[jrch5618]

The thing with the Klingon ship prefixes is one of the most annoying decisions the Continuing Committee made. Yes, it's technically better if they were IKS to start with, but the current system where some are IKC and some are IKS and they're considered identical is kinda annoying. Hoping one day that there can simply be an errata wave to fix it once and for all.

Sorry for the rant.

[AllenGould]

I'm with you, but it ends up being a bunch of errata that doesn't really... change anything? So I'm sure it's on someone's list, but waaaaaay down.

[Mogor]

I'm with you, but it ends up being a bunch of errata that doesn't really... change anything? So I'm sure it's on someone's list, but waaaaaay down.

Lets do AI's of all of the oens that are wrong and errata it at the same time

[AllenGould]

I'm with you, but it ends up being a bunch of errata that doesn't really... change anything? So I'm sure it's on someone's list, but waaaaaay down.

Lets do AI's of all of the oens that are wrong and errata it at the same time

Well, let's see how much work it'd be to do a through swap.

(All of these are me monkeying in card search - I'm probably missing some corner cases. I Am Not Your Rules Expert, Please Consult A Professional, etc etc.)

There's 28 ships with "I.K.C." in card title, so that's a pretty decent sized set to start.

Then, there's 23 cards with "I.K.C." in lore (ignoring the two ships since we caught those above).

Plus, 6 cards that have "I.K.C." in gametext (ignoring the same two ships as before, oddly enough).

So, that's 57 cards to do, and all we'd get is... what we have today. :/

[BCSWowbagger]

What about going the other way? The only reason 1E made the shift to I.K.S. was to support 2EBC ships -- and those are gone now.

I'm too lazy to check how expensive it would be to errata all I.K.S. references back to I.K.C., but hopefully... a lot less than 57??

I ask mainly for curiosity, because it's true: this would be waayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy down any sane priority list.

[AllenGould]

I'm too lazy to check how expensive it would be to errata all I.K.C. references back to I.K.S., but hopefully... a lot less than 57??

I ask mainly for curiosity, because it's true: this would be waayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy down any sane priority list.

To errata all IKS -> IKC:

7 ships
17 cards in lore (including a ship that *isn't* itself IKS)
3 cards with IKS in gametext.

So, only 27 instead of 57.

I would expect that the 27 are also all virtual, which is easier - but *I'm* too lazy to check that.

[Boffo97]

The change as a whole was to reflect the show's change. For example, I'm 99.99999% sure that when the name of the I.K.C. Gr'oth was said in Trials and Tribble-ations, Jadzia said I.K.S.

But I'd argue that either should be correct. After all, these ships aren't literally named Imperial Klingon Cruiser or Ship whatever, that's just the translation of the Klingon name. And the last word could easily be something that translates into either Cruiser or Ship.

Of course, if we think too clearly about this, we have to explain what the U.S.S. is on Federation ships, given that it clearly isn't United States Ship. UFP Star Ship maybe? Acronyms inside acronyms?

[AllenGould]

Of course, if we think too clearly about this, we have to explain what the U.S.S. is on Federation ships, given that it clearly isn't United States Ship. UFP Star Ship maybe? Acronyms inside acronyms?

According to Mem Alpha, Gene says it's "United Space Ship", and who are we to argue with the Great Bird of the Galaxy?

Now, it occurs to me that there's a solution that requires a bit more research on someone's part, but less errata - find only the cards that have a disagreement and fix those. (So, as long as everyone calls the Indefatigable IKC and not IKS, we're all good. If we have cards referring to both the IKC Righteous Indignation and the IKS Righteous Indignation, we errata whichever one has fewer references to match the majority).

Means Design will have to keep track of whether a given ship is an IKC or IKS, though.