[edgeofhearing]

Yes, there’s a reason the modal mission wording was left behind a long time ago. It generates a bunch of rules questions and doesn’t add much that the word “or” can’t accomplish without confusion.

[GooeyChewie]

Do you hate Modal missions in 2e? Because that's basically the same concept.

I hadn't given it all that much thought, but... yes. Modal missions add rules complexity and rarely add game-play depth. We haven't introduced one in 2E since Identify Temporal Disturbance in Matter of Time in 2013. Now that we have the new naming structure (location as title, objective as subtitle), we would tend to make two versions of the mission rather than a modal mission.

I personally don't see what rotating the mission can do that a big red OR couldn't. In fact, I'd rather have the requirements together since any of the affiliations involved could be built to meet either Honor-based or Treachery-based requirements.

[Mogor]

Do you hate Modal missions in 2e? Because that's basically the same concept.

I hadn't given it all that much thought, but... yes. Modal missions add rules complexity and rarely add game-play depth. We haven't introduced one in 2E since Identify Temporal Disturbance in Matter of Time in 2013. Now that we have the new naming structure (location as title, objective as subtitle), we would tend to make two versions of the mission rather than a modal mission.

I personally don't see what rotating the mission can do that a big red OR couldn't. In fact, I'd rather have the requirements together since any of the affiliations involved could be built to meet either Honor-based or Treachery-based requirements.

I like this, goes along with KISS principle especially since rotation missions in lackey tend to be problematic to actually rotate

[Pazuzu]

I personally don't see what rotating the mission can do that a big red OR couldn't. In fact, I'd rather have the requirements together since any of the affiliations involved could be built to meet either Honor-based or Treachery-based requirements.

Let's assume it is Honor x4 on your side and Treachery x4 on opponent's side. With a rotating mission it would mean that you have to stock either enough honor or treachery in your deck, but you do not necessarily benefit from stocking both. If it would be Honor x4 OR Treachery x4 it would mean you would benefit from stocking both in your deck. I actually think that OR or a rotating mission is a huge difference for deck building.

[MattgomeryScott]

Just my 2 cents as a casual player of 1e: I dislike asymmetric missions, and I dislike rotating asymmetric missions even more. It's confusing and doesn't really add anything of substance to the gameplay.

I don't particularly care what non-rotational option we go for - I personally like 5 points for battle, but I'll bandwagon on to anything we need to in order to defeat the rotational abilities.

I've got to agree, the rotating text feels to me like a bit of a waste of a special ability (especially as there's already a card that rotates a mission isn't there?) The only option I feel would be more of a waste is no special ability. But I respect that if that's the way the community wants to go, then we'll go with that.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

Just to clarify, with the above post I'm agreeing on disliking the rotating text. I have nothing against, and actually quite like 1E Asymmetrical and 2E Modal missions.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

[Pazuzu]

Even tough I had the idea for this mission, I don't like rotating missions

[GooeyChewie]

Let's assume it is Honor x4 on your side and Treachery x4 on opponent's side. With a rotating mission it would mean that you have to stock either enough honor or treachery in your deck, but you do not necessarily benefit from stocking both. If it would be Honor x4 OR Treachery x4 it would mean you would benefit from stocking both in your deck. I actually think that OR or a rotating mission is a huge difference for deck building.

Perhaps I should rephrase. I don't see what advantage rotating the mission has over using OR. I want players to be able to stock both Honor and Treachery and choose on the fly which one they'll use to complete the mission. Also, I figure if the mission rotates it'll be on the "good" side and on the "evil" side. I'd like the options to go Honor with Klingons or Treachery with Feds or Vulcans. To me, leaving the mission as symmetrical provides more deck-building options and keeps it simpler.

[edgeofhearing]

So, it looks like No Special is the consensus opposition to Play Spin The Mission (both are currently tied at 11). That's fine, all my favorite missions have no special text. My concern is that it won't be able to win a run-off when all the other wonky abilities supporters get in line behind Make Your Opponent Look At You Wearily Because They're Not Sure If This Means He Or She Can Attempt The Mission Now, And How Does This Interact With Hero Of The Empire Anyways Boy This Is Better Than Using The Word "Or" (MYOLAYWBTNSITMHOSCATMNAHDTIWHOTEABTIBTUTWO for short).

The thing is, third place (Attempt Limit) is so distant at 5, and I'm not super excited about it. If it is what it takes though, I'll do it.

[Mogor]

So, it looks like No Special is the consensus opposition to Play Spin The Mission (both are currently tied at 11). That's fine, all my favorite missions have no special text. My concern is that it won't be able to win a run-off when all the other wonky abilities supporters get in line behind Make Your Opponent Look At You Wearily Because They're Not Sure If This Means He Or She Can Attempt The Mission Now, And How Does This Interact With Hero Of The Empire Anyways Boy This Is Better Than Using The Word "Or" (MYOLAYWBTNSITMHOSCATMNAHDTIWHOTEABTIBTUTWO for short).

The thing is, third place (Attempt Limit) is so distant at 5, and I'm not super excited about it. If it is what it takes though, I'll do it.

Shifted my vote from the third to no special ability as yah not a fan of another confusarama

[BCSWowbagger]

Rotating the mission lets you capture -- and use -- both sides of an interesting story. You can't do that with an OR because you'd end up allowing (for example) the good guy Feds being able to solve it with Treachery x4 and the bad guys doing the same in the other direction.

It's no more complicated than ye olde Trilithium Weapon.

The other option for telling both stories is a second version of the mission persona -- but that's even more complicated, as I thought we learned when we gave the world one version of Vulcan you can seed a Federation Outpost at and a second version you can't (because the other one is suddenly a homeworld).

Rotation is a good call.

[edgeofhearing]

Rotating the mission lets you capture -- and use -- both sides of an interesting story. You can't do that with an OR because you'd end up allowing (for example) the good guy Feds being able to solve it with Treachery x4 and the bad guys doing the same in the other direction.

They aren't the good guys if they're solving it with 4 Treachery. Preventing Feds from solving with 4 Treachery reduces the number of stories the mission tells. Imagine the Mirror Universe Feds rolling in to Excalbia, and the Excalbians conjure pacifist Kahless to challenge them!

[Can'tDriveFactorFive]

Rotating the mission lets you capture -- and use -- both sides of an interesting story. You can't do that with an OR because you'd end up allowing (for example) the good guy Feds being able to solve it with Treachery x4 and the bad guys doing the same in the other direction.

Sure you can. Investigate Sighting and Wormhole Negotiations are two examples (both all the way back from Premiere) where each set of requirements is clearly intended for one affiliation, but with nothing to enforce it. Maybe the Romulans assist Gomtuu's suicide, or perhaps the best Klingon diplomats find their glory at the negotiating table. So just splitting off the requirements with an "OR" and being done with it has precedent. If all we're looking at is allowing the seeding player to choose whether they want to be good guys or bad guys, that's the simplest solution.

Having an asymmetric mission (and still letting the seeding player choose by rotating, whether with simple gametext as proposed here or via the previously mentioned Escape Gulag/Operate Dilithium Gulag approach) seems like it would have the advantage of setting up some interaction - not just "good vs. evil," but "good player vs. evil player." So that makes the next question how to make that interaction interesting (and likely) enough to choose asymmetry over the "OR" approach.

I'm guessing making two missions at Excalbia isn't on the table...

[frakkingoff]

I'm surprised BCSWowbagger is arguing against the ability to offer players greater diversity in terms of choices and deck design...

Federation can be evil.

Klingons can be peacemakers.

[Borg King]

I voted for no special ability.

There are a lot of really great and creative ideas here, but I feel that we are trying to pack too much story into this one card when we have another related card to create to help express that story; not to mention whatever might be in the upcoming sets.

Sometimes simplicity is best and while there are a lot of fun mechanics presented, I agree that an "OR" for the requirements creates the same Trek Sense for this mission and its story as a rotating good and evil side does.

[Armus]

This is definitely a runoff scenario. I'm legit curious to see how the third of the voters who didn't pick either main option will shake out...