This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
  • 111 posts
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#146445
To play 1E, there is always Lackey which does not even require anyone to actually buy cards, so you can build decks as desired.
To be honest: I never thought of putting in deck lists or anything because I did not believe it amounted to anything useful except that people could see what people played/decks were used.
As someone who has worked in the field of professional analysis for some time a while ago, I can say that such data is most valuable - even though it takes a lot of time to create useful information out of such raw data.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#146484
Smiley wrote: So why fuzz about a few overpowered card that you've seen in every thinkable deck out there already and not all those that never see play? Are you so in need of a win that you need unbalanced cards to do so?
I think you miss the point of many people's objections about the ban list.

Putting aside that, traditionally, 1E doesn't have a ban list and it was something hard to take at first.

I can only tell you from the perspective of my local group.

We don't want the cards unbanned because we want to play overpowered cards. We dont want a ban list mainly because: 1) We don't want to have to sit there and keep referring to a list to make sure that we aren't making a "banned deck". 2) We want to have the creative freedom to go through our cards and pull any card out and use it. 3) We believe that the top tier Tournaments deserve to have the maximum number of cards available to it in order to ensure that every deck design could theoretically be used for such events. 4)Furthermore, new players who have a lack of cards, you are sometimes making their card selection smaller by enforcing a ban list.
5) Lastly: The ban list seems to change, without warning. There also has not been a sufficient explanations as to why the cards are banned. I congratulate you Smiley for understanding why those cards need to be banned, but I fail to see why over half the cards on the ban list are on there.

We might be the minority of people who believe this, but this is what we believe: That in order to select cards for a ban list there should be a criteria. There should be data backing up that criteria. If a card doesn't fit that criteria, then why is it banned to begin with? All we are asking for is the CC to be able to give us the information to understand their rationale behind the banning of cards which I keep seeing people struggle to understand that are banned.

Again: We have no problem with OTF. We want to make sure that every card on the ban list is a must need.


-------------------

I am not proposing a split among the 1E community nor anything in the like. However I would like to see some form of compromise that there is more of an open atmosphere of sharing what is going on with 1E and how the Committee makes their decisions from the ban list to the decision to make a particular virtual set.

Involving the player base in the game like this gives us a better understanding of the hard work involved and makes us feel closer as a community.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#146504
It's probably been a while since we've said this, so this is a good time.

The long-term goal is to have a zero ban list. The ban list's intention is to get cards out of circulation quickly (so that they're not screwing up tournaments) while we figure out a proper errata. Then the errata is published, players get a new virtual card, and it's removed from the list.

The original ban list was compiled before my time, so I can't speak to how the decisions were made. And since Decipher had let things lie fallow, we ended up with a fairly big list.

Looking back, I do see we (OK, I) managed to post the last additions to the errata without detailed notes - and for that I apologize. If memory serves, the list was being argued and adjusted right up until the deadline. Allow me to fill in a few blanks now.

(I'm writing this from work, so I don't have my notes and may get a few details wrong. Apologies in advance)

In general: we looked at the decks at Regionals, and watched for cards that were shaping up to be problems. This is balanced by a desire to not micro-manage the meta. (Put another way, just because it's winning isn't a reason to ban it). The RC debated, Design put in their opinion, and we thrashed out the smallest list that we could agree with.

Beyond the Subatomic - Jeremy's Risa Regional deck used 69 copies of this card to fuel his engine. As a general rule, if you're playing double-digits of a card we start to get concerned. It doesn't help if your engine is slow and labor intensive, because no-one wants to watch you fiddle with your deck for 75 minutes.

Jem'Hadar Shrouding - I call this the "next best effect": when you pull out the best card in any given category, players naturally look for the 2nd place card. Often, that card was previously seldom played (because there was a better version), but now it's the top dog, and sometimes it was too good as well. Shrouding is the "next best" Rogue Borg - you can pop a single Jemmie off on your opponent's turn and stop an away team (while getting a draw engine on the side). We're pretty sensitive to cards that let you battle your opponent on their turn - the guaranteed stop is far more powerful than the actual battle.

Smooth as an Android's Bottom - Jeremy's deck again: 25 copies of this one as part of the big ugly engine. It wasn't 100% clear where the lynchpin of that engine was, so we tagged two cards to make sure it wouldn't come back from the dead.

Supernova - I don't have the decklist handy, but we started getting reports of decks running double Tox, double Supernova. Wiping out a mission (and quite possibly your facilities) is a crazy powerful ability, and all the other methods of doing it have been banned already (Black Hole, Sheliak). You can argue that the cost of solving a mission is balance enough (and some days I'd agree with you), but it was decided to err on the side of caution.

Zefram Cochrane's Telescope - the next best Scan. Again, I don't have the deck list handy, but folks were solving their planet, grabbing a 'scope, then sailing through their space mission for the win. Turns out getting a free peek at a mission is worth even more than an artifact slot.

You'll notice that there's not a lot of "hard data" above. That's largely because there isn't any hard data to be had - we have deck lists (if players/TDs entered them - and that's nowhere near 100%), and we have tournament reports/forum posts/PMs. I would be thrilled to have the level of data that Magic has (where they can tell you exactly what percentage of decks have Jace in it, and what it's win percentage is). Mael does fantastic work in helping us mine the data we have, but in the end, we still make some judgement calls.

To help balance that we make sure to have multiple voices involved, and to keep as wide a diversity of opinions as possible. That keeps any single person or regional meta from unduly affecting the list. It's imperfect, but we do our best.
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#146555
I'm pretty sure I saw Shrouding and Supernova explain in some threads a while back. But there wasn't an official heading. Maybe we need a Format Blog or something? Also, perhaps a "musings from they playtest group" blog would be helpful? Some anecdotal info from a head tester could be relayed to the community for comment? A little like the 1ERL?

I think part of the issue at hand is that there isn't the volume of data, volunteers, etc to provide detailed explanations of every action the CC takes - so many things up being "informed judgement calls". And they are made by people heavily involved in the game so I, personally, am inclined to yield to their expertise. Be honest, would you rather have me or Jeremy Commandeur commenting on high level 1E play? :wink:

So when people come to the boards and 'demand'* data and evidence it seems to put the other people on the defensive - and their posts and responses reflect this. I think a lot of people have spoken hastily on both sides of the argument and I commend Charlie for a fairly even handed intervention.

My :twocents: ...

* I can see how some people would see posts as demanding or aggressive. I am not applying the label personally or accusing anyone.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#146570
Iron Prime wrote: Be honest, would you rather have me or Jeremy Commandeur commenting on high level 1E play? :wink:
Honestly? Yes. I want to hear from Jeremy, you, everyone. A lot of groups have their own quirks in the meta, and any one region doesn't have the full picture. The more opinions and observations, the better.

Just realized I haven't put this offer out in a while - people are always welcome to post their ideas here or in PMs to me directly (or to 1ERL). While I don't always have time to reply to everyone (I do try, but my wife does demand some of my time), I do read everything. (I'm a bit compulsive that way.) (And overuse parenthesis.)

(Sorry.)
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#146619
A card should be banned because it has been proven to be abusive and game destroying. If a card hasn't met that criteria it shouldn't be banned.

A card shouldn't be banned because it was used in the double digits for a deck or because a worried feeling over a card.

The same should be applied to any card that is being considered for errata'd. Unless it breaks the game, it shouldn't be fixed.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#146622
I want to make something perfectly clear.

Deck lists and tournament reports are invaluable. We can mine incredible amounts of data from them. The more we have, the better that data is.

If you and your play group want to influence our decision making process, the number one thing you can do is put in complete and accurate deck lists for all your events, and write tournament reports.

-crp
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#146625
MidnightLich wrote:I want to make something perfectly clear.

Deck lists and tournament reports are invaluable. We can mine incredible amounts of data from them. The more we have, the better that data is.

If you and your play group want to influence our decision making process, the number one thing you can do is put in complete and accurate deck lists for all your events, and write tournament reports.

-crp
I fail to see how deck lists should ever influence a ban list. A banned card, in all games, is a card that breaks the game. That a card that has been banned created a situation in a constructed deck that made it that it was near-invulnerable to losing.

To use deck building data to determine a ban list doesn't seem to be the same. Rather, using a specialized survey to all playing groups and soliciting the observations of tournament directors of any suspicious cards seems to be a far better way to see if any card is deserving of being looked at more closely and later banned.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#146628
Iron Prime wrote:I'm pretty sure I saw Shrouding and Supernova explain in some threads a while back. But there wasn't an official heading. Maybe we need a Format Blog or something? Also, perhaps a "musings from they playtest group" blog would be helpful? Some anecdotal info from a head tester could be relayed to the community for comment? A little like the 1ERL?

I think part of the issue at hand is that there isn't the volume of data, volunteers, etc to provide detailed explanations of every action the CC takes - so many things up being "informed judgement calls". And they are made by people heavily involved in the game so I, personally, am inclined to yield to their expertise. Be honest, would you rather have me or Jeremy Commandeur commenting on high level 1E play? :wink:

So when people come to the boards and 'demand'* data and evidence it seems to put the other people on the defensive - and their posts and responses reflect this. I think a lot of people have spoken hastily on both sides of the argument and I commend Charlie for a fairly even handed intervention.

My :twocents: ...

* I can see how some people would see posts as demanding or aggressive. I am not applying the label personally or accusing anyone.
Iron Prime, I agree with you. I don't think I was being demanding but then again people could of made that assumption.

However, if the issue is that the CC is making "informed judgement calls", I think that the playing base as a whole should be asked if we should be relying on judgement calls for establishing a ban list that affects the entire game. Currently those judgement calls put cards on the ban list and might lead them to be errata'd, when they aren't as horrid as people might think and undeserving of being changed from the way Decipher printed them.

I do not believe it is being insulting or unreasonable to request that, perhaps, if this is truly to be the official policy - to use "informed judgement" then we should allow the players as a whole to determine if that is good enough for the establishment of a card on the ban list.

We have done those polls before to see if things should be done. Since this is the type of thing that effects all players due to the very nature of the ban list, then why can't we have the entire player body give their comments to this?
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#146635
Smiley wrote:Ok. I'm probably one of the few that don't need an explanation or really think that the ban list is a problem.
Considering you have been proposing adding card after card to the ban list since I started reading this forum more than 2 1/2 years ago, that statement really isn't a surprise.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#146636
DarkSabre wrote:A card should be banned because it has been proven to be abusive and game destroying. If a card hasn't met that criteria it shouldn't be banned.

A card shouldn't be banned because it was used in the double digits for a deck or because a worried feeling over a card.

The same should be applied to any card that is being considered for errata'd. Unless it breaks the game, it shouldn't be fixed.
Agreed.

It seems that cards used to be "banned" because their gametext permitted the ability to create lockout decks, or neverending draw/play loops (i.e. Jeremy's Harad Sar deck). Now it seems as though people wish to ban cards because they either don't own any, or they don't plan to buy any, or that they don't like the way a cards looks (all reasons which different people have given for wanting 2EBC cards banned en masse).

Lately it feels as though an increasing number of community members are "ban-happy". :(
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#146639
DarkSabre wrote:
MidnightLich wrote:I want to make something perfectly clear.

Deck lists and tournament reports are invaluable. We can mine incredible amounts of data from them. The more we have, the better that data is.

If you and your play group want to influence our decision making process, the number one thing you can do is put in complete and accurate deck lists for all your events, and write tournament reports.

-crp
I fail to see how deck lists should ever influence a ban list. A banned card, in all games, is a card that breaks the game. That a card that has been banned created a situation in a constructed deck that made it that it was near-invulnerable to losing.

To use deck building data to determine a ban list doesn't seem to be the same. Rather, using a specialized survey to all playing groups and soliciting the observations of tournament directors of any suspicious cards seems to be a far better way to see if any card is deserving of being looked at more closely and later banned.
Statistically speaking, using deck building data to justify additions to the ban list is a method of using faulty data to support predetermined beliefs for which there does not exist "hard facts".

From Allen.....
AllenGould wrote: You'll notice that there's not a lot of "hard data" above. That's largely because there isn't any hard data to be had - we have deck lists (if players/TDs entered them - and that's nowhere near 100%), and we have tournament reports/forum posts/PMs.
AllenGould wrote: ....in the end, we still make some judgement calls.
It is disingenuous for those who choose to chastise people for not providing the necessary "data" in the form of deck lists, when the deck lists themselves do not provide the "hard data" needed to make decisions on what should be added to the ban list.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#146695
How can we fix 1E? For starters lets add in a few cards that should be on the ban list.Q Flash, maH nlv (Should have never been made, a set back in 1E), The Kazon Collective, The Vidiian Sodality, There's a few for start.

Q Flash i say because played against it takes up LOT of time. Now that it's 75 minutes per round we should find ways to get it back to 60 min per round.

I had no plans to ever play 1E again til Jeremy introduced Revised. I play Revised lot more than OTF.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#147731
Re: Reasons for banning:

All Threes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

This card is, by far, the most powerful drawing interrupt in the game. Even with the opponent's choice, this card is a basically a 2-for-1, and with your choice, it improves to roughly 3.5 or 4-for-1. For free, no strings attached. It's like Kivas Fajo, but better, on an interrupt.

Ancestral Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

This card has been determined to be part of the asymmetry between the [1E-DQ] and the [AQ], and in order to curb the power of the [1E-DQ], Ancestral Vision has been banned. I should point out that that it should be clear that the effect is not deemed too powerful since there is an Alpha Quadrant counterpart, but rather, who it benefits.

Anti-time Anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

This card is affected by a [Ref] card. Simply put if a card is affected significantly by a [Ref] card, it should be banned in order to remove the necessity of playing with [Ref] cards.

Baryon Buildup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

I have absolutely no idea why this card is on the list. None whatsoever. It is not that I simply disagree why this card is here, I really have no baffling clue why it ever hit the list. I've never played the card (even in sealed deck) and have never considered it.

Beware of Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective

This card has two problematic functions. First, it allowed [Q]-dilemmas to seed as normal dilemmas allowing cards like Pla-net to self-seed (and in this case). Second, it effectively enables players to use any wall has a super filter as well- allowing 2 seed cards play the role of 5 or 6.

Beyond the Subatomic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

This card acts as a wild card by allowing players to get cards of the given card type that they need. It has proven more problematic is two ways: by getting cards into the discard pile or by fueling Smooth as an Android's Bottom.

Black Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doorway

[Ref] card

Borg Ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilemma

[Ref] card

Brain Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Clone Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incident

To be honest, I do not understand why this card is on the list. However, given that unique personnel are designed so that only one of them will be in play at a time, some people believe that Clone Machine is abusive in giving players access to use an ability more often than they should.

Colony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Facility

[Ref] card

Cyrus Redblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personnel – Non-Aligned

Some people believe that the additional kill induced by Cyrus Redblock is too strong.

Data, Keep Dealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

An engine allowing for substantial recurring. Considering that it is 0-for-1 in terms of card draws (as opposed to Palor Toff, etc.), its power is questionable.

Delta Quadrant Spatial Scission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incident

[1E-DQ] Balance

Destroy Radioactive Garbage Scow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Devidian Door . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doorway

[Ref] card

Distortion of Space/Time Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Dixon Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personnel – Non-Aligned

Many players believe that the ability to meet the requirements of a mission is too strong.

End Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Full Planet Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Genetronic Replicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

[Ref] card

Going To The Top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Holoprogram: Fortress of Doom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incident

This card generates one free personnel each turn. Further, it allows a player to lockout a player of a mission as many players do not stock [Holo] personnel in their decks.

Horgah’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Artifact

[Ref] card

Jack (Maladjusted Misfit) (2E) . . . . . . Personnel – Federation

A cloneable, reuseable, unstopable, Telepathic Alien Kipnappers.

Jem’Hadar Shrouding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incident

This card allows for "rogue borg" type pinging that Allen described.

Klim Dokachin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

A weaker version of Static Warp Bubble. Instead of making a player discard, it roughly equivalently forces a player to skip a draw.

Launch Portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doorway

[Ref] card

Memory Wipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

[Ref] card for one function. It was reported that the second function was used to lock players out of their missions. I find this hard to believe.

Organ Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective

[DQ] balance. I should point out that Crell Moset does roughly the same thing for [Car]

Palor Toff – Alien Trader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

This card has proven too strong as it acts as a wild card for any card in your discard pile.

Q’s Planet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q Mission

[Ref] card

Qol (Lascivious Lackey) (2E) . . . . . . . . . . .Personnel – Ferengi

A card that allows players to remove dilemmas from beneath their own missions. For example see:
http://math.ucsd.edu/~fkenter/MyDilemma ... emmas.html

Quantum Incursions (2E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

This card was banned in Standard because it proved to be too powerful in allowing the Borg to draw a bunch of cards and rig their probes. That banned effectively carried over. I am not convinced of its power.

Raise The Stakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

Banned outright.

vReconnaissance Drone (2E) . . . . . . . . . . . .Personnel – Borg

It has been long standing that the Borg, in 1e, had no way of downloading non-Drones, and this card broke that trend. It also allows for probe-rigging.

Red Alert! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

[Ref] card

Ressikan Flute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Artifact

An artifact that has the potential to generate a very large number of points.

Revisionist History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

The problem card here is actually Temporal Shifting which allows players to discard massive amounts of cards from the opponent's hand. In order to stop players from consistently recurring Temporal Shift, Revisionist History was banned.

Revolving Door . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

Functionally banned with Space-Time Portal and Alternate Universe Door anyways.

Rogue Borg Mercenaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Scanner Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incident.

The "pollution" function was used to lock the opponent's personnel on planet missions for most of the game.

Senior Staff Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Shape-Shift Inhibitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

Many players simply find this card unfair and inhibiting.

Sherlock Holmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personnel – Non-Aligned

There is no mystery here.

Smooth as an Android’s Bottom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

Similar to All Threes, but weaker.

Spatial Rift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilemma

Players we using this in combination with 1 Tribble and The Clown: Bitter Medicine to make this dilemma hard to defeat. I personally never found this combination difficult to overcome, but other players did.

Standard Orbit (2E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

This card- unfairly dampens one of the key mechanics of the game: downloading. I'm not convinced it is worth playing at all (considering its cost), but it is certainly harsh it hits play.

Static Warp Bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

[Ref] card

Subspace Schism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupt

[Ref] card

Supernova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

Has the ability to destroy the opponent's only viable method of reporting in one (two cards)

Telepathic Alien Kidnappers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

[Ref] card

Terraforming Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Facility

This card is banned because some people did not like a card to have an intergame ability.

The Next Emanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Event

This card can cause players to be lockout by permanently removing key personnel.

The Sheliak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilemma

[Ref] card

The Weak Will Perish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilemma

Many players find this card too powerful in its ability to unrestrictively (except for one card) kill most of an away team.

Vash (Treasure Hunter) (2E) . . . . . . . Personnel – Non-Aligned

This card was used in the Haraad-Sar loop deck. It has the potential to draw 2 cards AND restock a card upon reporting. I am not too sure why it is still banned.

Vic Fontaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personnel – Non-Aligned

The ability to download "any card" has proven twice over to be extremely powerful.

Visit Cochrane Memorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective

[Ref] card

War Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incident

This card is a good play engine which helps the [1E-DQ] more than the [AQ]

Your Galaxy Is Impure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilemma

This dilemma can be used to lock players out of all of their missions by killing off key personnel before they can use their skills.

Zefram Cochrane’s Telescope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Artifact

A reuseable, uncounterable Scan.

Cards that in my opinion should be taken off the list, no problem:
Baryon Buildup
Cyrus Redblock
Dixon Hill
Memory Wipe
Quantum Singularities
Vash

Cards that should be added to the list:
Mirror Image
In The Zone
Regina Bartholomew
Temporal Wake
Hidden Fighter
User avatar
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#147747
Regina Bartholomew
Temporal Wake
Hidden Fighter
:thumbsup:

I'd add the Mahnlv+Antaak+2EBCKlingons+BloodOath-Issue to the list of things that need a fix quickly.
Mirror Image
In The Zone
Not sure about those.



The BtS-thingy gave me the (wrong and irrational) impression that some voices carry more weight than others. It was not hard to see that a ban of Palor Toff would never suffice to stop Hexany. There were various players expressing their concerns long before decklists of players emerged who actually owned 30-60 physical copies of BtS.
Online play via Lackey should be watched as well, where limits of that kind don't matter. My latest and most shocking Lackey experience was facing a 1100+ Mahnlv deck... :D
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]

Question for noob

Awesome. Thanks everyone for all the help!

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the[…]