[Gorgo Primus]

That's a good point... why does God need a Starship a Fashion Designer need Programming and Engineering? I guess if they design things on a computer or holodeck before making them...

Sometimes we have to bend Trek sense a bit to fill skill holes or design gaps for a faction or affiliation.

My favorite way to design is to let story guide the process. Unfortunately, we don't always have the luxury of doing that as much as or to the degree we'd like.

That being said, we hope you'll find this is a solid card.

[bhosp]

How does the lore on the new Bajoran personnel match his skill set?

TK

He’s a skill hole filler for KCA, and I thought it’d be funny to make him the Vulcan barber from 1E. Engineer’s the only one that *really* doesn’t work, maybe it’s a hobby?

[bhosp]

Any Romulans stuff in this one?

Or Ferengi combat cards?

No

I keep trying to make a D7 but no one listens to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have loved to see that!

As designers, there are lots of cards we'd love to see that don't get made.
The Romulan D7 was't pitched for this set, but I can't imagine I'd have objected to a version of it - assuming the pitch was good. Hopefully, we'll see one in the future.

(A) he’s right, I didn’t pitch it on this set specifically,
(B) All my ideas for it have been bad, you’re not missing much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bhosp]

Shea yelled at me for some of my answers in here last night, so I removed them. I

How much of this set was under John's design paradigm ("The Process") and how much did our new Design Director direct?

Brian, you know very well the answer to this question, and you only asked it to try to stir up conflict. I apologize for biting on this bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Armus]

Shea yelled at me for some of my answers in here last night, so I removed them. I

How much of this set was under John's design paradigm ("The Process") and how much did our new Design Director direct?

Brian, you know very well the answer to this question, and you only asked it to try to stir up conflict. I apologize for biting on this bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See this is where you fail at ascertaining my motives.

It was a legit question. Given the timelines involved, it's very plausible that this is the last set released before the PoR. As such, I wanted to know - and I wanted the community to know - whether or not this was still The Process era or if this is the first set under the new Design Director and something we can use to evaluate the 2e Director's strategic decision with the game after the personnel moves he made last year.

If asking that question stirs up conflict, well, it's not because I'm causing conflict.

If anything, that's an answer in and of itself.

At the risk of degenerating the Q&A for the set into another front on this conflict - which I think would be unfortunate - I'll say that as a designer, it was my impression that Nathan, while transitioning into the role of 2E Design Director, practiced a largely hands-off approach to this set. He mainly acted to facilitate communication between designers and testers and to enforce design deadlines, which we met. John maintained the role of lead on the set, to the degree that we still have leads.

[eberlems]

am I allowed to spoiler

3 achievements incoming

?

It is not up to me, but I have no objection, for whatever that's worth.

[Armus]

Shea yelled at me for some of my answers in here last night, so I removed them. I

How much of this set was under John's design paradigm ("The Process") and how much did our new Design Director direct?

Brian, you know very well the answer to this question, and you only asked it to try to stir up conflict. I apologize for biting on this bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See this is where you fail at ascertaining my motives.

It was a legit question. Given the timelines involved, it's very plausible that this is the last set released before the PoR. As such, I wanted to know - and I wanted the community to know - whether or not this was still The Process era or if this is the first set under the new Design Director and something we can use to evaluate the 2e Director's strategic decision with the game after the personnel moves he made last year.

If asking that question stirs up conflict, well, it's not because I'm causing conflict.

If anything, that's an answer in and of itself.

At the risk of degenerating the Q&A for the set into another front on this conflict - which I think would be unfortunate - I'll say that as a designer, it was my impression that Nathan, while transitioning into the role of 2E Design Director, practiced a largely hands-off approach to this set. He mainly acted to facilitate communication between designers and testers and to enforce design deadlines, which we met. John maintained the role of lead on the set, to the degree that we still have leads.

Thank you. this is a fair answer and I appreciate the candor.

[Gorgo Primus]

Are the noted veterans of the Dominion War U.S.S. Hood and/or her captain going to be in this expansion?

[bhosp]

Are the noted veterans of the Dominion War U.S.S. Hood and/or her captain going to be in this expansion?

No but now that you mention it, Captain’s Desk would be a pretty good Commodity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattgomeryScott]

Really liking the new cards.

My question is perhaps more gameplay/rules than design, but it is about the new set.

How does Letant, Sneering Liaison interact with Nelvana Trap, given that the first takes a Maneuver event from your opponent's hand and places it in your core, and the second is a Maneuver event that doesn't play in the core and whose gametext only works if it's sitting on an opponent's mission?

Thank you.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

P.S. Not a set question, but while checking the above out I noticed the text version of The Spirit of Kahless is missing the "plays in your core" text. Thought I'd pass it on.

[Marquetry]

This is for creative/art/etc.. why was the image from An Old Debt used for Bok? I thought it was considered a Bad Thing to reuse images.

It's certainly not an ideal scenario to have two cards with the same or virtually the same image. That being said, there are cases when it's unavoidable. This may or may not be one of those cases.

[Gorgo Primus]

To be fair, they're in slightly different poses (looks like a few frames before or after the other) and one is in HD. But, yeah, it'd probably be nicer if they went with something more obviously different.

[bhosp]

Really liking the new cards.

My question is perhaps more gameplay/rules than design, but it is about the new set.

How does Letant, Sneering Liaison interact with Nelvana Trap, given that the first takes a Maneuver event from your opponent's hand and places it in your core, and the second is a Maneuver event that doesn't play in the core and whose gametext only works if it's sitting on an opponent's mission?

Thank you.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

P.S. Not a set question, but while checking the above out I noticed the text version of The Spirit of Kahless is missing the "plays in your core" text. Thought I'd pass it on.

Same way it’d work with Adapted To Service Us: put it in your core, you command it, but you can’t use it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree the owner of Letant wouldn't be able to use Nelvana Trap taken in this way. I disagree it would go to the core. I think this falls under the "do as much as you can" category. I take the card from my opponent's hand and attempt to place it in my core. The card can't be played to the core, so it gets discarded.

I should add: I don't recall this specific question coming up during testing. So, either it didn't, or it did and I'm just forgetting. So, please forgive either of us if we're incorrect. The point we do both agree on, however, is Letant's owner wouldn't be able to benefit from the text of the stolen event in this specific case.

[MattgomeryScott]

Really liking the new cards.

My question is perhaps more gameplay/rules than design, but it is about the new set.

How does Letant, Sneering Liaison interact with Nelvana Trap, given that the first takes a Maneuver event from your opponent's hand and places it in your core, and the second is a Maneuver event that doesn't play in the core and whose gametext only works if it's sitting on an opponent's mission?

Thank you.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

P.S. Not a set question, but while checking the above out I noticed the text version of The Spirit of Kahless is missing the "plays in your core" text. Thought I'd pass it on.

Same way it’d work with Adapted To Service Us: put it in your core, you command it, but you can’t use it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

I would agree the owner of Letant wouldn't be able to use Nelvana Trap taken in this way. I disagree it would go to the core. I think this falls under the "do as much as you can" category. I take the card from my opponent's hand and attempt to place it in my core. The card can't be played to the core, so it gets discarded.

I should add: I don't recall this specific question coming up during testing. So, either it didn't, or it did and I'm just forgetting. So, please forgive either of us if we're incorrect. The point we do both agree on, however, is Letant's owner wouldn't be able to benefit from the text of the stolen event in this specific case.


Thank you too.

[DJstormtrooper]

Really liking the new cards.

Agreed!

How are y'all going to make Assault/Maneuver a two-player game and not just one player beating up on the other?

It's a problem we never could solve. Worked a lot on it in Balance of Terror.

Great question. The short answer: we've tried to add an element of unpredictability more representative of the "fog of war" so to speak.