[MidnightLich]

One point of order to consider: because of the re-voting options on this year's polls, there will not be any further run-off votes. The earlier run-off was simply to "clear the misunderstanding."

Whatever wins, even if it's by a single vote, is the winner.

[Mugato]

A theme thing to remember in this discussion is that while the dominion/cardassian alliance was in control of the station, they were kicking the klingon & federation's collective buts. It was only because of the minefield and the prophet's interferance in destroying the reinforcement armada that the federation and klingons even retook Terok Nor/Deep Space Nine. The Terok nor faction is set in this time period where they were the ultaimate powerhouse and barring supernatural events would have kept right on rolling.

So, when thinking about cards for them, think about cards that show of their military superiority and destiny to win.

Jared

[Escape Artist]

The decay thing could actually be incorporated into a good number of the other choices, since that is more of a reward and most of the choices deal with the trigger rather than the reward.

For example, a personnel with the game text (a rough idea meant to demonstrate the concept):

Dissident. For each dissident you command in an opponent's brig, add one to the decay value on each event in your core.
Order: Place this personnel in an opponent's brig.

I am a bit wary about the whole decay add thing because it could easily turn Quarantine into an overpowered card (even if you limit +3, that's an 8 for Quarantine), but putting that aside, it could be a very useful mechanic.

[Foreman]

not a bad idea foreman, the only problem being that this would have to be a personnels ability as events are too easy to destroy in the current meta.

Well if you want to make the event a little more difficult to get rid of, why not make it a decay event too.
Maybe something like this.

Decay (whatever)
When your decay event is about to be destroyed by a card your opponent owns, you may place your personnel on this event to prevent that.

This might not be nessecary though, since if the opponent does go after your event that is protecting the decay events, then they are not going after your decay events.

[GooeyChewie]

I voted for concept A, because I feel it is the most innovative concept. To the best of my knowledge, we have had no cards which benefit a player for putting their personnel in an opponent's brig. I think this concept would also provide an interesting dynamic with capture decks. On the one hand you want personnel in your opponent's brig, but then again, your opponent also wants your personnel in his or her brig. It could, in the end, help struggling capture decks, since they could focus more counters on taking advantage of the captives you so conveniently provided. Also, I believe this concept could be an interesting new strategy, rather than just a single card. Choosing this concept could allow the community a greater amount of influence on the future than a one-off card.

Now for why I did not choose some other concepts:

B: Controlling the Station

Although I agree this concept would fit thematically, I hold concerns about getting benefits from personnel at your headquarters. I am afraid the strategy will either be too weak to be viable, or too powerful because there are so few ways to do anything at a headquarters mission.

C: Multiple Affiliations

I like the fact that this concept would help Deep Space 9 in addition to Terok Nor, and it could also provide a boost for multiple HQ decks. On the other hand, the only way to play more than two (non- ) affiliations at Terok Nor (barring unusual cards) would be to play dissidents. So either you are playing with dissidents, which are better for a Jake Sisko deck, or you are limited to / .

D: Opposing Affiliation

I'm not sure how this card would work. Obviously there's not enough room on the card's gametext to have something for every affiliation. I do not see this one working out.

E: Dominion War

Although I did not vote for it, I do like this concept. Battle has always been more of a casual strategy, but fun nevertheless. I chose the Brig concept over this one because we already have Klingons who are good at battle.

F: Dissidents BAD!

A penalty for having dissidents would not promote any Terok Nor strategy. It would simply oppose dissident strategies. Bonuses for having dissidents or personnel in the discard pile would probably help Terok Nor dissidents, since they make you discard cards when you play them.

G: For the Cause

I don't think mission selection is really the issue for Terok Nor.

H: Anti-Decay

A card that extends Decay would help Reclaim Terok Nor, but I do not think we should make a card to specifically help a single card. I know it would help other Decay events, but it still seems short-sighted.

I: Linking and

Were it not for the Brig concept, I would have picked this concept. I would love to see a compelling reason to play the Cardassian/Dominion Alliance. If we go with this concept, I would actually prefer it to reference and , not , so that if someone wanted to play with Cardassia Prime and Founder's Homeworld, one would have that option.

[SirDan]

I dig B: controlling the station. Holding folks back form mission solving is an interesting cost for a potentially big reward.

[whampiri]

Sirdan, I disagree.Holding personnel back is exactly what a dissident deck does at the start, as do most other decks at the start of the game,so now dissidents get a bigger bonus for being what they are. I fail to see how this card concept will help 'generate' a new deck type unless it's built into a jake sisko in which case i can see alot of switching going on using https://www.trekcc.org/2e/index.php?id=16&cardID=2509 in order to play both jakes in a game.

[Hoss-Drone]

Sirdan, I disagree.Holding personnel back is exactly what a dissident deck does at the start, as do most other decks at the start of the game,so now dissidents get a bigger bonus for being what they are. I fail to see how this card concept will help 'generate' a new deck type unless it's built into a jake sisko in which case i can see alot of switching going on using https://www.trekcc.org/2e/index.php?id=16&cardID=2509 in order to play both jakes in a game.

Not unless the holding back needs to be a Cardassian or Jem'hadar....or a ship...

[GooeyChewie]

Morn, Barfly would qualify as an example of B, would he not?

[jjh]

I fail to see how this card concept will help 'generate' a new deck type unless it's built into a jake sisko in which case i can see alot of switching going on using https://www.trekcc.org/2e/index.php?id=16&cardID=2509 in order to play both jakes in a game.

Right, because the Multidimensional Transporter Device is used so often.

[SirDan]

Sirdan, I disagree.Holding personnel back is exactly what a dissident deck does at the start.

Not unless the holding back needs to be a Cardassian or Jem'hadar....or a ship...

Or more than one person, or a staffed ship, or a staffed ship and personnel on the station, or no dissident personnel on the station, or a counter spent every turn... I think there are enough possibilities to make something interesting.

[Danny]

Sirdan, I disagree.Holding personnel back is exactly what a dissident deck does at the start.

Not unless the holding back needs to be a Cardassian or Jem'hadar....or a ship...

That would be good.

Although interesting, I think there's a danger that the 'controlling the station' card, rather than being used as an alternate strategy for the Dissident deck, could end up being used in tandem with a Dissident deck, especially if it triggers through having more personnel at your HQ than your opponents do.

And is it just me or does a card that (potentially) helps out your opponents seem a little less / , and a little more ?

[whampiri]

Thanks Danny, thats the point I'm getting at.

JJh: I understand that its not used often but if I can see possible abuse in it at this early stage without even seeing the text on the card, then so can others.

It looks like this contest is going to run down to the wire so keep voting people.There's 3 clear favourites!(ok i know that there's only 1 favourite, but you know what i mean)

[Andreas Colter]

If there's concern about "Controlling the Station" working too well with Dissidents/Jake, I'm sure the card could be worded in such a way that only non-Dissident personnel count towards achieving that goal. In my mind, it doesn't really make sense that you'd need a bunch of dissidents to 'control' a station anyway. Continue to run it, maybe, but not 'control' it.

[shagg08]

Well and if were trying to come up with a card to define a deck type for and not supplement the current one. I don't think the original Jake should be along for the ride or even contribute to it. Just my opinion.