What's New Dashboard Articles Forums Chat Room Achievements Tournaments Player Map The Promenade Volunteers About Us Site Index
The Continuing Committee
It is currently Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:01 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff 

Which set of requirements should we use for Excalbia?
Poll ended at Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:44 am
Diplomacy + Geology + (four leaders with Honor OR four leaders with Treachery) 47%  47%  [ 23 ]
Honor x4 + no Treachery OR Treachery x4 + no Honor OR Geology x4 + no Honor + no Treachery 53%  53%  [ 26 ]
Total votes : 49

 Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff 
Author Message
Acting Director of First Edition
Acting Director of First Edition

User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:54 pm
Posts: 20162
Location: Salem, OR
Region: Ferenginar
Post Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
Hello! Our mission requirements voting step did not have a clear, majority winner, and that means it's time for a runoff vote! The top two choices are presented to you again here:

Option A: Diplomacy + Geology + (four leaders with Honor OR four leaders with Treachery)

Option B: Honor x4 + no Treachery OR Treachery x4 + no Honor OR Geology x4 + no Honor + no Treachery

Here's a mockup of each option, but please note this is not final art! The final version of the mission will look a lot better than this mockup, so don't let it's aesthetics sway you too much.

Attachment:
WotC6-7A-Mission.jpeg
WotC6-7A-Mission.jpeg [ 57.87 KiB | Viewed 373 times ]


Each of you will be able to vote for one of these two options, and you'll have twenty-four (24) hours to do so. You can change your vote at any time before the voting closes. This will be a simple majority vote - whichever set of requirements has the most votes, wins! In the case of an exact tie, I will determine the winner randomly.

After you've voted, take a moment to post a reply arguing in favor of your choice - why did you pick the requirements you picked? You just might sway others and help make your choice the deciding choice!

Have fun!

-crp

_________________


MidnightLich @michaelmoskop That is 100% my theory.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:44 am
Profile My Photo Gallery
Gamma Quadrant


Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 6009
Region: Sector 001
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
I voted for...

MidnightLich wrote:
Option B: Honor x4 + no Treachery OR Treachery x4 + no Honor OR Geology x4 + no Honor + no Treachery


...for four reasons.

1) I like the fact that attempting with both Honor and Treachery will lead to failure.
2) It includes the "I don't care about good and evil, I'm just here for the rocks" option.
3) I'm not likely to use a mission which requires four leaders with a specific skill.
4) I pitched it. :)

_________________
Real scene from DragonCon:

Me: "Hey, it's Gowron!"
Robert O'Reilly: "Yes!" :shock:


Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:13 pm
Profile
Beta Quadrant

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 228
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
GooeyChewie wrote:
I voted for...

MidnightLich wrote:
Option B: Honor x4 + no Treachery OR Treachery x4 + no Honor OR Geology x4 + no Honor + no Treachery


...for four reasons.

1) I like the fact that attempting with both Honor and Treachery will lead to failure.
2) It includes the "I don't care about good and evil, I'm just here for the rocks" option.
3) I'm not likely to use a mission which requires four leaders with a specific skill.
4) I pitched it. :)


5) It finally gives a use to an extra level of Mortal Q's geology x10, since the previously the most used at once was Geological Survey's geology x3 for bonus points. It also seems very Trek Sensical that Mortal Q could solo solve the mission without bothering with games of good and evil.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:18 pm
Profile
Delta Quadrant


Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:36 pm
Posts: 2129
Location: Great Britain
Region: Omarion Nebula
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
I nominated, and am voting for, Option A.

Option A: Diplomacy + Geology + (four leaders with Honor OR four leaders with Treachery)

My reason for this is that I feel making the player field a team of Honourable (or Treacherous) leaders, rather than just being able to stack multiples of those skills on one personnel, is more in the spirit of Yarnek's experiments, while the Diplomacy and Geology requirements represent dealing with a rock based lifeform. Though if the requirements were felt to be too difficult for the points, one or both of those could be removed.

The use of "leaders" rather than Leadership is intentional, to allow for Officers (and also other personnel with specific cards, for example Security personnel with Prepare Assault Teams ) to solve this mission.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:24 pm
Profile
Beta Quadrant

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:59 pm
Posts: 624
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
GooeyChewie wrote:
2) It includes the "I don't care about good and evil, I'm just here for the rocks" option.


What I don't understand about this is...if someone's just here for the rocks, why do they care about having any honor or treachery (or not)? Having a bit of honor or treachery should be irrelevant to the scientific, geological mission, and yet that will fail it.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:55 pm
Profile
Gamma Quadrant


Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 6009
Region: Sector 001
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
frakkingoff wrote:
What I don't understand about this is...if someone's just here for the rocks, why do they care about having any honor or treachery (or not)? Having a bit of honor or treachery should be irrelevant to the scientific, geological mission, and yet that will fail it.

Because if you show that you’re good or evil, the Excalbians show up and start some drama.

_________________
Real scene from DragonCon:

Me: "Hey, it's Gowron!"
Robert O'Reilly: "Yes!" :shock:


Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:58 pm
Profile
Delta Quadrant


Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:10 am
Posts: 3288
Location: Former Chicagoland, then Charlottean, and back to Qo'noSian
Region: Qo'noS
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
I voted for A because I feel like B has a way of opponent locking someone out of completing this. I don't know how yet, but it creeps on that somewhere...

~D


Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:49 pm
Profile
The Center of the Galaxy


User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:39 pm
Posts: 11902
Location: Alberta, Canada
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
HoodieDM wrote:
I voted for A because I feel like B has a way of opponent locking someone out of completing this. I don't know how yet, but it creeps on that somewhere...

~D


Is there a wall that requires two of (Honor, Treachery, Geology)? That would force a turn delay (as you pass the wall with folks who can't solve the mission), but that isn't a lock out.

The only way you could lock out is by making sure they have no Honor AND no Treachery AND no Geology, and if you can do that you probably deserve the lockout.

A feels like the easier to lockout, since you can target Diplomacy, Geology OR leaders to keep them away (leaders being the easy since that's four people)

_________________
Join the CC Discord channel!


Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:36 pm
Profile
Beta Quadrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:24 am
Posts: 312
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
AllenGould wrote:
HoodieDM wrote:
I voted for A because I feel like B has a way of opponent locking someone out of completing this. I don't know how yet, but it creeps on that somewhere...

~D


Is there a wall that requires two of (Honor, Treachery, Geology)? That would force a turn delay (as you pass the wall with folks who can't solve the mission), but that isn't a lock out.

The only way you could lock out is by making sure they have no Honor AND no Treachery AND no Geology, and if you can do that you probably deserve the lockout.

A feels like the easier to lockout, since you can target Diplomacy, Geology OR leaders to keep them away (leaders being the easy since that's four people)


I think A is more likely to lock. Opponents choice killing 1 of the leaders, means you had at least 5 leaders with treachery or honor in your deck to begin with. Obviously you're playing the mission, but how much redundancy do you really want to stock for one mission. Option B means you'll probably hit a Treachery or Honor wall or you'll fail the mission, but you can just reattempt without the offending personnel.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:19 pm
Profile
Beta Quadrant

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:59 pm
Posts: 147
Region: Romulus
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
I voted for option A as the second option seems too easy to solve (and you have 3 different ways to do it) and could be really abused with AMS which is a bit much considering it will be a mission that can be stolen.

:twocents:
:borg:


Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:41 pm
Profile
Gamma Quadrant

User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 9061
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
Ooo, that AMS abuse possibility just changed my vote to A.

_________________
Star Trek: Excelsior | Ass't designer: Cold Front, Delenn | I support Exhibition Format

Then Jesus said to Peter, "Put thy Glossary back into its place: for he who takes up the Glossary shall perish with the Glossary."
-Mt 26:52


Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:45 pm
Profile
Delta Quadrant

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:26 pm
Posts: 1396
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
GooeyChewie wrote:
I voted for...

MidnightLich wrote:
Option B: Honor x4 + no Treachery OR Treachery x4 + no Honor OR Geology x4 + no Honor + no Treachery


...for four reasons.

1) I like the fact that attempting with both Honor and Treachery will lead to failure.
2) It includes the "I don't care about good and evil, I'm just here for the rocks" option.
3) I'm not likely to use a mission which requires four leaders with a specific skill.
4) I pitched it. :)


Agreed - I went for this. So you can't take both 'good' and 'evil' together to solve it :D


Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:57 pm
Profile
Beta Quadrant

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:59 pm
Posts: 624
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
Is the "AMS Abuse" any worse than it is for Wormhole Negotiations (which is already worth 5 more points)?


Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:22 pm
Profile
Gamma Quadrant

User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 9061
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
frakkingoff wrote:
Is the "AMS Abuse" any worse than it is for Wormhole Negotiations (which is already worth 5 more points)?


No, but

(a) I wouldn't want anyone to make Wormhole Negotiations today, and

(b) the synergy of two 40+-point missions (one planet, one space) that can each be solved by the exact same easily-accessed AMS skills for 20+ bonus points is a scary-good AMS combo.

_________________
Star Trek: Excelsior | Ass't designer: Cold Front, Delenn | I support Exhibition Format

Then Jesus said to Peter, "Put thy Glossary back into its place: for he who takes up the Glossary shall perish with the Glossary."
-Mt 26:52


Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:24 pm
Profile
Gamma Quadrant


Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 6009
Region: Sector 001
Post Re: Step 7A: WotC6 - Mission Requirements Runoff
BCSWowbagger wrote:
Ooo, that AMS abuse possibility just changed my vote to A.

I think it’s a wash on that point. If I’ve done my math right, Option A can get to 20 naturally or 30 with Prepare Assault Teams; Option B tops out at 20. All of that’s with just [Kli] , who are strong in Honor mission specialists.

_________________
Real scene from DragonCon:

Me: "Hey, it's Gowron!"
Robert O'Reilly: "Yes!" :shock:


Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:33 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], eberlems, Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Terms of Use

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.