[Discovery suxs]

Beep Beep Topic finished Beep Beep

[KazonPADD]

Do you agree with me?

No.

Deckbuilder will show this card as "Mr. Scott (The Cage)" once released.

"Captain Scott" would make more sense as a title once his actual rank was captain (Movie era).

[Discovery suxs]

Do you agree with me?

No.

Deckbuilder will show this card as "Mr. Scott (The Cage)" once released.

"Captain Scott" would make more sense as a title once his actual rank was captain (Movie era).

If they change it from V to (Cage) I really don't have a problem.

[Latok]

Do you agree with me?

No.

Deckbuilder will show this card as "Mr. Scott (The Cage)" once released.

"Captain Scott" would make more sense as a title once his actual rank was captain (Movie era).

If they change it from V to (Cage) I really don't have a problem.

Even if they didn't your suggestion is to sacrifice gameplay for a minor convenience to lazy people, bad idea.

[SudenKapala]

As for style -- I disagree with Latok. My recent use of the word 'lazy' notwithstanding, I don't think there is such a thing as "a lazy 1e player", on the whole. (Nor in 2e, I reckon.)

But we all try to make it easier on ourselves in different ways, I guess.

(I know I do -- choosing a version of the game [a CCG...] that never changes. Because I'm lazy I really don't like change.)

And it's good to voice that -- I learned that recently from Ensign Q. Don't that take the complexity for granted, but try to see where it could -- perhaps -- be improved. That's not lazy.

As for content -- I do agree with Latok. The designers didn't just randomly slap a name in that bar. They might perhaps make the occasional mistake, sure, but they know what they're doing. Finding fault with every card in the new set, to me, is -- in this case -- a sign of... enthusiastic, engaged impatience.

Let the cards grow on you. Sometimes wait for other people to also give their opinions, read the discussions, and maybe find out that there's merit in these things. Or check out the decks and mechanics -- you do that better than I can, it seems.

And AFTER that, have your sniper cat pump a round in that chamber, and blast the errors out of those cards. (If there are any real errors to be found, by then.)

Just a thought.

[Discovery suxs]

Latok is in violation of the rules. I feel like I'm being called lazy on here. When I'm clearly not lazy at all. A lazy player to me is a person who downloads a deck and just plays it. Later the same player asks rules found in the rulebook and glossary. The main purpose of a deck builder game is deckbuilding above everything else. If a player does not want to build a deck then they should play something else to me anyway. I'm a unique deck builder myself. So if you play against me then we won't have the same decks. It is why I hate standard mtg. I play the game for fun and original gameplay to enjoy all the game has to offer me.

[Slayer07]

Not sure the complaint is valid honestly. Look around. Riker has four unique personas called William T. Riker. Deanna has four unique personas called Deanna Troi. Sisko has four unique personas called Benjamin Sisko. Picard has five personas called Jean-Luc Picard. Worf has five unique personas named Worf. Data has six unique personas called Data. Quark has six unique personas called Quark. It's hardly a new thing and while it might not show much creativity as far naming conventions go it's still literally who they are and just a symptom of being main characters who can get just about anything.

[MidnightLich]

If we had given him a different title, he'd need to then be a persona of Mr. Scott and have that in bold in his lore. He was already tight on lore, and doing that would have not really added a lot of gameplay options. I think we did consider Acting Captain Scott at some point, but it was just easier to use his existing persona name than bend over backwards to be a little more thematic.

-crp

[Not_always_but_often]

Changing Mr. Scott's title to something else would actually have gameplay consequences too, since Dr. McCoy from Through the Looking Glass allows free reports only to "Mr. Scott", not any other variation of Scotty's name.

McCoy link for reference: https://www.trekcc.org/1e/index.php?mod ... ardID=4932

[Latok]

Latok is in violation of the rules. I feel like I'm being called lazy on here. When I'm clearly not lazy at all. A lazy player to me is a person who downloads a deck and just plays it. Later the same player asks rules found in the rulebook and glossary. The main purpose of a deck builder game is deckbuilding above everything else. If a player does not want to build a deck then they should play something else to me anyway. I'm a unique deck builder myself. So if you play against me then we won't have the same decks. It is why I hate standard mtg. I play the game for fun and original gameplay to enjoy all the game has to offer me.

It's a violation of the rules to call you lazy but not when you call other people lazy? Let's assume your complaint actually made sense, there's two virtual Mr. Scott's both have different card numbers, go to the search engine find which one you want, problem solved, gameplay preserved.

[Slayer07]

I may be wrong but there was probably enough room to put Mr. Scott often served as acting captain of the Starship Enterprise instead of just using 'he' at the start of that sentence. But it's also true it wouldn't have really added anything either really. Not really sure the inability to report where that McCoy is really a huge gain or loss either but it is a thing too.

[Iron Prime]

I like him the way he is. The persona rule can be a bit goofy at times but it's part of 1E's charm and history in opinion.

[Dmour]

As for style -- I disagree with Latok. My recent use of the word 'lazy' notwithstanding, I don't think there is such a thing as "a lazy 1e player", on the whole. (Nor in 2e, I reckon.)

But we all try to make it easier on ourselves in different ways, I guess.

(I know I do -- choosing a version of the game [a CCG...] that never changes. Because I'm lazy I really don't like change.)

And it's good to voice that -- I learned that recently from Ensign Q. Don't that the complexity for granted, but try to see where it could -- perhaps -- be improved. That's not lazy.

As for content -- I do agree with Latok. The designers didn't just randomly slap a name in that bar. They might perhaps make the occasional mistake, sure, but they know what they're doing. Finding fault with every card in the new set, to me, is -- in this case -- a sign of... enthusiastic, engaged impatience.

Let the cards grow on you. Sometimes wait for other people to also give their opinions, read the discussions, and maybe find out that there's merit in these things. Or check out the decks and mechanics -- you do that better than I can, it seems.

And AFTER that, have your sniper cat pump a round in that chamber, and blast the errors out of those cards. (If there are any real errors to be found, by then.)

Just a thought.

Perfectly stated. I want to frame this.

[Slayer07]

As for style -- I disagree with Latok. My recent use of the word 'lazy' notwithstanding, I don't think there is such a thing as "a lazy 1e player", on the whole. (Nor in 2e, I reckon.)

But we all try to make it easier on ourselves in different ways, I guess.

(I know I do -- choosing a version of the game [a CCG...] that never changes. Because I'm lazy I really don't like change.)

And it's good to voice that -- I learned that recently from Ensign Q. Don't that the complexity for granted, but try to see where it could -- perhaps -- be improved. That's not lazy.

As for content -- I do agree with Latok. The designers didn't just randomly slap a name in that bar. They might perhaps make the occasional mistake, sure, but they know what they're doing. Finding fault with every card in the new set, to me, is -- in this case -- a sign of... enthusiastic, engaged impatience.

Let the cards grow on you. Sometimes wait for other people to also give their opinions, read the discussions, and maybe find out that there's merit in these things. Or check out the decks and mechanics -- you do that better than I can, it seems.

And AFTER that, have your sniper cat pump a round in that chamber, and blast the errors out of those cards. (If there are any real errors to be found, by then.)

Just a thought.

Perfectly stated. I want to frame this.

Even when those few errors are found that doesn't always mean anything gets done about it though.

[SudenKapala]

As for style -- I disagree with Latok. My recent use of the word 'lazy' notwithstanding, I don't think there is such a thing as "a lazy 1e player", on the whole. (Nor in 2e, I reckon.)

But we all try to make it easier on ourselves in different ways, I guess.

(I know I do -- choosing a version of the game [a CCG...] that never changes. Because I'm lazy I really don't like change.)

And it's good to voice that -- I learned that recently from Ensign Q. Don't that the complexity for granted, but try to see where it could -- perhaps -- be improved. That's not lazy.

As for content -- I do agree with Latok. The designers didn't just randomly slap a name in that bar. They might perhaps make the occasional mistake, sure, but they know what they're doing. Finding fault with every card in the new set, to me, is -- in this case -- a sign of... enthusiastic, engaged impatience.

Let the cards grow on you. Sometimes wait for other people to also give their opinions, read the discussions, and maybe find out that there's merit in these things. Or check out the decks and mechanics -- you do that better than I can, it seems.

And AFTER that, have your sniper cat pump a round in that chamber, and blast the errors out of those cards. (If there are any real errors to be found, by then.)

Just a thought.

Perfectly stated. I want to frame this.

Nice! Thx. You can frame it. I'll even autograph it for you, if you feel that such makes it of more worth to you personally.

(Compliments are nice. )