[bortz65]

2 Xenophobic Outburst
Randomly select three personnel. If each personnel is a different affiliation, they are killed. Otherwise, choose one of those personnel to be stopped.
"You are opening the children's minds to blasphemy, and I cannot permit it to continue."
46 V 6

https://www.trekcc.org/2e/index.php?cardID=4211

Positives: Dual. 2 Cost. Could stop a Personnel Or could kill three Personnel.

Negatives: Opponent gets to choose the stopped Personnel. To get the three kills all three selected have to be different Affiliations.

Thoughts: It's nice to have a Dual 2 Cost Dilemma that will always stop some Personnel. The three kill option is only occasionally go off against mostly Deep Space Nine, Terok Nor, and some dual headquarters decks. Giving the Opponent a choice is always a minus, but this is probably how this got to be 2 Cost. Still their options are only limited to those chosen which can pit them in a bit of a bind. It's Okay with a 7 out of 10.

Picture: I usually don't discuss the picture since it's irrelevant to game play. . . but a picture of random garbage from an explosion? That doesn't work. I think this is from a DS9 Circle episode, but that's only a guess based on the quote.

[bosskamiura]

This is way too situational. Even with it's "else/stop" function, it's weak because the opponent can choose the stop.

It's at best a 3/10 for me.

TK

[Jono]

This is way too situational. Even with it's "else/stop" function, it's weak because the opponent can choose the stop.

It's at best a 3/10 for me.

Depends on the local meta. You’re likely to get two affiliations with Non-Aligned however, only DS9, Terok Nor, KCA and Archaeology-focused decks are the most likely to have over 2 affiliation (though Voyager and TNG do have multi-affiliations with their icons, too).

[jjh]

The gambler in me likes this one.

Some risk, high reward.

Come on TK - It's fun!

(says the guy who LOVES the unpredictable gamble of Repressed Message)

I like it better than Pat too! 8/10 on the Fun Scale.

[Faithful Reader]

This is way too situational.

That being said, you know in a turn whether or not you can use Moral Choice/ Discommendation/ etc. Your opponent might sneak in another affiliation later in the game through Loren III or somesuch. There's lots of ways to intermingle affiliations in this game. Putting one in your deck is not a no-brainer (those are bad cards), but the odds are generally in your favor.

[KillerB]

I've yet to see this mythical Loren III deck.

If 'situational' is a negative word how about: choices.

When did we forget that deckbuilding was supposed to be about making choices?

I know that's dead in 1E OTF and was dying in 2E from 75+ card decks that can download everything, but Design should be challenging players into making tough choices. Not making it easy with generic cards that go in every deck.

[jadziadax8]

I've yet to see this mythical Loren III deck.

I made one right after it came out. It was fun to play, but definitely Tier 3 in terms of winning anything.

[bosskamiura]

The gambler in me likes this one.

Some risk, high reward.

Come on TK - It's fun!

(says the guy who LOVES the unpredictable gamble of Repressed Message)

I like it better than Pat too! 8/10 on the Fun Scale.

Ha!

I remember that Repressed Message move of yours. It WAS always fun and somehow, seemed to work more times than not.

TK

[bosskamiura]

If 'situational' is a negative word how about: choices.

When did we forget that deckbuilding was supposed to be about making choices?

That’s right. It’s going to be my choice to not stock this.

TK

[KillerB]

If 'situational' is a negative word how about: choices.

When did we forget that deckbuilding was supposed to be about making choices?

That’s right. It’s going to be my choice to not stock this.

TK

If my meta were the Ashes of the Capitol I wouldn't either. Arby's is a sad place with Charlie gone...

[Naetor.Ret]

If your opponent is playing exactly 3 affiliations with an equal proportion of personnel of all affiliations, there is a 22% chance (theoretical) of getting this to trigger. Less the more disproportionate the affiliations are. 38% with 4 affiliations.

Pretty high roll.

[KillerB]

If your opponent is playing exactly 3 affiliations with an equal proportion of personnel of all affiliations, there is a 22% chance (theoretical) of getting this to trigger. Less the more disproportionate the affiliations are. 38% with 4 affiliations.

Pretty high roll.

Never tell me the odds.

[Latok]

I've yet to see this mythical Loren III deck.

If 'situational' is a negative word how about: choices.

When did we forget that deckbuilding was supposed to be about making choices?

I know that's dead in 1E OTF and was dying in 2E from 75+ card decks that can download everything, but Design should be challenging players into making tough choices. Not making it easy with generic cards that go in every deck.

If you aren't making choices in building a 1E OTF deck then you don't know wtf you're doing.

Choices and situational are the same thing. This card is too situational, that means it's not a hard choice, barely a choice at all. Might be decent if it was three species instead of affiliation.

[Naetor.Ret]

There are few effective high roll dilemmas. This could be one, but the clause about gaining the choice stop hurts it. It's kind of a way to hedge against your own high roll, and as a result makes it less effective/overcosts on either side of the roll. If this was 0 or 1 cost, with no stop in it, it would be better at what it is designed to do.

[Armus]

There are few effective high roll dilemmas. This could be one, but the clause about gaining the choice stop hurts it. It's kind of a way to hedge against your own high roll, and as a result makes it less effective/overcosts on either side of the roll. If this was 0 or 1 cost, with no stop in it, it would be better at what it is designed to do.

Between you and Johnny there's no winning for Design.