[MidnightLich]

Hello all, and welcome to the dedicated thread for Questions and Answers regarding the new Second Edition expansion, All Our Yesterdays. This expansion features twenty-five (25) new cards and will be releasing on Friday, August 28th.

Here is your team:

Richard “The Guardian” New
Lucas “edgeofhearing” Thompson
Alexey “Ashbey” Korolev
Nathan “GooeyChewie” Miracle

Please feel free to ask your questions here, and the designers will pop in and edit their answers into your posts. Any and all questions about All Our Yesterdays are welcome, but please be respectful when asking and patient as they take time to reply.

Enjoy!

[MvComedy]

Was this expansion always intended to be 25 cards? Did the Romulan cards that were cut influence the ultimate size of the set?

It was not. We weren't given a set size at which to aim. I have some thoughts on set size restrictions, but suffice it to say that I don't believe card count to be a direct translation to complexity, ability to tax testing resources, or a set's influence and likelihood of being beloved. It certainly is important, however.

The Romulans and some other cuts would have made this a four-pager.

Are there any other personnel from The Voyage Home?

Maaaaaaybe. -richard

[eberlems]

The Virtues of Pugnacity
I.K.S. Amar
why a 4 cost high attribute ship?

Thank you for your question. I see give and take for every option. Hand Weapons themselves have a cost (even if just included in the deck). In comparison, see Kronos One. Also a 4-cost ship with possible attributes of 9-9-9. It doesn't require any additional cost during the Play and Draw Cards segment, but can only happen once a turn. It also comes pre-loaded with fuel (hopefully not bogging down your dilemma pile), whereas here you have to keep supplying it. As another comparison, the D-7 Battlecruiser has a static Range of 8, but can't reach the heights of these ships. And still other Klingon ships cost more and have higher base attributes. I see options. Gives and takes. -richard

that's not just 9-9-9, this order can be executed more than once per turn. There can be up to 40 hand weapons on that ship at one time.

You're right that my quote in the article didn't consider the repeatability.

The balanced "interactive" version would something like be:
Order - Destroy one Hand Weapon aboard this ship to make it attributes +2 (limit +2) until the end of this turn. The opponent on your left may destroy one of their equipment cards to prevent this.

[Armus]

When designing Klingons for this set, did the Designers give any consideration to interaction with Bajor, Terok Nor? Woteln especially seems suited for it with the play on capture and the ability to use cards at the same HQ. Was this intentional or are we all about to find out if something new and broken is afoot?

While he was unique in the original pitch, when he changed to non-unique I do recall noticing that it would be active in a KCA deck. He does look useful in concert with Psychotic Impulse and Racial Disdain, though currently those cards aren't heavily used, and I remember thinking it would probably be good if he could make those KCA flavor events more playable.

He's similar in flavor to Clandestine Kidnapping (though less efficient because Klingons aren't and shouldn't be as good at capture as Dominion, let alone Cardassians), which I also recall causing some concern when it was released (though I cannot find the thread now). The concern was it was too cheap when it came to capture, and would make Terok Nor capture too strong. The good news is that TN capture never took off to the extent of brokenness (though it is a fun deck to play!), which reassured me when it came to Woteln showing up in KCA.

[WeyounsLastClone]

Any interesting cards in there (besides Shras)? If so, are they geared towards certain decks, or really intended to be able to include with many/all affiliations as solution for certain problems, or encouragement for strategies? Any further thoughts on designing cards?

There are three other NA cards. One promotes the use of underused cards, one promotes the use of new cards, and the third promotes a strategy that is primarily used by one affiliation. NA are definitely the trickiest personnel to design, since the best ones that are general-use have a habit of showing up in many, many decks (Tolian Soran). It is certainly safer if NA cards are ones you'd pick for your deck only if you're going for a certain strategy (or, in Shras' case, expect certain strategies of your opponents) - that way they aren't showing up everywhere, and making every deck look the same. But, for example, if you find yourself hanging out at opponent's missions anyways, then you'll be more likely to consider including 51V20.

Are all cards in the set based on concept, and then story was added? Or are there some cards in the set that depict personnel/event you really wanted to have in the set, and then gameplay was added? In what category did Spock fall?

The vast majority of the set was designed by first brainstorming mechanics, then turning those mechanics into cards. The harbinger dilemmas in particular had unrelated playtest titles right up until the creative team injected some flavor.

Spock came out of a desire to give TOS a particular incentive to tackle temporal missions. Only movie-era TOS personnel have static (ie, not "when you play") abilities, so we dug in to the TOS time travel movie. Didn't take us long, within that context, to get to Spock.

Oh, and Kyle sent me

How about this:

Ha. I was just about to do something like this.

[Danny]

I read the article, and I can see how the script flipping applies to Divisive Patron (this mission might be hard, but the other one might be easier) and Forewarned (unless I'm at the mission later my opponent's going to score), but I can't see how this applies to Anachronistic Meddlers (if I go to that other mission and attempt, my opponent can draw and spend more on dilemmas).

I guess my question is: what's the incentive to go to or attempt a mission with Anachronistic Meddlers on it?

Brian's got it: this one isn't about sending the opponent somewhere, it's about changing their plans by discouraging them from going somewhere. That said, there is one Harbinger dilemma that doesn't fit either side of that model, and is more about encouraging interaction by giving you a bonus for swinging by and saying hello to your opponent.

[Armus]

I read the article, and I can see how the script flipping applies to Divisive Patron (this mission might be hard, but the other one might be easier) and Forewarned (unless I'm at the mission later my opponent's going to score), but I can't see how this applies to Anachronistic Meddlers (if I go to that other mission and attempt, my opponent can draw and spend more on dilemmas).

I guess my question is: what's the incentive to go to or attempt a mission with Anachronistic Meddlers on it?

I read that one as the opposite. You put it on an opponent's mission that you think they're going to attempt next (or the mission they're attempting if you think you can stop them this turn) to make them reconsider their options and go to a different mission, or do what they want and pay you off.

[Danny]

I read that one as the opposite. You put it on an opponent's mission that you think they're going to attempt next (or the mission they're attempting if you think you can stop them this turn) to make them reconsider their options and go to a different mission, or do what they want and pay you off.

I see...

I guess it's a more subtle influencer than the others (or, more accurately, too subtle for me ).

I think I may have caused some of the confusion in my article. While all Harbinger dilemmas aim to increase interaction and adjust how the script of your deck plays out, not all of them seek to do so by making you specifically care about your 4th mission.

[rferries]

A faint hope, but any love for the Borg in this one?

Not specifically. They could make a trip into the past. With discard pile manipulation like the rare Queen, it could be useful...

[Danny]

I've a question about costing - how was the decision reached that the potential cost reducing game text of Memenda should cost zero? (That is, the D-7 Battlecruiser doesn't have the cost-reducing text, but both ships have a printed cost of 4.)

There was an exchange between the designers during a costing pass where we discussed that. We came down on the idea that ships shouldn't have to be strictly comparative across affiliation lines. Some affiliations have better ships and some less. The Dominion Defiant has one less staffing icon and the Non-Aligned Reliant has one more. As such, the comparison was to Romulan ships, mainly the Bird-of-Prey. There is give and take here, which makes the decision to use one ship over the other a matter of taste. And yes, you might get lucky and get it out for free, but likely not. First person to do so in an official tournament game can contact me and I'll send out a prize. -Richard

I gave my answer to Brian's similar concerns in this post here, but the short of it is that (a) the restriction is tighter (at least for now) than the D-7, and (b) this ship, as a Romulan ship, has to compete with the BoP. Ships and equipment are the least common card types, and at least in the early game, the average anticipated discount is -1 (as unplayed ships build up in the hand, it will generally get cheaper later in the game, which is a side effect of the chosen card types that appeals to me). If it started at 5, there really wouldn't be much to recommend it over the BoP.

One thing I didn't mention in the linked thread but has been on my mind is that it's also unique. Now, from what I've reverse-engineered of the sacred costing texts, that's not really a factor, but maybe it should be. It certainly affects the card's playability, especially in relation to the BoP. With the BoP + christening, you can really just run 3 copies of that one ship in your deck. If you try to do that with the Memenda, you put yourself at risk for automatic game loss via destaffing.

I don't think uniqueness should have a huge impact on costing (maybe -.25 total), but as it has an affect on the usefulness of cards, I think it should have an impact.

[eberlems]

Your opponent places this dilemma on your incomplete non-headquarters mission. At the end of your next turn, this dilemma is placed beneath this mission.

These Harbinger dilemmas, don't get "overcome" but just placed under the mission by their keyword text, correct?

In the Rulebook glossary under "dilemmas," it states: "A dilemma being placed beneath a mission for any reason is being overcome." I believe it's both. -Richard