The second Will of the Collective led to a unique equipment, designed entirely by the community!

Which concept should the Will of the Collective choose?

Concept A (Dissidents in the Brig)
8
12%
Concept B (Controlling the Station)
19
28%
Concept C (Affiliation Bonus)
7
10%
Concept D (Opposition Verb)
1
1%
Concept E (Dominion War)
10
14%
Concept F (Dissidents BAD!)
No votes
0%
Concept G (TN's For the Cause)
No votes
0%
Concept H (+Decay)
1
1%
Concept I (Car + Dom Sitting In a Tree...)
23
33%
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#40002
WotC II - Decision #4: Which Way To Go?
"Everybody remember where we parked." - James T. Kirk

With apologies for the delay, it's time to continue the Will of the Collective process as we go from the generic to the specific. We asked you to submit your ideas for card concepts that expanded on the generic concept you chose earlier:
An alternative strategy to Jake Sisko (Reporter Behind the Lines) for a Terok Nor deck.
Well, we've gone through your submissions and are presenting you with nine (9) different options for you to choose from. With your votes, one of these concepts will become the next card designed by the community.

Here are the nine concepts that expand upon the original (presented in no particular order):

Concept A
A reward for having dissidents in an opponent's brig.

Concept B
A bonus for "controlling the station" (keeping personnel/ships @ MotW)

Concept C
A bonus for using multiple affiliations

Concept D
A verb with effects that depend entirely on the opponent's affiliation

Concept E
A "dominion war" battle strategy that gives [TN] bonuses for victories.

Concept F
A penalty for commanding Dissidents or [Fed] personnel; OR, a bonus for having Dissidents or [Fed] personnel in your discard pile.

Concept G
A card that enables a For the Cause like attempting ability for [AQ] missions.

Concept H
A way to extend the decay life of a decay card.

Concept I
A card that links the [Car] and [Dom] affiliations (like Fitting In, or paying one affiliation's cost for the other's benefit.)

Now, before you vote, take some time to read over all of the concepts, and we suggest you do so more than once. Each idea has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some of them are open-ended, but others are fairly narrow in scope.

The poll that's set up for this vote allows you to change your vote as often as you like before the deadline; however, you can only vote for one option. So you can change your mind, if you wish. Perhaps someone makes a persuasive argument, or maybe you want to throw your support behind an underdog instead.

In the meantime, please use this thread to discuss your opinions, your votes, and the pros and cons of each of the nine concepts outlined above. Once the polls close, MONDAY, APRIL 13TH, 2009 @ Midnight, we will proceed with determining the Will of the Collective!

Enjoy!
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#40003
I provisionally (let's see how the voting goes) went with F, with emphasis towards the "bonus for having Dissidents or [Fed] personnel in your discard pile" side of things.

I mean, it's (almost) the polar opposite of playing with Dissidents, the Cardassians love putting cards in the discard pile, and it ties in well thematically. Everything's coming up Milhouse!
User avatar
First Edition Art Manager
By jjh (Johnny Holeva)
 - First Edition Art Manager
 -  
#40006
Concept B - Controlling the Station for me.

Easily the most Trek-Sensible of the options and I think the concept has the potential to encourage interaction.

Win, win.
User avatar
 
By Corwinamber (Francis Koziolek)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#40032
I really do not have a choice. I do not play Terok Nor so I am out of the voting for this concept. I actively participated in the first one because it was a card that all affiliations can use. Maybe that is why I'm out.

just my :twocents:
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#40033
Corwinamber wrote:I really do not have a choice. I do not play Terok Nor so I am out of the voting for this concept. I actively participated in the first one because it was a card that all affiliations can use. Maybe that is why I'm out.

just my :twocents:
I don't think you have to be out because you don't play TN. You can help shape the future of that sub-affiliation. It's not about what they have, or what they need - it's about what you guys want to give them.

So vote! Participate! It's all in good fun!

-crp
User avatar
 
By Corwinamber (Francis Koziolek)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#40034
Another reason - I don't know the affiliation well enough to make an informed decision. how the concept can react with other cards. That said, I may vote anyways.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#40049
I think i'm just gonna give a rundown of my thoughts on each of these selections:

A: how reliable is this really? Without another card to force them to have your captive this becomes dead weight. Leverage sure but if they dont kill a dissident then there is no choice. My other worry is this getting abused somehow since it could necessitate people to have a card to get a captive out of your own brig should that captive really sway the game in their favor. Which purely as a theoretical idea is offensive. Your captives should help YOU. Plus this would act as a meta counter to existing capture strategies which already have a tough time making a go of things.


B: I like this idea but........i think it would be tough to balance the benefit with the burden. Being at home means your not out solving missions, battling, etc. So at the end of the day, making a card which gives you a benefit worth staying at home (where your opponent cant touch you for the most part) could get out of control in a hurry. That being said, if the card had a built in downside too (such as unless your opponent has a ship here) I could get behind this idea.

C: Interesting in idea but hardly unique. There is the problem too that this would get used by DS9 and Dual HQ decks and lead to unforseen interactions depending on what kind of benefit is being conferred. As a personnal preference i'd like to see this HQ get a card strictly limited to them. After all, this card is supposed to give [TN] a second strategy - not [TN] and some other HQ's.

D: This is one of the two options i'm leaning towards. As a storyline consideration - this one makes sense. They went to war against the alpha quadrant and by extrapolation - would go to war against everyone in the galaxy. While TOS is punishing or Policing strategies - TN could punish or police overarching affiliations. This card would lead to an interesting discussion I think on what sort of reward or punishment is conferred based on what affiliation. The downside here is that very conversation may feel inadaquate in its result. Some may feel that the Borg clause should be "Borg player loses 5 points" while others feel it shoulbe "Borg player randomly removes a unique personnel from the game". This card could be used to punish multi-HQ strategies too. I see lots of potential from this option.

E: This is the other option I favor. While yes, other affiliations do this - this card could be entirely different from Bah, etc. Instead of getting a bonus just for the engagement it could be something like "for every ship in an opponents discard pile" or "when an opponent's ship has three damage markers on it......" or "if you command a ship at an Opponent's HQ mission.....". The most interesting part of this one for me: is that the reward could be the same as existing TN rewards such as: ".......subtract one from the number of dilemmas your opponent may draw"

F: I dont like this one on the principle that it doesnt seem right that one half a HQ's available personnel would conflict with its other half and that I would be forced to choose OR even if i could use both, that I would have to put some of one side in the DC pile instead of being able to play them as I draw them.

G: This one succombs to all the problems of For the Cause. Which i dont think i need to go into detail about. I dont like cards that if nullified - could lock me out of missions either directly or indirectly cause i dont have the people in play to solve the alternate requirements.

H: Not really a HQ's unique strategy and more like an interesting trick that it would be hard to justify keeping limited to TN only. Not to mention it would severly limit the ability to design future decay cards AND as Fifth proves - its dangerous when you think about removing dils also so this card is limited right out the gate.

I: Probably my third pick on the list. Problem though is that this card automatically extends into the realm of a Dual HQ deck instead of just helping TN only which i would rather see.
 
By whampiri
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#40050
jjh: just as a counter arguement for you. As it currently stands dissident work best staying at home and milling your opponents deck to oblivion. What purpose would it serve to re-emphasise this type of deck. Surely E, H and I are 'better' options. I too am interested in concept F if you could give control of a diddident to your opponent but i think we've already done that with Odo.

H while interesting would only really be used for either energise or the new occupation, and since both are events and easily destroyable, i see no large merrit in creating a card to benefit them(not no merit, just not 1 large enough to merit a card)

E looks good but a bit 'written' i.e. no further input except to determine bonus etc.Still could create an interesting discussion.

I is really what i'm looking at and will probably vote for as I think [Car] and [Dom] need to be intergrated further. I'd like to see it in the form of a personnel though who might limit [Dom] personnel to just alphas or guls only etc or and this is a throw out idea:

personnel: skills and attributes. you may play a [Dom] and [Car] personnel at Moth. When you play a [Dom] personnel, discard cards from the top of your deck equal to his cost. when you play a [Car] personnel, you must place a [Dom] present in your discard pile, otherwise kill that personnel.

What this does is use the 'traits' of each affiliations to play the others personnel at a cost. I know its a bit wordy but i think it has merit.
 
By Foreman
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#40070
Hoss-Drone wrote: C: Interesting in idea but hardly unique. There is the problem too that this would get used by DS9 and Dual HQ decks and lead to unforseen interactions depending on what kind of benefit is being conferred. As a personnal preference i'd like to see this HQ get a card strictly limited to them. After all, this card is supposed to give [TN] a second strategy - not [TN] and some other HQ's.
I would prefer that this new card was actually for [TN] and some other HQ's. This idea could be used by DS9 and Dual HQ decks, but I think DS9 needs some more interesting strategies, and if you decide to use it in a dual HQ deck then you have to accept the dissadvantages of that decision. (Plus you would probably only have 2 affiliations anyway - assuming we don't count [NA])

I really think that a card that does something like "Draw a card for each different non- [NA] affiliation you command" (or something more interesting) would be most useable by a terok nor or DS9 deck, but would be open enough that it could possibly be used by all players.
Last edited by Foreman on Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
By Foreman
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#40071
Corwinamber wrote:I really do not have a choice. I do not play Terok Nor so I am out of the voting for this concept. I actively participated in the first one because it was a card that all affiliations can use. Maybe that is why I'm out.

just my :twocents:
Why don't you play [TN] ?
I don't either, but that is because I don't feel they have a fun strategy to use. That's a great reason to be more involved instead of less.
User avatar
 
By shagg08 (Michael O'Shogay)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#40075
I voted C. It might not be that unique but it could just target the [TN] icon.
User avatar
Ambassador
By Linkan (Torbjörn Lindquist)
 - Ambassador
 -  
Architect
#40076
whampiri wrote:jjh: just as a counter arguement for you. As it currently stands dissident work best staying at home and milling your opponents deck to oblivion. What purpose would it serve to re-emphasise this type of deck.
Do you controll a station if you only have dissidents there? I would say this could be interesting, if you need more [Dom] [Car] personell than Dissidents for it to count as controlled.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#40114
I'm having a little trouble seeing where the interaction is being encouraged through Concept B. I mean, unless the card actually gives a new win condition for having the most ships/personnel at MotW, or doesn't allow you/your opponent to attempt AQ missions unless you have more ships/personnel ay MotW than your opponents (a little harsh!), where's the interaction going to come from?

I mean, combat and engagements can't (usually) kick off at HQs, and the dilemmas will just stagnate until someone goes somewhere and attempts a mission. To me that looks like the game'll just go on until someone draws the one card they're waiting for to turn it around. Not so much interaction, more of a race.
User avatar
 
By charlie
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#40126
There are some good concepts here and some that, at first glance, don't seem too interesting. But that will change as more votes come in. People will try to bring some of their ideas in to flavor the card. It will be interesting to see which idea will become the basis for the card.
Question for noob

That's the question. The Isolinear Rods downloads […]

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the[…]

Hey all, we are running a "Warum-up" fo[…]