[Mogor]

That sort of sounds like taking a lot of 1E's battle functionality and moving it to 2E

[Armus]

That sort of sounds like taking a lot of 1E's battle functionality and moving it to 2E

Sort of, but it needs to be based on cards not rules.

[monty42]

Let us know why battle rules and solvers drool.

Because it's fun.

Eh. It's ok. But it's a bit predictable.

What would be interesting is if there were cards that helped with battle but weren't useless against solvers. Also, adding an element of uncertainty: consequences for losing a battle you initiate, counterattacks for opponent's weapons to take on your shields, etc.

Those are the types of things that would make battle more interesting and it's a design space that has so far been largely unexplored.

That's a ridiciulous notion and not a reply to my statement.
I'd appreciate you not quoting my statements for your agenda!

[Armus]

Ok. Well between you and Greg I'm just going to stop talking about Trek.

[monty42]

Ok. Well between you and Greg I'm just going to stop talking about Trek.

Thank you.

[Armus]

Ok. Well between you and Greg I'm just going to stop talking about Trek.

Thank you.

Ok well if you're going to be sarcastic and condescending about it....

I rescind my previous comment. 2e battle ISN'T fun. It's utterly predictable.

Not to say it can't be effective as a strategy, and there's something to be said for keeping solvers honest, but it's not particularly interesting.

[monty42]

2e battle ISN'T fun.

Disregarding all the chit chat, this is a POV that I can respect. I completely disagree. But I can respect it.
I believe in a world where a player beats another straight up > against a player playing solitaire better than another.

[Armus]

2e battle ISN'T fun.

Disregarding all the chit chat, this is a POV that I can respect. I completely disagree. But I can respect it.
I believe in a world where a player beats another straight up > against a player playing solitaire better than another.

Right and the point of this thread was to discuss what could make 2e battle better.

I actually enjoyed playing battle a few years ago, but it's not tier one. I won locals and regionals with it, even beating Timmons, but at the world level the solvers could put their heads down, take their lumps, and still outrace me to a MW. That was just demoralizing.

[Naetor]

Simply playing an engagement card is the beginning, middle, and end of the interaction in battle. "Now I'm going to fly to your mission and win this engagement" is anticlimactic and (to me) doesn't capture any of the excitement of ship-to-ship fighting in the show.

Compare that to a mission attempt -- will you lose your hand to Dreamer, will you have to Escape from Whisper, will everyone get stopped because you didn't play Durg or a hologram... well at least 2 out of 3 is interesting.

[monty42]

...but at the world level the solvers could put their heads down...

I completely agree. But that's mainly because we all could never agree about the format!
Solvers have a distinct advantage in a round robin, yet interaction decks mostly prevail in any given elimination format.

[Latok]

First, people need to stop saying dilemmas are interaction, obviously when someone says they want more interaction or better interaction in 2E they're talking about from the draw deck. We don't call speed solvers interaction decks because they have to have a minimum of 20 dilemmas right?

The general design for interaction throughout 2E's history has been to just add more/better stuff, more maneuver, assault, capture, punishment, infiltration cards with very, very little to address the issue of actually finishing a game (to get a FW) while executing the interaction. This design approach has just exacerbated the MW win problem because there are very powerful interaction cards, you can blow up ships, wipe out away teams, capture stupid amounts of people all so you can stop your opponent from winning(FW) but you can't win either. I also think an underestimated difficulty in designing interaction in 2E is the inherent defense that's built in to the game, via the HQ rules for engagements/combat and the design conventions on capture/infiltration/assassin cards.

Overall I think the combination of the inherent defense in 2E, the fact you can mitigate the effects of interaction just by modifying your playstyle in game rather than your deck pre-game coupled with the design convention of just amplifying the impact from interaction when it goes off rather than helping interaction get wins has put us in a precarious position. If you just make interaction more consistent it'll be too good, if you just add more strong maneuver/assault cards that kill people or blow ships up it won't change anything.

I agree with Armus that some hybridish cards might make the design space interesting again. Focusing on the existing Delta Pavonis/Ja'chuq/etc. mechanic is an obvious route because you have the interaction actually progressing you toward winning but it doesn't counter the inherent defense problem.

[Latok]

Second post for radical ideas that won't happen in, I think KillerB calls it, the "BBQ era" of trek.

Alternate win conditions via interaction OR replacing the dilemma pile with a 'battle bridge' or interaction pile.

[bosskamiura]

Second post for radical ideas that won't happen in, I think KillerB calls it, the "BBQ era" of trek.

Wrong. That’s my joke.

TK

[Nerdopolis Prime]

What would be interesting is if there were cards that helped with battle but weren't useless against solvers. Also, adding an element of uncertainty: consequences for losing a battle you initiate, counterattacks for opponent's weapons to take on your shields, etc.

Those are the types of things that would make battle more interesting and it's a design space that has so far been largely unexplored.

That sounds very good. Hopefully it will be realised somehow.

I can think of dilemmas boosting your battle. Like some that are put into the core and work their magic from there.

[Clerasil ToB]

Wow. Just wow.

Care to elaborate on that? You do battle really well and I appreciate you letting me be your padewan learner on that awhile back. I suck at this game and am trying to get better.

I appreciate that.
My reaction was to the first three replies to your post.
Two people who are comfortable playing nerd solitaire (mission solving) with themselves and a director of second edition who has no clue about the game.
I find that very disappointing and it's probably the reason why mission solvers are so much more popular than battle decks.

I hope you don't call me a solitaire player - or should I remind you with what deck I've won Day 1 at EC last year? Terok Nor battle deck...