This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By bhosp
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#331988
Tyberius_Deangelo wrote:
Klauser wrote:I do give Decipher credit for responding to player criticism that battle was too formulaic before BoG’s release. However, like many of their game mechanics towards the end of their run, I found the implementation of Tactics unnecessarily complicated.

To be honest, unless I was specifically focused on a battle strategy OR I thought my opponent was doing the same, I found them an unnecessary game complication that ate up a seed slot.
Agreed. Battle became exciting with the introduction of BBD. I would say that BBD has been given quite a bit of attention with the last couple of sets, particularly Crossover with Expert Pilot and the 20th Anniversary set with Worf (20th Anniversary Collection)

It takes some set up but DS9 has a strong BBD combination with:

Expert Pilot + Jadzia Dax + U.S.S. Defiant + Worf (20th Anniversary Collection) + Evasive Maneuvers.

You could have a +8 defense for the Defiant on top of the bonus from Captain's Log and other card enhancements.
Yeah I seed Battle Bridge Door with nothing but Evasive Maneuvers in my Here By Invitation deck for this reason.

Office Exchange Program was an interesting thing to do with tactics as well.
User avatar
 
By bhosp
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#331989
LuthySloan wrote:[Tac] Tactic cards are fun, when both player use it.

Mostly no or only one side have it. I wonder if there where more cards providing / allowing Battle Bridge Side decks (such as Seeds this and get an extra BBSD)

What do you think, do you like more Battle Bridge Side decks used, or don´t you like the concept of [Tac] cards?
I'm still sad that BaH! isn't a core set for Block.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#332002
I guess BBSD needs more choice and effect.

e.g. - choose from 4 instead of 2 tactics
- having +7 Attack or Defense tactic cards, while [Down] without a casulty
- Downloads of BBSD and/or specific tactics on personnel and ships
- more specific effects, downloadable / choosable
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#529408
Klauser wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:21 am
Timo wrote:... I think battle in 1E could be completely over-hauled. That would be a big project, and there's still the question of how much battle we want in the game anyways (if you want to fight, there are plenty of other games).
Interesting that you brought that up. Many in our local group have said the same thing. One player came up with a concept for an alternate combat side deck (working name was "Combat Deck") that was fairly simple and didn't require any additional mechanics. I thought it had a lot of potential, and even drafted quite a few concept cards for testing. Unfortunately, work/real life interfered and we didn't have a chance to do much more than beta-test the concept.
Thinking of BBSD again i agree. ATM those who use it use Breen Weapons for +2/+2 each battle. No interaction going on, no mind game of, like: Is my opponent try to do evasive maneuvers or go to fire all weapons?

There are some [Tac] that are specified for one thing. but as long there is a +2/+2 noone uses them making [Tac] boring. also since most affiliation based tactis create the almost same bonus you simply put in all the same tactics just depending on your affiliation... there is big potential for a better system
Last edited by Mr.Sloan on Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#529524
Add me to the list that loves BBSD.

To me, it hits the right mix of, if both players have it you still usually know which way the combat will go, but adds just enough uncertainty and risk.

Without the BBSD, if my 9 Weapons/8 Shields ship attacks a 7/8 ship, then I know exactly what will happen. There is almost no risk.

With the BBSD, I will still likely win, but there's a chance I might take damage back, or I might miss completely. That's good, battle should have risk.

On the other hand, it also lets me target my damage better.


Honestly, I liked it enough when both players use it that I do believe it should be mandatory.


Personally, I'd like to see minor battles be a much bigger part of the game. Right now, battles ar almost always all or nothing. Your deck comes out swinging and destroys the opponent completely, or you try to avoid it.

More small battles, where ships do a dance regularly would provide more interaction, possibly taking away key personnel at needed ties, while also not making it where one player cannot play the game.

And it would be more true to most of Star Trek. There were many, many episodes where there were minor skirmishes, or ships being attacked during their missions. It was rare for it to be full scale war.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#529529
boromirofborg wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:43 pm
Honestly, I liked it enough when both players use it that I do believe it should be mandatory.
I agree with almost everything you said, and personally I use the BBSD more often than not in my decks for many of the reasons you mentioned.

But this... no. Just, no.

This is a complex game and the BBSD adds more complexity to it. Players shouldn't have to shoulder that burden if they don't want to. If they end up on the short side of a beatdown, maybe they reconsider, but it has to be the PLAYER'S decision, not the game's.

The more things you make mandatory, the less diversity you get, which isn't a good look for a game based on a show that had IDIC as a thing. Not everybody experiences Star Trek or STCCG the same way... we shouldn't force it.

:twocents:
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#529530
Mandatory is a bridge to far. I wouldn't mind a tournament where it was required though... :shifty:
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#529610
I mostly agree with you, and mandatory might be overstating it a bit. However, having used the word, let me defend the position a bit.

1. Interaction has always been one of the games weakest spots. I remember it being called 2-player solitaire when it came out, and in many ways speed solvers have only exerted this. BBSD improves this by making battles more interactive and less predetermined.

2. There are already many parts of the game that are mandatory. Some are a hard mandatory, some are soft. Hard mandatory is 6 missions. Soft mandatory would be things like dilemmas. If your deck runs 0 dilemmas, you're gonna have a bad time. If you have no personnel, you aren't going to solve missions, same for ships, etc.

3. Mandatory BBSD wouldn't mandate the contents of it, in that your diversity would be reflected in are you defense focused, etc. I would say *if* BBSD was mandatory, even the number of tactics in it would not be. So if you didn't want to run them, you could use 0 tactics. But making BBSD a free, auto include seed would remind you that you need a plan to interact with your opponents, wether that's hiding or fighting.


All that said, no, I probably wouldn't make this mandatory in this game. It's too late for that really. But if I was re-designing 1st edition from the beginning, then the BBSD, or something like it would be something that would be integral.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#529613
I would like to make a modest complexity-based argument in favor of a "mandatory BBSD".

In the current game, all players are always required to know:

(1) Rotation damage rules

(2) Tactics damage rules

(3) How the two interact (e.g. "when a [Self] card attacks and you're using a BBSD, but opponent has rotation damage, what happens again?")

You can't escape this. Even a player who is playing rotation damage in 100% of her decks is required to learn, retain, and routinely interact with Tactics and Tactics damage, with all the effects that come from that. There's nothing simple about this.

Standardizing the game on a single set of rules for damage would actually simplify the battle rules compared to what they are now -- even if the rules set we standardized on was the more complex of the two -- simply because we'd no longer need to track two separate damage systems and how those two systems interact.

Of course, the game has no precedent for mandatory cards. The more likely way to do this would be to simply remove rotation damage rules. The new rule would then be that, if you aren't playing a BBSD, you are treated like a player whose BBSD is empty, and you can't damage opponent's cards.

On the one hand, that would be a significant change.

On the other hand, you all know as well as I do that, if Decipher had the advantage of a printable, universally accessible BBSD, they would have done it in a heartbeat.

LuthySloan wrote:e.g. - choose from 4 instead of 2 tactics

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Decipher set us at 2 in BoG, but seemed to assume that we would use more cards like Attack Pattern Delta or stocked-in-deck Battle Bridge Door to make things more interesting -- neither of which panned out.

Also an easier (and less divisive) change than the one I just floated above. :)
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#529615
Could we go with a variant the Q's Tent: Civil War route? This BB variant doorway would seed for free but could only stock a certain number of tactics? Or only defensive tactics? Or any tactics but can only return fire?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#529620
Iron Prime wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:14 pm Could we go with a variant the Q's Tent: Civil War route? This BB variant doorway would seed for free but could only stock a certain number of tactics? Or only defensive tactics? Or any tactics but can only return fire?
I've always thought this concept would make an awesome card for a hypothetical Blaze of Glory II or BaH! II or some other battle-oriented expansion.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#529683
good idea. @Q's Tent: Civil War route

also a weakness of old battledeck is that you can only draw 2 and download only rarely (like with scimitar). WIth a simple card text change for altnatate BBSD versions, of say you may draw 5 and pick one AND once per game you may download one, that could create more choice.

Maybe even multiple BBSD for defensive solver ("twice per game may download a tacitic when attacked") or for combat oriented decks ("once per game may download a tactic when you initiated an attack - not including counter-attack") etc.

Also affiliation flavor could put in, like capture tactics for cardassians etc.
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[…]