This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#514222
Welcome to today's First Edition Friday Question, where you get a chance to answer questions that will help shape the future of First Edition. If you'd like to catch up on previous entries, here's a list of all of my previous Friday Questions:

22 MAY 2020 What is the worst affiliation in the game?
15 MAY 2020 Should bans be effective immediately?
8 MAY 2020 Which episode should inspire a boutique expansion?
1 MAY 2020: What was the best Star Trek gift you ever received?
24 APR 2020: How often do your [BB] dilemmas get scouted?
17 APR 2020: What do you want to know about how we work?
10 APR 2020: Should we make animated series cards?
3 APR 2020: Should we make more Tribbles/Troubles?
27 MAR 2020: Should we develop new [Q] cards?
20 MAR 2020: What regions should we focus on in the future?
13 MAR 2020: How would you feel about 1E adding extra "bits"?
6 MAR 2020: What are your favorite "almost good" S/P dilemmas?
28 FEB 2020: What are your favorite decks to play?
21 FEB 2020: Which Decipher expansion most deserves a sequel?
14 FEB 2020: Which "broken link" should be fixed first?
7 FEB 2020: What's your favorite episode of Star Trek?
31 JAN 2020: Which TOS main character needs a new card?
24 JAN 2020: What should qualify a card for the "watch list"?
17 JAN 2020: What card would you unban without changes?
10 JAN 2020: What single card would you ban to improve your game?
3 JAN 2020: What are you looking forward to in The Neutral Zone?
27 DEC 2019: How can we help you recruit new players?
20 DEC 2019: Where do you want the game to be in five years?
13 DEC 2019: Which concepts should 1E "import" from other games?
6 DEC 2019: Which couples should get a dual personnel card?
29 NOV 2019: Which old, unused 1E cards deserve some love?
22 NOV 2019: Which upcoming milestones need celebration?
15 NOV 2019: What's your favorite card image?
11 NOV 2019: What was your first 1E experience?
1 NOV 2019 What is your opinion of the "full page" policy?
25 OCT 2019: What do you want to see in a Halloween set?
18 OCT 2019: What is your favorite expansion?
11 OCT 2019: Which TNG main character needs a new card?
4 OCT 2019: Which Star Trek story needs more cards?
27 SEP 2019: How many points should [SPOILER] be worth?
20 SEP 2019: Which rules always confuse you?
13 SEP 2019: What do you think of [SPOILER]?
6 SEP 2019: Which card needs an alternate image (AI)?
30 AUG 2019: Which characteristic needs love?


Hello and welcome to another Friday Question, where you guys get to help shape the future of the game. Since our last edition of the Friday Question, we've announced the Balance Team, a rebranding and refocusing of the Errata Team. This new team, once up and running, will be focused on the play environment and making sure you guys have choice and options for what decks you play. It's exciting news!

And speaking of exciting news, today I have a potential new card - one that's in playtesting right now! We've done this before, but not since September of last year, so I figured you were overdue for a new chance to see and comment on a card in development.

WARNING: This thread will contain spoilers for a card that may appear in an upcoming expansion. If you aren't interested in that, please don't read on. The actual card is hidden, but might not be in the replies. Don't worry, we'll be back next week with a new, spoiler-free question.

Here's the card as it stands right now:

[Evt] EVENT {ST: TOS}
[HA] STAGGERING UNIQUENESS
"In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us."
Seeds or plays on table. Players cannot complete a [Univ] mission they did not seed unless more than one copy of that mission is in play. (Immune to Kevin Uxbridge.)


What do you think of this potential card?

If you're interested, and still reading - what do you think of the card? It's an event that's currently in a design, and currently being playtested. Would you use it? What would you use it with? Or, if you aren't impressed - why? What keeps you from being excited by what the card in trying to do? All your feedback is welcome, positive or negative. Just please try and keep feedback constructive and avoid making it personal! I - and the entire Department - look forward to you picking this event apart, talking about how you'll use it (or why you wouldn't), theorycrafting, and more.

Some parts of the world are starting to reopen, and if you're in one of those places, I hope that you'll remain safe, socially distant, and protective of yourselves and others. I care about all of you and want you to stay healthy!

Have a great weekend!

-crp
Last edited by MidnightLich on Fri May 29, 2020 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Added something missing from the spoiler.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#514226
I mean, it's a nice thought, but [Univ] missions are still generally pretty terrible. Out of 33, there might be a handful worth playing for their special text. Otherwise, it's all the work of a unique mission (dilemmas and whatnot) with generally fewer points. Meaning... I probably need to do more work by solving an additional mission. And it costs me using this card to keep them protected.
Last edited by JeBuS on Fri May 29, 2020 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#514230
admiral-mogh wrote:It's a good idea, but shouldn't there be a [Ref] Icon added?
I think that's Fightin' Words these days.... :shifty:

As for the card itself, it removes SOME risk of playing universal missions, though usually when I'm looking at universal missions I'm looking at a Regional theme of some sort with multiple copies, and this doesn't help that (and I'm not necessarily saying that it should).

I think the one deck type that would most benefit is the Jedi Test deck since you need a random [Univ] mission for one of the objectives. The problem there is those decks tend to be seed-heavy already, and this is just one more straw on the camel's back.

Overall, it's not a BAD card per se, and there's a few oddball decks that would benefit from running it, but I doubt it's a Worlds winner either.

Bottom line: Meh. It's fine.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
President
Community Contributor
#514232
I think that, if testing with this concept goes well, then it would likely serve the game better as an OTF rule. Suggestions that it have a [Ref] icon tend to reinforce my thinking about that.

That's a personal opinion at this point, not an official opinion as Rules Master, but I would be interested to hear feedback on that possibility as Project Londo enters Rules Review in the next couple weeks.

I also think that Renewed Spirit is pretty good, but that Pursuit Just Behind and Explosive Decompression are not dangerous, and that a small boost to Assert Authority would not be bad.

I lastly think that it could make Patrol Neutral Zone quite good, but unclear at first impression whether that would be overpowered or reasonably powered.

Just don't start making any universal missions worth 35 points or more!
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#514234
JeBuS wrote:
MidnightLich wrote:If you've already looked at this card, look again. I realized I left something off, and I've now added it in.

-crp
Tell us what it is?
I'm trying to avoid spoilers in the replies, so:

The card has the hidden agenda icon [HA] , which I initially left off.


-crp
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
#514235
BCSWowbagger wrote:I think that, if testing with this concept goes well, then it would likely serve the game better as an OTF rule. Suggestions that it have a [Ref] icon tend to reinforce my thinking about that.

That's a personal opinion at this point, not an official opinion as Rules Master, but I would be interested to hear feedback on that possibility as Project Londo enters Rules Review in the next couple weeks.
My first thought was... this sounds like an OTF rule change.
I also think that Renewed Spirit is pretty good, but that Pursuit Just Behind and Explosive Decompression are not dangerous, and that a small boost to Assert Authority would not be bad.

I lastly think that it could make Patrol Neutral Zone quite good, but unclear at first impression whether that would be overpowered or reasonably powered.
These sound like reasonable trade-offs for using low point missions. But PNZ kinda screws with that idea of a trade-off. PNZ is the exception that makes me not want this rule.
Just don't start making any universal missions worth 35 points or more!
Definitely.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#514240
Honestly, not a fan of the card for a few reasons.

Being a hidden agenda that's not revealed when seeding dilemmas, it's essentially a [Ref] card in all but name, and I view it the same way as I see bullets like Fair Play. Which is generally not very favorably, for the familiar reasons (it puts the onus on the defensive player to stock a card, it turns mission theft into an "all-or-nothing" strategy depending on whether the bullet is stocked or not, a returning player may not know the bullet even though they read the updated rules, etc. etc.)

If protecting universal missions from theft is important enough to do, we should just change the OTF rules directly.

(My own preference is actually that the game explore allowing more interaction with contesting missions, not less, but I recognize that's probably a minority opinion.)

I might also be open to a card with a less drastic penalty. HQ: Defensive Measures puts a delay on mission-stealing, giving the person who seeded the mission a chance to go for it first, but doesn't stop it forever. It also provides an out for someone willing to invest more resources (an Espionage card). A flat-out "cannot complete" that never goes away and can't be nullified is too much, and smacks of the kinds of [Ref] cards OTF shouldn't need.
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#514252
I think my opinion may be a hybrid of JeBuS and Rachmaninoff.

Part of the [Univ] problem is that their mostly crappy missions. Also, we're trying to get rid of [Ref] , so if the answer to make this card "worth it" is to add that icon the we've missed the mark. Likewise the beauty of OTF is that it's some extra balance rules but basically pretty simple. So, if this leads us down a path to a new OTF rule I believe we've missed the boat again.

Make it seedable only. Mayyyyybe [HA], maybe.
But it should protect non-region* [Univ] and give a bonus of some kind. Either make them slightly easier or worth 5 more points. Perhaps also add language that only one of each [Univ] can be seeded by a player?

*I think most of the problems with [Univ] missions being buffed would be to risk PNZ coming back?

Have you played the deck against @sexecutioner ?[…]

More Friday Questions?

Charlie, I feel like you missed an opportunity by […]

I won 100-0. Michael

20 Questions: Project Storm's Name

...Is it Face of Evil? No. You have 17 ques[…]