[SudenKapala]

Good point! Looking at it from gameplay POV is of course (or arguably?) a bit more valid than my POV -- which I realize comes from my background as "1e collector first, 1e player second and third, human being fourth".
Of course, I'm familiar with the gameplay repercussions of AU versions. But for me, in that regard, Bev Picard is a future, tangible version of Bev Crusher.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everybody.
I like comparing these kinds of things -- Disco, e.g., had really different ways of building and (not) maintaining decks (he told us he didn't ever alter them afterwards); so have I (I do alter them, but I go by quite specific, thematic/story-wise building principles); and it's fun to see how these strategies differ from the regular use of the cards.
In this case, I like discussing views on skills (Data) and on the atmospheric (mine) and/or gameplay (Slayer's) implications of the persona mechanic.

Sorry for my positivity rant. I'm just overly enthusiastic about how much fun discussion and different vantage points a bunch of cards can release among an international group of nerds.

[AllenGould]

I can't explain Allengould's reasoning

I can - it was a simple and clean way of counting, that avoids either having to make judgement calls on whether an AU/infiltrator/Mirror/whatever version "counts".

[SudenKapala]

I can't explain Allengould's reasoning

I can

Now that's what I call inexplicable.

[MidnightLich]

Thanks for voting everyone!

The reason I asked this questions is that we're working on a really cool set of AI versions of the main bridge crew. I wanted to find out which characters I should avoid using images and stories that were too different from the originals. For example, Wesley won the poll, so it's obvious there's a desire for a new version of him. That means an AI that we make should stick close to the original.

So this is the reason I asked, and an example of the direct impact my questions have on our decisions. I hope this illustrates how important your feedback is to me, and the whole Department of First Edition, when we make decisions.

-crp

[Slayer07]

Good point! Looking at it from gameplay POV is of course (or arguably?) a bit more valid than my POV -- which I realize comes from my background as "1e collector first, 1e player second and third, human being fourth".
Of course, I'm familiar with the gameplay repercussions of AU versions. But for me, in that regard, Bev Picard is a future, tangible version of Bev Crusher.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everybody.
I like comparing these kinds of things -- Disco, e.g., had really different ways of building and (not) maintaining decks (he told us he didn't ever alter them afterwards); so have I (I do alter them, but I go by quite specific, thematic/story-wise building principles); and it's fun to see how these strategies differ from the regular use of the cards.
In this case, I like discussing views on skills (Data) and on the atmospheric (mine) and/or gameplay (Slayer's) implications of the persona mechanic.

Sorry for my positivity rant. I'm just overly enthusiastic about how much fun discussion and different vantage points a bunch of cards can release among an international group of nerds.

I'm actually a collector before being a player as well, truth be told while I know how to play the game the fact is I've never done so in anyway other than a casual setting and even that has been a long time. I just like the idea of having more 'main character personas' that can be in play at the same time, so I prefer the idea that Beverly Crusher is different from Beverly Picard and should be different from Battleship Beverly.

I actually very rarely modify the decks I do have either, but again I don't play enough to really worry about altering things too much. Still if a particular cards looks good I'd change it. If I played on a higher i.e. tournament level that would probably change.

I can't explain Allengould's reasoning

I can - it was a simple and clean way of counting, that avoids either having to make judgement calls on whether an AU/infiltrator/Mirror/whatever version "counts".

In truth I figured as much, but I just don't care to try to speak for someone else. Personally I agree with your reasoning.

[Discovery rox]

i dont understand shouldnt a alternate image be the same as the original except for the image? staying pretty close to the original without being the same as athe original isnt a alternate image, its a brand new card

[MidnightLich]

i dont understand shouldnt a alternate image be the same as the original except for the image? staying pretty close to the original without being the same as athe original isnt a alternate image, its a brand new card

I'm talking about images, yes. The cards won't be mechanically different.

-crp

[Data's Socks]

The reason I asked this questions is that we're working on a really cool set of AI versions of the main bridge crew.

So... no "Lt. Cmdr. Data" then.


I kid, I kid....

[Daimyoshi]

i saw science as being about research and engineer as being about applying science and technology to solve problems. data isnt really about research, hes about fixing situations the enterprise gets involved in using science. thats why hes the operations officer, not the science officer.

the enterprise d doesnt have a chief science officer, it has multiple science divisions, since its such a huge vessel. we dont often see those scientists on the show, so there not a bridge crew. but characters like neela darren are science heads.

one of the things that makes the ds9 bridge crew unique is that they actually have a science officer, jadzia dax, whose main job is science, so thats reflected on her card.

Actually Jadzia Dax often Helm, with a science side panel. what really happens is that the bridge Crew don't have floating navigation like the Enterprise D