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
#525381
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:

14 AUG 2020: How should we name the Excalbians?
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 [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?


It's Friday and that means it's time for another question. You guys came out in force last week, and thanks to you, you'll be seeing Excalbian Lincoln and Excalbian Kahless in Project Londo when it comes out later this year. It was a commanding decision, with 85% of respondents preferring the consistent naming to the more natural naming. We really appreciate your votes and your discussion.

Today, I have the first of two Nor-related questions for you, straight from the team working experimental design Project Babylon. This team, led by Paddy Tye (KazonPADD), is doing painstaking research into Nors and looking for ways we can help them and reduce their overall complexity. In order to facilitate that research, we want your thoughts on two potential rules changes. The first is around using the Station's WEAPONS. Here's what the glossary currently says about doing so:
Glossary wrote:You cannot use your ship's or facility's WEAPONS for any purpose unless it is uncloaked, unphased, and undocked, its WEAPONS are greater than zero, and you have a matching personnel aboard. (If the facility is A Nor, the matching personnel must be in Ops.)
Here's the question, as worded by Paddy himself:
KazonPADD wrote:So our first question is: Does being in Ops really matter? If Sisko were alone on DS9 and was busy trying to fix the reactor core when suddenly the Cardassians attack, would he not be able to order the computer to return fire from any location?
What do you think? Would this change make sense to you? Do you think it would matter? It would eliminate a rule, which is generally good - but there are often other factors involved, and that's why we're turning to you. Share your thoughts with us in a reply, and let us know if this is a rule that's hurt you - or saved you - in past games. And let us know if it's something you'd be okay with going away, and if that makes sense.

Have a great weekend.

-crp
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
President
Community Contributor
#525395
AllenGould wrote:The Nor rules are clunky for a reason - Nors give a wide variety of bonuses, and letting you shoot from Ore Processing means you need one less personnel on board.
That may well be why Decipher did it. Do you think it still makes a difference in 2020? (Did it ever?) Or, more directly: has it ever made a difference for you in one of your games?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#525399
BCSWowbagger wrote:
AllenGould wrote:The Nor rules are clunky for a reason - Nors give a wide variety of bonuses, and letting you shoot from Ore Processing means you need one less personnel on board.
That may well be why Decipher did it. Do you think it still makes a difference in 2020? (Did it ever?) Or, more directly: has it ever made a difference for you in one of your games?
Careful, James, you ARE asking that of the original purveyor of the infamous Death Star 9 deck. You might not get the answer you expect... :shifty:
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
President
Community Contributor
#525414
Armus wrote:
BCSWowbagger wrote:
AllenGould wrote:The Nor rules are clunky for a reason - Nors give a wide variety of bonuses, and letting you shoot from Ore Processing means you need one less personnel on board.
That may well be why Decipher did it. Do you think it still makes a difference in 2020? (Did it ever?) Or, more directly: has it ever made a difference for you in one of your games?
Careful, James, you ARE asking that of the original purveyor of the infamous Death Star 9 deck. You might not get the answer you expect... :shifty:
Oh, I know exactly whom I'm asking. :D It's the edge cases that get ya when you're working on things like this, and Allen knows a few edge cases!
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#525436
BCSWowbagger wrote:
Armus wrote: Careful, James, you ARE asking that of the original purveyor of the infamous Death Star 9 deck. You might not get the answer you expect... :shifty:
Oh, I know exactly whom I'm asking. :D It's the edge cases that get ya when you're working on things like this, and Allen knows a few edge cases!
Bearing in mind that I was using Establish Tractor Lock which also expects a personnel in Ops... I don't think anyone was ever crazy enough to try picking a fight with a Nor that was aggressively pumping weapons up. So, I'm probably a bad person to ask because I had other reasons to have a body there. But for normal use (where you're not starting fights with your Nor), if you didn't need a body there, why would you keep one there? Sysco 197 and Automated Security System do a better job of keeping people out of Ops than Joe Redshirt. (Assuming anyone even bothers trying to commandeer - so few functions on a Nor care about the owner, after all.)
 
By Ausgang (Gerald Sieber)
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
1E German National Second Runner-Up 2020
#525447
I wasn't even aware that this rule exists, but as far as I remember it would have never been relevant so far. A heavily armed deck that aims to blow up your facilities would just scoff at 6 weapons anyways.
Armus wrote: Careful, James, you ARE asking that of the original purveyor of the infamous Death Star 9 deck. You might not get the answer you expect... :shifty:
Curious, I'd love to get more details about that one :D
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#525453
I don't know about Allen's version of the deck but my brother built a Death Star 9 deck back in the day... for whatever reason he had been obsessed with the idea of a "Nor attack" deck ever since DS9 (like, seed multiple Nors with only Ops and a docking site and then use Reaction Control Thrusters to group them together at the same mission and blast at whatever happened to be there) but it never turned into an actual deck.

When Blaze of Glory released he finally got his chance. His deck played a bunch of Defense System Upgrades on DS9, then used Reaction Control Thrusters to roam around the Bajor region blowing up anything he could (including a few Borg Ships as a win condition). Draw/play engine was lots of Parallax Arguers and Kivas, if you let him play an event he'd either get another Defense System Upgrade or a Kivas to draw more Arguers and events. Dilemmas were lots of things like Cytherians/Conundrum to try and force ships into the Bajor region. Didn't win all that often but incredibly hilarious to play.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#525454
Rachmaninoff wrote:I don't know about Allen's version of the deck but my brother built a Death Star 9 deck back in the day... for whatever reason he had been obsessed with the idea of a "Nor attack" deck ever since DS9 (like, seed multiple Nors with only Ops and a docking site and then use Reaction Control Thrusters to group them together at the same mission and blast at whatever happened to be there) but it never turned into an actual deck.

When Blaze of Glory released he finally got his chance. His deck played a bunch of Defense System Upgrades on DS9, then used Reaction Control Thrusters to roam around the Bajor region blowing up anything he could (including a few Borg Ships as a win condition). Draw/play engine was lots of Parallax Arguers and Kivas, if you let him play an event he'd either get another Defense System Upgrade or a Kivas to draw more Arguers and events. Dilemmas were lots of things like Cytherians/Conundrum to try and force ships into the Bajor region. Didn't win all that often but incredibly hilarious to play.
That's pretty close to my version - only things I don't see are the TIE Bajoran Interceptors (for style and to be a valid target to Hail opponent's ships) and Establish Tractor Lock (to grab and hold your opponent's ships until you're ready to blow them up).

OTF rules ruin the deck outright (and so did Writ, to be fair), which is a shame because it was never exactly tearing up the meta, y'know? (Closest my version came to "serious play" was in a Regionals pre-game to decide which Ambassador was running the tournament - long story - and I played it there and lost to a slightly less janky Klingon deck.)
User avatar
 
By Hobie (Robert Petersen)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
Explorer
#525778
If having a Nor be considered "staffed" is important, then I think that should require a matching personnel in Ops. Which would then include being able to return fire being tied to that. Morn hanging out in Quark's Bar on DS9 or a VIP in guest quarters should not be able to return fire just because they are on the station.

With how quickly the game can produce a "fleet" of ships with over 32 weapons anyways, I would think improvements to a Nor's defense is more important than its ability to shoot back on its own. In all the episodes of Deep Space 9 where the station was under threat of attack, the issue was "how long can we hold out", not "can we destroy the attackers outright".
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#525879
Having personnel in ops is the same as having a person onboard a ship. Its how a Nor is staffed.

I'll keep echoing this thought: Why are we trying to make Nors less complicated? I don't see how they are complicated at all. If you play a Nor you accept the situation that are Nors.
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#525886
DarkSabre wrote:Having personnel in ops is the same as having a person onboard a ship. Its how a Nor is staffed.

I'll keep echoing this thought: Why are we trying to make Nors less complicated? I don't see how they are complicated at all. If you play a Nor you accept the situation that are Nors.
I'm not advocating one way or another, I just wanted to point out that you may have to deal with Nors when you don't play one since your opponent may have one, so saying that if you play a Nor you accept the rules complexity is not fair to the opponent who doesn't want to deal with it, but has to because their opponent chose to run a Nor.

- James M
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#525896
Orbin wrote:
DarkSabre wrote:Having personnel in ops is the same as having a person onboard a ship. Its how a Nor is staffed.

I'll keep echoing this thought: Why are we trying to make Nors less complicated? I don't see how they are complicated at all. If you play a Nor you accept the situation that are Nors.
I'm not advocating one way or another, I just wanted to point out that you may have to deal with Nors when you don't play one since your opponent may have one, so saying that if you play a Nor you accept the rules complexity is not fair to the opponent who doesn't want to deal with it, but has to because their opponent chose to run a Nor.

- James M
Mind, as the opponent you can just treat that Nor as "a very elaborate facility" and otherwise ignore it. There's no obligation to engage with it beyond possibly blowing it up because it offended you.

Thanks for running this one, Brian! :cheersL:

You can draw up to 7. You choose the exact numbe[…]

Full win for Kris over Mags 100-40. Great game as […]

So Project Storm is "unrelated" stuf[…]