Fleets
To play this event, you must command 6 [Dom] personnel. Starting with the player to your left, each player may place a ship from hand at a headquarters mission where that ship could be played (yours must be a [Dom] ship). The player who places the ship with a lowest cost and each player who did not place a ship must discard a card from hand. Destroy this event.
Along with the trolling theme:
[Evt] (#) •Diplomatic Obstruction
Plays to your core. While you command 3 Vorta and/or Jem'Hadar, at the start of each player's turn, that player must choose one of their events to stop.
It hit me the other day, what the game could use is a way to "stall" some cards without destruction or outright prevention. We already have "stop" in the game with personnel and ships, why can't events be stopped? (same as people, essentially they are only in play for uniqueness purposes but otherwise are not in use until end of turn) Not only could this hinder some of the other players at the table, but key into the dominion strategy so they can "turn off" something like Friction or Spiteful Strategy for a turn.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:01 am, edited 12 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362772
[Fer] card count: 8
(probably the first that started coming to mind and why it's 1 away from completion)
Goal - feel more like traders at the table, giving things to others in order to get something. These are all rough designs, obviously numbers will need to be tweaked in development.
[Int] Rule of Acquisition #98
Rule. When an opponent's Play & Draw phase begins, if you command 6 [Fer] personnel ask "Are you offering me a bribe?" If they say yes, that player draws 3 cards, you score 5 points, then remove this interrupt from the game. If they say no, or this interrupt is prevented, place it on top of your draw deck.
"Every man has his price."

[Evt] (0) Rule of Acquisition #17
Rule. To play this event, you must command 6 [Fer] personnel. Choose an opponent to score 5 points to spend 7 additional counters this turn. Destroy this event.
"A contract is a contract is a contract..."
Well I've debated for awhile which way these two should shake out. Whether 98 should hand out counters and 17 draw cards. Although flipping the text of "At What Cost" should probably be named "Rule #141" as a reply but that's already taken. Maybe rule #21? "Never place friendship above profit"? This should definitely be decided by a committee of trek-sense players.
[Evt] (1) •Mercenary Contracts
Commodity. (...) To play this event, you must command 6 [Fer] personnel. Play to an opponent's core (that player now commands this event) to draw 5 cards.
While this event is in your core, your [NA] cards are all cost -1.
Again, should be fun in a multiplayer game as you can watch and pick out who best to give this too. Your reward on the card will need adjusting obviously. But the look on the borg player's face when you give them this commodity should be worth it. Of course if you can somehow get the commodity back into your core...
[Evt] (#) •Ferengi Salvage Code
To play this event, you must command 6 [Fer] personnel. Return a ship in another player's discard pile to its owner's hand to choose 1 of the following:
• Download a ship.
• Remove up to 2 damage cards from your ship(s).
• Download up to 3 equipment.
I at first thought of a treaty card called something like "Ferengi Gift" which bounced a ship for an opponent then blocked them from attacking you but this seemed a bit simpler, with better trek sense & more ferengi like.

You know what I just realized? Of all the "team" designs released over the years, they still haven't done a magnificent ferengi team! I'll need help on the subtitles, but let's see...
[Fer] (#) •Gaila, Armed Rescuer
[Stf] Ferengi
[SD] Acquisition [SD] Treachery
When you play this personnel, if any opponent has a captive, this personnel is cost -2 and you may download an equipment.
I: 4 C: 5 S: 5
(losing your own moon demotes you a staffing star, and trying to shoot Quark earns you treachery)
[Fer] (#) •Brunt, Ship-owning Rescuer
[Cmd] Ferengi
[SD] Law [SD] Navigation
When you play this personnel, if any opponent has a captive, this personnel is cost -2 and you may download a [Fer] ship.
I: 4 C: 6 S: 4
Yep, both of these guys are enablers for the team.
[Fer] (#) •Leck, Deadly Rescuer
[Stf] Ferengi
[SD]
When you win combat involving this personnel, randomly select a captive in the brig of an opponent that lost the combat. The player who commands that personnel may have you score 5 points to place that personnel on his or her headquarters mission or ship, otherwise place that personnel in your brig.
I: 3 C: 6 S: 6
Hey, he was trying to rescue somebody instead of killing them and did the job so he should lose "Assassin" and Treachery. And this is the guy that allows you to shuffle prisoners around. Hmm... I just realized this guy allows you to choose to score to have you rescue your own people. Which is how the episode went and makes sense. XD

And everybody gets to go up in 1 integrity for their "good deed." Which leads us to...
[Evt] (#) The Magnificent Ferengi
Assault. Plays to your core.
Order - Begin combat involving your [Fer] personnel. Before revealing personnel, you may choose whether to compare total cunning or total strength. If you win, [reward] and destroy this event.
I almost put, "if you lose, kill a personnel in an opponent's brig" but thought that might be too harsh. Although it would make the card more appealing in multiplayer as you could "help" other players by freeing up unique prisoners. Open to suggestions on this and the proper reward for the event.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:36 am, edited 9 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362773
[Kli] card count: 4
Goals - Obviously these guys should be all about running around fighting folks or joining in fights.

To that end...
[Int] Never a Klingon Around When You Need One
Fleet. If another player began an engagement you are not involved in, move your [Kli] ship to that mission and choose a side for it to join. If your side wins the engagement, you score 5 points.
Can't decide how much to add control on here. Should you have to control a general/chancellor for it? Should they be on the ship? Eh, for now just a simple, "show up and score" card (and yes, it's not maneuver to avoid the "outside" cards)
[Evt] (#) •Minimum Staffing
To play, you must command 6 [Kli] personnel. Plays to your Core.
While you command a [Kli] ship with four or more staffing icons, remove [Stf] from the staffing requirements of each of your K'Vort-class ships.
I understand why it was done (the nightmares from 1e...) but still it always seems like the k'vorts are too staff-intensive for fielding a fleet. So what if you could lighten the crew load? While you have a flagship of course.
[Evt] (#) Klingon Ambush
Maneuver. Plays to your Core.
Order - Destroy this event to begin an engagement involving your [Kli] ship with a cloaking device. You may play Render Assistance from outside the game. If you win, your opponent must choose one:
• Randomly kill a personnel aboard a losing ship.
• Randomly destroy an event in their Core.
Seems like Klingons should be getting into ship battles, but not with raw weapon power, but sheer number of ships.
[Evt] (#) •Prepare for War
Treaty. Plays in another player's core, that player now commands this event. Whenever you or this card's owner plays an assault or maneuver event, that event is cost -1.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362774
[Rom]
Goals - Currently one of the strongest 2 players affiliations and might be balanced out by being the weakest multiplayer affiliation. Still, I could see these guys being the king of passive-aggressive, the halfway point between the ferengi and dominion in being able to disrupt the table. Or make them the flip of the bajorans. If the bajorans are really good allies for 1 player in particular, then romulans could be the really awful enemy for 1 player (which would be them right about now).

This space reserved.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#362775
[Fed] [DS9] [SF] [Voy] [TOS] Reserved.
[Fed] (#) •Kareel Odan, Ambassador
[TNG] Trill
[SD] 2 Diplomacy
Host. When you play this personnel, choose any number of opponents. Each player chosen may download a Treaty card.
I: # C: # S: #
Well ok, TNG won't be in much, but now that I've figured out treaties, they should have at least one table enabler.
Last edited by Nate Winchester on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By Mogor
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#363322
Hey Nate,

I like the troll theme of diplomatic obstruction, but to get it to work better for gameplay purposes, prehaps have it placed out of play until end of turn at which point it returns to the core.

So something along the lines of that player must choose an event in their core to place out of play until the start of the next turn. Return event to owning player's core.

Kind of borrowing a bit from Magic's exile mechanic but this is already established gameplay so we don't have to figure out how stopping an event works
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#363378
Mogor wrote:Hey Nate,

I like the troll theme of diplomatic obstruction, but to get it to work better for gameplay purposes, prehaps have it placed out of play until end of turn at which point it returns to the core.

So something along the lines of that player must choose an event in their core to place out of play until the start of the next turn. Return event to owning player's core.

Kind of borrowing a bit from Magic's exile mechanic but this is already established gameplay so we don't have to figure out how stopping an event works
Thanks, Mogor for some feedback. :cheersL:

Hm... "flickering" would be interesting gameplay wise. On the positive hand, it might trigger events with enter play abilities adding new options. It does add new strategies with Decay events - essentially 'resetting' them at the cost of all cards stacked on them permanently out of the game. And it gives the event itself some interesting protections as an opponent killing that event during their turn would leave their event in limbo forever.

On the negative side, it does bring up memory issues. So if you "flicker" say... Peak Performance or Self-Replicating Roadblock, what happens to the card's memory of what you named? Also it could lead to rules headaches of what happens when you flicker a unique event, then play a new copy of it, what happens to the returning event?

I at least envisioned that "stopped" events would function just like personnel. So to use the rulebook text (pg20):
Code: Select all
You cannot use the game text, ... icons, or any other characteristic of any of your [cards] that are stopped. (Though you must still obey the uniqueness rule for any of your stopped unique cards.)
So the event card would be a "blank" card for all intents and purposes except for it's name and uniqueness. So for example, if you "stopped" Self-Replicating Roadblock, when you attempted the mission that turn, you would have to face the named dilemma instead of bouncing it.

But I could go either way. I still think the game could use a middle option on events besides outright destruction.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]