[Naetor]

Serious question: who cares what the designers thought about cards they made 8 years ago? Can we agree it's the players' opinions who matter most?

[The Prefect]

Serious question: who cares what the designers thought about cards they made 8 years ago? Can we agree it's the players' opinions who matter most?

Sure.

But, I also think it's interesting to know what the original designers think - even if we may never know. Hypothetically, would it make a difference to me if all three designers posted right now that they think the cards are fine as is and laid out their case in detail for that opinion? Maybe. After all, designers are players too.

Please don't misunderstand. I did not express my curiosity about their opinion as a way to undermine or minimize the opinions of others either way. I simply said I was curious. Still am. It's okay if you're not - that wouldn't make me wrong for being curious.

[LORE]

I think people forget that the entire concept of Relativity came about because Chris Clarke won Worlds in the before times (2012) when the Champions were given design-a-card as part of their prize. He then quit playing 6 months after it released.

[The Prefect]

I think people forget that the entire concept of Relativity came about because Chris Clarke won Worlds in the before times (2012) when the Champions were given design-a-card as part of their prize. He then quit playing 6 months after it released.

Interesting. Which card did he design?

[Armus]

What cards do you want to see changed and what do those changes look like?

1) Convert Prevent Historical Disruption into HQ mission. Players rarely ever attempt this mission, and it is used to bypass "for each HQ mission" cards and make Well-prepared Defenses an easy play. You can probably still allow personnel to play to the ship.

2) Give the ship a cost- maybe 4 and change the 'discard 4 to download a temporal ship' to 1. Basically if people get the ship or Christening in their opener they get a big counter boost, which always seems unfair.

3) Change temporal transporters to only be used on non-Fut. That way you have to pay full cost for the Future people.

4) Increase the cost of Simmons. His ability to cycle is too strong for 2 cost and a body. In general most of the Relativity cards are too low cost, but he seems the most egregious.

5) Make the ship easier to staff. This would help them out, but I think is important if you would make the other changes.

Thank you, Nate. These are interesting. I definitely see some potential in these ideas and will discuss with the rest of the team.

[The Prefect]

Thank you, Nate. These are interesting. I definitely see some potential in these ideas and will discuss with the rest of the team.

I hope you also bring the removal of the Replicate keyword from TT up as well. I know you weren't a fan of the idea, but it was a specific idea proposed and others on the Errata Team might not necessarily agree with your assessment.

[Armus]

Thank you, Nate. These are interesting. I definitely see some potential in these ideas and will discuss with the rest of the team.

I hope you also bring the removal of the Replicate keyword from TT up as well. I know you weren't a fan of the idea, but it was a specific idea proposed and others on the Errata Team might not necessarily agree with your assessment.

The other members of the errata team can read this thread just as easily as I can.

I don't want to give away details of deliberations, but let's just say Kris isn't the first one to mention it.

[The Prefect]

The other members of the errata team can read this thread just as easily as I can.

I'm hoping you didn't mean this to be dismissive. But, it does make me ask a question. When you said you'd discuss Nate's ideas with the team, I assume that means you'll be bringing them up so the other members can discuss them. In other words, you'll be introducing the team to these ideas.

But why do his ideas get preferential treatment? If Errata Team members can read this thread as easily as you, why do you need to bring any of these ideas to their attention? Why be gatekeeper when you could just point them to this thread and let them decide for themselves which ideas they'd like to discuss? Then, you could advocate for the ideas you like, and so could each of them. Or, is that what you meant?

[Armus]

The other members of the errata team can read this thread just as easily as I can.

I'm hoping you didn't mean this to be dismissive. But, it does make me ask a question. When you said you'd discuss Nate's ideas with the team, I assume that means you'll be bringing them up so the other members can discuss them. In other words, you'll be introducing the team to these ideas.

But why do his ideas get preferential treatment? If Errata Team members can read this thread as easily as you, why do you need to bring any of these ideas to their attention? Why be gatekeeper when you could just point them to this thread and let them decide for themselves which ideas they'd like to discuss? Then, you could advocate for the ideas you like, and so could each of them. Or, is that what you meant?

Every member of the errata team has access to all of these discussions. I'm not gatekeeping anything.

I stated both here and in the errata teams internal thread that I don't necessarily see a problem (also this conversation on the errata board didn't exactly start today), but having asked questions, and heard the feedback, I think that a) I'm more open to making some changes than I was before, and b) I think I have a possible path forward that might address some of the key concerns that have been raised that will form the basis of my contribution to the internal discussion.

Where it goes from there I can't say, but hopefully this thread helps the team figure out what the needed key changes are so we can address the community's concerns.

So yeah, your last sentence is basically correct. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I'm also not going to advocate for something with which I disagree.

[Naetor]

I think people forget that the entire concept of Relativity came about because Chris Clarke won Worlds in the before times (2012) when the Champions were given design-a-card as part of their prize. He then quit playing 6 months after it released.

Given how the (not a) HQ works, being able to bring in personnel from 4 Federation eras (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy) and 2 sub-affiliations (E and Maq) for potentially a limited time, in theory you'd expect them to have the highest skill cap and greatest variability in success and successful strategies - basically like an uber dual-HQ that needs an expert player to build a deck that can pull from an immense card pool and balance to minimize the short-comings and maximize the potential. It wouldn't surprise me if Clarke had influence over the basic concept.

Instead, the successful versions simply include each personnel with a staffing icon and a small handful of the singularly most OP cards with a blue icon. At least in terms of deck design, it's probably the lowest skill cap HQ in the game - I think the in game cap is higher, though.

The reason why this is the best way to play this HQ is that all those cards are just immensely undercosted, and there's really not much success to be gained from steering outside this preconstructed deck.

It's probably fine to have an HQ like this in the game. It just shouldn't be so consistently the best one.

[Armus]

I think people forget that the entire concept of Relativity came about because Chris Clarke won Worlds in the before times (2012) when the Champions were given design-a-card as part of their prize. He then quit playing 6 months after it released.

Given how the (not a) HQ works, being able to bring in personnel from 4 Federation eras (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy) and 2 sub-affiliations (E and Maq) for potentially a limited time, in theory you'd expect them to have the highest skill cap and greatest variability in success and successful strategies - basically like an uber dual-HQ that needs an expert player to build a deck that can pull from an immense card pool and balance to minimize the short-comings and maximize the potential. It wouldn't surprise me if Clarke had influence over the basic concept.

Instead, the successful versions simply include each personnel with a staffing icon and a small handful of the singularly most OP cards with a blue icon. At least in terms of deck design, it's probably the lowest skill cap HQ in the game - I think the in game cap is higher, though.

The reason why this is the best way to play this HQ is that all those cards are just immensely undercosted, and there's really not much success to be gained from steering outside this preconstructed deck.

It's probably fine to have an HQ like this in the game. It just shouldn't be so consistently the best one.

Are you saying Relativity was the game's first LEGO?

You may be right. That term didn't get coined until Tyler gave us LEGO Starfleet in 2016, but I can't find a lot in this take to disagree with....

I can't say this was Chris Clarke's doing though. From the design article I linked upthread, it looks like this was Brad's baby....

[LORE]

Interesting. Which card did he design?

Relativity itself, from what I understand. It went through lots of testing cycles and I am sure the final product may differ from his intent, but as far as I know that was his design-a-card prize.

[MidnightLich]

I believe Chris Clarke made Terikof Belt, but don't quote me on that. As near as I can remember, Relativity was made by Brad and I, with John and Mark contributing.

-crp

[GooeyChewie]

Are you saying Relativity was the game's first LEGO?

It depends on how you define 'LEGO.' I think I could make a strong case that Mirror Fleet constitutes a LEGO build. A loose definition of LEGO could even be applied as far back as Voyager's introduction.

Regardless of LEGO status, I do find that it's more helpful to think of Relativity as a decktype, rather than as an alternate HQ.