[Naetor]

There are 41 posted decklist in the system with Bajor, Terok Nor. The only reason to only post 3 is to create a narrative. Which I certainly love to do myself, but KCA has "produced" more than just MVB Casualties cheese decks.

I clicked 2e Decklists > Affiliation HQ > KCA > and the first 3 decks that didn't identify HoF in their title. But I don't have any problem harping on these BS cards.

It might be more helpful if you speak more plainly about what you don't like about this HQ conversation.

I don't mind a conversation about new HQs. But if you do one, please stop relying on Cardassian or Kirk/Chakotay cheese to make it work. Ain't no one want to play against more of that crap.

[Armus]

No Cardassians or Chakotay and only one Kirk in the Terran Empire. Is that acceptable to you?

[Naetor]

Is that acceptable to you?

Does it matter?

[Armus]

Is that acceptable to you?

Does it matter?

I'm legit curious. You said you didn't mind a new HQ discussion subject to your previous restrictions. I'm trying to have that conversation.

[KillerB]

I don't mind a conversation about new HQs. But if you do one, please stop relying on Cardassian or Kirk/Chakotay cheese to make it work. Ain't no one want to play against more of that crap.

I have no control of how a % of the players played KCA. The only thing I had control over was giving people options.

Don't put Relativity on me. That was my first set with Charlie and Brad. However, I recall asking, "Do we really want to make a faction based on OT Kirk?"

And I'm not bashing those two guys, years later I never really mind playing against Relativity (I've played it a few times, and Eric R. made Day 2 of Worlds w/ my Relativity). I don't agree with some of the players who 'don't like that crap', but I can see their point.

[KillerB]

No Cardassians or Chakotay and only one Kirk in the Terran Empire. Is that acceptable to you?

I bet Chakotay was a filthy collaborator.

[IQ542]

A new HQ could definitely put some spice into 2E. It could serve as a catalyst for some new game play mechanics/ personnel. Also.....Vulcans need an HQ.....

[Gorgo Primus]

Grouping and in an HQ, even just for is a terrible idea that not only doesn't make a ton of sense fluff-wise (there is ~100 years separating them), but would probably create a host of balance problems.

That's a strong statement. I'm going to need you to show your work.

From a Trek sense perspective, it makes absolute sense. This HQ represents the Terran Empire. That Empire was in place in both the 22nd and 23rd century before falling in the 24th century. Since both and fall into that timeline, they would both fall under that HQ.

From a gameplay perspective, why would it necessarily create balance problems? I would submit that there are problematic cards, and problematic cards and if you put them in the same deck it would probably be broken... the problem is that none of the cards I'm thinking of are or . So if you think having those two subsets of cards available to one HQ, I would ask you to cite some examples illustrating your assertion, because right now I don't see it.

By that logic should get a duel HQ that lets you play both, because they are both the Federation with 100 years between them. Except we don't; the Federation in TOS and in TNG have some key differences from 100 years of change. The Empire clearly undergoes massive shifts over time (even aside from technology) too to get a 'happy' Vulcan XO on their flagship who goes onto become Emperor 100 years after Archer massacres all the aliens in his crew for rebelling as part of a larger race war the Empire has basically decided to define themselves by.

You're right that in terms of problematic personnel not being able to be combined, but I'm thinking of several of the the powerful events, ships, and interrupts they get access to that I do not want to see in the same deck with 1 HQ and no downside.

[Armus]

Grouping and in an HQ, even just for is a terrible idea that not only doesn't make a ton of sense fluff-wise (there is ~100 years separating them), but would probably create a host of balance problems.

That's a strong statement. I'm going to need you to show your work.

From a Trek sense perspective, it makes absolute sense. This HQ represents the Terran Empire. That Empire was in place in both the 22nd and 23rd century before falling in the 24th century. Since both and fall into that timeline, they would both fall under that HQ.

From a gameplay perspective, why would it necessarily create balance problems? I would submit that there are problematic cards, and problematic cards and if you put them in the same deck it would probably be broken... the problem is that none of the cards I'm thinking of are or . So if you think having those two subsets of cards available to one HQ, I would ask you to cite some examples illustrating your assertion, because right now I don't see it.

By that logic should get a duel HQ that lets you play both, because they are both the Federation with 100 years between them. Except we don't; the Federation in TOS and in TNG have some key differences from 100 years of change. The Empire clearly undergoes massive shifts over time (even aside from technology) too to get a 'happy' Vulcan XO on their flagship who goes onto become Emperor 100 years after Archer massacres all the aliens in his crew for rebelling as part of a larger race war the Empire has basically decided to define themselves by.

You're right that in terms of problematic personnel not being able to be combined, but I'm thinking of several of the the powerful events, ships, and interrupts they get access to that I do not want to see in the same deck with 1 HQ and no downside.

Do I really need to bring up the people from the TOS Movie era that are fully playable in (and ) decks? Maybe you like that and maybe you don't, but let's not pretend my idea is that unprecedented.

As for the verbs, which ones?

[The Prefect]

Do I really need to bring up the people from the TOS Movie era that are fully playable in (and ) decks? Maybe you like that and maybe you don't, but let's not pretend my idea is that unprecedented.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually be in favor of removing the icon from all 15 personnel and ships. James T. Kirk, Original Thinker doesn't need an icon!

[Gorgo Primus]

I don't think your idea is quite the same thing, as at least most of those are older versions of themselves from a few decades out from . Though I'm also in favour of removing from , and have been for a long time. They're not even cards representing times these characters went to Earth - it's just anyone from a movie. Wouldn't be the first time the CC has errataed an Decipher era HQ to prevent a group from reporting there either.

But your idea is for a brand new HQ to be made solely for the express purpose of combining and when there is zero overlap between and in the other than the theft of a ship (already represented as a card for ) and the uniforms onboard. characters don't even interact with anyone from the era or even mention their names - let alone people.

[Danny]

I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually be in favor of removing the icon from all 15 personnel and ships. James T. Kirk, Original Thinker doesn't need an icon!

I'm pretty sure this thought's been on the boards since the boards came up.

I'm also pretty sure that Richard "The Guardian" New has been a vocal proponent of the idea for a long time too. (There's a similar thread on the Designer's board from 2014 as well.)

[The Prefect]

I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually be in favor of removing the icon from all 15 personnel and ships. James T. Kirk, Original Thinker doesn't need an icon!

I'm pretty sure this thought's been on the boards since the boards came up.

I'm also pretty sure that Richard "The Guardian" New has been a vocal proponent of the idea for a long time too. (There's a similar thread on the Designer's board from 2014 as well.)

Yeah. I know. It will never happen. But, we can all dream.

[Danny]

Yeah. I know. It will never happen. But, we can all dream.

You say that, but how much power/authority/scope does a 2E Director have?