[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:

21 AUG 2020: Should you have to be in Ops to return fire on a Nor?
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 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?

Well, I apologize for missing last week. I just entirely forgot about posting a Friday Question until it was well into the next week, and with that I broke a streak. But that's okay - streaks are made to be broken. But even though I missed last week, this week it's Friday again and that means it's time to return to the questions.

Last time, I asked you the first of two questions about Nors, and the results were a bit mixed. Some players feel that anything that simplifies Nors is worth doing, and others - especially veteran players - don't see value in making a change. Fortunately, it's been a good discussion and I hope it's give the Project Babylon team something to think about. If you aren't familiar, the Project Babylon 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.

Last week's question was about Nors returning fire, but this week's is all about using tactics to target a Nor. Here's the question, straight from Paddy:

Tactics which target certain skills also specify certain locations on the Nor, but there is no guarantee (or need) for such a personnel to be at that location. Would players prefer it if Tactics just used a more generic phrase, such as "(on a Nor, one personnel at site of opponent's choice)"?

What do you think? Share your thoughts with us in a reply, and let us know if this is something you think would add value to the game.

Have a great weekend. And don't forget to check out the return to the Promo-a-Week program, returning today with Chula: The Game.

-crp

[AllenGould]

Well, that would vastly swing the power level for sure.

If it's "guy who shooting" choice, that means you're probably getting a straight up choice of who you kill, and probably get to knock out the draw engine of your choice. Which is *way* better than what you get right now.

If it's "guy who shot" choice, then you're getting the most expendable guy on the station.

[BCSWowbagger]

If it's "guy who shot" choice, then you're getting the most expendable guy on the station.

Or no one: who among us doesn't have an unoccupied site?

Of course, if you have non-expendable personnel on a Nor during a battle at all, you played yourself. That's what The Celestial Temple is there for!

[Takket]

between "listing a site" or "1 person at site of attacker's choice" i would take the latter.

that being said a hybrid option is appealing as well. "If occupied, kills one person at Security office. Otherwise, kills one personnel at site of your choice." Where "your" is the battle winner. Not sure if it should be "your" or "opponent's"