[AllenGould]

I'm not (totally) unsympathetic to that position. At the same time, the lines were drawn with Fair Play (side note: where the frack are the card1 and card tag buttons on this new forum?! ). By Decipher. In 1998.

I was around then too, and I say Decipher caved to the argument that speed decks were the "correct" way to play. And we've been dealing with that mistake ever since.

[Takket]

new rule... when you seed a mission, you MAY download and seed one dilemma without a point box under it.

brainstorming how to bring back mission theft.

[Ausgang]

brainstorming how to bring back mission theft.

Was there ever the idea of Espionage cards allowing mission theft? That thematic correlation somehow seems so obvious to me, that there must be a reason it hasn't been implemented in the first place.

[Mr.Sloan]

when themed expansion come...

i´d wish that there are also a few 1-2 cards that fix the balance for to weak / to strong affiliations.

e.g. at the moment i would consider unbalanced weak. would be great then when there is a themed set for many cards (i think that is the next set?) that it also includes balances for to weak or two strong affiliations instead of waiting until its their turn in 2 years or something...

[geraldkw]

when themed expansion come...

i´d wish that there are also a few 1-2 cards that fix the balance for to weak / to strong affiliations.

e.g. at the moment i would consider unbalanced weak. would be great then when there is a themed set for many cards (i think that is the next set?) that it also includes balances for to weak or two strong affiliations instead of waiting until its their turn in 2 years or something...

I think one card solutions to weak affiliations are probably really hard to design without making them useless or overpowered, but I support these attempts.

[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

Let's think about this: as a player, why would I want to steal my opponent's mission?

[Takket]

Let's think about this: as a player, why would I want to steal my opponent's mission?

i want to steal a mission because i know what is under it and can tailor my away team to blow past my own dilemmas and avoid whatever my opponent seeds.

[AllenGould]

Let's think about this: as a player, why would I want to steal my opponent's mission?

Pragmatically, it's a great way to disrupt speed decks. It doubles your mission selection at game time. It encourages novel dilemma combos. I'd have to ask my wife for her perspective - I just learned how to deal with them; she was the master of winning with it.

[jjh]

Which old decks and/or themes would you like us to revisit in the future?

I'd like to see Design take a third(?) swing at DS9, focused on the largest arc of the series:

Sisko tasked with shepherding Bajor into the Federation.

Objectives, Incidents, Nouns, the Works.

"Fortune favors the bold."

[One of Two]

I'l love to see some Battle Bridge fun. I always expected some more tactics at some point after BoG. I mean, in the end, there is really only one weapon one for every class of ship [affiliation] (Plasma Torpedo for Romulans, ect), a handful of maneuvers (tied to ship or specific crew [Federation] )... but really is something that could have been expanded more by Decipher and wasnt. There are are a lot more things to be done and targeted in battle that could create some exciting game interactions with your opponent. Maybe affiliation only tactics. Maybe escape Tactics. There is a lot that could be done with them.

Beyond Tactics, I'd love to see some other cards that build on and enhance BBSDs. One issue I've heard before is that Battle Bridge Door costs a seed, while not exactly giving a whole lot of benefit. It adds flavor to the game and player interaction... makes the game more fun... but you dont really benefit. Many people would rather spend that seed card slot elsewhere to win faster or slow their opponent. I can envision some cards that play "If your Battle Bridge Door is open...", or maybe just play FOR FREE if the door is open. Maybe kick in errata that allows the Battle Bridge Door to seed for free, and lets see what new possibilities a Battle Bridge can bring. Even without allowing it to play for free (errata), one could add some cards that require it that would make it worth seeding for other reasons.

Note: I feel this way about most non-Tent side decks, be it Battle Bridge, Q-flash, or Tribble. - Each have "issues" but Battle Bridge is the one that would be the funnest and easiest to tackle first. But even Q-Continuum could evolve beyond randomized under-powered dilemmas to include new cards that can be played when a Q-Flash doorway is open, to throw a little havoc at your opponent. Hell, I remember the excitement of opening a Q's Planet mission way back in 1996, before later realizing it was pretty much crap. Decipher released a ton of really cool "concepts" that would excite you as a fan, but fail you as a player. The Q expansion did exactly that - . But there ARE ways to make such decks playable with the introduction of some new cards/rules.

[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

Let's think about this: as a player, why would I want to steal my opponent's mission?

i want to steal a mission because i know what is under it and can tailor my away team to blow past my own dilemmas and avoid whatever my opponent seeds.

This is what I was going for. Somehow I didn't see it before writing this:

As a player, my motivation for stealing a mission is that it allows me to solve a mission while bypassing my opponent's dilemmas. There's also an element of lockout, too, since solving a mission prevents my opponent from solving it. Decipher and the CC have both clamped down on bypassing dilemmas (or even peeking at them) as well as lockouts, but now we have a handful of designers who are just itching to bring back a mechanic that has elements of both.

The current system works because a stealable mission is a weakness that players can choose to accept in exchange for some other strength. But if you try to expand mission stealing you'll be stuck trying to give players the ability to bypass their opponent's dilemmas without bypassing their opponent's dilemmas.

[Ensign Q]

is card filtering a theme? after banning it all, it could be revisited.

[geraldkw]

is card filtering a theme? after banning it all, it could be revisited.

Do you mean Mutation/Handshake/etc?

[Ensign Q]

yeah, something like mutation, but better. Handshake often is too clunky. Id like to see "" and/or ""

[geraldkw]

yeah, something like mutation, but better. Handshake often is too clunky. Id like to see "" and/or ""

Ponder is a really good card in Magic, maybe too good for its cost. An interrupt doing that in 1e would be way too strong. I think as an event it wouldn't get played. We already have the all new:"Data, Keep Dealing" and no one is playing it.

Brainstorm might be worse than Mutation for filtering purposes. Half the time when I brainstorm I really don't want to put those two cards back on the deck, I'd rather get the card I want and discard the others. Granted we have access to low cost easy to access reshuffles with juggler, so maybe that's okay.
Also sometimes it's just great to get two draws as an "at any time" action so you can convert them to downloads during the play phase. One draw would be less good but still okay. I think Brainstorm v Mutation is a wash.

I like cards that do "card game stuff" and I would like to see more but I think they are the hardest to test and if we start seeing infinite/nearly infinite combos in Trek it would take us back to the old Hexany days and probably alienate most players.

Hopefully the designers will come up with some neat cards like these but I think they are going to feel about as powerful and reliable as Mutation or Handshake, or be offset by bad costs like the dreaded "Once per game..."