This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#483877
well, that or that we look into the cards that look to this the other way like Allen talked about ( think it was)
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#483880
problem with your example is its a extreme edge case that is almost tailor made to dodge the problems i explained. sure, in that case your right, the rules change is better. but self controlling card changes are so different from so many other changes, proposed or othwrise.

-nobody uses self controlling cards, so nobodys going to be confused if those rules change. i bet 99% of people who see self controlling cards in game look up all the rules at that point anyway because nobodys going to be remembering those rules anyhow.

-self controlling cards are not a long established part of the game, they were made by continuing committee. nobodys going to be upset if cc changes something that cc made.

-self controlling cards already have there own section of rules which barely touch anything else, so changing those rules is already going to be super self contained

compare that to the thing that sparked this discussion, changing mission attempts to include scouting. mission attempts are part of so much of the game. so many rules. so many cards. same for scouting. thats not a local, precise area to change, thats global. its also used by lots of players. its generally understood by lots of players. it has a long history of being part of the game. in every meaningful way its entirely different from changing self controlling cards.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#483889
Discovery rox wrote:problem with your example is its a extreme edge case that is almost tailor made to dodge the problems i explained.
It's literally something that happened within the past six months. I just picked one of two recent examples. (The other example is at the bottom of this post.)
-nobody uses self controlling cards, so nobodys going to be confused if those rules change. i bet 99% of people who see self controlling cards in game look up all the rules at that point anyway because nobodys going to be remembering those rules anyhow.
249 decks that have used Spaceborne Entity (alone) would like a word.
self controlling cards are not a long established part of the game, they were made by continuing committee.

The first self-controlling card was released in 2013. To put this in perspective, the [self] rules are older today than the [DL] rules were on the day Decipher launched 2E.
-self controlling cards already have there own section of rules which barely touch anything else, so changing those rules is already going to be super self contained. compare that to the thing that sparked this discussion, changing mission attempts to include scouting.


I already agreed with this! If anyone were to pursue the suggestion seriously (and I'm not), it would require a lot of research just to reach the formal proposal stage, and then there would be plenty of testing needed after.

All I said in the first place was, there are two ways of introducing a change like this into the game: you could change the rule, or you could create a card. The community, for some reason, is usually okay with creating a card, but not with changing a rule, even if the two things have identical effects.

For example, here's a card idea I just came up with to illustrate the point:
[Inc] I-MOD Gun {Star Trek: Elite Force} [HA]
Seeds or plays on table. Rogue Borg may not play to your ships or facilities. Cards that refer to "mission attempts" include scouting attempts.
This is the kind of thing that shows up in sets fairly regularly. It's an offensive card that tweaks the rules a bit as a counter against a particular deck. It might only hurt Borg a little, it might hurt them a lot (in which case the community might get mad), but it would basically be accepted as the kind of thing that happens in a living card game. It would be seen as at least a legitimate concept, worth testing, even if it turns out to not be, ultimately, a good idea.

By contrast, if a new rule came out saying exactly the same thing -- cards that refer to "mission attempts" include scouting attempts, I think there would be a significant community backlash against the very legitimacy of the idea. The Rules Committee would be accused of fundamentally changing the game and of messing around with sacred things that should never, ever be altered.

If you don't believe me, you can actually see this dynamic in action on these boards just this year:

OH NO GREAT BIRD A RULES CHANGE RAGE: viewtopic.php?p=402447#p402447

OH HEY A NEW CARD COULD BE FUN: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=38381&start=30

This despite the fact that the new card hits Borg way harder than the tiny rules change Pants floated in the thread.

Logical conclusion: the community has a rules fetish.

It's understandable. We underwent years of abuse at the hands of Decipher's capricious rules department. But our reaction against that has turned us (as a community) into fanatics, decrying even well-tested, well-vetted, balanced rule changes as sacrilege even as we allow the game to evolve in a variety of other, far more dramatic, ways. You can see it in the Borg gender discussion, and you can see it in the discussions of [DL] reform. This fetish harms the game.
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#483890
BCSWowbagger wrote:
Discovery rox wrote:self controlling cards are not a long established part of the game, they were made by continuing committee.

The first self-controlling card was released in 2013. To put this in perspective, the [self] rules are older today than the [DL] rules were on the day Decipher launched 2E.


Honestly, the first self-controlling card was released in 1994. The CC just gave that class of card an amazing new template, and some siblings.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#483891
BCSWowbagger wrote:Are you saying that anyone with ENGINEER should be able to use a Tricorder (not just personnel who have ENGINEER specifically in the box in the middle of the card)?
I'd say that if he isn't.

Obviously that would require a lot of playtesting first though.
 
By Worf Son of Mogh (Kenneth Tufts)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
The Traveler
1E North American Continental Runner-Up 2023
2E North American Continental Runner-Up 2023
1E Canadian National Runner-Up 2023
2E Canadian National Runner-Up 2023
#483901
For me it was always about half the 2eBC rules, they always gave me a headache...
Some Borg specific stuff can still cause me to have a think more then I like about exactly how a given rule works... and like others the whole cumulative thing while I in general have good grasp on how it works, it's near impossible for me to put it in to words to explain to others.

A lot of the other 1e rules eccentricities I actually kind of like they are a big part of what makes 1e so good, and learning and understanding little things can help a player be better at the game, just like in some other major CCG games where having finer knowledge of the rules is required for high level players.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#483921
BCSWowbagger wrote: 249 decks that have used Spaceborne Entity (alone) would like a word.
how many people facing those decks had to ask about the rules for that kind of card? how many of them went to the rulebook?
self controlling cards are not a long established part of the game, they were made by continuing committee.

The first self-controlling card was released in 2013.
so what your saying is.....self-controlling cards are not a long established part of the game, they were made by continuing committee. 2013 was not the decipher era.
To put this in perspective, the [self] rules are older today than the [DL] rules were on the day Decipher launched 2E.
i dont understand what the relevance here is. whats your point?

do you not understand there is a public perception delineating a difference between decipher era cards and rules and continuing committee era and rules?

do you not understand that there was much more involvement in the game on the part of most players during the decipher era? a year in decipher time is more like 4 years in cc time in the eyes of many players. there were a lot more cards a lot more tournaments and a lot more players. we were also all a lot younger and had more free time to spend on the game. those four factors mean there were a lot more opportunities to engage in the game.

you cant look at the two eras linearly when you compare them, decipher time is a lot more dense and counts for a lot more.
For example, here's a card idea I just came up with to illustrate the point:
[Inc] I-MOD Gun {Star Trek: Elite Force} [HA]
Seeds or plays on table. Rogue Borg may not play to your ships or facilities. Cards that refer to "mission attempts" include scouting attempts.
This is the kind of thing that shows up in sets fairly regularly. It's an offensive card that tweaks the rules a bit as a counter against a particular deck. It might only hurt Borg a little, it might hurt them a lot (in which case the community might get mad), but it would basically be accepted as the kind of thing that happens in a living card game. It would be seen as at least a legitimate concept, worth testing, even if it turns out to not be, ultimately, a good idea.

By contrast, if a new rule came out saying exactly the same thing -- cards that refer to "mission attempts" include scouting attempts, I think there would be a significant community backlash against the very legitimacy of the idea. The Rules Committee would be accused of fundamentally changing the game and of messing around with sacred things that should never, ever be altered.
i dont know how you can even compare these two scenarios.

one is a rules change that affects every game no matter what and that you have to be familiar with and also breaks with past convention.

the other is a specific card that, if i want the effect to happen, i have to stock it and draw it and play it or seed it. so thats a cost. and then you get to see the card when i play it. so there are no surprises. the "rule change" is explained right there, on the card. it's not a rule change, it's a card effect.
If you don't believe me, you can actually see this dynamic in action on these boards just this year:

OH NO GREAT BIRD A RULES CHANGE RAGE: viewtopic.php?p=402447#p402447

OH HEY A NEW CARD COULD BE FUN: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=38381&start=30

This despite the fact that the new card hits Borg way harder than the tiny rules change Pants floated in the thread.
no a lot of us were upset that you created a card specifically to hammer borgs based on there flavor, which is made even worse by the fact that you yourself have complained about affiliations not having flavor.

we just didnt all say it because we didnt want to rag on your new cards that you worked hard on. i know im a non conformist and i say things how they are but even i have a little bit of tact.

so dont speak fo rthe community when you say that everyone was cool with that card or that everyone is cool with a card that is a "rules change" but arent ok with a "rules change" rules change.

and even so, and more relevant to your general argument, your example is not the same as a rules change. if i want to stock let me help, it costs me resources. even more, it hampers other parts of my deck design, because let me help is both only worth it and only useful if i limit my other dilemmas to a signficant portion being gender related. so its potentially a hevy cost im playing for what you call a "rules change" but is really just a in game effect.

if it was a rules change, then i wouldnt be paying the cost and every deck would be effected no matter what. plus they would all have to be tested.
Logical conclusion: the community has a rules fetish.
when you create false equivalences you can reach any conclusion you want. if i assume 2 is equivalent to 3 then i can logically conclude 2 + 2 = 5 and we all know how that worked out for picard.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#483971
Smiley wrote:well, that or that we look into the cards that look to this the other way like Allen talked about ( think it was)
I did a bit more reading, and I think it is more consistent then we think it is.

Don't want to say more just yet because Plans Are Afoot. :shifty:

(And this isn't just me being sneaky - this way now I gotta do the thing I told Charlie I was gonna do. Positive Accountability! :D )
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation