This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#447805
bhosp wrote:
AllenGould wrote:Don't think of them as banned. Think of them as having entered the "Hall of Fame" and retired. ;)
This is a bad take. The OTF ban list and the HoF list have different purposes.

The OTF ban list is sort of a “holding cell”/todo list for the 1E errata team—they’re cards you hope/expect to see again someday in OTF once they’ve been reconfigured to work with the Holodeck Safety Protocols on.

The Second Edition Hall of Fame format list is intended to mainly be “cards we’re just tired of seeing all the time”. That’s why we vote on it instead of letting Rules/Design/OP decide.
They're both lists of cards that aren't legal in the format.
User avatar
 
By bhosp
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#447941
AllenGould wrote:
bhosp wrote:
AllenGould wrote:Don't think of them as banned. Think of them as having entered the "Hall of Fame" and retired. ;)
This is a bad take. The OTF ban list and the HoF list have different purposes.

The OTF ban list is sort of a “holding cell”/todo list for the 1E errata team—they’re cards you hope/expect to see again someday in OTF once they’ve been reconfigured to work with the Holodeck Safety Protocols on.

The Second Edition Hall of Fame format list is intended to mainly be “cards we’re just tired of seeing all the time”. That’s why we vote on it instead of letting Rules/Design/OP decide.
They're both lists of cards that aren't legal in the format.
I’m being pedantic about it because comparing OTF to HoF Format seems likely to be confusingly superfluous information to the new guy who asked about the OTF Ban List specifically and has not expressed any interest at all in Second Edition.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#448026
bhosp wrote: I’m being pedantic about it because comparing OTF to HoF Format seems likely to be confusingly superfluous information to the new guy who asked about the OTF Ban List specifically and has not expressed any interest at all in Second Edition.
I appreciate it actually, I had no idea there was a "Hall of Fame" or format for it - seems like an interesting idea.
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#448080
I have a suggestion for the official ban list. Perhaps separate out in a special section the cards that are banned for they've been assimilated into the OTF Rules Package. It'd ease some of these concerns.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#448086
That makes a lot of sense to me.
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#448099
A "Raise the Stakes" section (that card is outright banned in everything), an "OTF Rules" section (the cards that are part of OTF rules) and an "other" section (with a note that they're being worked on for unbanning or something).
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#448103
I'll talk to the Errata department about it. Remind me if you hear nothing about it within a month of the 2EBC severance.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#449997
BCSWowbagger wrote: Open is always a consideration in the errata process, though. It's why Writ of Accountability hasn't simply been errata'd to remove all its text after "Once per game, downloads an FCA personnel; discard incident." OTF needs the FCA download, but the rest of the text has become an active hindrance to certain things Design wants to do. But Open needs all the text. So we're stuck.
This seems like a bit of a mental block. Am I alone in thinking that this is the solution:

1. Ban Writ of Accountability in OTF
2. Create a new card that downloads an FCA personnel. (I doubt such a thing is going to break open which is already broken beyond belief.)
3. Rejoice because the design team can create lots of cool new cards!
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#449998
UncleMorty wrote:I just came back after a long absence and I don't remember there being any banned cards when I stopped playing...
It was a gimmick that Decipher used so they could say they don't ban cards unlike other "uncool card games".

Sadly, what they did instead was issue tons of errata, that made the game very hard to understand at times and required lots of rules cleanups. The CC is still working on this.

We still have errata but with printable cards/proxies it's not as big of a deal since the CC just issues proxies to cover the old cards with the new wording to avoid confusion(mostly, as long as everyone is up to date, nothing is perfect)
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#450001
geraldkw wrote:
BCSWowbagger wrote: Open is always a consideration in the errata process, though. It's why Writ of Accountability hasn't simply been errata'd to remove all its text after "Once per game, downloads an FCA personnel; discard incident." OTF needs the FCA download, but the rest of the text has become an active hindrance to certain things Design wants to do. But Open needs all the text. So we're stuck.
This seems like a bit of a mental block. Am I alone in thinking that this is the solution:

1. Ban Writ of Accountability in OTF
2. Create a new card that downloads an FCA personnel. (I doubt such a thing is going to break open which is already broken beyond belief.)
3. Rejoice because the design team can create lots of cool new cards!
Also, and I know I am quoting myself here, but as far as the new FCA download seed card, make it a card that seeds, no ref icon, remove ref icon from Writ. Seed slots are certainly at a premium in open since you probably have around 2-3 turns in the game.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#450002
geraldkw wrote:
It was a gimmick that Decipher used so they could say they don't ban cards unlike other "uncool card games".

Sadly, what they did instead was issue tons of errata, that made the game very hard to understand at times and required lots of rules cleanups. The CC is still working on this.
Actually, they didn't do the errata (which would have been preferable). They made "silver bullets" - cards that hose specific other cards.

The problem is that the bullets are so narrow (in that they almost always name *specific* cards - Scanner Interference only hoses two of the "peek at dilemma" cards, rather than the entire class of cards) that they're generally useless unless you *know* they're playing that tech, which meant they didn't see a lot of use and thus didn't do what was intended.

Plus, in order to play a "fair" game, you had to stock a whole pile of these cards that don't help your gameplan. So they added [Ref] to make them easier to get, and that didn't help enough...

... and then after Tribunal, the community finally realized we should just ban the MFers instead of papering over the problems.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#450003
AllenGould wrote:
geraldkw wrote:
It was a gimmick that Decipher used so they could say they don't ban cards unlike other "uncool card games".

Sadly, what they did instead was issue tons of errata, that made the game very hard to understand at times and required lots of rules cleanups. The CC is still working on this.
Actually, they didn't do the errata (which would have been preferable). They made "silver bullets" - cards that hose specific other cards.

The problem is that the bullets are so narrow (in that they almost always name *specific* cards - Scanner Interference only hoses two of the "peek at dilemma" cards, rather than the entire class of cards) that they're generally useless unless you *know* they're playing that tech, which meant they didn't see a lot of use and thus didn't do what was intended.

Plus, in order to play a "fair" game, you had to stock a whole pile of these cards that don't help your gameplan. So they added [Ref] to make them easier to get, and that didn't help enough...

... and then after Tribunal, the community finally realized we should just ban the MFers instead of papering over the problems.
Yes, I stand corrected. Wow it has been a long time since the Decipher era. I feel really old.
 
By Worf Son of Mogh (Kenneth Tufts)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
The Traveler
1E North American Continental Runner-Up 2023
2E North American Continental Runner-Up 2023
1E Canadian National Runner-Up 2023
2E Canadian National Runner-Up 2023
#451298
UncleMorty wrote:I just came back after a long absence and I don't remember there being any banned cards when I stopped playing. Of course, Borg decks were dominant at the time.

Is there somewhere I can go that explains the justification for all the banned cards?

Are these cards banned in all formats run by the group members? If so there might be grumbling from the few die hard people I know who wold want to pay this old game again if they can't use red alert.
in sort because they were identified for various reasons as the broken cards of the time, the errata team is constantly reevaluating them and looking at what can be tweaked to bring them back. I LOVE many of those cards my self being some one who abused the heck out of them back in the 'good old days' but taking them away has in general made the game better.
And like others have said they are only banned for OTF tournament play.

Subset note some are banned because they were made part of the OTF rules, (big picture for eg)
Is Sedis a captain?

P'Jem Sanctuary can also DL Sopek .

Virtual Promos 2E

What is the status of promos 0 VP 353, 0 VP 354, a[…]

Capturing Related

Maybe add the [Pun] icon to the proposed definitio[…]

*dramatic noise* *suspends play* 0KF19 Kaiserfe[…]