This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.

What action, if any, should be taken with Quantum Incursions?

None; this is a fun and powerful card.
14
24%
It should be changed, but left in the game as-is until then.
15
26%
It should be banned until a change is ready.
23
40%
It's a terrible card and it should be banned entirely.
6
10%
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#447218
I suppose you could add some text after the QR code:
When overcome from beneath a mission, place on owner's side of table (Unique).
That way you can still seed two and have them at two missions, but you only have to crack it once to not have to deal with it again.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#447219
AllenGould wrote:
Se7enofMine wrote:
Armus wrote: Just so we're clear, there's nothing in the OTF rules (or any other rules) that prevents you from seeding two dead ends.

However if you do, you can only have one in play. So if you stop your opponent with a Dead End at mission A, and he hits a second Dead End at mission B, then the second Dead End is discarded without effect.
You are absolutely right.

From a gameplay perspective, you can have more than one seeded. From a practical standpoint, it sort of makes itself unique since you can't suffer from it twice.
I've seen it done in aggressive decks, where you just want them to stay put for a turn so you can come... "visit".
I prefer to call it Aggressive Negotiations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#447226
AllenGould wrote:From a gameplay perspective, you can have more than one seeded. From a practical standpoint, it sort of makes itself unique since you can't suffer from it twice.
I've seen it done in aggressive decks, where you just want them to stay put for a turn so you can come... "visit".
I did this once with Buried Alive, but it turned out it was just because I'm an idiot. Both dilemmas after were space and Justin got a free mission!
User avatar
First Edition Art Manager
By jjh (Johnny Holeva)
 - First Edition Art Manager
 -  
#447234
I love the card: Skills and icons should matter. Unscripted randomness is good for 1E. Attempting missions need to be difficult.

I wish there were more cards like it.
 
By Borg King
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#447295
Going into this thread I was of the mindset to errata the card but keep it in play for until fixed, but after reading through I have to agree to ban it until a solution is found or it really won't see a resolution.

I love and hate this card. I hate it when I encounter it but I love using it because I know it's going to either delay my opponent for at least two turns OR force them to abandon the mission which gives me more time to score a win.

My issue with the card is that it's weighted to heavily toward the Federation. They can walk through it a good chunk of the time without needing to plan for it as their skill density usually covers the required skills and/or icons needed to overcome it. Most other affiliations have to plan around QI when building a deck and that can limit your options somewhat sometimes.

There are decks I can/want to make without any [1E-AU] cards in them, but I can't because I always have to prepare to encounter this one card.

:borg:
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#447303
i think the frustration here is when dealing with walls if you have "done the time" (I.e. been stopped) it has always been true that the next time around you gather up what you need and pass the wall. Now the wall (or is it a fence?) keeps moving.

I don't mind the hard requirements but don't like that the dilemma is especially brutal to certain affiliations. I'd be for adding some more requirements that are brutal for 1 or 2, not so bad for most, maybe easy for one or two. Just spread the pain out more evenly. LOL

Also... this is kind of funny. found this poll from 2014 on the 2E board asking if QI could work in 1E. 63% said no.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=25243
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#447305
Takket wrote:i think the frustration here is when dealing with walls if you have "done the time" (I.e. been stopped) it has always been true that the next time around you gather up what you need and pass the wall. Now the wall (or is it a fence?) keeps moving.

I don't mind the hard requirements but don't like that the dilemma is especially brutal to certain affiliations. I'd be for adding some more requirements that are brutal for 1 or 2, not so bad for most, maybe easy for one or two. Just spread the pain out more evenly. LOL

Also... this is kind of funny. found this poll from 2014 on the 2E board asking if QI could work in 1E. 63% said no.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=25243
I have zero memory of this thread or this poll, but apparently I voted no.

At least I'm consistent... 8)
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#447309
DarkSabre wrote:
prylardurden wrote:Just add 8 or 10 new sets of requirements and make it something that you can't just say"I have x, y and z. Pass".
2 Astro & Stellar

Cunning greater than 50

A personnel present that won a battle against an opponent

Worf (because hell this dilemma like card is because of him)

Shuttle & two navigation

Lost a battle against the Borg via ship or personnel

I'm throwing crazy stuff out there but we can think of some nifty stuff to add in there if we have a large enough of a selection
I really like the "kooky" ideas thrown out here and think it is fitting for the card. Could be things like No [NA] present or [1E-DQ] ship...........
 
By Se7enofMine (ChadC)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#447314
Takket wrote:
DarkSabre wrote:
prylardurden wrote:Just add 8 or 10 new sets of requirements and make it something that you can't just say"I have x, y and z. Pass".
2 Astro & Stellar

Cunning greater than 50

A personnel present that won a battle against an opponent

Worf (because hell this dilemma like card is because of him)

Shuttle & two navigation

Lost a battle against the Borg via ship or personnel

I'm throwing crazy stuff out there but we can think of some nifty stuff to add in there if we have a large enough of a selection
I really like the "kooky" ideas thrown out here and think it is fitting for the card. Could be things like No [NA] present or [1E-DQ] ship...........
This is a good point.

My thought has always been to add requirements. I like the idea that some of those requirements can be NOT having something.

Good call.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#447327
jjh wrote:I love the card: Skills and icons should matter. Unscripted randomness is good for 1E. Attempting missions need to be difficult.

I wish there were more cards like it.
Im with Johnny.

And I still disagree that this card is hard to fix.

But at least Charlie listened to me about collecting data on it via the community. I think the community can WotC it to be just as good, if not better.

~D
User avatar
 
By bhosp
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#447649
Came in here thinking “change but leave in-game”, then read all the arguments about why it’s hard to fix, now my opinion is “ban entirely”.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#447772
I haven't voted, as haven't played 1E in many years so it wouldn't seem fair. But from my semi-outsider perspective, it seems to me that the better options for addressing it are:

1. Increase the number of options so the chance of any one option coming up is less, perhaps including some really unusual ones like Dark Sabre suggested, the sort of thing that you could pass by accident/good fortune/playing a fun theme deck.

2. Continue to have, what is it, six (?) options at one time, but have them drawn from a pool that changes every month or few months. So maybe this month one of the options is "Navigation and 2 Security," the next month that "dice roll" is " an Intelligence skill and 2 Diplomacy," the month after "have completed a different mission" etc. It would allow you to cycle in and out requirements that favour different decks/factions

3. Make them each "OR" requirements. So "Navigation and 2 Security OR Exobiology and 2 Physics." (Kind of taking a leaf out of 2E where most walls have two ways to get through them, specifically to make a lockout harder to happen.)

But that's just my take, and like I said my 1E knowledge is so spectacularly out of date I may be missing something obvious. I do hope the card stays in the game as it's such a very "Fajo" for the present day card and I love the randomness/trek sense combination.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#447774
MattgomeryScott wrote:2. Continue to have, what is it, six (?) options at one time, but have them drawn from a pool that changes every month or few months. So maybe this month one of the options is "Navigation and 2 Security," the next month that "dice roll" is " an Intelligence skill and 2 Diplomacy," the month after "have completed a different mission" etc. It would allow you to cycle in and out requirements that favour different decks/factions
I could see this option being a problem if for whatever reason the QR code option isn't available.

Then you have to trust that the TD has the correct option list and if he/she doesn't, then the whole tournament just got affected.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#447778
Boffo97 wrote:
MattgomeryScott wrote:2. Continue to have, what is it, six (?) options at one time, but have them drawn from a pool that changes every month or few months. So maybe this month one of the options is "Navigation and 2 Security," the next month that "dice roll" is " an Intelligence skill and 2 Diplomacy," the month after "have completed a different mission" etc. It would allow you to cycle in and out requirements that favour different decks/factions
I could see this option being a problem if for whatever reason the QR code option isn't available.

Then you have to trust that the TD has the correct option list and if he/she doesn't, then the whole tournament just got affected.
You do bring up some good points.

I would say with the QR code I believe there's already a contingency in the Glossary saying if the QR code doesn't work, you use another method and the list in the Glossary. So I would think that would still be the fall back position if it wasn't working.

And with the TD, isn't there always that case when it comes to making sure the TD has the correct Current Rulings and errata. I know when I TDed a tournament many years ago I took it to be expected that I have the most up to date information. So given there's already regular current rulings/errata, wouldn't this be much the same situation?

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
 
By Borg King
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#448176
MattgomeryScott wrote:3. Make them each "OR" requirements. So "Navigation and 2 Security OR Exobiology and 2 Physics." (Kind of taking a leaf out of 2E where most walls have two ways to get through them, specifically to make a lockout harder to happen.)
I really like this. You can keep the dice roll option but still add another six ways to overcome the card.

:borg:
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation