[MidnightLich]

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:

7 AUG 2020: Which ship needs a new card?
31 JULY 2020: Which boutique expansion should we make first?
24 JULY 2020: Do you want to see Xindi introduced to 1E?
17 JULY 2020: What makes a good expansion name?
10 JULY 2020: What would make good theme packs in a Cube draft?
3 JULY 2020: What would be a good name for a Klingon?
26 JUNE 2020: Which card story needs a "do over"?
19 JUNE 2020: Which card do you most want to see added?
12 JUNE 2020: Why do you play First Edition?
5 JUNE 2020: What is 1E's biggest barrier to entry?
29 MAY 2020: What do you think of [SPOILER], a potential card from Project Londo?
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 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 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?

Happy Friday, everyone. I hope you are all doing well. If you are interested in Second Edition at all, today it was announced their new expansion, All Our Yesterdays, is coming out on Friday, August 28th. It's a cool set of cards that you should check out if you also enjoy our cousin game.

Today, we're going to ask you to help us settle a question about our own upcoming expansion, still code-named Project Londo. Because this question involves cards in an upcoming release, it's a spoiler, so click away now if you don't want to know anything about what's coming next for 1E. If you don't mind a little teaser, please continue reading!

Last year, we ran a Will of the Collective in which all of you got to vote on cards that would be made into the game. After a long process, you decided to make Yarnek, the Excalbian scientist from "The Savage Curtain," and his planet Excalbia as a mission. Well, I know I've alluded to this in the past, but today I can tell you these cards are confirmed to be coming out in Project Londo - and they aren't alone. The Londo design team was inspired by your creations to make all of the characters from Team Good and Team Evil, as well as a new support card to work with them. That means you can expect the following in Project Londo:

Abraham Lincoln
Surak
Colonel Green
Genghis Khan
Kahless
Zora

Today's question is about how we're going to name those personnel, and you're going to help us choose. You see, the issue is that both Kahless and Surak have other, pre-existing versions. And these new, Excalbian recreated versions, are not the same personas as those; there's no reason Kahless and this new version couldn't co-exist. So we can't name them just "Kahless" and "Surak," otherwise they would conflict. The names that creative landed on for these cards have been "Excalbian Kahless" and "Excalbian Surak." The naming problem is now solved, and you can have Kahless and Excalbian Kahless running around together.

But when the sent went to proofreading, one of the proofreaders asked about Colonel Green. Did we want to save that name for the real Colonel Green? He did appear briefly in the near-finale of Enterprise. Initially, the design team felt it was unlikely we'd make that version of the character; if we did, Creative felt he could have a different name. But then it was argued that it was inconsistent to have two of the characters with "Excalbian ____" names, and the other four with "normal" names. Nobody felt strongly one way or the other, so we decided to turn to you and let you decide.

So that's today's question: should the Excablian re-creations have the consistent naming scheme? If yes, then you'll see all six characters appear together with similar names:

Excalbian Genghis
Excalbian Green
Excalbian Kahless
Excalbian Lincoln
Excalbian Surak
Excalbian Zora

Note that, even if we do go with this option, there will almost certainly never be another version of Lincoln, Genghis, or Zora - they just didn't ever appear outside of this episode. And, as mentioned above, even another version of Green is unlikely. This would just be an aesthetic choice.

On the other hand, if we choose to use the more normal but less consistent names, you'll see these cards:

Abraham Lincoln
Colonel Green
Excalbian Kahless
Excalbian Surak
Genghis
Zora

Additionally, they may not appear consecutively on the sheet, as other personnel may fall in between the names. This choice would be sacrificing aesthetics and sequential numbering for more natural, shorter names; at least in some cases. Kahless and Surak require different names for reasons outline above.

That's your question of the week - do you prefer the consistent "Excalbian ____" naming, or the more natural naming? Vote in this poll, which will be open until next Friday. You can change your vote at any time, and please feel free to discuss the options in the thread below. We'll go with the majority vote, and you'll have directly made an impact on the release of these cards! It's going to be fun.

Oh, and good news: this is one of the final decisions that need to be made before moving Project Londo from development into production. So not only will your votes impact the set in a meaningful way, but it'll be one of the last steps before you get new card! How awesome is that?

Have a great weekend. I'll see you next week.

-crp

[pfti]

Is there a way that you could just make it like Surak the Wise and give it no persona?

[MidnightLich]

Is there a way that you could just make it like Surak the Wise and give it no persona?

They aren't personas now, to be clear. It's just that two of the six have to have different titles than the "expected" title, no matter what those are.

-crp

[BCSWowbagger]

I vote option #3: inconsistent names, but make Colonel Green into Excalbian Green because I can totally see us making the really Colonel Green someday.

[Professor Scott]

I voted consistent Excalbian...that way they are like the Revised folks.

[jrch5618]

Agreed. It makes sense. They aren't normal people.

Oh, please tell me they'll have Nemesis icons for each other...

[Boffo97]

Consistency is not only consistent, but makes for nice future proofing.

[Slayer07]

I voted for consistency, which I think was established when the Revised personnel were made.

Which would probably apply to rest of the Yesterday's Enterprise Next Gen crew and ship based on Tasha Yar Alternate.

[Klauser]

Consistency is not only consistent, but makes for nice future proofing.

Agreed

[AllenGould]

I voted for consistency, which I think was established when the Revised personnel were made.

I think the precedent goes back to the OS folks, actually. (And the Founders, etc etc.)

If the person isn't actually *that* name, they shouldn't get it.

[Iron Prime]

I voted for consistency, which I think was established when the Revised personnel were made.

I think the precedent goes back to the OS folks, actually. (And the Founders, etc etc.)

If the person isn't actually *that* name, they shouldn't get it.

+1

I think the founder cards set a good precedent for us to follow...

[Cartagia]

I'd say consistency as well, but maybe try to think of something s bit more, I dunno? Colorful for the names? Lincoln the Excaliban instead of Excaliban Lincoln