This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#560616
My response to OP would be "Every Turn vs Each Turn.' These things are equivalent in english (the language the game is written in), they should be equivalent in the game. The fact that they're not is maddening enough, but having to remember which is which is insane and never works. Always have to look it up.

My first honorable mention would go to: Some points count for winning, some points sometimes count for winning, some points don't count for winning.

Beyond making everyone track multiple point values for every player, and adding a lot of unnecessary math, it also takes away a lot of unorthodox, unique strategies and win conditions that were deliberately included in the game from the beginning and throughout its history (at least at Decipher). It started with Decipher's ridiculous In The Zone, but CC has continued to carry it and take it to even further extremes.

My second honorable mention would go to: Valid responses. An interrupt is an interrupt - interrupt means it stops things to unexpectedly change something, which means any interruption should be "valid." It's not up to you or to the rules to determine if my interruption is good enough or valid enough!
BCSWowbagger wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:24 pm Borg can now send down any number of Borg to scout a planet (previously, they could only beam down one per turn).
That's not how that ever worked.
I get why these changes were made. Borg were hideously complex
Those rule changes didn't really affect complexity of the Borg. Rules complexity was due to objectives, scouting, and downloading, most of which went unaffected by those rule changes from The Borg.
From a rules perspective, it was The Right Thing To Do
It was not "The Right Thing To Do." I honestly think it was the wrong thing to do - and even if you personally think it was "the right thing to do," I think it's frightening that you would label it as "The Right Thing To Do." I also think that specific labeling is a telling sign of the zealotry you've brandished about getting rid of rules merely for the sake of getting rid of rules, no matter the cost.
and I'd do it again in their shoes.
Sadly, not only do I believe you would - despite the fact that it's inappropriate and the wrong move - I think you already have. You've carried on a crusade to make the unique 1E game a less richer, fuller experience, paving over its history with blandness - using scare stories of new players unable to learn minor edge cases that they'll almost certainly never meaningfully encounter as a justification to gut one of the most historically and thematically flavorful games in CCG history, if not tabletop history.
(MY friends and I bought some packs of First Contact but never played Borg because we were waiting to open up some Borg-affiliation missions -- because Decipher didn't put the Borg rules in the booster packs! We saw the objectives but didn't know what "scouting" was and we figured it would be explained by some other card! Oh, Decipher...)
I think this is an interesting origin story for your crusade, and an explanation for your consistent over-reaction to rules baggage. You want to do things "the right way" for that time and place, for young James and his friends who didn't have access to booster boxes, Scrye magazines, or the internet.

But the problem is, we're several decades in to the 21st century, rather than being stuck in the 90s. All of those problems that existed for you and your friends in the 90s either don't exist anymore or are so minor as to be meaningless. Hell, we can't even get the cards without going to the internet, so there's no reason not to believe players can access the rules on the internet.

Speaking of which, instead of slashing and burning the rules in a misguided effort to reduce player confusion, why not link the cards to the rules/glossary in the first place? It's a complete no-brainer and would require almost no effort compared to the considerable work you've no doubt put into the rules and the committees to manually pull rules out, and would go further than anything else in reducing player confusion.

Don't get me wrong, this post is blunt and some may even say adversarial. But when you label fanatical slash-and-burn methodology as "The Right Thing To Do" without hesitation or shame, then someone sorely needs to provide pushback, so that's what I've done. I respect you have a good understanding of the rules as they currently are, but I think that you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the rules as they have been, which is an important historical context, and I think your crusade to simplify and dumb-down the game, for the sake of an arbitrary metric like reducing the length of the glossary, is both inappropriate and harmful to what has made this game unique.

Frankly, I fear the day when "HTSBEG" inevitably comes under your fire.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#560617
You've carried on a crusade to make the unique 1E game a less richer, fuller experience
Thanks for the feedback. In what way(s) do you feel I and the present Rules Committee have done this?
why not link the cards to the rules/glossary in the first place? It's a complete no-brainer and would require almost no effort compared to the considerable work you've no doubt put into the rules and the committees to manually pull rules out, and would go further than anything else in reducing player confusion.
This is in the works, but is actually quite technically challenging. (2E has something like it.) I look forward to having it finished, but it will still be a while yet.
even if you personally think it was "the right thing to do," I think it's frightening that you would label it as "The Right Thing To Do." I also think that specific labeling is a telling sign of the zealotry
With respect, I think you are reading a little too much into some capital letters. Also, in this particular passage, I think the person you're really upset with is Kathy McCracken (the Decipher Rules Master in 2001), not me -- although, in this case, I agree with Ms. McCracken's decision.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#560618
If it helps at all, here is a list of all changes I consider substantive general rule changes since I was elevated to Rules Master, through the end of July 2021:
Clarification: Personnel are present with themselves 3/2/2020
Clarification: Uncontrolled facilities you own are "yours" 3/2/2020
Change: Opening draw moved to end of facility phase 4/6/2020
Change: Disguises count for characteristics 4/6/2020
Clarification: Espionage cards do not overcome Fair Play (or OTF Rule #4) 5/4/2020
Clarification: "Planet surface" defined 8/3/2020
Change: Cards used "like" or "as" another card type - IV 8/3/2020
Clarification: Control begins when you start playing a card 10/5/2020
Change: "Scouted" defined 10/5/2020
Addition: Romantic partner: "beloved" 10/16/2020
Change: Universal missions not automatically stealable 10/16/2020
Clarification: "Present" definition rewritten 12/7/2020
Change: "Here" definition rewritten / treats cards on facilities and cards on sites same 12/7/2020
Clarification: Uniqueness is checked only when reporting 12/7/2020
Change: Moving and non-m required actions reconciled 3/1/2021
Change: "Any" now always keys to characteristics 3/1/2021
Change: ANIMAL restrictions cancelled 3/1/2021
Change: Miracle Worker offloaded 3/1/2021
Clarification: Dominion and Neutral "usual species" 3/1/2021
Change: Stations: Usable only by controller 3/26/2021
Change: Nors: personnel use WEAPONS outside Ops 3/26/2021
Change: Nors: docking sites no longer required 3/26/2021
Change: Nors: beaming restrictions lifted 3/26/2021
Change: Sites: walking limits rescinded 3/26/2021
Change: Sites: line is now conceptual 3/26/2021
Change: Regions: must seed at either end of region 3/26/2021
Clarification: Entering play means completing the play 5/3/2021
Clarification: No U-Turns 5/3/2021
(Specific wordings of each change can be reviewed in the Rules Archive, or you can look up the relevant article for each month in the CC article system.)

Possibly there is something I did not list here that has, in your opinion, made the game a "less rich, less full experience," but I think that all of the most controversial things I've done are on that list.

Sorry I didn't put this list in my OP. I didn't think of it until after I posted.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#560724
BCSWowbagger wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:17 pm
You've carried on a crusade to make the unique 1E game a less richer, fuller experience
Thanks for the feedback. In what way(s) do you feel I and the present Rules Committee have done this?
Offhand, the change to Scotty / Miracle Worker comes to mind. That was a lovely part of 1E lore, the nearly-unique skill that has other skills built into it and evolves and grows stronger over time. Something Decipher promised, carried out a bit, but CC not only failed to continue carrying out, but also rescinded.

It was a unique bit of lore for 1E, and a unique ability, for a unique card and a unique character. It was also a unique mechanic within the context of card gaming and board gaming in general. At the same time, it really had little impact as for its negatives, so what was gained for that change was very little, and not worth the price paid.

Another example, just now in another thread you said you want "Zero Ban List," and to do so you'd paper over another unique bit of 1E history and lore, "Raise the Stakes." "Zero Ban List" as a goal for its own pure sake doesn't really accomplish anything, and what is accomplished as a byproduct of "Zero Ban List" isn't worth throwing away our history that in no way has really affected anything, as is the case for "Raise the Stakes."
even if you personally think it was "the right thing to do," I think it's frightening that you would label it as "The Right Thing To Do." I also think that specific labeling is a telling sign of the zealotry
With respect, I think you are reading a little too much into some capital letters.
If there is nothing to be read in the capital letters, then perhaps they should not be used. I'm reading in to them what they represent. If what they represent isn't what you actually mean, then don't use them?
Also, in this particular passage, I think the person you're really upset with is Kathy McCracken (the Decipher Rules Master in 2001), not me -- although, in this case, I agree with Ms. McCracken's decision.
Kathy McCracken didn't label it as "The Right Thing To Do," and she isn't in charge of the rules today. If your philosophy is identical to hers - and I seriously doubt it is, there are some similarities but also some significant differences - then that's not really relevant, because she's not carrying that torch today, you are.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#560809
I'll chime in to say that while I believe all the changes on that list do make it a better game in the platonic sense, and Decipher did make some of these changes too, that's not always a good thing.

After all, 2E is the better game in the platonic sense, and was designed by Decipher learning from 1E, yet lacks that magi that 1E has that draws us to it.

It might be an interesting 1eFQ, what rules changes did you prefer the old way?

For me it would be the unloading of Cybernetcs, Miracle Worker, and the KW icon.

2/3 of those were done by decipher, and are better from gameplay sense, yet the KW especially changed forever a large feel of how the dominion worked.

(And to me is a great example of how not to do it. By offloading it to a card, the specter is always there to completly screw over a DOM deck that is unprepared for it, much like the magic bullets of old didn't solve the issue of Q, etc. They made it where an opponent could instant win with the right cards, or you could crush the opponent without them.

Changing those into rules was the right thing for the CC to do, IMO.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#560825
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 2:32 pmOffhand, the change to Scotty / Miracle Worker comes to mind.
There's no need to go offhand: I printed the whole list right there. You can pick out each item on it that you find objectionable.
It was a unique bit of lore for 1E, and a unique ability, for a unique card and a unique character... Something Decipher promised, carried out a bit, but CC not only failed to continue carrying out, but also rescinded.
I don't think that's quite fair. There were, as of January 2021, three cards with [SD] Miracle Worker and [SD] Transporter Skill. There are, as of today, three cards with [SD] Miracle Worker and [SD] Transporter Skill. The only difference in gameplay is that the card actually says so.

It's worth noting, too, that this rule was almost certainly never fleshed out by Decipher because Decipher was almost certainly planning to get rid of the Miracle Worker rule -- but they hadn't gotten around to it yet when they cancelled First Edition. @boromirofborg points out a few of the offloads Decipher did, but actually forgot some.

The Q-Continuum Rules Supplement, specifically, introduced five loaded skills: Tal Shiar, Miracle Worker, Transporter Skill, Cybernetics, and Guramba. QC also confirmed and extended the rule that androids are "immune to dilemmas that affect aging or DNA."

The Transporter Skill rule was cancelled in 1998, when DS9 came out.

The Tal Shiar rule was offloaded onto HQ: Defensive Measures in DS9.

The "android dilemma immunity" rule was cancelled in 2000.

The Cybernetics rule was offloaded onto Cybernetics Expertise in 2001.

In other words, starting in 1998, Decipher took a loaded skill / trait from Q-Continuum and cancelled it, at the rate of roughly one per year, until they cancelled First Edition altogether.

(You might think that the ANIMAL rules was also introduced in AU or QC -- I used to -- but you'd be wrong: the ANIMAL rules weren't introduced until an unknown date in 1997. Decipher was fine with ANIMALs attempting missions solo for 13-24 months before it decided to crack down on it.)

While I think it would reasonable to say, "Hey, I really thought this was a cool thing and I wish you hadn't erased it," I don't think it's reasonable to accuse me or the Rules Committee of carrying out a "crusade" in order to make 1E a "less rich, full experience," when all we seem to be doing is carrying out a Decipher policy of "erasing loaded rules" to its logical conclusion -- unless what you're saying is that Decipher was also on a crusade to make its own game less rich and full.
Another example, just now in another thread you said you want "Zero Ban List," and to do so you'd paper over another unique bit of 1E history and lore, "Raise the Stakes." "Zero Ban List" as a goal for its own pure sake doesn't really accomplish anything,
Hey, now, Zero Ban List was an ironclad Decipher policy, one that led to much of 1E's uniqueness -- both for better and for worse. If you are all about 1E's unique history, Decipher's radical policy of refusing to ban cards is something I would expect you to be foursquare behind. The only reason they banned Raise the Stakes was because of fear that the card violated state laws. (They also had an interesting moment in 1996 when they briefly banned the combo of Alien Probe + Telepathic Alien Kidnappers. You could have either in play, but not both.)

I admit, I am more moderate than Decipher on this. Their full policy was Zero Ban List / Very Nearly Zero Errata. I think that led to an emphasis on counterplay that ultimately became distracting from the fun and core part of the game, so I am more supportive of errata than Decipher was, and I'm accepting of temporary bans while that gets sorted out.

Of course, I was writing in that thread as a community member, not as a Rules Master. I don't ultimately get a vote on what happens to Raise the Stakes or any other ban-list card. That's not within my job description. So, while I welcome your disagreement, it's with me-as-player, not with my-policies-as-Rules-Master, and certainly doesn't provide evidence of a crusade on my part.
If there is nothing to be read in the capital letters, then perhaps they should not be used. I'm reading in to them what they represent. If what they represent isn't what you actually mean, then don't use them?
Oh, they do represent what they mean. You just misinterpreted their meaning by overreading.

The Right Thing To Do was in capital letters because what Decipher did to the Borg in 2001 is axiomatically the right thing to do. In other words, almost no professional card game designer in the world would disagree with Decipher's decision in 2001. It is not just something that I think was a good idea (which would be "the right thing to do"); it is something that pretty broad and deep conventional wisdom agrees was a good idea (thus "The Right Thing To Do").

Now, conventional wisdom can be wrong. In fact, it quite often is. But I used those capital letters in order to acknowledge its existence, not in order to express my "zealotry" or to deprecate anyone who has a different opinion.
Kathy McCracken didn't label it as "The Right Thing To Do,"
Honestly, would it surprise you the slightest bit if she did? Based on my knowledge of Major Rakal (and I admit I know her only through her publications), I think she would agree with it, although I can't prove that.

I imagine that the original members of HTSBEG would be embarrassed to find out that their little Glossary joke was now being taken so seriously that removing it would be taken (by some) as a sign of incompetence or malice. It never occurred to them to take the Glossary as Holy Writ like this; that's why HTSBEG is in there.
If your philosophy is identical to hers - and I seriously doubt it is, there are some similarities but also some significant differences - then that's not really relevant, because she's not carrying that torch today, you are.
You're correct that my philosophy is not identical to hers. But I respect McCracken enormously. I read her writing voraciously, even today. She spent more time thinking about these rules, during the most difficult phase of their development, than anyone else alive. It's marvelous to watch her, in her writing, trying to work through it all with a smile on her face. I have some differences with her. For example, I think her 1999 ruling that Leyton Founder is not an admiral was defensible but, in the final analysis, unsustainable. But, on the whole, I like to think she'd approve of what we're doing today.

I do think that's relevant. Kathy McCracken is not in charge of Rules today; I am. But your whole point here has been that I, James Heaney, am on some kind of a "crusade" to undermine the complexity and beauty of First Edition as Decipher created and crafted it.

And that's mostly a false romanticization of the past. The reality is that Decipher, including McCracken, was constantly trying to make their game better, and one of the things they were constantly trying to get better at was rules simplification and streamlining. If they could get rid of a rule by printing it on a card, they would do it. (Sometimes, they were so enthusiastic about this that they screwed up; I agree with Boromir that the offloading of White Deprivation was carried out very badly.) The game changed much more, and much faster, during the Decipher years than it ever will during my time as Rules Master.

As for you, Boromir, I only really disagree with one sentence in your post.
boromir wrote:After all, 2E is the better game in the platonic sense
No, it's not. That's the conventional wisdom, for sure, and I think most game designers would even agree with you. You could go ahead and put "2E Is The Better Game" in capital letters to reflect it.

But I think it's dead wrong. 2E is a much less entertaining game, with far less strategic complexity (aka "good complexity"), and surprisingly much comprehension complexity (aka "bad complexity") -- too many cards trying to do too many things interacting in too many ways). It's not just more mechanistic; it's transparently mechanics-driven. And it does all this while failing to feel like a space adventure, the way 1E feels and the way any space adventure card game ought to feel. There are lots of reasons 2E failed, the embezzlement first and foremost, but I think a big reason is that 2E as a game is much less fun than conventional wisdom thinks it is.

My preferred approach to 1E is to continue developing it as if 2E did not exist and had never existed. If we end up adopting certain ideas that seem good, and it turns out that 2E had them first, that's fine. As long as it makes 1E better, we don't care what 2E does, because 2E doesn't exist for us.

I want to see 1E go where Decipher would have taken it, over the long run, if they hadn't abandoned it for 2E.

If that's not where others want to see this game go, that's fine, and I certainly try to listen to all perspectives regardless of whether I agree with them. If the majority of the community ultimately decides that I am taking the rules in absolutely the wrong direction, and I'm either unwilling or unable to adequately address their concerns, then, on that day, it will be time for me to step down as Rules Manager.

But I don't think it's fair to say that I am "paving over the history of the game with blandness" or "gut" it when all I am trying to do is keep walking with the game down the path Decipher set it on-- and when the tools I am using are tools that Decipher used (far more often and far more aggressively than I or the current Rules Committee ever have) throughout that very same "history of the game."
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#560854
In the spirit of clarifying my remarks, I want to make clear that I (and speaking for myself) am overall amazed and thrilled at the job the CC as a whole, and you specifically have done.

There are certainly somethings I disagree with, but if there were not, I would be convinced the game was doomed, as I cannot be right about *everything*. :o

In many ways this reminds me of the debate in the magic community over the old borders or the modern frame.

Those that like the old borders praise the evocative flavor. Those that prefer the new borders (including me) enjoy that all the cards are literally readable instead of white text on light background for some.

I think my biggest complaint about the is that I want more. More cards, more work on the glossary, more of everything. And that's very much meant as a compliment.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#561471
There's no need to go offhand: I printed the whole list right there. You can pick out each item on it that you find objectionable.
Well I didn't need to go into your list, did I? I already provided you an example.

But here's another one: Unecessary errata to eliminate the flavor in the gameplay text of premiere dilemmas, like "Hologram Ruse."
I don't think that's quite fair. There were, as of January 2021, three cards with [SD] Miracle Worker and [SD] Transporter Skill. There are, as of today, three cards with [SD] Miracle Worker and [SD] Transporter Skill. The only difference in gameplay is that the card actually says so.
Your response here is a perfect illustration of how you have, and continue to, spectacularly miss the point.

Your belief is that if two situations perform identically in a gameplay situation, then they can be treated as fully equivalent for all purposes, and that therefore there is no downside to picking the "simpler" situation and discarding the other.

Put aside the lesser fact that my Scotty's don't have Transporter Skill on them. The larger point here is that the history has been lost and the mechanic has been lost. That skill is no longer unique or special, it's just...a skill with a weird name. The potential for expansion without printing is also lost. It is not that you have got rid of "Miracle Worker," the text, from the card itself. You haven't. What you have got rid of is the unique mechanic behind "Miracle Worker," from the card and the game entirely, and made the skill, the card, and the character less special as a result.
It's worth noting, too, that this rule was almost certainly never fleshed out by Decipher because Decipher was almost certainly planning to get rid of the Miracle Worker rule -- but they hadn't gotten around to it yet when they cancelled First Edition.
First of all, this is entirely speculation, and second of all is not at all relevant to my point. If Decipher continued to exist today and got rid of Scotty's history today, it would be just as much a travesty that they would be doing it as it is that you are doing it. So hiding behind "Decipher would have done it" isn't just a dishonest argument, it's also irrelevant.

(In addition, though I don't think it matters anyhow, Decipher was free to remove Miracle Worker's Transporter Skill and expansion abilities at any point. The fact that they didn't, year after year, is, if anything, an indication that it wasn't part of the plan or desired. Interesting how somehow you've twisted their lack of doing so into an argument for the fact that they were going to do so).
(You might think that the ANIMAL rules was also introduced in AU or QC -- I used to -- but you'd be wrong: the ANIMAL rules weren't introduced until an unknown date in 1997. Decipher was fine with ANIMALs attempting missions solo for 13-24 months before it decided to crack down on it.)
I'm really struggling to figure out what ANIMAL has to do with anything here.
While I think it would reasonable to say, "Hey, I really thought this was a cool thing and I wish you hadn't erased it," I don't think it's reasonable to accuse me or the Rules Committee of carrying out a "crusade" in order to make 1E a "less rich, full experience,"
Ok, let me rephrase it, to be clear. I am accusing you (not the Rules Committee, since I don't even know who they are), in your capacity as head of rules committee, of engaging in a crusade with dubious goals (Zero Ban List, reduced (Zero) glossary text length, fewer rules, etc.), whose (perhaps unintentional, but certainly no less real or foreseeable) effect has been to make 1E a less rich, full experience. I think you've made your desire for such a crusade clear, since long before you were made head of the rules committee, so its no surprise to me that it's somewhat being carried out.
Hey, now, Zero Ban List was an ironclad Decipher policy....The only reason they banned Raise the Stakes
So it's an ironclad policy but somehow it also wasn't all that ironclad since before AU came out? Ok. You've literally contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences.

And let's be clear - when Decipher banned a card, it meant one thing. When you or CC bans a card, it means something else entirely. Because Decipher isn't creating errata, therefore their ban list isn't papering over anything. When you or the CC bans a card, it's usually with the implicit and deliberate intention to eventually change that card, leading to revisionist history.

So you can't really compare the two at all.
Of course, I was writing in that thread as a community member, not as a Rules Master.
Nope, when you become "Rules Master," you give up the ability to write your opinion and say it has no effect on your decision-making as "Rules Master." Real life isn't like Star Trek, where you can take off your comm badge and go kill someone because "You weren't doing it as your official capacity as a Starfleet officer" or whatever. Picard was right to call Worf out on that shit.

It would be disingenuous to imply that your opinion has no effect on your own "official" judgement, and it would also be disingenuous to imply that your opinion won't have a lesser (but still real) effect on the "official" judgement of others. I could chalk up the latter implication to naivete on your part, but not the former.
I don't ultimately get a vote on what happens to Raise the Stakes or any other ban-list card. That's not within my job description. So, while I welcome your disagreement, it's with me-as-player, not with my-policies-as-Rules-Master, and certainly doesn't provide evidence of a crusade on my part.
And once again, you're missing the point. If you had the ability to achieve Zero Ban List, you would do so - that's the crusade. I'm simply pointing out that your intentions and desires have been made explicitly clear, by you. Certainly one can expect that you will do whatever you can, within your official capacity, to effect that goal.
Oh, they do represent what they mean. You just misinterpreted their meaning by overreading.
No, I got the right meaning, loud and clear, which you've just confirmed as labeling the Capital Letter Statement as being indicative of an axiom. I don't know why you think I don't understand that.
In other words, almost no professional card game designer in the world would disagree with Decipher's decision in 2001.
I disagree with that statement completely, and I don't think you're an authority to tell anyone what "almost no professional card game designer in the world" would agree or disagree with, and certainly not in 2001.
It is not just something that I think was a good idea (which would be "the right thing to do"); it is something that pretty broad and deep conventional wisdom agrees was a good idea (thus "The Right Thing To Do").
Again, I disagree that it is "conventional wisdom."

And the fact that you feel perfectly justified, with no shame or hesitation, in declaring it as an axiom, and declaring what everyone else would have said or thinks, is exactly why this is so problematic and needs to be called out. Because that sense that such an opinion basically goes without saying only further encourages the slash and burn effects that it's ultimately justifying.

Your opinion isn't an axiom.
Honestly, would it surprise you the slightest bit if she did? Based on my knowledge of Major Rakal (and I admit I know her only through her publications), I think she would agree with it, although I can't prove that.
You're missing the point, which is that it wouldn't matter if she agrees with it or not. Stop hiding behind Major Rakal - I'm arguing with you, your beliefs, and your actions. The fact that someone else not in charge might have agreed with them isn't relevant. "Major Rakal would have done the same thing!" isn't a defense for anything. Even if she would have done something, that doesn't mean it would have been the right thing to do.

But again, your response is also indicative of the failure to see the larger picture, alluded to at the top of my reply. You are looking at things in terms of gameplay, and changes in terms of their effects on gameplay. What you're missing is the effects on the cultural entity of 1E, beyond the structure of the game entity of 1E.
I do think that's relevant. Kathy McCracken is not in charge of Rules today; I am.
Then the buck stops with you, not with her.
But your whole point here has been that I, James Heaney, am on some kind of a "crusade" to undermine the complexity and beauty of First Edition as Decipher created and crafted it.

And that's mostly a false romanticization of the past.
It's not so much a "false romanticization of the past" as it is a "false framing of my position," which you can then tear down more easily. That's called a straw man.

I never said everything Decipher did was great, intentional, supportable, defensible, or unworthy of improvement and change. I'm not going to allow you to put me in the position of defending such a position, which I never took.

Much of your response seems to be based on the following chain of logic:

-DISCO thinks everything Decipher did must be preserved or is holy writ
-DISCO thinks I'm going against Decipher's intentions, and that doing so is wrong
-If I can prove to DISCO that in fact I am carrying on Decipher's intended agenda, and that Kathy McCracken would have done the same thing, then DISCO won't have a problem with these changes anymore.

The problem in your chain of logic is the first assumption, which is simply untrue. I'm not saying your actions are inappropriate or incorrect simply because Decipher didn't do them, or simply because I don't believe Decipher would have done them. It doesn't matter to me what Decipher did, didn't do, would have done, or wouldn't have done, merely for the sake of what Decipher did, didn't do, would have done, or wouldn't have done.

My very first thread was calling out Decipher for some crap decisions, both from a business and from a gamer's perspective.

What matters to me is what makes 1E both a better game, a better experience, and a better entity (including culturally and historically), and preserving the things that made 1E that better, unique experience.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#561477
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:09 pm But here's another one: Unecessary errata to eliminate the flavor in the gameplay text of premiere dilemmas, like "Hologram Ruse."
Question: how do you, personally, tell the difference between flavor in gameplay text (like Hologram Ruse) and mechanics in gameplay text (like Hyper-Aging, or the Love Interests?)
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#561548
Personally, I would say flavor is in the eye of the beholder, rather than the objective fact it seems to be presented as here.

I'm a long time player/collector of 1E and I had absolutely no problem with the Miracle Worker change. Decipher left it the way they did because they planned to give Miracle Workers other "tricks", then failed to do so. The CC had no plans to do so. So it simply amounted to "Even though it's not printed on the card, this character has Transporter Skill because this minor rule you didn't see before says so."

You either might not see it, or might not see it as important but that's not very new player friendly. A new player is then going to wonder what other secret skills are included in what skills when there are none. And that's a turnoff. Cleaning it up was just getting rid of a pointless bit of PAQ Weirdness, and PAQ Weirdness will always be with us to a certain extent.

It is a valid opinion that this represents flavor that has now been lost, but that's all that is. Just because James or whoever else disagrees with that opinion or any other opinion you hold doesn't indicate malice and/or incompetence on their part.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#561554
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:09 pm What matters to me is what makes 1E both a better game, a better experience, and a better entity (including culturally and historically), and preserving the things that made 1E that better, unique experience.
Dude. Of all of the people to attack on "history of the game" grounds, James Heaney @BCSWowbagger should be at the very bottom of that list. He's the one guy you don't want to get into an argument on about the history of the game, because as far as I can tell, he's done the MOST of ANYONE to study the history of the game.

And speaking of history, I'm not sure how much you've followed forum discussions on these issues, but it's not like this was entered into lightly without serious consideration.

In fact, this post explains pretty well the reason that the Miracle Worker decision was made, to the benefit of everyone.

Short version: put the complexity on the cards and not on the rules.

It makes sense to me. If there's a card that does a thing, you should be able to read the card and get that it does the thing. That's hardly a radical position.

Also in that thread is a link to an article that James wrote awhile back discussing the various aspects of complexity. I'll quote the relevant part here directly:
When people talk about First Edition, they almost always use the word “complex”—sometimes with a grin, sometimes a groan. I think this is because 1E is complex in two different ways.

On the one hand, the game goes to extraordinary lengths to not just represent the world of Star Trek, but actually simulate it, giving players incredible freedom to explore, discover, and influence the universe. This is good complexity. This is why people play CCGs instead of, say, Go Fish... and nothing is better at it than First Edition.

On the other hand, First Edition's rules and gameplay are full of hidden clauses, exceptions, and loopholes; playing the game effectively means becoming something of a Scholar of the Glossary. This is bad complexity. Most human beings don't want to spent time learning, say, third-order exceptions to the targeting rule, or "magic words" that make dilemmas reseed. This is why some people play Go Fish instead of First Edition.

Suppose we're in a thrilling match, a cat-and-mouse game where your U.S.S. Defiant has managed to use cloaking and the Bajoran Wormhole to stay just ahead of my prowling Borg Cube. We're throwing battle prevention interrupts, anti-cloaking tech, range boosters, clever tactics, the works. You've solved Quest for the Sword and are using the Sword of Kahless to boost a small Klingon detachment enough to make personnel battle real risky... for both of us. There's now a The Nexus on the Gamma Quadrant spaceline, threatening to wipe us both off the board if we aren't careful. There's a million things going on, the slightest mistake will cost one of us the game, and we couldn't be having more fun. It feels like we're playing "Balance of Terror" meets "The Best of Both Worlds" in the middle of Deep Space Nine. This is everything that makes this game unlike any other, good complexity to the hilt.

Then, my Borg finally catch up to you and beam down with an Assimilate Species objective to destroy your Away Team. I show my leader (which, for Borg, is a red drone). You try to kill the battle with I'm A Doctor, Not A Doorstop, but I kill the interrupt instead with an Amanda Rogers. In a last, desperate lunge, you use Altovar (Emissary)'s special download of Lethean Telepathic Attack to disable my red drone, depriving the Away Team of a leader. I say you can't, because the battle has started. You say you can, because the download suspends play and can take place after I declare the start of battle but before it's actually initiated when responses are played. I say that's ridiculous and whip out the Glossary, where we read the entries on "suspends play" and "actions - step 1: initiation" out loud together and argue about the placement of certain prepositional phrases.

Which Star Trek episode does that resemble? Because I don't think "the one where they argue about sentence structure for ten minutes" is one I want to watch. It's a bad moment for both players.

Part of the Rules Committee's job is to resolve those bad moments by issuing a ruling and clearly communicating the ruling to everyone. But the other part of our job is to incrementally, carefully, and non-disruptively shape the rules of the game so that bad moments like that don't happen at all. When you're playing First Edition, the Rules Committee wants your attention on the spaceline, not on the Glossary. And so we are going to continue to target and trim away what I've called "bad complexity," while helping Design to add new "good complexity" as often as they can.
If your definition of "rich history of the game" means that you win by being the smartest Glossary nerd in the room, then that's your prerogative. But that kind of situation has undoubtedly contributed to the decline in player base over the years by causing players to say "fuck this, I'm out" or, on the other side, prevent new players from picking up the game. Neither of those is good.

Now, to be fair, I don't agree with every decision the CC has made over the years either, so I respect your passion. However, I would ask if this is really the hill you want to plant your flag on, because to me, increasing good strategic complexity while decreasing bad rules baggage complexity is absolutely the right thing to do, even if a few flavor text casualties result.

Now you wanna talk about OTF and the lost art of the Seed Phase? You might find a few more dinosaurs open to griping about that change... :wink:
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#561556
Armus wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:45 pm Now, to be fair, I don't agree with every decision the CC has made over the years either, so I respect your passion.
I would honestly be surprised if there was any one person who agreed with absolutely every decision made by the CC regarding these games... including members of the CC themselves (Board, Design, Errata, what have you).
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#561624
BCSWowbagger wrote: I want to see 1E go where Decipher would have taken it, over the long run, if they hadn't abandoned it for 2E.
I highly doubt Decipher would have ever gone the direction of OTF.

What Decipher should have done was actually gone ahead with a ban list, more aggressive errata, and done multiple formats like Magic had begun to do. Instead after the best block of sets ever designed by Decipher, we went into Voyager and beyond which was a mega explosion of power level that the game never really recovered from and caused the creation of OTF by the CC.

I'll never understand why, when they had to make so many magic bullet cards in the DS9 block that they didn't see the writing on the wall and just try and fix the game instead of doubling down on 'make it even more mega powerful'.

Almost all my issues with the current state of 'changes' (Miracle Worker, Animal Classification, various proposed rules changes, whole portions of the ban list, etc) would go away if the CC would just admit they are breaking away from the Decipher First Edition and have created a new 1.5 Edition based solely on OTF. I know I'm not the only player who feels that way as well.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#561633
DarkSabre wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:54 pm
Almost all my issues with the current state of 'changes' (Miracle Worker, Animal Classification, various proposed rules changes, whole portions of the ban list, etc) would go away if the CC would just admit they are breaking away from the Decipher First Edition and have created a new 1.5 Edition based solely on OTF. I know I'm not the only player who feels that way as well.
Are you telling me that if we had these rules changes but the OG seed phase rules with the ban list somewhere in the middle you would still be calling this 1.5e?

I don't think Scotty and the Animal rules are the issue here...
1EFQ: Game of two halves

First: Rescue Captives is OP, there should[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation