[IQ542]

Introducing an affiliation with new characters and new mechanics could take 2E in a great direction.

I think this is a good point, and it kinda makes the case against a new affiliation (except for maybe Xindi).

Can anyone name three "bridge crew" candidates for the Kazon (Culluh, Seska, and ...), or the Vidiaans, or the Hirogen? Where's the star power?

Do we really need 3 "bridge crew" candidates for a new affiliation? I never saw a Hirogen ship with that many people on the bridge. Furthermore, there was a huge two parter with Nazi Hirogen where we could get some "bridge crew" people. There are probably more than enough screen shots for non-unique Hirogen to be created. Some past personnel in the Relativity set have their portraits taken from the side...If we can make a Relativity set based on one episode of Voyager, then surely we can introduce the Hirogen into the game?

[monty42]

Generic Space Card Game (TM) FTW

[IQ542]

Generic Space Card Game (TM) FTW

Not sure what you're getting at with Generic Space Card Game..... there's more than one non-unique personnel in this game to play already. I'm sure it would be possible to make a deck with nothing but non-unique people. Would it be competitive? Who knows? However, my point was not to create a new affiliation with non-unique generic personnel but that affiliations have been created with less and from very few episodes! The Kazon and Hirogen show up all over the place and cause all kinds of trouble. There are a lot of untapped resources from those episodes and affiliations just waiting to be used.

[monty42]

Not sure what you're getting at with Generic Space Card Game.....

Go back and read about every post I made in this thread. Should be self explanatory...

[Danny]

Do we really need 3 "bridge crew" candidates for a new affiliation?

I guess not...

I mean, if we're going to make an entire affiliation around an awesome new mechanic but using only no-mark characters, do we need to keep it to Star Trek franchise? Why not just do Farscape, Stargate SG-1, or BSG? (j/k - all of those shows have much more "star power" than the Kazon and Vidiians.)

Furthermore, there was a huge two parter with Nazi Hirogen where we could get some "bridge crew" people.

I don't see how padding out on affiliation with repurposed Voyager bridge crew really helps your argument (especially when, from a Trek-sense, they were actually working against the Hirogen).

Some past future personnel in the Relativity set have their portraits taken from the side...If we can make a Relativity set based on one episode of Voyager, then surely we can introduce the Hirogen into the game?

Relativity as an affiliation had the advantage of already having 16 pre-existing personnel, packed with "star power" (the TNG bridge crew, the Voyager holograms), along with a load of big names to draw on (Future Kim, Nog, Bashir...). If you take a look at Relativity as new affiliation, all that was added to make it viable was two ships (one unique, one non-unique), five different personnel (Braxton, Ducane, Seven, and two non-uniques), and an event (Temporal Transporters).

[Danny]

Not sure what you're getting at with Generic Space Card Game......

The point is - if you're not drawing on star power, something instantly recognisable to Star Trek, then it might as well be any game set in space that completes missions to score points to win the game.

Hence "Generic Space Card Game".

[IQ542]

There seem to be strong feelings against a new affiliation and I’m still not sure I understand why that is. Perhaps, this is blow back from introducing these affiliations in 1E. Too many bad interactions? In my previous posts, I attempted to point out that “star power” is not all that important for an affiliation at this point. It’s possible to make a new affiliation (eg. Hirogen, Kazon, etc.) with few recognizable characters/actors. I mean, Patrick Stewart and Brent Spinner can’t play every character! Brent did play his fair share though! Relativity basically has the core characters (I.e. main officers and seven of nine) with disposable people thrown in. Now, I think it’s cool we can incorporate other people and flush out a deck. Temporal transporters is a cool card too! No argument from me on that one. However, the core personnel for the Relativity concept still come from those one or two episodes. The CC should have more than enough trek content to create Kazon, Hirogen, etc. If your argument is against generic space themed decks, then the CC should put a prohibition on all non-unique personnel! Nothing but star power and recognizable character actors for the win!

This debate is very interesting with both sides making good points. IMO, there’s really no reason the CC couldn’t continue to do sub themed decks and a new affiliation. It would take more time and work, but that’s something I’d be willing to wait for/ contribute to make happen. Maybe the fear of a new affiliation comes from introducing something new and innovative that could be potentially damaging to the game? That’s where play testing comes in. Yes, cards slip through, but we have errata to deal with that problem. The game could be just as damaged by introducing a sub themed deck/ single card as it could a new affiliation. Just look at the most recent errata. The systems to create new content (I.e. affiliations) and safe guard the game are in place. The show has more than enough content to pull from to create a new affiliation with unique characters, interactions, and mechanics.

[Danny]

There seem to be strong feelings against a new affiliation and I’m still not sure I understand why that is. Perhaps, this is blow back from introducing these affiliations in 1E. Too many bad interactions?

Never played 1E, so it's not that.

In my previous posts, I attempted to point out that “star power” is not all that important for an affiliation at this point.

I think other's people posts were that it was (important for an affiliation at this point), otherwise, why are people playing Star Trek.

Relativity basically has the core characters (I.e. main officers and seven of nine) with disposable people thrown in. [...] However, the core personnel for the Relativity concept still come from those one or two episodes.

This is a little dubious. Like you said, its core is "main officer" (Ducane and Braxton), plus Seven of Nine from the episodes... but, for decks, for gameplay, there was already all of the TNG Bridge Crew from "All Good Things...", the "Living Witness" Voyager holograms, and Nog, Jake, Bashir from "The Visitor" (plus the ability to bring in any other Fed using Temporal Transporters). Not only is that a lot of star power, it's also a huge number of personnel brought under a new umbrella.

The CC should have more than enough trek content to create Kazon, Hirogen, etc. If your argument is against generic space themed decks, then the CC should put a prohibition on all non-unique personnel! Nothing but star power and recognizable character actors for the win!

It can go ahead. In DS9, there are 48 different unique personnel, and 16 non-uniques. In TNG, the numbers stand at 44 (uniques) and 12 (non-uniques). For TOS, it's 34 (uniques) and 15 non-uniques, and for Voyager, it's 43 (uniques) and 8 (non-uniques). Even for the Dominion, the respective numbers stand at 51 and 20.

If the Kazon or Vidiians could ever boast similar numbers (even after years of production), I'd welcome them.

Part of my issue here is "Star Power" (in the unmade affiliations, there isn't any), and part of it's "mechanical" - I just find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that a new, unique mechanic (that isn't derivative of something we already have) can be created, let alone linked to a group we see for a handful of episodes.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

Even though it's not on the books this year, once you see the next set, I think you'll still see some great new innovative things.

Looking forward to seeing the awesomeness.

[Latok]

I don't see how padding out on affiliation with repurposed Voyager bridge crew really helps your argument (especially when, from a Trek-sense, they were actually working against the Hirogen).

Spock/Data/Picard were working against the Romulans.

The point is - if you're not drawing on star power, something instantly recognisable to Star Trek, then it might as well be any game set in space that completes missions to score points to win the game.

Hence "Generic Space Card Game".

What I don't get about this argument is that it is actually a game not just an ad, it should have minor characters, lots of them. We've got the main crew from each series, we don't need 90% of the game to be marketing. Stuff that makes me think, oh yeah I've seen that episode/scene is far more interesting than, yeah I've seen that guy on an ad.

and part of it's "mechanical" - I just find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that a new, unique mechanic (that isn't derivative of something we already have) can be created, let alone linked to a group we see for a handful of episodes.

Of course it can, there's a tonne of mechanics that could be added to 2E.

[bhosp]

Introducing an affiliation with new characters and new mechanics could take 2E in a great direction.

I think this is a good point, and it kinda makes the case against a new affiliation (except for maybe Xindi).

Can anyone name three "bridge crew" candidates for the Kazon (Culluh, Seska, and ...), or the Vidiaans, or the Hirogen? Where's the star power?

Having a great mechanic is one thing, but if you can't credibly attach is to Star Trek, it might as well be a new mechanic for "Generic Space Card Game (TM)".

4 members of Terra prime have names. 5 if you count Nathan Samuels (we didn’t).

(Also I’m 100% sure that Dr. McCoy has been to at least one Terra Prime meeting, and I bet Pulaski and O’Brien have too. But that’s neither here nor there. )

[bhosp]

Robert Picard is so definitely a member of Terra Prime that I’m regretting we didn’t put him in the set.

[monty42]

Robert Picard is so definitely a member of Terra Prime that I’m regretting we didn’t put him in the set.

What is it with you and space nazis?

[bhosp]

Robert Picard is so definitely a member of Terra Prime that I’m regretting we didn’t put him in the set.

What is it with you and space nazis?

It’s not that I don’t agree with Roddenberry’s utopian vision of the future. It’s that I know there’s a lot of “economic anxiety” between here and there.

[monty42]

Let's call them Belters at least. Terra Prime sounds like Optimus' dirty cousin.