[BCSWowbagger]

You are a cornocupoa of ideas worth considering today!

But let me counter that suggestion with a different one: BBD's are already incentivized enough. But repairs do take too long in the modern 10-turn game.

I think it would be interesting, and would remove some bookkeeping from the game, if we made outposts remove one damage market (or half of a a rotation damage) for all ships docked there at the end of each turn, not just ships that have been docked for the full turn.

[Mogor]

You are a cornocupoa of ideas worth considering today!

But let me counter that suggestion with a different one: BBD's are already incentivized enough. But repairs do take too long in the modern 10-turn game.

I think it would be interesting, and would remove some bookkeeping from the game, if we made outposts remove one damage market (or half of a a rotation damage) for all ships docked there at the end of each turn, not just ships that have been docked for the full turn.

Worth play testing it at least, and seeing how much it really impacts stuff

[geraldkw]

You are a cornocupoa of ideas worth considering today!

But let me counter that suggestion with a different one: BBD's are already incentivized enough. But repairs do take too long in the modern 10-turn game.

I think it would be interesting, and would remove some bookkeeping from the game, if we made outposts remove one damage market (or half of a a rotation damage) for all ships docked there at the end of each turn, not just ships that have been docked for the full turn.

[Rachmaninoff]

The problem from a rules standpoint, I think, is that the rule right now is "no icon = alpha quadrant." This change would make it "a point box with no icon = alpha quadrant; no point box and no icon = any quadrant." Understood in that way, the change is more complicated. But it might be possible to find a way to reframe it in a way that's equally simple.

I fully support allowing missions with no point box to seed anywhere. One way to reframe it (and the way I understood the original rule) is as follows: the point box determines what quadrant to seed in a mission in. If the point box shows a quadrant icon, it goes in that quadrant. If the point box shows no quadrant icon, it's Alpha. If a card has no point box, then there's nothing telling you where it has to go -- thus it can seed in any quadrant.

It's also intuitive, Trek sense-wise. It seems arbitrary that generic nebulae or open space can only exist in one quadrant. Making more point box-less missions to represent truly generic locations (more so than solvable ❖ missions) is a great idea and opens some fun design options.

I don't know if Black Hole was specifically the cause, but as a stasis player back in the day that interaction was what immediately came to mind when I read that ruling. Not just wormholing people to a Black Hole in the GQ; it also meant that a strategy relying on stalling an opponent until Black Hole ate up all their facilities or missions would be dead in the water if they were playing a non-AQ deck. Those kinds of decks are a relic of the past, and we can take our foot off that brake.

[AllenGould]

I fully support allowing missions with no point box to seed anywhere. One way to reframe it (and the way I understood the original rule) is as follows: the point box determines what quadrant to seed in a mission in. If the point box shows a quadrant icon, it goes in that quadrant. If the point box shows no quadrant icon, it's Alpha. If a card has no point box, then there's nothing telling you where it has to go -- thus it can seed in any quadrant.

Problem: what happens if you want to have a no-point Delta mission?

[Rachmaninoff]

I fully support allowing missions with no point box to seed anywhere. One way to reframe it (and the way I understood the original rule) is as follows: the point box determines what quadrant to seed in a mission in. If the point box shows a quadrant icon, it goes in that quadrant. If the point box shows no quadrant icon, it's Alpha. If a card has no point box, then there's nothing telling you where it has to go -- thus it can seed in any quadrant.

Problem: what happens if you want to have a no-point Delta mission?

Add a single line of text that says "Only seeds in Delta Quadrant."

[geraldkw]

The rules still refer to Ajur and Boratus destroying seed cards.

[BCSWowbagger]

One way to reframe it (and the way I understood the original rule) is as follows: the point box determines what quadrant to seed in a mission in. If the point box shows a quadrant icon, it goes in that quadrant. If the point box shows no quadrant icon, it's Alpha. If a card has no point box, then there's nothing telling you where it has to go -- thus it can seed in any quadrant.

Huh! That's exactly right!

Mission quadrants may be determined from the design of their point boxes. Gamma Quadrant mission point boxes include a G symbol; Alpha Quadrant mission points boxes have no symbol. (Missions with no point box may be placed in either quadrant. There are no Delta Quadrant missions yet.)

This was the rule from the DS9 Rulebook (introducing the GQ) on forward.

It changed some time between Feb 2001 and August 2002. Unfortunately, I have very few rules documents from that extremely tumultuous period, so I can't tell you exactly when or why.

But it seems this was the rule for most of 1E's run under Decipher, which bodes very well for its chances if proposed to tptb.

!RemindMe 2 months

[AllenGould]

I fully support allowing missions with no point box to seed anywhere. One way to reframe it (and the way I understood the original rule) is as follows: the point box determines what quadrant to seed in a mission in. If the point box shows a quadrant icon, it goes in that quadrant. If the point box shows no quadrant icon, it's Alpha. If a card has no point box, then there's nothing telling you where it has to go -- thus it can seed in any quadrant.

Problem: what happens if you want to have a no-point Delta mission?

Add a single line of text that says "Only seeds in Delta Quadrant."

Isn't that what the icon does already?

[BCSWowbagger]

The rules still refer to Ajur and Boratus destroying seed cards.

That is an error. Fixed.

[Rachmaninoff]

Problem: what happens if you want to have a no-point Delta mission?

Add a single line of text that says "Only seeds in Delta Quadrant."

Isn't that what the icon does already?

Not under my proposed restating of the rule -- it's having the icon in the point box that does that. If there's no point box, we can state the restriction explicitly. Putting the icon somewhere else on the card creates the issue BCSWowbagger initially raised, since parallelism would suggest that no quadrant icon anywhere in the card means Alpha Quadrant. I am proposing that the point box (or lack thereof) determine the quadrant(s) a mission can seed in.

The story difference is that a solvable ❖ mission represents a generic location AND a generic task that can be performed there. This task may be quadrant-specific (Survey Star System, Patrol Neutral Zone) even though there are multiple locations in the quadrant where the task can be done. A mission like Space/Nebula is generic, and there isn't even anything worth doing there (at least not for points, the game text could have other interesting effects), so there's no need to restrict its location. I can imagine exceptions to this general storyline (unsolvable quadrant-specific locations, unique locations with no point box, etc.) but I'd see those as exceptions, and not the default story.

[BCSWowbagger]

Problem: what happens if you want to have a no-point Delta mission?

Same thing you did if you wanted a no-point Gamma-only or Alpha-only mission between 1997 and 2001.

[geraldkw]

Moving on to the Glossary

"For example, your Away Team encounters
Nausicaans. The target must be selected and
you must check the Away Team’s total
STRENGTH to see if it is greater than 44
before you may nullify the dilemma with
Interphase Generator or your opponent may
respond by replacing the dilemma with a
QFlash (using Beware of Q)."

I think this is an incorrect example now that the wording on Beware of Q has been changed.

EDIT: Also this:

"Some cards, such as Mission Fatigue and
Cyrus Redblock, add a sub-action to
dilemmas, randomly selecting a personnel
tobe “stopped” or killed before the dilemma’s
own game text is resolved. The dilemma has
been “just encountered” and may be
responded to after you complete initiation of
this sub-action (choosing a target to be
“stopped” or killed). If the opponent
responds by swapping the dilemma for a QFlash, the personnel is not “stopped” or
killed because no results are obtained from
the dilemma."

[pfti]

Moving on to the Glossary

"For example, your Away Team encounters
Nausicaans. The target must be selected and
you must check the Away Team’s total
STRENGTH to see if it is greater than 44
before you may nullify the dilemma with
Interphase Generator or your opponent may
respond by replacing the dilemma with a
QFlash (using Beware of Q)."

I think this is an incorrect example now that the wording on Beware of Q has been changed.

EDIT: Also this:

"Some cards, such as Mission Fatigue and
Cyrus Redblock, add a sub-action to
dilemmas, randomly selecting a personnel
tobe “stopped” or killed before the dilemma’s
own game text is resolved. The dilemma has
been “just encountered” and may be
responded to after you complete initiation of
this sub-action (choosing a target to be
“stopped” or killed). If the opponent
responds by swapping the dilemma for a QFlash, the personnel is not “stopped” or
killed because no results are obtained from
the dilemma."

Good catch. I will add this to the next CRD

[geraldkw]

A minor glossary typo but a confusing one:

"Anti-Time Anomaly - This event kills all
personnel (not Rogue Borg interrupts) on or
off the spaceline in all quadrants, at timeline
locations, "

Should "timeline locations" just be "time locations"?

This wording is also used under the entry for "location"