[Discovery rox]

So regardless of what Decipher thought it could be at some point in time, WE should have a clear picture of what each icon means and use it accordingly, wouldnt you think?

going forward, sure, but historical revisionism is another thing entirely.

[SudenKapala]

So regardless of what Decipher thought it could be at some point in time, WE should have a clear picture of what each icon means and use it accordingly, wouldnt you think?

going forward, sure, but historical revisionism is another thing entirely.

I have to agree with Rox here -- both points. (So that's also 1 of Dunnagh's points.)

I mean, call me traditionalist ( I still cant wrap my head around Ferengi Picard...) but I would think it strange if was suddenly on Paris just because he also built a flying machine and like to "rock it".

Not calling you anything (except a good sparring partner). But incidentally, I've always liked the idea of having on one other personnel. I even made the card, for fun, myself. And while I hadn't thought of Tom, he certainly fits the bill almost as well -- and in canon.

I do see your point (and that of others) though, and it is why I would certainly support new persona versions of all 4 aforementioned characters. That is the offical Käpälän stance.

Yet I'd also accept (and even appreciate) the fact that, for this specific purpose of removing soms vexing icons (they do vex!), there might be too little enthusiasm to divert resources away from making new cards.

Like Shran and D'Vela -- LOL!

[AllenGould]

So regardless of what Decipher thought it could be at some point in time, WE should have a clear picture of what each icon means and use it accordingly, wouldnt you think?

I mean, call me traditionalist ( I still cant wrap my head around Ferengi Picard...) but I would think it strange if was suddenly on Paris just because he also built a flying machine and like to "rock it".

Except these aren't so much a case of "designers behaving badly", as "designers ahead of their time".

The Holo-Romulans may have an argument for being instead, but they were printed in Premiere... when didn't exist (the icon was created for the aptly-named Alternate Universe) expansion.

Rakal would more properly be an infiltrator, except that again the mechanic didn't exist yet.

(And in both cases there was the design pressure to have instances of those mechanics on personnel.)

As others have noted, CC tends to avoid doing "Six Million Dollar Man"-type errata ("Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology."), because there is no lack of cards that could be "better".

Plus, there's an easier solution - there's no reason I can think of why we can't just make new versions of those four, and leave the originals for posterity.

[Boffo97]

Plus, there's an easier solution - there's no reason I can think of why we can't just make new versions of those four, and leave the originals for posterity.

That does fit with precedent (such as creating Admiral Mendak rather than errata'ing Mendak to make him an Admiral for just one example).

I think it's a bad precedent though since it basically turns the originals from wrong and needing to be fixed to wrong and probably never to be fixed.

[AllenGould]

Plus, there's an easier solution - there's no reason I can think of why we can't just make new versions of those four, and leave the originals for posterity.

That does fit with precedent (such as creating Admiral Mendak rather than errata'ing Mendak to make him an Admiral for just one example).

I think it's a bad precedent though since it basically turns the originals from wrong and needing to be fixed to wrong and probably never to be fixed.

I would argue the old ones are weird, not necessarily wrong. They're artifacts of their time, and were correct (or at least as correct as they could be). And to make them "right" would make them unrecognizable (for instance, forget the icon - should those two even be ?)

Errata is the sort of tool we should bring out when we can't work around the problem another way. Those four cards are mechanically fine as-is - they've been around for 20 years, after all! If we want to make Smoke Creature Tomek, let's make one.

[BCSWowbagger]

It never bothered me growing up, because I'd never seen "Timescape."

It's only "wrong" if you know the specific episode and story around it -- and know them on sight, since the lore doesn't give you much information to indicate they're from Timescape.

Which makes the hologram guys annoying for the subset of players who are both (a) hardcore Trekkies and (b) rules experts... but not a barrier-to-entry for new players.

[Tim]

I made this comment in one of the other threads, just restating because nobody is defending them here.

Honestly, I’ve always thought fit Tomek and Jera. They were projected forms of black hole aliens, those weren’t their real bodies. I’ve never thought ❖ were meant to represent particular characters in the show, just examples of a universal type. In this case examples of recreated Romulan projections.

Not worth gameplay errata. But even treksense I think they are fine.

[Data's Socks]

I suppose to try taking as many things at face value as possible, even if not supported by the show, there are these generic Romulan holograms with the forms of Jera and Tomek. Then the aliens, who somehow know about this, took these forms while running around doing alien things while being very much not holograms. So these cards aren't actually of the aliens, but do mention that aliens once chose to look like them. I don't dare go back to see if that makes sense; I'm sure it's fine.

The underlying issue though might be about gameplay changes for the sake of flavor as opposed to something really game-breaking. I think it's good to have as many cards as possible come out of packs that are what they say. Also, the more of these changes happen, the higher the likelihood of leaving a bad taste to someone who does depend on a card working as it did. It's not like pushes for these kinds of changes won't ever bear fruit (as with a blueish icon in particular), but there will be varying levels of enthusiasm because Trek accuracy isn't always the highest priority.

[Tim]

Trek-sense, as far as it's explained on the shows, holograms are artificial projections created from photons and force fields. How holograms actually work and interact has been inconsistent. Similar technology has apparently been developed independently by a few different alien species.

I'm no theoretical physicist, but in modern physics "holographic" refers to theories about what happens to information in different dimensions when it is projected at the event horizon of a black hole.

already fits how they were portrayed in the show.

is a broader icon that could fit too. I've always visualized playing a personnel as them jumping out of some sort of time/dimensional rift. These universal romulans feel more like examples of projections.

[Data's Socks]

One of them was scanned though, right? Going by the script (and if the actual lines aren't too far off), Data goes "His cellular structure does not conform to any known species. His bioelectric patterns are in a state of temporal flux. I do not believe that this being is native to our time continuum." I think it'd require less explanation if they were simply not holograms, though maybe they were some other kind of manifestation.

[Tim]

Sure, they are not the same thing as holograms on the holodeck. The icon was never meant to be used that narrowly. The original game designers created these cards as "universal" examples of Romulan recreations.

Since premier holograms have been developed a lot more, a long with many other icons and characteristics. What icons represent has shifted throughout the lifetime of the game. Still, even today, these artificial Romulans thematically fit the icon better than any other icon.

If these weren't universal personnel but particular representations of the actual individuals from the episode, I don't think Romulan affiliation would fit at all. Or even personnel really, they'd thematically fit as a dilemma better or some related Doorway card that can play on Romulan ships and singularities, etc.

[Discovery rox]

timo's justification with the use of ❖ makes sense to me.

[Enabran]

My Poll showed: 31 people are for an Errata - 23 say that the card shall stay as they are. I strongly recommend an Errata, not a new version.

[Armus]

My Poll showed: 31 people are for an Errata - 23 say that the card shall stay as they are. I strongly recommend an Errata, not a new version.

How much you want to bet that none of (or very few of) those yes votes were people involved in making errata happen?

The right question to ask is "Do you want errata to Jera and Tomek if it means a delay in getting new cards and/ or other errata?"

You get a 31-23 result in THAT poll let me know.

This whole discussion is a "nice to have" not a "need"

Neither of these cards are breaking the game. If Art, Errata, Rules and Playtesting are all so bored that they have time for this then the game is in better shape than I thought.

[AllenGould]

I suspect any poll of the form "Would you like this OK card to be better?" will get similar numbers.