[Fritzinger]

If you know your opponent will have way more attributes than they need, what's your poison: skill lockout or attrition like becalmed and adopted authority that punishes high attributes? Assume that the attribute dilemmas will always hit.

[Naetor]

What do you mean? Like killing/stopping mission skills vs. getting attributes below the requirement?

[LORE]

I would target mission skills or hold them up with non-essential mission skill walls that they are light on (i.e. Exo, Arch, etc.)

[Faithful Reader]

Other than Limited Welcome? Random flippers Like Intimidation or Chula might work.

[Fritzinger]

I can see I haven’t explained myself well enough. Imagine a jem’hadar at Templar prime situation, I have TCS so they will have at least 48 strength when they only need 31. Now imagine later in the game when they have lots more
jem'hadar. Attempts with 70+ strength. Mission skills in many multiple.

(For the sake of the thought exercise, ignore insurrection, and ignore characteristics of the jem’hadar, this could be sword Klingons at IAP or power shifted romulans at the cunning > 28 mission)

So with this scenario, where you have no hope of taking out mission skills and you want to stop the high attribute horde multiple times... bouncy attrition (so you always start with very few under) or skill lockout using e.g. dig/wit?

[Danny]

I can see I haven’t explained myself well enough. Imagine a jem’hadar at Templar prime situation, I have TCS so they will have at least 48 strength when they only need 31. Now imagine later in the game when they have lots more
jem'hadar. Attempts with 70+ strength. Mission skills in many multiple.

(For the sake of the thought exercise, ignore insurrection, and ignore characteristics of the jem’hadar, this could be sword Klingons at IAP or power shifted romulans at the cunning > 28 mission)

So with this scenario, where you have no hope of taking out mission skills and you want to stop the high attribute horde multiple times... bouncy attrition (so you always start with very few under) or skill lockout using e.g. dig/wit?

In the above scenario (70+ strength (9 Jem'Hadar?), but they only need 31 (4 Jem'Hadar?)), if I had to pick one (either 'bouncy attrition' or 'skill lockout'), I'd go with the latter.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

Blow up their ship!

[Fritzinger]

if I had to pick one (either 'bouncy attrition' or 'skill lockout'), I'd go with the latter.

That sounds like you might have something else in mind. What other thoughts can you share ... is "both" an option? Or do you have something else up your sleeve?

[Danny]

That sounds like you might have something else in mind. What other thoughts can you share ... is "both" an option? Or do you have something else up your sleeve?

I was thinking about saying "Why not both?", but then I thought, (in this example) if you're trying to stop 6 Jemmies (out of 9, because 4 is enough to solve) using bouncing attrition, then you're going have a tough time. Better to use skill lockout and all-stop walls, no?

[Fritzinger]

Now that I think about it, I have a good answer to why both... Bouncy attrition is probably better against BoT and Central command?

... Hmm but then again not against chuckles or chancellors.

[Danny]

If you're dealing in hypotheticals...

Now that I think about it, I have a good answer to why both... Bouncy attrition is probably better against BoT and Central command?

Plenty of prevention.

... Hmm but then again not against chuckles or chancellors.

Lethal Wound

[jadziadax8]

... Hmm but then again not against chuckles or chancellors.

That’s when you go with TT + the “do or die” dilemmas. You can’t Chucklehead your way out of TT + Triage or similar.


Sent through Subspace from the Starship Enterprise