Matthew Hayes (karonofborg13) Tournament Report - 2E - Andoria Regional 2016-04-16 - 11:00 AM Puppy Monkey Baby Introduction What the hell happened here?!?! Man, did I bomb this tourney...and badly. I had a good deck. It's one of the four affiliations/factions I've been finessing over the last two or three years and for some reason or reasons inescapable, it went all sorts of wrong. Why? I'm not exactly sure, as with the exception of one game (at the most) did I draw poorly- most verbs and few personnel, of course, but, not utterly horribly truth be told. Round 1 Justin Kaufman FL (-95) This was, in all honesty, my best game of the day. With both the requisite three Dominion peeps in play and a War of Attrition in play fairly early, I was able to mill at least 6 (if not more) of my opponent's dilemmas from WoA. Up against neuDom point loss Contingent Refuge (one of those aforementioned affiliations I've been refining and the decktype that I used to win me the Fargo Regional last year, so I know it quite well), so I was glad I had my point contingencies with Vanguard, Kressari, Odo, and this iteration's inclusion of For Cardassia! on deck. Unfortunately for me, due to some very smart dilemma plays by Justin, my crew couldn't seem to complete Kressari for the life of me (although by game's end I think there were at least five, if not six dilemmas stockpiled under her) and it wasn't the usual junk that assuredly bogs down this Officer/Leadership/Treachery heavy faction. So, there is that. I scored a whopping 5 points here from Justin benefitting us the positive points off of Torga IV Strained Negotiations and that was all she wrote. Ouch. Good game, Justin. A well-deserved win. My FL, 5-100. Round 2 Nat Kirton FL (-100) Nat, Nat, Nat. The man who went on to win the tournament and the 2E title again. Congrats! He had a solid DS9 micro-team build that I've at least faced the draw deck portion before in, if not complete configuration, then most, at least once or twice before. It's pretty damn good. The dilemma pile, however, was both a work of art to behold, but, not any fun to be on the receiving end of, absolutely. That is to say, Nat, is one of the very few players I've encountered in all my Trek gaming time, that does build his own deck. He's an innovator. Scary good. And therefore has my utmost respect. As more players should seek to emulate. I stand in awe. I was unsuccessful at getting WoA into play here, so only got to rfg two dilemmas total, thanks to copies of Repressed Message. Bleccch. I went for Acquire Illicit Explosives here first, but, received an Insurrection on it, and from the same attempt a Programmed Compulsion placed on Kressari. Yay!!! NOT!!!!!! Mega-ouch. So, I tried to go to KR on the next turn to see about getting the PC off the mission, but,... I do have a question for Design here, specifically for Keith Morris, who, if I'm not mistaken, is responsible for Programmed Compulsion, from Tacking into the Wind... Did you truly mean for this dilemma to cause a player to have to have a staffed ship at the mission it goes on sit idly by for a turn (NOT doing a mission attempt, i.e. what the game is about) in order to 'cure' it? If so, Design fail/rules fail intersection, because the 'end of turn' action thing and the rules certainly screwed me here and I'm not sure that that was your intent? Please, I'd like to know. I call bullshit on the rules in the grand scheme of things, but, did politely ask Jeremy and Barry to find/show the explicit way this falls (as of now) and they both respectfully did. Thank you, gentlemen. I disagree on the outcome, in principle, so I behoove rules to look at the matter, if possible, or maybe the card needs to be re-worded? I'm not sure, but, it was not a fun situation, by any means. My FL, 0-100. Also, I know this is a small concern, but, it is a concern nonetheless, for Rules, the win conditions/points scored thing... When a card like Torga IV says 'each player scores 5 points' and the mission owner completes said mission for their win, both players should score the points, as it's an each, not a 'owner scores, then opponent scores' thing, if it were that, then I could understand the separation and the 'who gets to victory first' crap. The game would have been (and should have been) 100-5, in that instance. as it's a simultaneous action, if I'm understanding it correctly, but, I know, once again, the Rules split hairs and screw a player over. Not fun, guys. Not fun. Is it time to hang up the hat to the Rules Lawyering and the players who seem to want to play Magic (but disguised as Trek cards?)????!??? I don't know. I know I want to play Star Trek cards, if I wanted to play damn Magic, I'd f-ing go play Magic, but, that game does not interest me in the slightest (100 foot pole, and all). Can we keep Magic shit out of Trek? I know, my complaint will fall on deaf ears. because deaf ears only want to selectively hear what they want to hear. even though they claim they speak on behalf and work for the community. I guess the Magic Illuminati have infiltrated our Star Trek ranks and we have to suffer through them making our game more like that other game. Sad. Very Sad. Round 3 Steve Nelson FL (-95) Steve and his newly-FotE-infused Romulans. The deck was already a fair monster to work around, now, well, we'll see, in time, what the newer stuff does for it. I've run the new Romulan stuff myself, and I do like Imperial Entanglements. Although, that's when you have it in hand. Doesn't do much good for you hiding in your deck. As both I've had it happen to me in at least two of the six games I've played thus far, and neither did Steve here. Whew. However, he also held me off from completing Kressari, so all I got was the 5 points from Odo. Another ouch. No WoA here, either, just couldn't seem to find it, even though I was ready to drop it in my core on turn 1 or 2. My FL, 5-100. Round 4 Jeremy Benedict FL (-95) Jeremy's Ferengi Acquisition lockout. Another innovative deck. A painful one to fail to, especially when the decktype fighting it has little or no Acquisition available to it, without bloating to NA acquisition that doesn't meet the icon criteria of said specific deck. Seriously, the only Acquisition in this example, is the Dissident Quark. What?! The new Morn does NOT have Acquisition, seriously?!?!? He's got the right blend of cards to perpetrate his evil plan, Pawn Vs. Pawn, Unwanted Guests, War Games, all not used anywhere else. I tip my hat to Jer and his deck/dilemma meld. I think I drew into my first copy of WoA on my last turn here, so bummer on that. I think Odo's 5 points was the only score I netted here, yet again. Good play, smart deck choice, Jeremy. Kudos on your win. My FL, 5-100. Closing Thoughts So, over the course of the day, in a four round tournament where I could have scored 400 points, I 'acquired' only 15. 15!!! What a drag. Painful showing on my part. I'm not going to blame my deck. I'm not going to blame myself (I didn't make more than one noticeable mistake, that of playing Kira early against Nat with no Terok Nor icon card in my discard pile...that was my one blatant mistake of the day. Grrr.) So, not sure what all fell apart. Just the breaks, I guess. So, with that in mind, I do have some notes to forward to Design (some in general, that is, not just for boosting Terok Nor, mind you, and some for, of course...) Design 'Grocery' Checklist: More personnel across the board (i.e. nearly all affiliations, but, specifically Dominion, Terok Nor, Cardassian, TOS, and Starfleet) preferably non-uniques that cost 3 or cost 4, but with 'in deck' cost reduction thematic elements, i.e. Dominion - 'When you play this personnel, if you command Stage Covert Fleet, this personnel is cost -2.' OR 'When you play this personnel, if you command Jem'Hadar Ambush, this personnel is cost -1' etc. Terok Nor - 'When you play this personnel, if each non-headquarters mission you command requires an attribute at least equal to or >32, this personnel is cost -2.' OR 'When you play this personnel, if you command War of Attrition, this personnel is cost -3.' etc. Cardassian - 'When you play this personnel, if you command three different Punishment events, this personnel is cost -2.' OR 'When you play this personnel, if each non-headquarters mission you command is worth 30 or less points, this personnel is cost -1.' etc. TOS - 'When you play this personnel, if each non-headquarters mission you command requires Integrity, this personnel is cost -1.' OR 'When you play this personnel, if each non-headquarters mission you command requires Diplomacy or Science, this personnel is cost -2.' etc. Starfleet - 'When you play this personnel, if you command no Region: Delphic Expanse missions, this personnel is cost -3.' OR 'When you play this personnel, if each of your non-headquarters missions is a [SFT] mission, this personnel is cost -2.' etc. ??? A Terok Nor non-unique personnel who, a la Sela Supervising Operative or Lwaxana Psychic Tutor-type, for example, 'When you play this personnel, you may download up to two cards. Those cards must be Tenuous Alliance, The Perils of Peacemaking, or War of Attrition.' A Terok Nor personnel version of (Klag, Neral Seasoned Politician, Zek Devolved Benefactor.) more [TN] personnel with Diplomacy; more [TN] personnel with Acquisition; or a card that somehow, legitimately, a la Reclaim Terok Nor, The Play's the Thing, etc. that adds the [TN] to non-Dissident [NA] personnel that are in play (not own, mind you). There's certainly more as I could keep going, but, I think I'll end here for now. Edits may still happen, though, I'll make that disclaimer. As I've got to get ready for work...