This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
  • 122 posts
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#552637
DarkSabre wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:05 pm Don't equate memory wipe for that. There is absolutely no data that memory wipe deserved to be banned. As of today its been almost two years since I have asked for an example as to why Memory Wipe is an issue & a decklist to be tested. I have been completely ignored. Even when I was Playtest Manager this was still ignored. Theorycraft should NEVER cause a card to be banned.
Coulda sworn I at least saw a decklist once upon a time. Been jonesing to build a deck of utter annoyance... maybe I'll throw those in too. :)
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552710
AllenGould wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:15 am
DarkSabre wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:05 pm Don't equate memory wipe for that. There is absolutely no data that memory wipe deserved to be banned. As of today its been almost two years since I have asked for an example as to why Memory Wipe is an issue & a decklist to be tested. I have been completely ignored. Even when I was Playtest Manager this was still ignored. Theorycraft should NEVER cause a card to be banned.
Coulda sworn I at least saw a decklist once upon a time. Been jonesing to build a deck of utter annoyance... maybe I'll throw those in too. :)
I have been told by every person I have spoken to that there has been no deck presented or tested. As Playtest Manager I asked for a very very long time for that deck so could actually playtest it and verify the concern. I guess it wasn't important enough for a card to be banned but not to have data to back the ban for it.

That was also the incident where Playtesting was being thrown under the bus because 'it must have slipped by when testing Obsession' when I had tested for it and couldn't make it into a lockout deck. It wasn't a concern so it was never brought up (my fault for not mentioning it during playtesting) but I had tested for it and unless someone can hand me a deck that does what it claims I can't see how a lockout deck is possible with Memory Wipe.
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552775
DarkSabre wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:31 pm
AllenGould wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:15 am
DarkSabre wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:05 pm Don't equate memory wipe for that. There is absolutely no data that memory wipe deserved to be banned. As of today its been almost two years since I have asked for an example as to why Memory Wipe is an issue & a decklist to be tested. I have been completely ignored. Even when I was Playtest Manager this was still ignored. Theorycraft should NEVER cause a card to be banned.
Coulda sworn I at least saw a decklist once upon a time. Been jonesing to build a deck of utter annoyance... maybe I'll throw those in too. :)
I have been told by every person I have spoken to that there has been no deck presented or tested. As Playtest Manager I asked for a very very long time for that deck so could actually playtest it and verify the concern. I guess it wasn't important enough for a card to be banned but not to have data to back the ban for it.

That was also the incident where Playtesting was being thrown under the bus because 'it must have slipped by when testing Obsession' when I had tested for it and couldn't make it into a lockout deck. It wasn't a concern so it was never brought up (my fault for not mentioning it during playtesting) but I had tested for it and unless someone can hand me a deck that does what it claims I can't see how a lockout deck is possible with Memory Wipe.
As the lead designer on The Cage, I would say that the combo of Obsession + Memory Wipe was a miss by the design team. When we were thinking about the free events to play on your opponent's ship we were focused on Baryon Buildup and Warp Core Breach.

-James M
User avatar
 
By commdecker (Matthew Zinno)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Arbiter
Community Contributor
#552794
I've found the thread that was posted to the All-Staff board (and bumped it also). A decklist was spitballed and posted as text there to demonstrate the problem. The judgement was that we should ban Memory Wipe temporarily, even though there was some amount (not universal) of consensus that Obsession was actually the problematic card. At the time, my personal view was that for the time being, one of them should be banned, and it only shouldn't have been Obsession because it was brand new, and I didn't feel like taking away the players' new toy before they could play with it. I posted then, and still feel, that the right long term fix is this change to Obsession:

Once each turn, you may play an event on your ship for free.

This change should have been made, and Memory Wipe taken off the ban list, long ago. But I went away soon after, and apparently it wasn't taken up again.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552812
commdecker wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 4:17 pm I've found the thread that was posted to the All-Staff board (and bumped it also). A decklist was spitballed and posted as text there to demonstrate the problem. The judgement was that we should ban Memory Wipe temporarily, even though there was some amount (not universal) of consensus that Obsession was actually the problematic card. At the time, my personal view was that for the time being, one of them should be banned, and it only shouldn't have been Obsession because it was brand new, and I didn't feel like taking away the players' new toy before they could play with it. I posted then, and still feel, that the right long term fix is this change to Obsession:

Once each turn, you may play an event on your ship for free.

This change should have been made, and Memory Wipe taken off the ban list, long ago. But I went away soon after, and apparently it wasn't taken up again.

Temporary Bans seem to become Permanent Bans around here.

I'm not aware of that spitballed deck, I know I hadn't seen it when I had access to the forums (I was recently unceremoniously taken off the list of people who could see it) but a 'spitball' list IS NOT a deck in any case. A decklist is something that is:

1) Designed
2) Put Together
3) Played a few times
4) And accesses if something works or not and is worthy of concern.

I hope the community if you are reading this, understands the scope of what happened with Memory Wipe.

1) Memory Wipe was brought up as a concern due to Obsession
2) Accusations that Memory Wipe went untested in combination with Obsession (which was untrue)
3) Memory Wipe was banned on an untested theory-spitballed deck
4) It was called Temporary but so far is still on the ban list with so many other cards that are considered 'temporarily banned' but are still on there to this day.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552813
Orbin wrote:As the lead designer on The Cage, I would say that the combo of Obsession + Memory Wipe was a miss by the design team. When we were thinking about the free events to play on your opponent's ship we were focused on Baryon Buildup and Warp Core Breach.

-James M
Cage is an awesome set. This might of been an 'unseen side effect' by Design but doesn't change that I personally tested Memory Wipe with several different deck designs against multiple other decks and did not find an issue with them at all.

I did bring up the TwT Cards + The Cage Cards = an issue, was told that TwT cards were going to be looked at / errata'd, but that wasn't done until the uproar happened over the combination of those cards. I only gave my approval for the final set for The Cage because I was told my concerns with those interactions would be dealt with but sadly weren't before the set release.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552814
Ok... But all this Memory Wipe talk has nothing to do with if The Devil Breaks The Game, and if it is fair to say you should have to plan for your treaty getting zapped or not. Especially when, as I demonstrated early on, it literally only takes one seed slot to do so.

I still say that The Devil should be limited to one nullification per game per card title. That way you can blast a treaty, a Horag'n, a Borg Kiss (or whatever), and a wind dancer, but zapping your opponent's treaty once a turn every turn is off of the table.
User avatar
First Edition Creative Manager
By KazonPADD (Paddy Tye)
 - First Edition Creative Manager
 -  
1E European Continental Runner-Up 2023
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
#552820
DarkSabre wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:35 pm ...when I had access to the forums (I was recently unceremoniously taken off the list of people who could see it)...
That’s standard practice when you quit a job! Please stop dressing things up to suit your narrative!
User avatar
 
By Spectre9
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#552823
We've been over this whole "treatys are a risk, play counters and backups stuff".

Yeah ok but are treatys so powerful that people should be crippling their deck (or at least a mild limp) by putting that stuff in.

Look at me I've just added Klingons to my Fed deck how OP is that!!! You're all dead now. Super sick strats bro.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552825
commdecker wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 4:17 pm This change should have been made, and Memory Wipe taken off the ban list, long ago. But I went away soon after, and apparently it wasn't taken up again.
Would it be a good idea to add a "Temporary" note to the ban list entry, in such cases? (Possibly adding, "until date X" or "circumstance Y" or "to be reviewed after date Z".)
Everyone can help put the card back on the table them, eventually. And people might not be appaled immediately, when a card is temp. banned.
User avatar
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552902
It's a totally legal dick move, but it's still a dick move.
Well, out of shere not wanting to piss people off I dropped my 50 copies of The Devil from my deck. But you cannot call people out for a weakness that is this obvious... As said ban it temporarily and errata it.

You are rightfully regarded as one of the best players. You can't tell me you haven't seen the Devil-disaster coming...

I for my part will not play Treaty decks till Devil is of the table. And I am very fond of the expansion. But Devil just makes DS9 unplayable. CardDom has at least Turrel.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#552907
Caretaker's Guest wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:40 am
It's a totally legal dick move, but it's still a dick move.
Well, out of shere not wanting to piss people off I dropped my 50 copies of The Devil from my deck. But you cannot call people out for a weakness that is this obvious... As said ban it temporarily and errata it.

You are rightfully regarded as one of the best players. You can't tell me you haven't seen the Devil-disaster coming...

I for my part will not play Treaty decks till Devil is of the table. And I am very fond of the expansion. But Devil just makes DS9 unplayable. CardDom has at least Turrel.
Yeah I started out to build my release event deck and thought really hard about avoiding all the treaty decks for this exact reason.

But then I thought "nah, this is the release event. It's a casual L1 gig, let's go ahead and try the new cards and see what this stuff is all about."

Lesson learned. :x

It's probably better that I learned the lesson now... at least I know what not to play when the major events roll in later this year.

And just to be clear, I don't consider playing The Devil in general to be a dick move. It was more specifically the loading up of the Devil for the release event where all of the new stuff that people are "supposed" to try out involves treaties to be the dick move.

And like I've said before, I'm definitely done with Staging Ground after this event, but I wouldn't go so far as to stop playing ALL treaty decks. Maybe I'll play a Sherman's Peak/K-7/Organian Peace Treaty [OS] [Fed] / [OS] [Kli] deck next time... :wink:
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552913
KazonPADD wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:25 am
DarkSabre wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:35 pm ...when I had access to the forums (I was recently unceremoniously taken off the list of people who could see it)...
That’s standard practice when you quit a job! Please stop dressing things up to suit your narrative!
There are others who are retired who have kept access. Indeed I was kept on that board for quite awhile after I had quit and then I lost access so unsure of how true your statement is.

It isn't my narrative, its the narrative at how the CC chooses to act and not act and how some people are given special treatment while others are cheered that they walked away.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552914
Spectre9 wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 4:39 am We've been over this whole "treatys are a risk, play counters and backups stuff".

Yeah ok but are treatys so powerful that people should be crippling their deck (or at least a mild limp) by putting that stuff in.

Look at me I've just added Klingons to my Fed deck how OP is that!!! You're all dead now. Super sick strats bro.
I mean the concept is that the Klingons have certain cards that help shore up some deficits in a Federation Deck (such as ability to attack, Honor people with Integrity 8, Strength to do battle/dilemmas/mission, new AMS & ASP, etc)

Treaties are supposed to help you leverage the best of both affiliations. If that wasn't the case why were the Kazon and Viidians neutered by the CC (and it isn't because Delta are uber...I mean the CC made the deltas even better with the 31st century holograms and other things they have added recently. The feds in the Delta have never been better off IMO).
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#552916
DarkSabre wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:47 am
KazonPADD wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:25 am
DarkSabre wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:35 pm ...when I had access to the forums (I was recently unceremoniously taken off the list of people who could see it)...
That’s standard practice when you quit a job! Please stop dressing things up to suit your narrative!
There are others who are retired who have kept access. Indeed I was kept on that board for quite awhile after I had quit and then I lost access so unsure of how true your statement is.

It isn't my narrative, its the narrative at how the CC chooses to act and not act and how some people are given special treatment while others are cheered that they walked away.
I guess I should be the one to address this, since it was me who removed your access. It's not accurate to say your permissions were removed unceremoniously. Your going away ceremony was in Nov / Dec.

Somehow, the clerical end of it wasn't completely accomplished at that time, though. Apparently there were some custom forum permissions for your account which were outside the scope of normal groups. Those custom permissions weren't removed when you were removed from the groups you resigned from. So when I noticed them, I removed them.

This has happened to others as well. Folks who held certain volunteer positions have had special forum permissions that don't get cleaned up properly when they leave that position. I remove them when I come across them.

I didn't consider there was any need to have another going away ceremony for you.

Now, can we get back to talking about The Devil, rather than egos and clerical errors?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]

Question for noob

Awesome. Thanks everyone for all the help!

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]

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