[edgeofhearing]

Okay, so, the Varria (Varria III and Varria Corona) missions are Controversial. Let's talk about them.

Within the context of just Worlds Day Two, even in the hands of MVB, fueled by a million counters and copies of Carolyn Palamas, they couldn't quite deliver the title. This isn't the first time MVB has engaged in Shenanigans with Palamas (see also exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4); those decks bought errata to Goval, perhaps it's Palamas's turn?

On Day One, they were in two decks that went 1W/2L and 3W/2L, and they did not appear in any WCT decks.

On a win-rate basis, the Varrias don't seem that bad - even outside of Worlds, across the 20 tournament decks that the Varrias have been a part of, only four have won the events they were in. But I'm also seeing concerns about them outside of Worlds, so I want to know: is there something about them that win-rate isn't capturing?

Are they too polarizing - some decks they walk over, others they fail against? IMO, some polarization is good, but too much isn't healthy.

Does it suck that you just can't play any verbs against Varria decks thanks to Reprimand? I think the power of Reprimand is such that, if the Varria missions were split with one at 45 and the other at 55, they would probably see less than half the play they do now.

I haven't had a chance to play against them outside of test and casual games (Ted tested this tournament deck on me before the event), so my experience with them is fairly limited (and, before you ask, I was not the mystery designer). So tell me: what's frustrating about Varria? (The missions, not the personnel.)

[Danny]

What's frustrating about Varria?

• Having them be in the same Region and having them have the same Span means that, using a 2 Span HQ with an 8 Range ship, one can fly from the HQ to the planet, then on to the space mission.
  • Optimally played from a 1 Span HQ, one can fly between all three locations (HQ, planet, space) visiting one twice.
• 4 skills and attribute>38 is a 40 point mission.
• The number of personnel required to 'dual' attempt is a feature, not a bug, for once the 6 personnel have completed the space mission (and it's usually 6, thanks to the Ent-J/Centaur), they can then join the 6 people that were milling on the planet mission with no restrictions.
• Even if the player falls behind a little setting things up (for the sake of argument, getting twelve personnel and a ship out), being two 50 point missions means that one needs only complete two missions (with 40 point requirements) FTW, meaning that the time lost at the game's start setting up is quickly made up for once the first mission's complete.

I think for me, if any single factor were tweaked (e.g., both became Span 3; both became 40 points; had the requirements raised to near 50 point levels; or both became 45 pointers with 45 point requirements) they'd be less contentious, but remain interesting.

[Johannes Mette]

Please let us observe this for a while first. I would at most take their simplest protection Reprimand and then see what happens after six months. And they also have their weaknesses. Maybe this can lead to more interactive cards in decks. If you look at some 2E videos, it's a lot of boring stuff. Solitaire side by side.

I'm still wincing about that ship T'Met, Timely Reinforcement
... Pivotal Destiny

[abargar7510]

What's frustrating about Varria?

• Having them be in the same Region and having them have the same Span means that, using a 2 Span HQ with an 8 Range ship, one can fly from the HQ to the planet, then on to the space mission.
  • Optimally played from a 1 Span HQ, one can fly between all three locations (HQ, planet, space) visiting one twice.
• 4 skills and attribute>38 is a 40 point mission.
• The number of personnel required to 'dual' attempt is a feature, not a bug, for once the 6 personnel have completed the space mission (and it's usually 6, thanks to the Ent-J/Centaur), they can then join the 6 people that were milling on the planet mission with no restrictions.
• Even if the player falls behind a little setting things up (for the sake of argument, getting twelve personnel and a ship out), being two 50 point missions means that one needs only complete two missions (with 40 point requirements) FTW, meaning that the time lost at the game's start setting up is quickly made up for once the first mission's complete.

I think for me, if any single factor were tweaked (e.g., both became Span 3; both became 40 points; had the requirements raised to near 50 point levels; or both became 45 pointers with 45 point requirements) they'd be less contentious, but remain interesting.

And then all of these factors together make deckbuilding less interesting, as it removes a lot of the reasons to use any other 50 point missions. I have avoided the Varria missions, not only because I haven't played much since they came out, but also because I find any cards that are strictly better than others uninteresting. But I'm rethinking that - I used the other 50 point misssions in the Vidiian release tournament, Ted saw how well that build did against his, and then went and built the Varria deck, and it did well in his regional. I kinda want to see how well mine would do with the "optimal" (but boring and less flavorful) mission selection now!

[abargar7510]

But also, Design (whoever that was - and I'll reiterate that in my opinion, allowing uncredited designers isn't a good policy) has backed themselves into a corner on this one, haven't they?

Because if these aren't 50 point missions, then you lose access to Reprimand, and without Reprimand, either of the missions can be easily hit with Biogenic Weapon.

[Johannes Mette]

Remove the simple prevention if you want to and then see what happens. But that's something different than always using the same decks... If necessary, write on the missions that you can't get bonus points.

[TyKajada]

,

I would wait and see if players are able to tech against this. I imagine that Assimilation and Infiltration works really well against a Varria deck.
Biogenic Weapon has already been mentioned. Yes, that can be nullified with Reprimand but that can in return be canceled with Operational Necessity.

If you wanna change something do this:
Since we still need 2e Taitt, design her to score 5 points when solving Varria missions, remove 5 points from the missions themselves.

[GooeyChewie]

I think it is worth putting the missions on the watch list. But I also agree with TyKajada that we should give time for the meta to react. We shouldn’t reflexively hammer new strategies just because they appear competitive.

As for Biogenic Weapon, if it turns out that we do need to nerf these missions, I’m okay with them losing Reprimand and having Biogenic Weapon as a weakness. That card exists to counter scripted game plans, and Varria is the epitome of a scripted game plan.

[Armus]

What's frustrating about Varria?

• Having them be in the same Region and having them have the same Span means that, using a 2 Span HQ with an 8 Range ship, one can fly from the HQ to the planet, then on to the space mission.
  • Optimally played from a 1 Span HQ, one can fly between all three locations (HQ, planet, space) visiting one twice.
• 4 skills and attribute>38 is a 40 point mission.
• The number of personnel required to 'dual' attempt is a feature, not a bug, for once the 6 personnel have completed the space mission (and it's usually 6, thanks to the Ent-J/Centaur), they can then join the 6 people that were milling on the planet mission with no restrictions.
• Even if the player falls behind a little setting things up (for the sake of argument, getting twelve personnel and a ship out), being two 50 point missions means that one needs only complete two missions (with 40 point requirements) FTW, meaning that the time lost at the game's start setting up is quickly made up for once the first mission's complete.

I think for me, if any single factor were tweaked (e.g., both became Span 3; both became 40 points; had the requirements raised to near 50 point levels; or both became 45 pointers with 45 point requirements) they'd be less contentious, but remain interesting.

I know I bitch a lot, but I gotta say, it's so refreshing to see a Designer actually articulate the design issues in a way that shows he HAS learned from mistakes of the past (and was apparently trying to avoid repeating them when designing this set)

The Department of Second Edition should give this guy more nerd work if he wants it.

(Apologies, Danny, if this endorsement causes any guilt by association... I may have just put the kiss of death on your nerd career! )

[Fritzinger]

Those 6 personnel at planet Varria are sitting ducks for all sorts of things. Seems like a good time for Bajorans to bash some spoonheads.

[Danny]

Those 6 personnel at planet Varria are sitting ducks for all sorts of things. Seems like a good time for Bajorans to bash some spoonheads.

They've only got to be on it to initiate an attempt at the space attempt. Just run two ships and after the space mission's done, beam them up/fly them home?

[boromirofborg]

1 - insert my standard disclaimer that we do not have enough actual data to be able speak from a fact-based point of view. Do we think there's been actually even 100 games played/reported with them?

2 - requiring players to adjust there strategy, tactics, or dilemma piles isn't a bug, that can be a good thing.

3 - I get why it wouldn't work from a story perspective, but I wish that they required you to go [p] first, because we have dilemmas that punish that.

4 - (warning: made up numbers) The core issues is that I think they cheat slightly the basic interaction curve. If you assume that most decks do 3 missions, and will face an average of 5 dilemmas over the course of those missions, that's 15 dilemmas. If you do 2 missions and face 6 dilemmas at each, that's 20% less dilemmas. Because 2E was designed with dilemmas being the only guaranteed interaction between players, that can be bad. (Insert my standard complaint that Decipher designed 2E without the ability for spontaneous, unplanned interaction.)

So, if anything, missions should have a curve where the attributes on a higher point mission are not just linear from expected, but higher. so if 6 people are needed for a 35 point, 7 for a 40, 8 for a 45, and 9 for a 50 point?

Varria winks at that by requiring 6 people on the [p], so you need a virtual 12 people, but you're only getting 6ish people worth of dilemmas when you attempt.

5 - so what would I change?

5.1 - Increase attributes, easy fix. Make it where you need 7/7 at minimum?

5.2 - Encourage other interactions? Since both parts in the episode revolved around physical conflicts, let the opponent download a battle event?

5.3 - stretch the time artificially. Have V[S] stop the ship when completed so they can't just come attempt V[P] same turn?

5.4 - Have text where when you attempt, if other half not complete, opponent returns a dilemma?

[eberlems]

Varria only needs 3 at space to staff a ship and kes to void all dilemmas.

[nobthehobbit]

Here's an off-the-wall idea: what if some missions used similar text to dilemmas like He Wasn't Nice?

What if, for instance, the Varria missions were each worth 35 points (turning off not only Reprimand but also U.S.S. Enterprise-J) but had text saying "When you solve this mission, score 15 points"?

[boromirofborg]

Here's an off-the-wall idea: what if some missions used similar text to dilemmas like He Wasn't Nice?

What if, for instance, the Varria missions were each worth 35 points (turning off not only Reprimand but also U.S.S. Enterprise-J) but had text saying "When you solve this mission, score 15 points"?

That may be the cleanest fix, and would help. I dislike it aesthetically, because it takes away the clean message to players of "50+50=win".

If E-J and Reprimand are an issue, then any new 50-point mission will continue to be dangerous.