Home of the third annual You Make The Card contest, where the community designs a card for an upcoming Virtual Expansion!

Which version of Harry Mudd should go to testers?

Option A: Get Out of Trouble
15
39%
Option B: The Easy Life
8
21%
Option C: Provider of Female Company
15
39%
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#183093
Which Harry is going to be your Harry?

Based on the results of the previous poll, we have three different options to present to you for the "Honest Businessman." For each of these examples, the title, subtitle, skills and lore were selected from previous votes; there will be a chance to change anything that seems out of place once we zero in on an ability.

So, let's zero in on an ability - here are your three options:
Option A: Get Out of Trouble wrote: [NA] 2 •Harcourt Fenton Mudd (Honest Businessman)
[Stf] [Pa] Human
•Acquisition •Anthropology •Treachery
Commander: Hard Bargain. Smuggler. Thief. When this personnel is about to be killed or placed in an opponent's brig, you may give command of your Commodity event to an opponent and stop this personnel to prevent that.
"…I look upon this work as a sacred public trust."
[INTEGRITY 4] [CUNNING 6] [STRENGTH 5]
This is the "slippery weasel" version - he'll slip you a little something (maybe some Felicium or some Tulaberry Wine... or something else in the future) to get himself out of trouble.
Option B: The Easy Life wrote: [NA] 2 •Harcourt Fenton Mudd (Honest Businessman)
[Stf] [Pa] Human
•Acquisition •Anthropology •Treachery
Commander: Hard Bargain. Smuggler. Thief. While this personnel is attempting a mission, reduce each attribute requirement of that mission and each dilemma he faces at that mission by the number of different Commodity events in play.
"…I look upon this work as a sacred public trust."
[INTEGRITY 4] [CUNNING 6] [STRENGTH 5]
This version of HFM gets a benefit the more trading he's done - the more he's sold you, the more "comfortable" he is and the easier his life is.
Option C: Provider of Female Company wrote: [NA] 2 •Harcourt Fenton Mudd (Honest Businessman)
[Stf] [Pa] Human
•Acquisition •Anthropology •Treachery
Commander: Hard Bargain. Smuggler. Thief. When a dilemma this personnel is facing is about to make a random selection, you may give command of your Commodity event to an opponent to choose an additional personnel to include in that selection.
"…I look upon this work as a sacred public trust."
[INTEGRITY 4] [CUNNING 6] [STRENGTH 5]
This final version of Mr. Mudd is the Ladykiller - the "pimp" - allowing his "ladies" to turn up in random selections. After all, most of the beautiful women from This Side of Paradise trigger off of being selected. Mr. Mudd will help that happen.

Each of these three options is still subject to testing and might change before the final version. And yeah, that means we might end up cutting a card we've just come back to you to make. But that's preferable to putting out a "bad" card or a "terrible" card, and we're going to stick to our strategy.

Still, we want your help to decide which version of Mr. Mudd goes to testers. Which one do you like? Is there one you hate but you're torn on the other two? Vote in the poll, and post your opinions!

Which Harry is your Harry? Let us know!

-crp
Second Edition Creative Manager
By Triumph (Jonathan)
 - Second Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Adventurer
#183096
Wow. Nicely done, Design peeps! At first glance, I love both A and B. I dislike C.

I think B is a very interesting concept - reducing attribute requirements isn't angle the game has often explored, and I'd like to see it put to flavorful use. I also think B is a more powerful card, for sure. But that makes me worry about game balance. Ironically, Harry might shoot himself in the foot if he lowers an attribute requirement enough that mission becomes eligible for an Insurrection. LOL. Harry Mudd, always stirring up trouble, eh?

I think I like A better. It's very flavorful - he'll offer you anything to get out of trouble - and most closely aligns with the way I first imagined a Harry Mudd card way back when WOTC3 started. It's also a decently useful contribution to rise of a Ferengi or Dominion Acquisition / Commodity deck. I will vote A as my favorite.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#183098
I'm not sure about B--if it's supposed to be stuff he's sold you, shouldn't it be "Commodity events you own but don't command"?

Anyway, I like C best.
User avatar
 
By RedDwarf (Unjustly Banned)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#183342
I have a huge problem with version B. Reducing the attribute requirements on a mission puts us on a slippery slope that ends up with someone whose name sounds like Michelle Ban Vreemen attempting and completing missions with one or two personnel.

Come on people, lets try to make a Will of the Collective card that can't be abused.
User avatar
 
By chompers (Steve Hartmann)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
1E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
2E Australian Continental Semi-Finalist 2019
#183343
Is there a difference (other than the obvious) of adding attributes or subtracting them? Or is this more of an issue of stacking attribute reduction (Mudd) and attribute gain (commodities) ??
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#183344
RedDwarf wrote:I have a huge problem with version B. Reducing the attribute requirements on a mission puts us on a slippery slope that ends up with someone whose name sounds like Michelle Ban Vreemen attempting and completing missions with one or two personnel.

Come on people, lets try to make a Will of the Collective card that can't be abused.
In case it wasn't explicitly clear, the winning choice still has to go through and survive testing.

-crp
User avatar
North American OP Coordinator
By The Ninja Scot (Michael Van Breemen)
 - North American OP Coordinator
 -  
1E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E World Champion 2023
Tribbles World Champion 2022
The Traveler
1E North American Continental Champion 2023
2E North American Continental Champion 2023
  Trek Masters 1E Champion 2024
1E American National Champion 2023
1E Canadian National Champion 2023
2E Canadian National Champion 2023
2E  National Runner-Up 2023
2E American National Second Runner-Up 2023
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
2E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
#183346
RedDwarf wrote:I have a huge problem with version B. Reducing the attribute requirements on a mission puts us on a slippery slope that ends up with someone whose name sounds like Michelle Ban Vreemen attempting and completing missions with one or two personnel.

Come on people, lets try to make a Will of the Collective card that can't be abused.
What about my counterpart in an another universe?

Michael,
knower of all his alternate universe counterparts
User avatar
 
By Lejo
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#183347
I picked A because I feel it best suits the flavor of the Mudd character in his first appearance. It is my impression that it is also the most likely to make it out of playtesting and into our hands.

My feelings on B echo those of Hoskins - another reduction tool, for missions that already have low requirements, is going to set the game back a few steps. I thought valiant efforts were being made to curb these types of decks; I would be disappointed to see such progress lost.

C has a mechanic that is interesting, but the idea of handing it to a non-aligned personnel while further enhancing the use of Shran or even the Bicycle Twins is unappealing.
User avatar
 
By Danny (Daniel Giddings)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
2E British National Runner-Up 2021
#183371
JoelBray wrote:C has a mechanic that is interesting, but the idea of handing it to a non-aligned personnel while further enhancing the use of Shran or even the Bicycle Twins is unappealing.
It was the thought of those three, along with M'Pella, that swung it for me to vote C. :thumbsup:
 
By Foreman
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#183383
Can we change C a bit?

"When a dilemma this personnel is facing makes a random selection, you may give command of your Commodity event to redo that selection."


The idea of including people who shouldn't be included in a random selection seems too dangerous to me, but redoing the random selection would give you another shot at hitting someone who was already able to be included.

As written I'm going for A.
Second Edition Creative Manager
By Triumph (Jonathan)
 - Second Edition Creative Manager
 -  
Adventurer
#183412
Faithful Reader wrote:
Foreman wrote:As written I'm going for A.
As written, would you play A?
Absolutely! He's not going to become part of uber-powerful possibly abusive combo like B or C might (note that I think the mechanics of B and C both interesting, I just think they need to be explored somewhere else). BUT the thing Commodity decks need is more ways to pass off their commodities (thereby gaining hefty attribute bonuses). Mudd Version A provides a new way to give an opponent commodities, which is certainly something those decks (both Dominion and Ferengi) need. A non-aligned way of giving commodities will be even more helpful to a Ferengi Commodity deck than to a Dominion one, since the Ferengi currently have fewer ways of giving commodities.

Will every deck starting stocking Mudd plus commodities to overcome dilemmas via the random selection girls? No. :P But Version A would be a solid card that helps a couple decktypes.
Thermokinetic explosion

It would hit because your total attibutes at the t[…]

1EFQ: Random Releases

I'll add one more thing. If this becomes more of[…]

Klingon Neelix ponderings

I am collecting data at this point. Someone aske[…]

Keep in mind that it doesn't stop anyone itself, m[…]