[Latok]

Another random question, since my last post already got replied to...

Resolve Local Tensions: Usually a red OR is intended to mean that the requirements are everything on one side of the OR or the other side, which would make the requirements:

Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill+Navigation)

OR

Mr. Scott aboard (presumably the ship)

I'm assuming instead it's supposed to be read like:

Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill+Navigation)

OR

Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with Mr. Scott aboard

Correct?

Also, can we make it a rule that when one seeds Study Planetary Devastation, they must yell "THIS is Ceti Alpha V!"?

I similarly did a head-scratch on reading the requirements it seems... off.

For a question what's the story around making the first / mission that is less than 40 points?

[SudenKapala]

I similarly did a head-scratch on reading the requirements it seems... off.

+1 -- but since I always have to think hard about those things (I'd benefit from true mathematical notation, perhaps even with redundant brackets), I thought that it might be just me.
In other words: Even when it would be repaired (IF broken), I might still have trouble with it.

(Really. I'm not dumb. I'm just not quite smart enough for this game, I often think. But... I manage.)

[Armus]

I similarly did a head-scratch on reading the requirements it seems... off.

For a question what's the story around making the first / mission that is less than 40 points?

Let's see...

Diplomacy + Leadership + (staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill+Navigation) OR Mr. Scott aboard)

Does adding the extra set of parentheses help with readability? If so maybe we can petition to get the image changed before the pdf drops.

It's technically not wrong as is since the last OR statement is associated with the staffed ship requirement but if a tweak now helps avoid confusion later I'm all for it.

[SudenKapala]

Two for the Planet Killer cards.

I don't understand ('get') the image of Obsession, though. Can somebody point me in the right direction? Is it a certain defining moment in the episode?

[JeBuS]

I similarly did a head-scratch on reading the requirements it seems... off.

For a question what's the story around making the first / mission that is less than 40 points?

Let's see...

Diplomacy + Leadership + (staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill+Navigation) OR Mr. Scott aboard)

Does adding the extra set of parentheses help with readability? If so maybe we can petition to get the image changed before the pdf drops.

It's technically not wrong as is since the last OR statement is associated with the staffed ship requirement but if a tweak now helps avoid confusion later I'm all for it.

I have also wanted the proper use of nesting brackets and parentheses on missions, as they often confuse me. This one was no different. It's only the "aboard" clause which makes me think it's not mr Scott or everything else. And even then, grammatically I could see an argument.

[Armus]

I similarly did a head-scratch on reading the requirements it seems... off.

For a question what's the story around making the first / mission that is less than 40 points?

Let's see...

Diplomacy + Leadership + (staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill+Navigation) OR Mr. Scott aboard)

Does adding the extra set of parentheses help with readability? If so maybe we can petition to get the image changed before the pdf drops.

It's technically not wrong as is since the last OR statement is associated with the staffed ship requirement but if a tweak now helps avoid confusion later I'm all for it.

Alternatively...

Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with ((Computer Skill+Navigation) OR Mr. Scott) aboard

... I think I actually like that better.

[SudenKapala]

(1)

Two for the Planet Killer cards.

I don't understand ('get') the image of Obsession, though. Can somebody point me in the right direction? Is it a certain defining moment in the episode?

It's an honest question. Anybody want to step up?

(2)
Talking about images...

I really adore the art on most cards in the Cage set. I pay special attention to the portrayal of personnel. We've seen, over the course of many CCGs, a distinction between:

• "artful / estetically pleasing portraits" (mostly for main, support, and guest characters), examples of which are LEGION, but from top of head: Ro Laren, Reginald Barclay (both of which are genius but card-estetically not so much to my taste because of great distance to subject and thus obscurity), Geordi La Forge, Dorian Collins (which are more 'standard' but IMO perfect for cards), and Samuel T. Cogley which is subtly genius (which is the BEST kind) in its combination of action, portrayal, visibility (distance) and composition.
• "generic snapshots" (mostly of background personnel), used ideally for universal personnel, like Graham Davis.
• "promo shots" (main characters -- which I personally don't like -- characters looking at the camera breaks the 4th wall and is no-go for me), example: Enterprise series mains, Darian Wallace (whose pic and manip turned out better than I hope for in a promo-like shot); and--
• "zoomed blurry shots of people in the deep background", for which, e.g., the Shadow-side Raiders culture of TLOTR TCG is horribly notorious IMO; but SWCCG too. (I understand the need, especially when basing a big TCG on a handful of films.) Examples: Suzanne Dumont, Lisa Azar (which, to me, are examples of acceptable esthetical quality while working with mediocre image material).
  Trek has been able to steer mostly clear of this, but there are -- of course -- examples of this popping up, since most straightforward shots have already been used. Still, many more great shots keep popping up in new sets. Good work!

I was surprised negatively at the Cage Kirk, though.
His smirk, his demeanour, his physical stance(?)/body language -- great!
Still, I would not have used this shot, because of its background of people. (If they were further blurred or manip'd: good work. I have the feeling that this happens now and then, and that's good -- and the blurred background makes Kirk's image 'acceptable' -- but not outright 'pleasing' to me.) (Personally, I'd sooner have chosen a less characteristic shot of Jim with a better background, than use this nicer one with a messy background.)

It's all a matter of opinion, and taste, and the pic is certainly not horrible -- just not my choice.

Now. Can someboy elaborate, preferably in a Wowbagger-like style (i.e., a long essay with lots of JSOTMI*) on why this exact pic was chosen for Kirk? What were runners-up? Could you link me up? So I could better understand the process of choosing a pic.

(*: Just Short Of Too Much Information -- which is, really, the right amount of information for EVERYTHING. )

PS: can be just a short answer too, of course. I'll just respect your opinion less. (No! Joke! It's a JOOOKE! )

[Maelwys]

Alternatively...

Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with ((Computer Skill+Navigation) OR Mr. Scott) aboard

... I think I actually like that better.

Or alternatively...
Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill + Navigation OR Mr. Scott) aboard
... which is what it's been for a couple weeks now, except apparently the upload failed and I didn't notice until I saw this conversation and couldn't figure out why it was happening.

[sexecutioner]

What's your favourite cut card? And will it be something you think you can return to in a future set?

[jjh]

Can someboy elaborate…on why this exact pic was chosen for Kirk?

Sure thing.

I receive notes from the 1E Creative Team via the Brand Manager about image direction. I then send the image ideas to the Art Team Volunteers who agree to work on 1E. I get images back. (Timo and Enabran did fantastic work for The Cage) I also get specific image ideas via TrekCore from the 1E Creative Team. And I work on images too. As Art Director I weigh a bunch of factors (previous images, 2E images, set variety, image quality, direction notes, consensus from the art team, etc) and select the image that works best.

For Captain Kirk, I gave priority to the specific direction given by the Creative Team because background "noise" aside, I think it is a great shot of Kirk. As you say, it's a matter of taste/opinion.

I do agree 100% in disliking "promo" shots for cards. I try to avoid these whenever possible.

And Obsession. This was the note from Creative: Phasers firing at that damn cloud in "Obsession" (TOS 2x13)

[SudenKapala]

Can someboy elaborate…on why this exact pic was chosen for Kirk?

Sure thing.

Thanks! That answers everything. Good to know.

(So, Wowbagger -- you're off the hook, I have all the JSOTMI that I need here. )

[Orbin]

What's your favourite cut card? And will it be something you think you can return to in a future set?

My favourite card that was cut would have to be Mudd's ship. I'm hoping that it comes back in a future set, and its currently in the file for the 3rd set of the block.

- James M

[BCSWowbagger]

Very rarely does Design insert itself directly into the image-selection process, so the images are always a bit of a surprise. (The best part of the final proof file is finding out what images the Art Team found. Look at that beautiful shot for Koon-Ut-Kal-If-Fee!)

But Captain Kirk's was the exact frame I always imagined, from the moment we sent it to Creative with one word in lore: "turtleneck."

What's your favourite cut card? And will it be something you think you can return to in a future set?

The card I think most think should be revived for further testing (starting with vigorous internal testing before giving it to playtesters) is Intermission, which I wrote about elsewhere.

But that wasn't your question. Intermission feels like an important card but is not, in its current form, a card I'd want to marry. (It doesn't even have a story yet!)

My actual favorite cut card is 4379 Renegotiate Treaty, for its nifty power (but substantial cost), the way it sets up a future attempt at a 25-point "four-mission-win" trope, and probably above all the extremely sneaky reference on its asymmetric end. Good news is, it already got picked up! I check [REDACTED] regularly and cross my fingers that [REDACTED] haven't decided to cut it. (But I'll never complain if they do. It's their set.)

Legal Proceedings and I love You didn't make the cut sadly. I have seen the list of missing in the game. I'm not looking for a fight just saying I'm surprised these were not in the set.

We actually made both cards this time. Charlie loves broken links and I don't, so the arrangement we ended up with was that we could make broken links as long as we also had a plausible proposal for what the link would ultimately be.

Legal Proceedings got cut because it's sort of a support card for that 25-point missions trope that didn't make the cut. It works in any deck, but not all that well.

I Love You got cut for power level reasons. It tested... okay... but there was a combination of concerns about (a) how often it would be used defensively, and (b) whether it was a good idea to push gender-related combos even harder in this set, instead of waiting to see how good Let Me Help is and then recalibrating off that later on.

[BCSWowbagger]

And to get out of the corner.. of the episodes creative used for this set, what is your favorite?

I actually have yet to see all the cards in their final form, so I'm going to hold off answering until the 21st!

My favorite TOS episode overall is, I think, "The Conscience of the King." But we didn't have anything from that one in this set! (Fair enough: I'd rather Kodos be done right than done now.) We briefly talked of making the Astral Queen, but I don't believe it was ever seen on-screen, so Mudd's ship won that fight. (Only to get moved to Londo later on anyway.)

So, back to your question: I'm going to have to go with "A Taste of Armageddon" (Eminiar VII, Mea 3). A really wonderful hour of Trek built on a genuinely chilling premise.

[Boffo97]

Or alternatively...
Diplomacy + Leadership + staffed ship in orbit with (Computer Skill + Navigation OR Mr. Scott) aboard
... which is what it's been for a couple weeks now, except apparently the upload failed and I didn't notice until I saw this conversation and couldn't figure out why it was happening.

It seems to be correct in the PDF file at least.

Edit: And after hitting Shift and the Reload button, it's correct on the page as well.