Second Edition Austrian Regional winner Stefan Slaby |
Stefan's Commentary: What sorts of decks were you hoping to face while playing your deck? What decks did you hope not to face? Prior to this tournament, did you have much experience playing this deck (or decks like it)? Did you learn anything new about it when you played it this time? Did you use any situational cards (cards that you wouldn't expect to be useful in every game)? Are there any whose usefulness exceeded your expectations? Were there any that you wouldn't include if you played the deck again? What would you nominate as the MVP card from your deck? Do you have anything else you'd like to say about your deck? Finally, last week Kevin Jaeger opined that Second Edition was getting stale. I'm curious about your thoughts that topic these days? What I'm trying to say (with much more swearing in my head) is that I liked the game a lot better 6+ years ago, before "phase 2". I've said this before. Realistically, this is a game played by a few hundred enthusiasts around the globe, most of which have been playing it for 10+ years and stayed with it because they liked it as it was. Why do you keep changing it so much then? Don't get me wrong, I like getting new cards, new content. I don't mind new strong cards as such either. One of my favorite expansions ever was Raise the Stakes, which had numerous strong cards. But not much I would term "game changer". (Maybe Bridge Officer's Test, which I didn't mind because I never liked walls. But not much else.) I would have liked for the game to progress forward from that point, introducing new factions that give us new content, but don't have much impact on how our old favorites play. Give us Kazon, Vidiians, Hirogen, Vulcans, Xindi, whatever. I've read that designers don't want to add a new faction that doesn't add to the gameplay? New factions don't have to bring new gameplay, the gameplay was fine for a long time. All they should have provided was new content within the existing framework. Instead, we keep getting variations on the same content, with changed gameplay. Almost none of the "soft rules" I knew about the game 10 years ago are true anymore. Depending on your opponent, planet dilemmas may be completely useless, as may space dilemmas. Dual dilemmas have a good chance now of being too costly (at Sunday's national 4 out of 7 players used those stupid Stakoron missions, myself included). I used to know what to expect in a skill dilemma pile; now there is a huge pool of strong skill-based dilemmas (many of which only have a skill tacked on because somebody doesn't like Donatra and her likes). Your full win at 100 points used to be safe as long as you had a defense against the Phoenix (and some esoteric dilemmas), now there's a HQ that takes away points. And there's counters for almost any game element I can imagine, things that used to be untouchable. A counter to stop prevention. An event to keep ships in play with three damage markers. A faction that can play artifacts without solving a mission first. Several effects that take out key personnel, no matter where you try to keep them safe. Recently, I find myself dreading the release of each Second Edition expansion more than looking forward to it. But to answer your question, I definitely wouldn't call it stale. |
My Commentary: Off the top, I tagged Nick's Khan deck as a "midrange" deck, and Stefan's deck was labelled as a "control" deck. Admittedly, the terms are more wishy-washy in Trek than they are in some other games - there's no cost "curve" to fill out like a midrange deck might - but the place where I start in Trek is in the verbs. Nick's verbs are (a) less numerous and (b) less focused on a specific goal. Some help cycle, some help improve his solving ability, some throw wrenches at the opponent. In contrast, Stefan's verb-based tools are much more focused on taking control of how the opponent's side of the game goes. Delirium (a favorite card of Stefan's that I've grown to appreciate too), Lethal Wound, Ohhh/Keeping Track, and Moment of Triumph are all aimed at hindering the opponent's game plan, and most show up in multiples. He's also got cycling cards and a lone Bridge Officer's Test, so it's still a judgement call to put this deck in the "control" column and Nick's in with the "midrange" decks, but my feeling is, sitting down to play these decks, I'd be more apt to sit back and respond with Stefan's deck than Nick's. And that's what I'm aiming for with the categories: trying to capture in a couple words the general playstyle of the deck. One thing I made a point of talking about with Nick's deck is that I'd generally expect Unfair Comparison when sitting down across from a Khan deck. And, against Stefan I'd be surprised, because he doesn't run any copies! Now, from the opponent's perspective, that's not going to change much about how you attempt missions: you still need all the 8-cost dilemma skills, and your own Unfair Comparisons aren't going to hit reliably against Stefan. The big difference is that Stefan is not longer running a dilemma that might be unreliable if his opponent were running high-cost dilemmas. Instead, he's got the Chula package for some cheap stops, which, depending on your meta, might be the more consistent call. Their missions are exactly the same though! Seeing Point Blank Strike in Nerdo's deck below just reminded me that I didn't actually see any maneuvers in Stefan's deck! Even his Starfleet and Voyager decks run some damage maneuvers, so it truly is remarkable that this one didn't (though not unexpected from a deck that can't play a ship before it solves a mission). |
Second Edition Austrian Nationals winner Nerdopolis Prime |
Nerdo's Commentary: What sorts of decks were you hoping to face while playing your deck? What decks did you hope not to face? Prior to this tournament, did you have much experience playing this deck (or decks like it)? Did you learn anything new about it when you played it this time? Did you use any situational cards (cards that you wouldn't expect to be useful in every game)? Are there any whose usefulness exceeded your expectations? Were there any that you wouldn't include if you played the deck again? What would you nominate as the MVP card from your deck? Do you have anything else you'd like to say about your deck? Finally, last week Kevin Jaeger opined that Second Edition was getting stale. I'm curious about your thoughts that topic? As the final words in this article I would like to thank the Austrian community for being an awesome bunch of fellow hobbyists. Especially I thank Julius and his wonderful wife Sabrina for their hospitality during the tournaments. And of course many thanx to their dog Atzo who let me sleep on "his" couch and allowing me to wake up with all my limbs still attached. |
My Commentary: So, again, a treat to see that space taken up with Point Blank Strike and, sure enough, we've got some other interesting choices that are related to that card. First up is the Kaza'kime, the ship you can destroy to download a damage card and place it on an opponent's ship at the same mission. Even just flying around in that ship should cause some your opponent some hesitation - you don't roll out in a ship like that if you don't have a way to blow up your opponent's ships too. The dilemma pile is very slim and also contains a damage card: Molecular Reversion Field. That damage dilemma is remarkable in itself, since (a) it has such unique requirements, ones that you can't simply overwhelm with a lot of personnel and (b) it has a very unique damage effect. Most damage cards reduce ship attributes; some kill personnel, but only this one reduces the number of counters you have to spend each turn. In fact, there are very few cards that do that at all: Karemman Fleece and Tribunal Sentencing. It's an extremely powerful effect that compounds heavily the earlier it's up and running. The dilemma pile seems well-suited to setting up the Field too: in contrast to Stefan's pile, this one goes all-in on Chula dilemmas. Piles like this one can reliably stop personnel for a lower dilemma cost than the average pile, which really helps set up finisher dilemmas like Reversion Field and Where No One Has Gone Before. In addition, the natural combo of Field + The Clown: Bitter Medicine means that the opponent needs more than just two beefy-attribute personnel, especially if Nerdo's a good skill tracker and those personnel share a common skill. The possibility of thumping into that seven-cost combo that puts no dilemmas under the mission, and can't be overwhelmed with sheer numbers and reduces the counters you can spend each turn is truly intimidating. |
Discuss this article in this thread.
Back to Archive index