This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#551266
patrick wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:09 am I think I'd prefer the "just remove non-duplicatable" option. It just seems like a lot easier to understand to me. The "stack them on each other, but only if they are exactly the same, not if they are personas, even though you do stack missions on top each other if they are personas" option just seems more confusing to me.
I'm in for this one. Both players can get captain's log benefits from their own copies of Sisko on their own copies of the Defiant, so (for me) each player having their own copy of DS9 really isn't a stretch.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#551268
edgeofhearing wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:29 am
patrick wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:09 am I think I'd prefer the "just remove non-duplicatable" option. It just seems like a lot easier to understand to me. The "stack them on each other, but only if they are exactly the same, not if they are personas, even though you do stack missions on top each other if they are personas" option just seems more confusing to me.
I'm in for this one. Both players can get captain's log benefits from their own copies of Sisko on their own copies of the Defiant, so (for me) each player having their own copy of DS9 really isn't a stretch.
Does that mean I can stock a DS9 and two Quark's Bars, just in case you play TN/DS9 as well?
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#551270
And it keeps the must defend part of the current way because your opponent can still mosey over and commandeer your ds9 with an [NA] Quark (The Maquis) they reported at a Quark's bar they seeded on your ds9...

Cross posts...
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#551272
winterflames wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:37 am And it keeps the must defend part of the current way because your opponent can still mosey over and commandeer your ds9 with an [NA] Quark (The Maquis) theynreported at a Quark's bar they seeded on your ds9...
Would it? If I want DS9/TN for reasons, why would I go through the effort of taking yours when I can just seed my own?

If anything, this would make fighting over Nors even *less* common than it is now, because there'll be no situation where the opponent is accidentally interfering with your Nor - they're over there on their own copy! (Barring shenanigans around doubling up on sites like Klingon Restaurant, Quark's Bar, or Primary Turbolift.)
User avatar
 
By WeAreBack
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#551744
I very much like Mr. Sloan's solution as explained by the OP:
Under Mr. Sloan's proposal, Bob would instead place his copy of DS9 atop Alice's copy (like a shared mission). Sites seed normally. It would be considered both "Alice's DS9" and "Bob's DS9" for all purposes -- again, like a shared mission, and quite close to how shared control of a Headquarters currently works. Both players would be able to use Reaction Control Thrusters, Establish Tractor Lock, etc., on the station.
However, to my mind, it doesn't deal with the real problems a Cardassian or [MQ] [KCA] player encounters when DS9 or [Fed] [MQ] Mirror Terok Nor gets seeded.

Recall, Ops reads:
Any player may, in place of their normal card play, download to an unopposed site on this station one card which may play there (if reporting a ship or personnel, must be of matching affiliation); player draws no cards that turn. Any Computer Skill personnel unopposed here may commandeer station.
Thus, if we're both playing DS9 and my whole deck depends on using Ops on turn 1 to download Kai Winn so that I can get a treaty critical to my deck, you seeding DS9 doesn't blow up my strategy.

But if I'm playing Cardassian, and my strategy depends on processing ore, my deck breaks. And if my strategy depends on downloading Makbar to get Awaiting Trial, by deck breaks. And if my strategy is to play some hand weapons for free using weapons locker, then use them at Kressari Rendezvous or my deck breaks.

Basically, the consolation prize on I miss this office of getting an outpost where I can play some Cardassians for free really sucks (same for Center of Authority).

The solution to all of this is very simple though:
(1) change the download (and location of free plays) on all [RC] cards to a ❖ Nor if your opponent seeded the flip side of your unique Nor.
(2) change Holosuite so that it can play on any non- [MQ] Nor (Study Divergent history, Intendant's Quarters and Cafe des Artistes should never be allowed on the same station).

As long as all I'm missing out on is Quark's Bar and/or The Intendant's Quarterson my ❖ Nor, Cardassian or Alliance decks will still be playable, even if they miss a few card draws.

At the moment I am literally am seeding an extra Nor in my Cardassian decks to avoid this issue, but my free plays still have to happen at the outpost, which is pretty annoying.
Last edited by WeAreBack on Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#552060
Data's Socks wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:25 pm How might alternating control to players at the start of their turns compare to simultaneous control?
Never thought of that! I'd have to check the cards that care about control. Interesting notion!
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#552118
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:01 pm
Data's Socks wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:25 pm How might alternating control to players at the start of their turns compare to simultaneous control?
Never thought of that! I'd have to check the cards that care about control. Interesting notion!
Obvious one - it means neither player can keep a Holoprogram in play, because on the opponent's turn they can discard it. :)
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#552134
AllenGould wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:51 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:01 pm
Data's Socks wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:25 pm How might alternating control to players at the start of their turns compare to simultaneous control?
Never thought of that! I'd have to check the cards that care about control. Interesting notion!
Obvious one - it means neither player can keep a Holoprogram in play, because on the opponent's turn they can discard it. :)
Does anyone know what Decipher was doing when they put that text there? Was there a degenerate deck this was designed to prevent? Or is it just flavor?

-crp
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552137
MidnightLich wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:02 am
AllenGould wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:51 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:01 pm

Never thought of that! I'd have to check the cards that care about control. Interesting notion!
Obvious one - it means neither player can keep a Holoprogram in play, because on the opponent's turn they can discard it. :)
Does anyone know what Decipher was doing when they put that text there? Was there a degenerate deck this was designed to prevent? Or is it just flavor?

-crp
My guess is that it was there because you can only have one Holoprogram in a given holosuite, which means once one is loaded you can't change it. So, this is both to allow you to swap out your own holoprograms and to prevent your opponent from getting a holoprogram on it before you could.

- James M
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#552141
(1) How often do you experience a Nor mirror match? (That is: Terok Nor vs. Terok Nor, DS9 vs. DS9, or Mirror Terok Nor vs. same-affiliation Mirror Terok Nor. DS9 vs Terok Nor is not a mirror match and is considered a related but separate issue, since there are tools to address it like Greater Glory of Cardassia.)

Not often, but also my playgroup is small and it's easy to avoid. I think itwill still be less of a concern in the current meta since the [Dom] have de-incentivized Nor play and Mirror has never been that popular, imo.

(2) How bad is it to be the player who doesn't control the Nor in a Nor mirror match? We can (and have) developed contrived scenarios where it supremely sucks and completely ruins the non-controller's game -- but how bad is this in real-world gameplay?

It does suck. It sucks bad. Like any deck, you are, most likely, planning a specific start sequence and if you are playing a Nor its for a reason. To lose it is going to suck and to take it back is going to suck time.

(3) How do you play around it? Do you try to commandeer the Nor, despite the challenges? Do you just give up on your Nor-based plans? Do you find it pretty easy to adapt to? Do you stock stuff in your deck to ensure you can survive a mirror match?

I lost outright the first time, but planned around it the second. It was not ideal and I didn't want to lose time fighting for control of it.

And finally, since this is a Friday Question:

(4) If you were on Project Babylon, what would you do about Nor mirror matches (if anything)? We have two ideas we're testing out, but would welcome others.

Shot out of a cannon, allow a one-time outside-of-the-game download of a universal nor, Terok Nor (no dilemma allowed) or an outpost.

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]