The second Will of the Collective led to a unique equipment, designed entirely by the community!
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#32908
This post introduces the first of the cards concepts you will get to choose from for the Will of the Collective II process. Feel free to use this thread to discuss the pros and cons of this concept (and only this concept), pitch ideas, and so forth. Make sure to keep an open mind, and look at each concept in turn - give them all a fair shake!

As I mentioned in the original post for this process, the card concept is just a single, simple, statement of what the card should do. No reference to story, specific mechanics, or anything along those lines. Not even a reference to card type.

The first of our WotC II concepts comes from Brad DeFruiter, our game's 2E Lead Designer:

Concept #1:
Something that opens up mission selection more - attempt missions without your affiliation's icon.
Lots of possibilities with this one! What do you think?

-crp
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32921
It's a nice way to open up game strategies a little bit, but it needs to be something reliable. If I'm going to be building a deck that revolves around completing missions I wouldn't normally be able to attempt, I don't want to get locked out in the second turn by a Far-Seeing Eyes deck.

The only thing that would really let me feel secure enough to try a deck like this were if this ability were on a mission card, since an opponent will not be able to screw me over early that way.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#32929
Foreman wrote:We already have cards like this and I have never seen anyone use them. Next idea please.
Agreed. The romulan who does i've only ever seen used once in a deck and it was definitely open to getting abused by a control deck. So if you make it so that it cant be hosed by FSE, etc I think you've wandered in a dangerous zone and set a precedent that, imho, isn't a good one to set. You've wandered into that "Immune to Kevin Uxbridge, Immune to Amanda Rogers" 1E nonsense and worse, you'll be tempted to make more and pretty soon you have an entire cycle of cards that make using the normal balancing counters immaterial and less likely to be used which in turn opens up potential abuse of the nukeable cards.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Wanderer
2E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2019
2E British National Second Runner-Up 2019
#32947
Hoss-Drone wrote:
Foreman wrote:We already have cards like this and I have never seen anyone use them. Next idea please.
Agreed. The romulan who does i've only ever seen used once in a deck and it was definitely open to getting abused by a control deck. So if you make it so that it cant be hosed by FSE, etc I think you've wandered in a dangerous zone and set a precedent that, imho, isn't a good one to set. You've wandered into that "Immune to Kevin Uxbridge, Immune to Amanda Rogers" 1E nonsense and worse, you'll be tempted to make more and pretty soon you have an entire cycle of cards that make using the normal balancing counters immaterial and less likely to be used which in turn opens up potential abuse of the nukeable cards.
I don't think it's so bad. I admit that the wording "Immune to Kevin Uxbridge, Immune to Amanda Rogers" is a little sucky (not being a 1E player, I'll take your word for it that's how it was put), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording on Finding Our Way: "Cards an opponent owns cannot prevent or destroy this event."
User avatar
 
By Boon of Bolian (Rem Boon)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
Socialite
#32953
Danny wrote:
Hoss-Drone wrote:
Foreman wrote:We already have cards like this and I have never seen anyone use them. Next idea please.
Agreed. The romulan who does i've only ever seen used once in a deck and it was definitely open to getting abused by a control deck. So if you make it so that it cant be hosed by FSE, etc I think you've wandered in a dangerous zone and set a precedent that, imho, isn't a good one to set. You've wandered into that "Immune to Kevin Uxbridge, Immune to Amanda Rogers" 1E nonsense and worse, you'll be tempted to make more and pretty soon you have an entire cycle of cards that make using the normal balancing counters immaterial and less likely to be used which in turn opens up potential abuse of the nukeable cards.
I don't think it's so bad. I admit that the wording "Immune to Kevin Uxbridge, Immune to Amanda Rogers" is a little sucky (not being a 1E player, I'll take your word for it that's how it was put), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording on Finding Our Way: "Cards an opponent owns cannot prevent or destroy this event."
On the other hand I would be wary to have perfectly safe cards.
That way it would be like 1e Incidents. And it doesn't help player interaction.

Yet it could be used on opponents missions so that you don't have control on that aspect. but then it should have a clause like: "The owner of that card can still complete this mission"

Just my :twocents:

Greetings BoB
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Wanderer
2E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2019
2E British National Second Runner-Up 2019
#32954
Escape Artist wrote:It's a nice way to open up game strategies a little bit, but it needs to be something reliable. If I'm going to be building a deck that revolves around completing missions I wouldn't normally be able to attempt, I don't want to get locked out in the second turn by a Far-Seeing Eyes deck.
It could always be a [NA] ship card. That would stop FSE taking it out, plus would stop it being used by [Bor] decks (unless they managed to get the ship into play in some convoluted fashion). Of course, it would at risk from battle decks, but then, no card is perfect...
User avatar
 
By wweist
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32965
I could see this concept used in conjunction with a Headquarters Mission card type.

something like this:

You may play [Fut] cards, [NA] cards, and equipment at this mission. You cannot command any other [H] mission. Your personnel and ships may attempt any mission you control (regardless of their affiliation requirements).

Any flaws? (Feel free to attack the idea, but not the idealist :cheersL: )
Last edited by wweist on Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32966
wweist wrote:I could see this concept used in conjunction with a Headquarters Mission card type.

something like this:

You may play [Fut] cards, [NA] cards, and equipment at this mission. This [H] may not be in play with any other [H] you control. Your personnel and ships may attempt any mission you control (regardless of their affiliation requirements).

Any flaws? (Feel free to attack the idea, but not the idealist :cheersL: )
I had the same idea, without the [Fut] , though. What's the rationale there?
User avatar
 
By wweist
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32970
Escape Artist wrote:
wweist wrote:I could see this concept used in conjunction with a Headquarters Mission card type.

something like this:

You may play [Fut] cards, [NA] cards, and equipment at this mission. You cannot command any other [H] mission. Your personnel and ships may attempt any mission you control (regardless of their affiliation requirements).

Any flaws? (Feel free to attack the idea, but not the idealist :cheersL: )
I had the same idea, without the [Fut] , though. What's the rationale there?
Actually, I initially ran the numbers without the [NA] but found it too restrictive so I added it back in in keeping with the other headquarter mission standards.

I was trying for an "Athos IV" idea, but with an "as yet untried" sub-affiliation. There are too many [Pa] & [AU] personnel & ships to keep this card competitive.

[Maq] Personnel = 27 (9 [NA]) Ships = 5 (1 [NA])
[Pa] Personnel = 158 (28 [NA]) Ships = 24 (4 [NA])
[AU] Personnel = 60 (9 [NA]) Ships = 7 (3 [NA])
[Fut] Personnel = 22 (4 [NA]) Ships = 2

Edit: I'd also like to see the USS Relativity (NCV-474439-G) released in the same set :cheersL:
Last edited by wweist on Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By Mogh
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32971
0 Event
*Seek Out New Life and New Civiliations
Plays in your core. While you command fewer than two headquarters
missions, your personnel may attempt and complete any mission.
Order -- Discard this event to name one of your missions where you
have a ship. Draw cards equal to the number of affiliation icons on
that mission.

This is by no means tweaked at all for balance or "carrotness."
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32973
Mogh wrote:0 Event
*Seek Out New Life and New Civiliations
Plays in your core. While you command fewer than two headquarters
missions, your personnel may attempt and complete any mission.
Order -- Discard this event to name one of your missions where you
have a ship. Draw cards equal to the number of affiliation icons on
that mission.

This is by no means tweaked at all for balance or "carrotness."
It's a nice concept, but again, it's not safe enough for me to consider it playable. If your copies get buried in your deck, you have to wait until you get one before attempting missions. And if your opponent is running Far-Seeing Eyes, you could get entirely locked out in turn 2.
User avatar
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#32981
What if it was put on a dilemma? Something like this:

[D] 0 Title
Your opponent places this dilemma in his or her core, then names an affiliation icon. All of his or her non-Headquarters missions gain that affiliation icon.
User avatar
 
By Altoid
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#32989
dlacoste wrote:What if it was put on a dilemma? Something like this:

[D] 0 Title
Your opponent places this dilemma in his or her core, then names an affiliation icon. All of his or her non-Headquarters missions gain that affiliation icon.
Even putting it on a dilemma does not make it protected from cards like Ohhhh! Nothing Happened! and Krim, Thoughtful Tactician ;)

Still, if you're trying to open up a card like Expand the Collective or Mendak, Duplicitous Admiral to other affiliations, would you make this card generic so (almost) any affiliation could use it? Or, would you make each "mission expansion" card affiliation specific, using each affiliation's "culture" (example: a Barjoran way using the discard pile, a Ferengi way using cards under Ferenginar).

I'd be more in favor of each affiliation having it's own flavor of mission expansion, perhaps in a personnel like Mendak for each.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another note, it sounds like Far Seeing Eyes is a top-level concern. Let's see a card that helps nerf Far Seeing Eyes, yes?
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
Grand Nagus
2E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#32991
Something that opens up mission selection more - attempt missions without your affiliation's icon.

Hmmm, I'm worried that a concept like this may unbalance the game. Don't we have affiliation attempting icons for a reason?

Opening ceremonies underway.

Balance Team Update?

They should know when it these things come out. […]

Definitely seems interesting. I would need time […]

I'm so bad at this game...

I'm so bad at this game that, if I ever bothered t[…]