trekcc.org

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.



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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

Ooo, that AMS abuse possibility just changed my vote to A.

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

Is the "AMS Abuse" any worse than it is for Wormhole Negotiations (which is already worth 5 more points)?

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.

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 , who are strong in Honor mission specialists.