[Slayer07]

I would be much more supportive of your option 3 if the rule to not revisit errata once published didn't exist. As is, I don't want another Q - better to leave Dix on the ban list so at least the Open players can use him.

this rule needs to change then. q needs to be fixed, nobody likes it. .

I will pause to note that while "nobody likes Q", I have yet to hear a suggestion for replacement text that isn't just "make a new card and call it 'Q'" (Red Alert has similar problems)

Just a side thing, I must have been out sick or something during the timeframe Q was discussed unless it was all behind the scenes. Can someone provide a link to that discussion?

[Armus]

I would be much more supportive of your option 3 if the rule to not revisit errata once published didn't exist. As is, I don't want another Q - better to leave Dix on the ban list so at least the Open players can use him.

this rule needs to change then. q needs to be fixed, nobody likes it. .

I will pause to note that while "nobody likes Q", I have yet to hear a suggestion for replacement text that isn't just "make a new card and call it 'Q'" (Red Alert has similar problems)

My suggestion is: don't errata Q in the first place.

Broken card on ban list > useless card off ban list. At least the broken cards can still contribute to the shitshow that is Open, and I think there's at least a couple of diehards that relish that (not to mention the in-game solutions that exist to deal with it).

[BCSWowbagger]

this rule needs to change then. q needs to be fixed, nobody likes it. .

I will pause to note that while "nobody likes Q", I have yet to hear a suggestion for replacement text that isn't just "make a new card and call it 'Q'" (Red Alert has similar problems)

Just a side thing, I must have been out sick or something during the timeframe Q was discussed unless it was all behind the scenes. Can someone provide a link to that discussion?

This is an argument now in its 12th year that pops up occasionally, like shingles. You didn't miss it; you just haven't realized that you're a part of it yet.

Allen ran Errata at the time and his arguments for why the Q errata was a good idea are not meritless. Still wrong, but not meritless.

[AllenGould]

Just a side thing, I must have been out sick or something during the timeframe Q was discussed unless it was all behind the scenes. Can someone provide a link to that discussion?

This is an argument now in its 12th year that pops up occasionally, like shingles. You didn't miss it; you just haven't realized that you're a part of it yet.

Allen ran Errata at the time and his arguments for why the Q errata was a good idea are not meritless. Still wrong, but not meritless.

Lemme catch you up.

When errata first became a serious thing, one of the guiding principles was to change as little as possible, and there wasn't a lot of community appetite for re-writing cards. (Over the years people have relaxed a bit on that front, and while that's for the better I still think errata is better served by the scalpel than the chainsaw.) And a lot of cards got dealt with that no-one thinks about because It Was Fine.

Q is the one that everyone remembers, because it got whacked hard, and I can explain why it couldn't be any other way.

Q (the original version) has three parts:
a) 2 Leadership and INTEGRITY > 60
b) discard all dilemmas here
c) rearrange the spaceline.

(b) is why it was on the list in the first place (and why Decipher printed bullet after bullet trying and failing to bring it under control), and blowing up dilemmas is stupidly powerful - even blowing up one dilemma likely wrecks the combo, after all. So it had to go.

Meanwhile, (c) isn't much better - Sheliak/Q was a brutal combo, rearranging spaceline is this sweet spot of time consuming, back-breaking to the opponent, and caused no end of rules problems around what regions do if they're broken up across half the spaceline. And again, no-one could find a "weaker" version of that text that wasn't still a massive problem, so it went.

Now all that's left is the requirements, and it turns out making those into a wall is *still* super good, because INTEGRITY 60 is the highest INTEGRITY requirement in the game. And Q's "weakness" now is simply because it's a one-turn stop - it's still among the nastiest requirements in the game.

Do I think Q was our finest hour? Not really. But to this day (and since this is a Perennial Topic, I've had plenty of chances to think it over), I don't see how it would have turned out any different. (Maybe I should have fought for it to be a wall a bit harder?)

[Discovery rox]

I will pause to note that while "nobody likes Q", I have yet to hear a suggestion for replacement text that isn't just "make a new card and call it 'Q'" (Red Alert has similar problems)

nobodys suggesting replacement text when the book is considered closed because errata refuses to re errata there erratas.

When errata first became a serious thing, one of the guiding principles was to change as little as possible, and there wasn't a lot of community appetite for re-writing cards. (Over the years people have relaxed a bit on that front, and while that's for the better I still think errata is better served by the scalpel than the chainsaw.) And a lot of cards got dealt with that no-one thinks about because It Was Fine.

yeah but you didnt use a scalpel on q, you used a chainsaw. you hacked off his right arm, his right leg, his left leg, and cut his head clean off his neck just above his adam apple.

Q (the original version) has three parts:
a) 2 Leadership and INTEGRITY > 60
b) discard all dilemmas here
c) rearrange the spaceline.

(b) is why it was on the list in the first place (and why Decipher printed bullet after bullet trying and failing to bring it under control), and blowing up dilemmas is stupidly powerful - even blowing up one dilemma likely wrecks the combo, after all. So it had to go.

big risk big reward. i agree taking away all the dilemmas is too powerful even if its moot in otf. removing next dilemma you encounter isnt too powerful and would also work in otf.

Meanwhile, (c) isn't much better - Sheliak/Q was a brutal combo

even after hacking q apart with the chainsaw, sheliak is still banned, so its not like that accomplished anything.

rearranging spaceline is this sweet spot of time consuming, back-breaking to the opponent, and caused no end of rules problems around what regions do if they're broken up across half the spaceline. And again, no-one could find a "weaker" version of that text that wasn't still a massive problem, so it went.

"opponent may swap two missions on the same spaceline." its powerful but not too powerful and feels like q. no problems with regions. if you split bajor region into two bajor regions, so be it. interceptors lose benefit if they have to cross the gap between the two bajor regions, they keep it if they stay within one of the bajor regions.

even "opponent may relocate one ship within this spaceline" feels more like q then the nothing wall he became.

Do I think Q was our finest hour? Not really. But to this day (and since this is a Perennial Topic, I've had plenty of chances to think it over), I don't see how it would have turned out any different. (Maybe I should have fought for it to be a wall a bit harder?)

i mean if you were in charge then yeah you dont see how it would have turned out any different by definition. because if you did it would have been different.

but it doesnt matter what happened then. what matters is now. the past is the past and now is now and now is the time to fix q.

[Discovery suxs]

Carlos

The one thing not said is Carlos is pretty powerful with dixon hill. I know I saw a card where you can switch your discard pile with draw deck. Which would make carlos pretty awesome.

[Spectre9]

Can we please get the Q discussion split off. Thanks guys.

Interesting poll results so far. I think people aren't afraid to get the Dix out.

[Discovery suxs]

Can we please get the Q discussion split off. Thanks guys.

Interesting poll results so far. I think people aren't afraid to get the Dix out.

It happens on here. It keeps your topic alive and well to have a sub topic in it.

[Boffo97]

Personally, and another mod may disagree with me and decide to do the split, I'm seeing the Q discussion as relevant to the topic of whether to errata/unban Dix and how to do so and am leaning slightly towards leaving it here for now.

If there's a consensus that it needs to be moved, then it probably won't take much to convince me.

[Discovery suxs]

The one thing I don't see here is dixon hill can play for free with war council. So you could clear a mission of dilemmas the previous turn but can't beat it. You drop dixon hill for free and beat the mission and possibly win the game at the same time. The ability is pretty powerful honestly.

If 1E is all about flavor then dixon hill a flavorful card then just a decipher money card. The decipher money cards are borderline in the current game. There not based on flavor at all. There just awesome cards to make people buy more boxes.

Since there is 2 topics started by the same user and on the same topic. I posted in both topics

[Takket]

can an away team with DH pass LoP?

[Boffo97]

can an away team with DH pass LoP?

No, unless they could pass the mission requirements without him of course. The Glossary specifically addresses this case under Dixon Hill's entry.

This personnel’s skill allows you to ignore the requirements of a mission only when solving it. Ignoring requirements is not the same as meeting requirements. For example, if his Away Team encounters Lack of Preparation and would not have been able to meet the requirements at the start of that mission attempt, they lose points and are "stopped".

On a side note, an easily copy-able and paste-able version of the Glossary would be appreciated.

[Spectre9]

Only a couple of days to go.

If you're still on the fence you still have time.

[Ensign Q]

wow, the banlist is handled poorly and completely out of ass.

missions stealing in otf, srsly?

[Not_always_but_often]

wow, the banlist is handled poorly and completely out of ass.

missions stealing in otf, srsly?

Mission stealing has always been a part of OTF for 40+ point missions, but I think Dixon remains banned in large part due to stealing concerns. Not like this poll was an official change or something.