This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.

In which formats should the "seed phase card type limitations" change be made?

OTF Only
7
15%
All Formats
41
85%
None
No votes
0%
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#453790
Latok wrote:
Armus wrote: At its core, this game is about overcoming dilemmas and solving missions.
This is just a false statement though, about both Trek games. The game is not about facing dilemmas and it is only about solving missions. That's why the dozens of cards that allow you to avoid dilemmas across 1E and 2E exist.
And how many of those cards make the game better in your opinion?

Nothing more fun than spending hours putting together dilemma combos only for my opponent to drop pre-errata Q or Senior Staff Meeting, or whatever else, right? That makes the game fun. /sarc.

That said, in my peak 1e days some of my favorite moments were when my opponent would play scan or full planet scan, look at my combo, and promptly go "Oh. Shit." Even seeing what was there they didn't have a clean way through. That was just fun.

And I'm not so sure it is a false statement in the here and now. How many of those cards have been errataed or banned? Overcoming dilemmas in the pursuit of solving missions absolutely is the core of this game, and any cards that have gone against that premise have made the game worse.

I'll spare the 1e folks my 2e response but I have a few thoughts there too.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#453794
Latok wrote: This is just a false statement though, about both Trek games. The game is not about facing dilemmas and it is only about solving missions.
Agreed. From the first full set (Premiere) to literally the last full set (The Motion Pictures), Star Trek CCG deliberately offered alternate paths to victory beyond "Overcome a bunch of dilemmas and solve missions."

In another thread, Charlie Plaine said "we are extremely diligent not to make cards that punish or invalidate any deck type or play style." But that's not always been successful, the rules themselves haven't kept to this standard either - they've enforced a selectively narrow definition of "what the game is about" and invalidated any decks that buck the trend, even when Decipher clearly intended otherwise.

Granted, the CC isn't responsible for Intermix Ratio - that's on Decipher. But making it costless to acquire and play, and then later baking it into the rules? That's on the CC.

The idea that "Facing dilemmas and solving missions is what Star Trek CCG is about" is a fallacy, and is easily disproven from a historical perspective. It would be much more accurate to say "Simulating the Star Trek universe is what the Star Trek CCG is about - and that often includes dilemmas and missions (but not always)."
Armus wrote: Nothing more fun than spending hours putting together dilemma combos only for my opponent to drop pre-errata Q or Senior Staff Meeting, or whatever else, right? That makes the game fun. /sarc.
You spend your time crafting those dilemma combos because it'll be effective against 90% of your opponents. Even if it's not effective against one opponent in a given individual case, that doesn't invalidate the gains you see in the long-run against many opponents.

But let's say the meta in your area changes and alternate victory paths become prevalent (making your dilemma combos irrelevant and thus your time spent crafting them a waste). In that case, you have no one to blame for your wasted time and lack of fun but yourself - for ignoring the meta and spending your deck-building time on irrelevant optimizations (deck tech to stop mission solvers), rather than focusing it on whatever would actually matter for winning the game (deck tech which targets and prevents the prevalent alternate-win conditions).

If I spend hours crafting a deck that optimizes for a defense against battle decks? Then I have no right to be upset with or sarcastic to anyone I play who ISN'T playing a battle deck.
User avatar
Second Edition Rules Master
By Latok
 - Second Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E Australian Continental Champion 2019
2E Australian Continental Runner-Up 2019
#453796
That said, in my peak 1e days some of my favorite moments were when my opponent would play scan or full planet scan, look at my combo, and promptly go "Oh. Shit." Even seeing what was there they didn't have a clean way through. That was just fun.
So it's fun if you've made something that completely screws the opponent that has spent hours putting together a draw deck but if someone screws the dilemma combos you spent hours on it's not fun?
Armus wrote:And I'm not so sure it is a false statement in the here and now. How many of those cards have been errataed or banned? Overcoming dilemmas in the pursuit of solving missions absolutely is the core of this game, and any cards that have gone against that premise have made the game worse.
Whether a card has been banned or not is completely irrelevant because some arbitrary people deciding they don't like something isn't a good argument for anything. How can overcoming dilemmas be a core part of the game if you can build a deck with no dilemmas? Solving missions is the only thing at the core of the game (really scoring points) and dilemmas are the most common way to stop your opponent from doing that. That doesn't make them core to the game and it actually means that different ways to avoid them are critical, if something is present in 99% of games and you have a singular way of dealing with it, you have a boring ass game.
and any cards that have gone against that premise have made the game worse.
Really? Did you even think about that statement before you typed it or do I really have to explain how ignorant it is?
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#455314
Mogor wrote:
What it would do is make symblaene blood burn and the like much more powerful and I'm not sure thats a good thing
It would also make borg better though as all those Outpost dilemmas don't do jack vs they will be coming and ships you can report to.

Im with armus that it might make the game better. I'm always for more decent dilemmas in 1e since unlike 2e, you have a limited number, pre placed and they have to hit. It rewards good players who plan ahead.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#508566
I missed this change and I hate it.

I would've been a strong vote for NONE.


I was unaware of the rule change and have been playing the traditional way still, the utility being to be able to seed an ultimatum, say outside of the last phase so you can get the wormholes out of your deck, or the bajoran region in a more optimal place on the spaceline.

I strongly disapprove of the change and would note that the glossary (today) says that events, objectives and incidents may be seeded in any phase (under each of their respective entries).
User avatar
 
By 9of24 (Jeremy Huth)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#508596
princedetenebres wrote:I missed this change and I hate it.

I would've been a strong vote for NONE.


I was unaware of the rule change and have been playing the traditional way still, the utility being to be able to seed an ultimatum, say outside of the last phase so you can get the wormholes out of your deck, or the bajoran region in a more optimal place on the spaceline.

I strongly disapprove of the change and would note that the glossary (today) says that events, objectives and incidents may be seeded in any phase (under each of their respective entries).
I don't remember this change ever going into effect. And as you mention, the card types respective glossary entries seem to suggest it hasn't.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#508601
9of24 wrote:
princedetenebres wrote:I missed this change and I hate it.

I would've been a strong vote for NONE.


I was unaware of the rule change and have been playing the traditional way still, the utility being to be able to seed an ultimatum, say outside of the last phase so you can get the wormholes out of your deck, or the bajoran region in a more optimal place on the spaceline.

I strongly disapprove of the change and would note that the glossary (today) says that events, objectives and incidents may be seeded in any phase (under each of their respective entries).
I don't remember this change ever going into effect. And as you mention, the card types respective glossary entries seem to suggest it hasn't.

Yeah, after having been away from the game for a couple years, I wanted to verify that I was remembering the seed rules correctly, because the OTF rules implied otherwise, but the glossary is incredibly explicit on this point, the entry for Objective, Event and Incident each clearly states that each of them may be seeded in any phase unless otherwise specified on the card, no ambiguity about it.

I really hope that this doesn't change, surely it's not THAT confusing for new players, and as I say, is a nice element of strategy for more veteran players that I'd hate to lose for some hypothetical newbie that would be confused by it. Sacrificing a useful, if rarely used, option, for an intangible hypothetical gain of dubious value doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me.


I can think of numerous games where I have made use of this ability, which to me, should carry more weight that the imaginary situation of someone being confused momentarily in future, no? I mean, does anyone have commensurate numerous examples of newbies being confused by this point to stack against the real world uses of it? I would imagine not, but maybe I'd be surprised...
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#508612
It did go into effect, on 4 March 2019:
https://starshipexcelsior.com/othersite ... 201903.pdf

Announced here: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=37554

Confirmed here: https://www.trekcc.org/articles/index.p ... cleID=2475

I don't say this because I am a diehard devotee of this rule, I just want to make it clear what the rules of the game currently are, since that is my job. The Glossary entries Jeremy and Pope reference do obviously contradict the rule change, but I think that makes them oversights, not counterevidence. If there's support and good cause, I am always happy to entertain discussions about rules changes and rescission -- but we're definitely going to clean up the oversights, because the Glossary needs to be consistent while those discussions continue.

This situation, incidentally, is another illustration that we need to find a way of communicating to returning players what rules have changed since they last played. We can't expect them to read every RRD for the past decade, nor are they likely to notice slight tweaks to wording the rule docs even if they do reread them. Here, Princedetenebres went the extra mile and looked it up and still got the wrong result because the Glossary was incompletely updated. I don't have a solution for this yet, but it's a fairly big problem.

Prince, I would be very interested to know the impact this has on your decks outside Ultimatum. If the number of cards involved is quite small, I can't make promises because it isn't my department, but -- assuming this rule change doesn't get rescinded -- I wouldn't think errata would be totally out of the question to restore a time-honored strategy or two.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation