[Armus]

because Crew Reassignment (t1 dl with seeded Make it So/GO7) poops on the Crossover ban

On the other hand, though: darn it. First I've heard of this tech.

This was not intended, nor was it detected in our testing of + non- combo decks. But it does make sense.

Really?

I had that on the drawing board in my first TFF deck.

[BCSWowbagger]

^ This is not the first time I've asked you to become a playtester, won't be the last. You'd be a great help, I'm convinced.

[Armus]

So after reading this thread

And almost derailing it, I went back and read this thread. All 7 pages of it.

I think we have a divided player base on the issue (though now that we've had Worlds with a bunch of European players in attendance and no shortage of being played, I'm now wondering if the strongly held opinions in favor of by the Euros is still so strongly held.

But regardless of that, going on what was said in this thread, there's a tough balancing of equities to be managed if any consensus is going to emerge.

I made some initial suggestions upthread a few months abo, but posting on the Riker thread gave me a new thought and I wanted to propose it here:

Premises:

1.) Half of the people like special downloads as is and see no need for change.

2.) The other half see special downloads as a problem and range change.

3.) The pace of the game has been presented as a separate problem. Things happen "too fast"

4.) Special Downloads happen super fast, and probably continue to (3).


Proposal: Give the OTF Download Treatment by limiting usage of icons to once every turn.

Advantages:

-Maintains existing timing rules, allowing the "flavor" of usage to be preserved, satisfying (1).

-Potentially Reduces the number of in a game, mollifying (2) at least to a degree.

- Restricts chains, throttling the pace, benefiting (3) and directly addressing (4).

Disadvantages:

- Creates more rules baggage to have to remember.

- Doesn't fully mitigate the "problem" only the frequency of occurrence.

Thoughts?

[scox]

So after reading this thread

And almost derailing it, I went back and read this thread. All 7 pages of it.

I think we have a divided player base on the issue (though now that we've had Worlds with a bunch of European players in attendance and no shortage of being played, I'm now wondering if the strongly held opinions in favor of by the Euros is still so strongly held.

But regardless of that, going on what was said in this thread, there's a tough balancing of equities to be managed if any consensus is going to emerge.

I made some initial suggestions upthread a few months abo, but posting on the Riker thread gave me a new thought and I wanted to propose it here:

Premises:

1.) Half of the people like special downloads as is and see no need for change.

2.) The other half see special downloads as a problem and range change.

3.) The pace of the game has been presented as a separate problem. Things happen "too fast"

4.) Special Downloads happen super fast, and probably continue to (3).


Proposal: Give the OTF Download Treatment by limiting usage of icons to once every turn.

Advantages:

-Maintains existing timing rules, allowing the "flavor" of usage to be preserved, satisfying (1).

-Potentially Reduces the number of in a game, mollifying (2) at least to a degree.

- Restricts chains, throttling the pace, benefiting (3) and directly addressing (4).

Disadvantages:

- Creates more rules baggage to have to remember.

- Doesn't fully mitigate the "problem" only the frequency of occurrence.

Thoughts?

As someone who is in favor of getting rid of the Ref cards at some point, i.e. make errata or Rules changes to make them useless, for the topic, if one would make the limit maximum two per turn, that would basically reflect the current situation with Containment field. This is however not any change though, as this is where we are right now, so it would be quite interesting to playtest this type of change with limit one. For instance see how it would affect the decks from Worlds and how they would play differently under a single DL per turn (I assume limit applied to once every player's turn).

[MidnightLich]

I find that proposal intriguing.

If we follow the model of what we did for You Are a Monument and General Quarters, we would introduce a new card that was a "Better than Containment Field Limit" and test it in the game for a while; then, after some time, we would make it a rule. Although to be fair, those decisions are still strongly disliked by several people.

A counterexample would be the recent rules change to [Self] cards. Originally during design and development of The Cage, the plan was to do exactly the above: make a card that suspended the one [Self] limit, test it, and then make it a rule later. This was abandoned pretty early on in favor of just making the rules change, largely because the appetite for new cards is almost gone among 1E Designers.

So I could see doing this either way. Personally, without my Brand Manager hat on, I'd lean towards just making it an OTF rule, perhaps with text explaining it is experimental and feedback is requested to make the decision. But I'm curious what others think of this middle ground, compromise step.

-crp

[BCSWowbagger]

If we were going to experiment, it would be better to experiment with the more comprehensive proposal that addresses all the problems instead of the compromise that doesn't.

As I see it, there are four core problems with as they currently exist in the game:

1. Consistency - The suspends-play DL rules are inconsistent with how nearly all other game actions work, and they are inconsistent in a way that is extremely confusing, extremely powerful, deeply counter-intuitive, and contrary to TrekSense (assuming you know how the rest of the game works).

2. Rules mess - the current DL system enables (and, frankly, necessitates) some truly bizarre rules jank. "Bug-out" cards that abuse dilemma-encounter timing are the most obvious example, but there's layers upon layers of timing weirdness hidden in suspends-play DLs. (Much moreso than other suspends-play cards, because other suspends-play cards are actually designed with that timing in mind.)

3. Balance - Suspends-play DLs are super-powerful, and has carried the factions that benefit most from DLs ( and ) to the top of the game, in a way that errata can't easily address.

4. Pace - using DLs within mission attempts allow you to win the game in significantly fewer turns than you would otherwise, contributing to an environment where championship-level games rarely last beyond 7 turns.

Armus's compromise proposal likely has some impact on #3 and #4. It's probably not as big of an impact as the comprehensive proposal. In particular, Armus's proposal would leave bugout cards and mid-mission dial-a-skill completely intact, just throttled. Still: a real impact. Nothing to sneeze at.

On the other hand, Armus's compromise leaves #1 and #2 untouched -- and, to my mind, #1 and #2 are the real core of the issue. The compromise proposal even adds to the rules mess by adding another (completely arbitrary) OTF rule or Ref card.

That doesn't mean Armus's idea is a bad one. There may be ways to mitigate its rules baggage in his proposal. And, in a divided community, a half-measure may be the best path forward. It's a well-thought-out suggestion and it deals with some of the game's problems in a serious way.

But if we're going to play around a bit? Try some things out on the testers, gather some data, trial-mode something in OTF? We should start with the comprehensive proposal that addresses all the issues. The " work at interrupt speed" proposal could be printed on a Ref card, added to OTF, or sent to testers for examination just as easily as "better-than-Containment Field throttling."

If the comprehensive proposal fails, or goes too far, we could step back to the compromise proposal (or some flavor of it, depending on the data we got). But if we start on the compromise, the comprehensive solution is never experimented with, comprehensive data never gets collected, and the problems that could have been tackled by the comprehensive approach not only persist but are reinforced and made permanent.

(Practical but necessarily vague example: There's a minor rule change in playtesting right now. That rule change started out behind closed doors as a fairly dramatic three-prong idea. Because of various reasons and a miscommunication, we ended up sending a compromise version of that idea to testers -- just one prong, instead of all three.

Now, I happen to think that what went to testers is probably the "right" prong. The original proposal was too drastic and was going to have to be compromised before release, IMHO. But, by pre-compromising it, before testing it, we haven't been able to collect as much data about the affected area of the game as I hoped, so that it's impossible to really be sure whether the other prongs could help further, and we've backed ourselves into a corner should we try to revisit the more dramatic idea later on. It was a mis-step, and one we shouldn't repeat with the much more important issue.)

[Discovery rox]

i see people complaining about special downloads being too powerful. i dont really see anyone else complaining that the problem with special downloads is the complicated rules.

[Iron Prime]

Perhaps. But no one complains about tiny organisms hijacking their cell's to replicate the virus DNA instead of the proper human DNA. They complain about their achy joints and runny nose...

Revising the rules around would almost certainly change their timing, which would change their power level. 2 birds, 1 hypospanner.

[Se7enofMine]

I dont havee a problem with to bug out of a dilemma attempt. I think its a fun aspect to the game.

What I dont like is that most affiliations cant really take advantage of it. Its only a very small group of affils that can take part in it, particularly FED (cause they dont have enough advantages already).

Having said that, I'm ok with some changing of the rules to streamline a bit.

[DarkSabre]

I think this could all be simplified by stating that special downloads do not suspend play and therefore wouldn’t be able to work during mission attempts as is.

And if Armus doesn’t have the time or group to do playtesting he should be called in as a special consultant to just look at what is currently being done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

This whole time we've just accepted James's claim that " only at any time or as a valid response" would be simpler, but I don't think that's actually true. The Valid Response rule is up there with the Cumulative Rule in terms of being easy to quote and yet difficult to actually apply. Remember that great discussion we had about whether pre-errata Loss of Orbital Stability was a valid response to a ship moving? Being a valid response to something depends very precisely on the exact wording on the card in question.

Decipher and the CC have done a much better job of wording Interrupts such that it's clear what they can respond to. However, this proposal forces other card types such as Personnel, Equipment, and non- Events to be interpreted under the framework of "valid responses", when the text of those cards was not written with that framework in mind. You also have the Devidian Door problem in that you are relying on text that is not in play to determine whether or not you can take a particular action.

Let's say Martok ( D'k Tahg), Koloth( Bat'leth), and Yint ( Any Disruptor Rifle) walk into a Sleeper Trap and get attacked. Which ones get to use their downloads, and when? And no, I'm not giving you links to the cards, because at game time the equipment will probably be buried in your deck or tent, so you have to go by memory.

Answer:

Martok can download D'k Tahg, since it says it can report to a just-initiated battle. Koloth could download Bat'leth only once a Klingon stuns an opponent. (I think.) Yint can't download Klingon Disruptor Rifle at all.

I don't want to spawn endless discussions about whether X is a valid response to Y, I don't want the feel-bads of forgetting the specific window in which I can download my cards, and I don't want the answer to be "just download everything right away and then have to manage a bunch of extra cards that may or may not ever be relevant this game."

[BCSWowbagger]

Maybe I'm walking myself into a killzone by saying this, but I've never found valid responses to be especially difficult. If a card specifically names and modifies action X, it's a valid response to action X. The Giant Chart lists all the valid responses I noticed (entirely possible I missed some; it's not the column I was paying closest attention to). Most seem pretty straightforward. I don't see the valid responses as being much simpler than the non- valid responses.

As to your example, isn't this a problem special downloads have always had, especially with interrupts? As in your example, you've always had to know the card text of the card you are downloading without looking at it. Quick, without clicking the link, tell me what three cards Worf (First Contact) can nullify with his special download of Assimilate This!. Okay, now do the same thing with Data (First Contact)'s download of Fractal Encryption Code. And the weird condition on Magnetic North that may prevent U.S.S. Ganges from making good use of its download.

Of course, there are going to be players who have no problem remembering that Assimilate This! nullifies

Build Interplexing Beacon, Orbital Bombardment, and (the one I always forget) Crosis

; that Fractal Encryption Code prevents

assimilation and commandeering, but only aboard a ship or outpost -- not a station or HQ -- and only if there is an android aboard that ship or outpost, so no using Data on the planet to download Fractal to protect a ship in orbit

; and that Magnetic North

only works at planet locations

. But the players who remember all that have no problem with your hand weapon example.

Meanwhile, players who do have problems remembering the text on cards they are downloading already have those problems, and this proposal doesn't make it worse. (By eliminating so many other weird timing quirks, it makes it better.) I'm one of them: I once, in a high-level game, forgot that I'm A Doctor, Not A Bricklayer required MEDICAL and OFFICER present together, played it, and my MEDICAL and OFFICER were on different ships. The ruling was that, having played it, I had to use it for its second function instead. I might support a separate proposal to make "forgetting what my downloaded card says" less punishing.

[AllenGould]

Maybe I'm walking myself into a killzone by saying this, but I've never found valid responses to be especially difficult.

Agreed - with the caveat that Decipher had a bad habit of overhyping their mechanics to make things sound far powerful and complicated than they actually are.

[Discovery rox]

you mean like how rogue borgs spell out the strengths?

[Hoss-Drone]

I've never found valid responses to be especially difficult.

You can put that on the game's tombstone after it dies bc because instead of making it simpler, we make it tougher and even vets get peeved and leave bc they, in a tight championship game, around hour 10 of the day, slightly misremember a cards text, use a realize it's not valid and the dl is burnt.