[SudenKapala]

Funniest thing. This issue always bothered me to the max. (Well, not as much as 1e-Dorian Collins' INT, but hey. That's like purgatory.)
But now, push to shove, I hesitate to answer the poll. I'm really not sure that I want that much change in my life -- this vexing has been with me for 23 yrs. It's like an itch I got used to. If it's not there, I might feel... empty. Or.. diminished, somehow.

Imma sleep on it.

[SudenKapala]

Slept on it. All things considered...

It's a PAQ era relic. Leave em. Make non- personae if it's that important.

This.
Leave the current situation, but build on it.

AND THEN, do the same with Jera and Tomek (good call, Boffo); make add'l AU, or even non- / non- personae of them. Whatever is needed the most (I guess that is ).

[Enabran]

[10and01]

I support both removal of the AU icons from those cards (it always makes me confused then I have to remember that it's the AU icon there for no reason) and second the other motion below:

To be fair, at the same time you errata Rakal and DeSeve, you can errata Jera and Tomek to remove the and add icons.

The icon also confuses me and I have to remember that they don't make sense.

[Can'tDriveFactorFive]

While we're at it, to throw fuel on this fire, shouldn't those personnel lose their and gain instead?

[Ensign Q]

to me makes no sense they are AU, especially because rackal is a persona of deanna. so either she is one or the other.
on the other hand, its a nightmare to have physicall printed cards errataed, because i already have problems remembering all the current text of the cards shuffling my paperdeck.

[SudenKapala]

to me makes no sense they are AU, especially because rackal is a persona of deanna. so either she is one or the other.

on the other hand, its a nightmare to have physicall printed cards errataed, because i already have problems remembering all the current text of the cards shuffling my paperdeck.

Among other things, this, exactly.

Errata (especially of very old cards) mucks up existing decks and uses. Adding new cards just creates more possibilities and new decks, instead of invalidating past/current ones. And play-testing needs to be done for both, anyways.

So I'm talking game impact here -- and I think errata should be severly restricted (like banning), in order not to become 'errata-happy'. It should be refrained from, except in rare cases where the card is obviously, terribly flawed -- as is the case with 1e Dorian Collins' INTEGRITY.

Obviously... there's some personal bias going on here. But since I'm not Data, I'm entitled.

And I seem to feel that, e.g., raising Dorian's INTEGRITY would have much less impact on the card as a whole (so the errata feels much more limited) than removing Rakal's AU icon and making her a persona of Deanna. (Because that would be the obvious subsequent move, in that case.)
Moreover, Dorian is a much more recent card than Rakal, so it will also have less impact on the game as a whole.

My !

But this makes me realize that a poll about changing 1e Dorian Collins should also be started.

Or -- in the same vein -- an additional version of Collins should be created, so as to keep the flawed card but have an additional one alongside it that I would start playing Virtual for.

[Ensign Q]

she is already a persona of deanna which makes zero sense when she come from AU

[SudenKapala]

You're right! She was errata'd first to include species (in 1999?), and later (in Reflections, 2000?) to also be Deanna's persona. I think.
In any case, I stand corrected. But, as an explanation -- you're also right, that such doesn't make any sense for an AU version, so that's why I overlooked it in memory.
(And I use the physical card without any other Deannas in that deck, so it's never an issue for me there.)
Thanks for pointing it out.

[Enabran]

Yes, Decipher made 2 Erratas for Major Rakal. Let's quote Khan "...but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!"
All good things are 3. The next (last/final) Errata should remove this stupid .