[Takket]

The wording is clunky but I think Armus nailed it. But that is a minor point.

So this kind of feels like a card almost. I like that it is limited to once per game per persona and think it could give some legs to dilemma combos. I like that it gives the player the opportunity to do something about abuse but doesn't kill the totally for the game. People will get the chance to decide for themselves if they want to stock it or not. But there definitely needs to be some way to get this to hand. Can't just be stuffing 5 of these in every deck for situation use.

I don't like that it can only stop a bug out one time and the person can still use it next turn. of course if your dilemmas are good you are going to kill the bug out person when they face the dilemma they planned on skipping out of LOL.

I don't think during mission attempts for things like grabbing an equipment to give you a skill you need should go away, but bug outs.... they should not work at all. and this can only delay a bug out but not eliminate it.

[Armus]

The wording is clunky but I think Armus nailed it. But that is a minor point.

So this kind of feels like a card almost. I like that it is limited to once per game per persona and think it could give some legs to dilemma combos. I like that it gives the player the opportunity to do something about abuse but doesn't kill the totally for the game. People will get the chance to decide for themselves if they want to stock it or not. But there definitely needs to be some way to get this to hand. Can't just be stuffing 5 of these in every deck for situation use.

I don't like that it can only stop a bug out one time and the person can still use it next turn. of course if your dilemmas are good you are going to kill the bug out person when they face the dilemma they planned on skipping out of LOL.

I don't think during mission attempts for things like grabbing an equipment to give you a skill you need should go away, but bug outs.... they should not work at all. and this can only delay a bug out but not eliminate it.

Fair points.

Dumb idea: why not make this a card? We're talking about changing the special download rules, why not start with something like this and see where it goes?

Key Benefit: Easy access to disrupting special downloads.

Key Risk: Can potentially hammer multiple special downloads in a turn.

May need to add a "once every turn" clause in addition to the 1PGPP clause. That also has the side benefit of adding some strategic decision making to the equation.

I dunno. It seems worth exploring as a concept at least.

[Discovery suxs]

The wording is clunky but I think Armus nailed it. But that is a minor point.

So this kind of feels like a card almost. I like that it is limited to once per game per persona and think it could give some legs to dilemma combos. I like that it gives the player the opportunity to do something about abuse but doesn't kill the totally for the game. People will get the chance to decide for themselves if they want to stock it or not. But there definitely needs to be some way to get this to hand. Can't just be stuffing 5 of these in every deck for situation use.

I don't like that it can only stop a bug out one time and the person can still use it next turn. of course if your dilemmas are good you are going to kill the bug out person when they face the dilemma they planned on skipping out of LOL.

I don't think during mission attempts for things like grabbing an equipment to give you a skill you need should go away, but bug outs.... they should not work at all. and this can only delay a bug out but not eliminate it.

Fair points.

Dumb idea: why not make this a card? We're talking about changing the special download rules, why not start with something like this and see where it goes?

Key Benefit: Easy access to disrupting special downloads.

Key Risk: Can potentially hammer multiple special downloads in a turn.

May need to add a "once every turn" clause in addition to the 1PGPP clause. That also has the side benefit of adding some strategic decision making to the equation.

I dunno. It seems worth exploring as a concept at least.

It is interesting for sure. I agree with takket you can't just put 5 in your deck. There has to be something else with it. It is again a situational card with no extra effect to use for something else. It should have or draw 2 cards discard 1. It would make it worth the card slot because you will use it every game that way. You may end up just holding it otherwise.

Honestly as Charlie has said the game is vomit people and go in the current game. There is no room in your deck for situational cards. When you can draw a personnel, draw cards, ship, etc. The game is about building up as fast as possible today. I wish I could do other themes but that would probably lose me the game. So I make decks based on trying to solve missions.

[Boffo97]

This card is the stupidest thing I have ever designed. Why? It’s main victim is me. I use bugouts all the time. This card is going to bite me on the arse. Hard.

I don't think it will bite you in the arse so much as kick you in the face.

I could make a reference to Los Lobos in Short Circuit 2, but I might be the only one to get it...

[pfti]

This card is the stupidest thing I have ever designed. Why? It’s main victim is me. I use bugouts all the time. This card is going to bite me on the arse. Hard.

I don't think it will bite you in the arse so much as kick you in the face.

I could make a reference to Los Lobos in Short Circuit 2, but I might be the only one to get it...

I'd kick that joke to outer space

[BCSWowbagger]

Dumb idea: why not make this a card?

Because if the card succeeds, you either have to make the card a rule, or give up on phasing out cards.

General Quarters is bad enough as a rule. It's weird and arbitrary and the Rulebook simply makes up a rationale for it out of whole cloth. Making GenQ a rule was only good because it was preferable to the alternative: mandatory Tribunal of Q in every deck and a turn-one minigame of "who knows the timing rules best?" in every match.

But this? What would this even look like as a rule? I'm not sure.

Regular is the appropriate type for this concept.

No comment on the card itself, because it wouldn't be fair for me to double-dip.

[Armus]

Dumb idea: why not make this a card?

Because if the card succeeds, you either have to make the card a rule, or give up on phasing out cards.

This is one of those times when I challenge TPTB to revisit and challenge their premises.

What's the PRIMARY goal? To get rid of cards or to create the best game possible? I know what my answer is, and if achieving that goal means that cards stay in the game because they're the best option, then ok. The game still wins.

[BCSWowbagger]

Dumb idea: why not make this a card?

Because if the card succeeds, you either have to make the card a rule, or give up on phasing out cards.

This is one of those times when I challenge TPTB to revisit and challenge their premises.

What's the PRIMARY goal? To get rid of cards or to create the best game possible? I know what my answer is, and if achieving that goal means that cards stay in the game because they're the best option, then ok. The game still wins.

ooo! A chance to link one of my favorite fairly obscure webcomic pages!

The primary goal is to create the best game possible. Obviously.

One of a variety of objectives in support of that goal is the repair of the game speed issue -- and one possible tactic supporting that objective is the rebalancing of .

Another objective supporting our goal (the best game possible) is reducing the "bad" complexity of the game without reducing the "good" complexity. (Somebody could probably write a doctoral paper about the distinction between "good" and "bad" complexity in 1E, but the precis is that making complex decisions about where and how to deploy limited resources into the Star Trek universe is good complexity, but manipulating and debating weird sections of 1E's overstuffed Glossary is bad complexity.) One solid tactic supporting the objective of reducing "bad" complexity is the gradual phaseout of -- and we've invested a lot in it, moving the game in a healthy direction over time since the start of OTF by gradually sucking the air out of the mechanic.

If we really take our goal (the best game possible) seriously, then we should try to accomplish all of our objectives, or at least as many as possible. That means, when trying to accomplish one objective, we should prioritize tactics that do not compromise other tactics and objectives.

I like the concept behind I Have Had Enough Of You (I guess I'm disclosing that now) because I think it does a good job of doing that. It attacks certain kinds of that have been problematic, but succeeds at doing that in a way that fits into the overall design of the game, without hindering any of our other objectives. To me, IHHEOY feels like an emergency splint on a broken bone -- a good interim patch but not enough to actually heal the wound -- and we'll see whether others agree with me. If it's not enough, then there are other tactics we can adopt. You've even suggested one (your proposed "two per turn" limit). Many of those other proposed tactics fit in with our broader strategy to make the game the best it could be; a few even advance that strategy in multiple ways.

But slapping a card on this card (or, frankly, any card, ever again) would be accomplishing one objective (maybe) at the cost of permanently surrendering a big piece of a different objective, one we've been working on for years. That wouldn't help make the game the best it could be. When you consider the big picture (no, not that one), it wouldn't even be Good For Business.

It's possible there are theoretical situations out there where a new card would be the best available path forward for dealing with a particularly pernicious problem. But this definitely isn't it -- I can list at least half a dozen tactics we could adopt to support the objective of rebalancing , with varying degrees of strength, several of which Paddy and Niall would even like... and none of them would have the effect of permanently keeping the "bad" complexity of cards. Having YAAM and GQ stuck in the rules is bad enough, and I hope we can eventually advance to the point where they aren't needed anymore. cards are a design cul-de-sac, the help they offer in solving immediate problems a mirage. Run away.

(If we keep going on this tangent, we should probably split the thread, because -- much as I'm happy to have the debate -- I don't want to distract from the discussion of the actual card with our super-meta debate about how to make the best game possible.)

[Discovery rox]

i dont like this card because first the title doesnt make any sense thats not what he said in the movie.

and second its a silver bullet and one of the few lessons decipher taught us most strongly is that silver bullets are bad for the game. its way too specific a silver bullet with too limited a effect to make it worth it to stock it.

[Spectre9]

I don't like it because it's too situational.

I'm not gonna play it in my deck just in case one day I can get that "GOTCHA" moment by preventing a during a dilemma.

[Discovery suxs]

Man BCSWowbagger that is a wall of text there

[Latok]

'Once per game per persona' is probably to limiting imo, I think 'once each turn' would be better, so you can't completely lockout an opponent's downloads but you can shut one down, like a bug out, which doesn't seem that bad.

[jadziadax8]

i dont like this card because first the title doesnt make any sense thats not what he said in the movie.

This sort of thing changes when the card actually goes into production, so not really a reason to dislike it now. [emoji6]

My favorite version of this happened in a recent 2E set, in which Lily Sloane, Voice of Reason was released. Her playtesting subtitle was “Probably Actually Invented Warp Drive.”


Sent through Subspace from the Starship Enterprise

[Marquetry]

I'm not a fan, as 1) It's situational, and 2) I disagree with the premise that are so awful to begin with.

[Tim]

Doesn't quite work for me. Seems little round-about, awkward, and not universal enough for a deck-stocked counter.

What's the goal? To incentivize using early instead of during dilemmas? Explicitly targeting dilemma in a more direct simpler way would read better for me. Perhaps a secondary function of a much milder universal hindrance during dilemmas (instead of the unrelated Benefactor part) would make it a lot less situation so worth stocking in more decks.