Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#599636
Oops. I forgot to get this up yesterday when I promised it would be here in the article. You folks know the rules by now. Ask away.

Richard New (The Guardian)
Charlie Plaine (MidnightLich)
Michael Shea (The Prefect)
User avatar
Director of Operations
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#599647
How much harder was this set to design for knowing that the cards weren’t “good enough” for release with their intended sets?

Sometimes harder; sometimes easier. The Temporal mission, for example, was an easy pick for me personally, because I knew it was pretty much done. Its one hurdle was out of the way. And when we looked up why some of the cards had been cut, my first thought was, “Oh, I can fix that!” (Not always correctly.)

On the other hand, we also wanted a rainbow set, so we combed through different factions looking for ideas while others were plentiful. I remember TOS being particularly hard to pick. Starfleet, meanwhile, gets a card that pulls from another card that I also think could see the light of day, but needed this card as a setup, so had a circuitous route to production. The difficulty was realizing the good part to carve out now.

Sadly, we don’t have a full rainbow. The Klingon card was cut once again. We tried an idea that we thought sounded pretty easy and fun, but it turns out is a tangled mess of confusing interactions. -richard


I wouldn't at all characterize the cards in this set as cards that "weren’t 'good enough' for release with their intended sets." Afterall, releasing a set of cards rejected as not good enough isn't the kind of assignment any designer would be necessarily excited to take on.

It's important to remember that under two consequetive design managers, 2e designers were limited to 27-cards per set. This limit was predestined, meaning it was imposed prior to any testing data or designer feedback. Under that limitation, it often happened that cards, or even whole themes, would be cut because there simply wasn't enough room. A lot of cards we picked came from sets with pre-imposed limits.

The analogy I used in my article on Hawk was that of an editor cutting down a movie - sometimes footage the director loved winds up on the cutting room floor, only to be restored in the director's cut. So, rather than thinking of this set as a collection of rejected cards, I think it's more appropriate to characterize is as something like a design manager's cut.

But, it's true wecpicked some cards that needed more work because we could see porential. And, while I'd left the set before testing commented, I can tell you Richard's and I spent a lot of time debating the original roster to make sure we were giving the community something we thought they'd be excited about.


I was looking at most of these cards for the first time, and so I leaned into that. I did not go back and look at previous discussions, and instead viewed each card as its own thing.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#599652
What do you find the hardest card type to design is?

I think that might be different for each designer. For me, it’s dilemmas. At least for original idea. I think I like more specific, niche ideas and dilemmas tend to be more broad. Equipment gets designed the least, probably across the board. When an idea hits though, they’re pretty easy to bring about. We have one dilemma and no equipment in this expansion. -richard

Verbs. It's a matter of balance that's most challenging to me... trying to make card that isn't binder fodder but also that's not broken. To non-designers, that probably sounds pretty easy. But, I am confident most experienced designers would say that this is often a much smaller target to hit than one would think.

They are all hard in their own ways. That may seem like a cop-out, but it's true - there are unique challenges to each card type. I agree with everything said above, but I personally think it's hard to really nail a good mission.
User avatar
Second Edition Playtest Manager
By Faithful Reader (Ross Fertel)
 - Second Edition Playtest Manager
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#599908
Please explain a bit more as to when/how cards are put into the cut file. It is usually at the start? End? In between?

I usually comb through a project at the end and see if there's a unique or useful idea that might inspire someone else and put them there as we shut down shop. I think we used to put all the leftovers in there, but at some point we got comfortable with writing up multiple versions of a card or starting clean with a new version of something we've batted around for awhile. I usually leave those scraps in the project. We never throw anything away, but no need to clutter the Cut Files with echoes of cards that already exist.

This has been handled differently under different design managers. For most sets i worked on under Corbett, he would handle the transfer of cards to the cut file. Under Miracle, lead designers for each set would do it. So, in my experience it depends how hands-on the design manager wants to be. Im not saying either way is better - only that it's been handled in at least two different ways.

The article today talks about the changes Dreadnaught went through. Is that the card with the most changes? If so, which one?

That's a good question. I mean, I'm not sure how you gauge it other than gut reaction. It's not even the only card that changed type. Two others did too. I have an article about another one of them next week. The other is tomorrow's card (the "Starfleet" one). I think that one might take the cake in my mind, even though the development was somewhat circular.

Which is your favorite card from the set?

They're all my babies, so as a good father, I have no favorite.

Some questions from Bob ...

You're going to have a wild party. A What Happens in Vegas style party. Which card do you take with you?

Hi, Bob. The original version of the release promo.

You're going to commit a crime. Which card do you take with you?

Well, neither of the judges or the policeman. That's for sure. Probably a Bynar (which will probably bring the other).

You have reached the natural end of your life. Which card do you want by your bedside?

The Statesman.

You have a secret. A deep Dark secret you can only tell one person in this world. Which card do you tell it to?

Friday's card. The truth will set me free.

Which card is your secret crush?

These are my babies! (The one I'm taking to Vegas...)

-richard
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#599912
So Dreadnaught.

Was there any lore-reason for the [Fed] [Maq] , or gameplay only?

I ask because reprogramming the DN felt like a very non- [Fed] thing to do, and if I recall, Chakotay was against it at the time. If anything it feels like it should require [NA] [Maq] or [Baj] [Maq] instead.

I've had thoughts about expanding on some [Baj] [Maq] or [Maq] Infiltrator themes; i.e. we've given them some examples, so can we let them use them? [Baj] [Maq] is tricky because of fear of Bajoran bleed. But, in this case, the [Fed] part restricts it to Maquis decks. (I guess I got overzealous with one of my last thoughts in the article. Voyager or DS9 might be able to pull it off, given ample use of the Multidimensional Transporter Device, but that seems unlikely.) I could point out that B'Elanna (whose Maquis version is Fed) was the reprogrammer and the Maquis often act in non- [Fed] ways (to your own point that maybe they should have been another affiliation) to assuage the bad lore feelings. I'm comfortable with it on both lore and gameplay terms.

-richard
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599913
boromirofborg wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 1:16 pm So Dreadnaught.

Was there any lore-reason for the [Fed] [Maq] , or gameplay only?

I ask because reprogramming the DN felt like a very non- [Fed] thing to do, and if I recall, Chakotay was against it at the time. If anything it feels like it should require [NA] [Maq] or [Baj] [Maq] instead.
Generally speaking, if you want a card to be an exclusively [Maq] thing in 2e, you require command of X [Fed] [Maq] personnel. I'm guessing this was gameplay overriding trek sense to a certain degree.
 
By MvComedy
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#599956
I remember when All Our Yesterdays was in development that there was a whole crew of Romulans from Enterprise designed that were scrapped, with gameplay issues around their shared theme cited as the reason. Only Leodis made it, who I suppose did so because he doesn't have game text that could break anything. I'm sure these were cut for good reasons but I was personally disappointed that we didn't get to see them.

So my question is, is there a [Rom] card in Second Chances from among those that were cut from All Our Yesterdays?

There is not. There's a Romulan card that's sourced from those episodes, but it was originally written for Shattered Mirror and Creative's link to those episodes was added after development. However, you also get a second Romulan card in the set that does kind of fit with the milling theme of those cards. -richard
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599963
Was Hawk designed with Briar Patch missions specifically in mind? If so, why use a guy from First Contact as a boost for Insurrection missions? Would following @monty42's suggestion of limiting his ability to the Neutral Zone make more trek sense to you (it would to me)?

As far as I remember, he was designed with Nebula missions in mind. His text went through a lot of incremental changes to address broken stuff found by the testers. That's how he ended up where he is. -crp
User avatar
Director of Operations
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#600095
Please explain (in depth) the reasons behind culturally enforcing Memad to HQ: Cardassia Prime instead of [Car].

It's not that we didn't notice a Dominion Cardassia Prime. We just figured that no one would want to put a dead draw in their deck for the slight chance that they could get such a card earlier. Nor did our testers, which include some other very experienced players. And the ruckus is over a (now) unique event, which further poisons the math in my mind. Maybe I'm just a little less reactive, but the possibility hasn't panicked me yet. -richard

He came from a cycle of cards made a long time ago that all did something similar. They all referenced the HQ by name because there wasn't (and I believe still isn't), a good way to reference an headquarter's affiliation. Otherwise, what Richard said. -crp
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#600096
abargar7510 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:59 pm Please explain (in depth) the reasons behind culturally enforcing Memad to HQ: Cardassia Prime instead of [Car].
Oh! Oh! I think I know that one!

"We'll just fuck around with whatever, and if we make a whoopsie doopsie, Balance will come in and clean up our mess for us!"

:shifty:

This was unkind of you. -crp
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#600376
I would like to thank Richard for letting this old dinosaur come in and yell at clouds and kids to get off his lawn. And to Michael for being patient with me while I messed up all the cards he originally designed. :cheersL: :cheersR:

Y'all are both gentlemen. Thank you!

-crp
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#600379
Armus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:06 pm
abargar7510 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:59 pm Please explain (in depth) the reasons behind culturally enforcing Memad to HQ: Cardassia Prime instead of [Car].
Oh! Oh! I think I know that one!

"We'll just fuck around with whatever, and if we make a whoopsie doopsie, Balance will come in and clean up our mess for us!"

:shifty:

This was unkind of you. -crp
It's also not wrong.

The relevant forum posts aren't publicly available, but the current leadership is on the record that this is the approach.

Take the risks, and if you overshoot, we'll fix it. I'm pretty sure the design staff more or less supports that position, and several of them HAVE said so publicly.

On the other hand the balance team has had a Revolving Door of leads. I can't imagine why, since the job consists mostly of cleaning up Design's messes.

But my opinion doesn't matter, and this is a design question thread, so here's a question to keep it on topic:

*Was* the Design philosophy for this set the same as it was stated to me in All Our Yesterdays? Or was a different approach taken? If a different approach was taken, what was it, and why did the direction change from previous design philosophy?
User avatar
Director of Operations
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#600382
abargar7510 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:59 pm Please explain (in depth) the reasons behind culturally enforcing Memad to HQ: Cardassia Prime instead of [Car].

It's not that we didn't notice a Dominion Cardassia Prime. We just figured that no one would want to put a dead draw in their deck for the slight chance that they could get such a card earlier. Nor did our testers, which include some other very experienced players. And the ruckus is over a (now) unique event, which further poisons the math in my mind. Maybe I'm just a little less reactive, but the possibility hasn't panicked me yet. -richard

He came from a cycle of cards made a long time ago that all did something similar. They all referenced the HQ by name because there wasn't (and I believe still isn't), a good way to reference an headquarter's affiliation. Otherwise, what Richard said. -crp
Dead draws can be a feature, not a bug, in Subjugated Planet decks. Every time you play personnel of a species you don't own, both players get to draw a card. So you start playing personnel, start drawing, get out Audacious Assault early and start getting cost discounts, and just ditch the dead draws if you end a turn with more than 7 in hand. Meanwhile, your opponent is paying full cost and potentially being forced to ditch cards they can use.

If it were me, I would've required X number of [Car] missions in this case as a proxy for having the right Cardassia Prime out, rather than the HQ itself and just hoping that the Dominion wouldn't be able to abuse it. As a great man I used to work for likes to say, hope is not a strategy.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#600405
abargar7510 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:59 pm Please explain (in depth) the reasons behind culturally enforcing Memad to HQ: Cardassia Prime instead of [Car].

It's not that we didn't notice a Dominion Cardassia Prime. We just figured that no one would want to put a dead draw in their deck for the slight chance that they could get such a card earlier. Nor did our testers, which include some other very experienced players. And the ruckus is over a (now) unique event, which further poisons the math in my mind. Maybe I'm just a little less reactive, but the possibility hasn't panicked me yet. -richard

He came from a cycle of cards made a long time ago that all did something similar. They all referenced the HQ by name because there wasn't (and I believe still isn't), a good way to reference an headquarter's affiliation. Otherwise, what Richard said. -crp
bold to highlight the area I'm responding to.

Things like that worry me occasionally, because it feels like the design team are still stuck following Decipher language even if it's very outdated.

All the [H] missions already state on the bottom who they are the HQ for, it shouldn't be a huge issue to errata them to say " [Dom] Headquarters" instead of "Dominion Headquarters" and then be able to reference that in a card by saying " [Car] [H] " or " [Car] [H] Cardassian Prime" if needed. It feels like it would improve templating and open up design space.

(Of course there is one HQ that would be a issue, because of the design decision to not give [KCA] any unique icon in this game...)
 
By vlasopes
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
2E Czech National Champion 2011
#600511
Firstly, I wonder what was the reasonig behind making new Spock without leadership and / or keyword: Commander: USS Enterprise A. During Kirk's absence (Rura Penthe detention) he was the commader of the ship. And we have many examples when somebody was an acting commander of a ship and his card version reflects that (Enterprise D bridge crew is a good example), not to mention that after today we still do not have a [TOS] commander of the ship (only Sybok). And Khaaaaan. 8)

2E has always done “snapshot” versions of characters. This is the Spock from the briefing volunteering the Enterprise crew for the mission. He’s not in command yet. We’ll get to Kirk, I’m sure.

Secondly, his skill set is average imho. When I build a [TOS] deck, these skills are usually covered by other personnel. What makes him interesting are his high attributes, but not skills. Was there at any time a different skill set?

He was Kirk until late in the design process. After he changed to Spock, the skills didn’t change. It is a unique skill set for Spock and only the second that’s an Officer, which can be helpful to TOS, but I can see what you mean. I don’t know how different we could have made them though. Diplomacy and Science are a must for the story and Spock. The Officer reflects that he’s being extra dutiful at the moment. He probably needs another technical skill or two to fully be Spock, so there’s some room to play there, but those also feel right to me. The focus was more on the ability.

Lastly, being able to download a ship is always a great ability. There are very few incentives to run the [TOS] Enterprise A so far. What was the intention of making this version without the rest of the cards that could be labbeled as a team-oriented?

That’s a great question. When we look at the ship, it gives TOS players the ability to expand into a mission selection that they normally couldn’t. But in practice, that requires having that particular ship out early, so you don’t have any dead missions. Otherwise, it limits the deck to missions with both the [Fed] and the [Kli] icons, which TOS can already do. We thought that one thing that deck could use to jumpstart it would be a more reliable way to get the ship. Then, the mission selection could truly hit its potential. Archanis Dispute, Collect Sample, Khitomer Investigation, Kuiper Belt, Sector 21396, and Sector 3641 all strike me as missions that fall under TOS’s classic skill set that they couldn’t normally do without help. Not to mention, TOS has always had battle possibilities with cheap ships, so Delta Pavonis isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. And that’s before you start looking into missions with alternate skill sets, like a bunch that require Treachery. Bring along some conspirators and make a day of it.

So, let’s just say Spock is step one. This is a rainbow set after all, but I’m certainly interested in seeing more development. -richard

I just booked my flight for Thursday afternoon a[…]

HumQ: There's Always Tomorrow

It's Wednesday! We're more than halfway through th[…]

I feel I would be remiss as DoOP if I did not po[…]

Alter History is missing the Characteristics: As[…]