This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
By Winner of Borg (Stefan Slaby)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
1E European Continental Champion 2023
1E Austrian National Champion 2023
2E Austrian National Champion 2022
1E Borg Region Regional Champion 2023
2E Borg Region Regional Champion 2023
#557013
i believe the first player advantage used to be *bigger* when the game was less balanced, because games were decided in fewer turns (2-3). competitive games are still decided by a single turn quite often, but personally i don't mind going second nearly as much as i used to.

i also think it would take a lot away from the experience of winning if it wasn't instantaneous but the opponent got another turn to overtake you. (and before that, you'd also get to finish your turn to score as many points as you can. basically, that would change the whole dynamic of the game, turning all games into timed games. sounds awful to me.)

the best way to reduce first player advantage (if we want to do that) would be to reduce the value of the first turn. make it a "half turn" in some ways. (perhaps a limit on free plays and/or card draws on that turn? though without a cost system built into the game everything i can think of to reduce the value of the first turn would affect various deck types differently.)
or there could be some other disadvantage to compensate for the turn advantage (a smaller starting hand? starting with some negative points?)

finally, i find that the first player has a huge advantage in certain interactive scenarios! getting to attack the opponent one turn earlier. getting to lock out a reporting location before the opponent can mount defenses.
Kazon/Hirogen/Vidiians in particular come to mind, getting to attack or even commandeer an empty Voyager/Equinox/Liberty on turn 1, eliminating the opponent's main play engine. this wasn't as much a concern back when Caretaker's Array was still a report-with-crew engine, but these days there's literally no defense against going second in this kind of matchup...
 
By Kova4H9
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#557021
Winner of Borg wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:03 am i also think it would take a lot away from the experience of winning if it wasn't instantaneous but the opponent got another turn to overtake you. (and before that, you'd also get to finish your turn to score as many points as you can. basically, that would change the whole dynamic of the game, turning all games into timed games. sounds awful to me.)
Shhh... you weren't supposed to mention that...

Joking aside, this is my biggest problem with same turn. The benefit of same turn is its simple and effective, but the downside is that it might not be... fun. It would change the flavor of the endgame, that's for sure.

While some sort of "nerfing the first turn" effect would probably be better, it would also require a lot more careful playtesting to get the balance right. It would also add a lot more rules complexity, which 1E doesn't really need.

(For anecdotal data, in most casual games I play, we often allow the losing player to play out their next turn as a sort of "post-mortem.")
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
#557031
In Grimsby tournaments, players try to keep the players going first/second broadly equal, ie rather than using dice/coin, decide who goes first based on if you went first more in previous rounds, so if Gary went first in R1 and R2, and Tony only went first in R2, then Tony should go first in R3.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#557037
^ That's interesting, Paddy!

The Rulebook, for what it's worth, does not require the starting player to be selected randomly. It just says:
Determine by any mutually agreeable method (often a coin toss) which player will be the starting player.
This does leave space for the Organized Play Guide, or a Tournament Director, or individual players, to impose an alternative method without a rule change.

(Off the top of my head: random selection first round, but player with fewer VPs/smaller differential gets to choose in subsequent rounds?)
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#557038
Well now...
I am going to be assigning them in my regionals (with an eye towards ballance).
I also like your tie break james~
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557057
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:59 pm I'd be interested in things that, even if they don't flat out solve the problem, make it where if given the choice, the player might choose to go second.
With Staging Ground I actually prefer to go 2nd incase I get a bad draw. B/C as 2nd player, I'd get to download Q The Referee with Tribunal of Q and I could Obelisk of Masaka during my opponent's turn if I had a bad draw and got 0-1 ships.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#557058
HoodieDM wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:23 pm
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:59 pm I'd be interested in things that, even if they don't flat out solve the problem, make it where if given the choice, the player might choose to go second.
With Staging Ground I actually prefer to go 2nd incase I get a bad draw. B/C as 2nd player, I'd get to download Q The Referee with Tribunal of Q and I could Obelisk of Masaka during my opponent's turn if I had a bad draw and got 0-1 ships.
I don't think that works.

You can download the Obelisk at suspends-play speed, but downloading the Masaka on yourself is an order action that can only be done on your turn after your card play phase.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557146
Armus wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:26 pm You can download the Obelisk at suspends-play speed, but downloading the Masaka on yourself is an order action that can only be done on your turn after your card play phase.
What am I missing that designates it as an "order action" vs just an "action"?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#557148
HoodieDM wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:21 am
Armus wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:26 pm You can download the Obelisk at suspends-play speed, but downloading the Masaka on yourself is an order action that can only be done on your turn after your card play phase.
What am I missing that designates it as an "order action" vs just an "action"?
Your question implies disparity where none exists. Any action that isn't playing a card, suspends play or "at any time" (to include playing most interrupts) is an order by default.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557168
Armus wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:33 am Your question implies disparity where none exists. Any action that isn't playing a card, suspends play or "at any time" (to include playing most interrupts) is an order by default.
There's nothing stating an "order" even in the glossary as no entry exists. It's all under action. And in "actions" theres nothing signifying the difference either. Actions state that each person performs something back and forth. So that's my problem with this game. Why can't I perform an action during my opponents turn?
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#557170
HoodieDM wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:14 pm
Armus wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:33 am Your question implies disparity where none exists. Any action that isn't playing a card, suspends play or "at any time" (to include playing most interrupts) is an order by default.
There's nothing stating an "order" even in the glossary as no entry exists. It's all under action. And in "actions" theres nothing signifying the difference either. Actions state that each person performs something back and forth. So that's my problem with this game. Why can't I perform an action during my opponents turn?
I'm confused by this talk of actions and orders... Obelisk of Masaka says "once each turn". "Each turn" means your turn. What am I missing here?
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557179
Using a Once Each Turn or Once Per Game effect is an action which can only take place during the Execute Orders phase of your turn, unless the action specifically says it suspends play (literally when ever) or may happen "at any time" like the nexus or 59th rule, in which case they can happen at any time except in the middle of another action (like a mission attempt).

So I believe the discussion is a disagreement between those who thought they could use obelisk to masaka as soon as they downloaded it and those who think that they have to wait until After The Play Phase on their first turn to masaka which kind of negates the Mulligan benefits.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#557340
JeBuS wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:20 pm If two players played equally in such a case, shouldn't they have a draw, rather than rules-mandated win/loss?
I could see an argument that the lower-ranked player in the tournament should win, since they just fought a superior opponent to a draw.
pfti wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:20 pm Also argument theory places the burden of proof on change. You have to prove the alternative is definitivle better than the status quo because we know what happens in teh status quo, but change without proof of a better outcome jus invites random problems. so actually the logical argument is because we dont, unless you can prove the alternative is definitivly better.
Which goes back to my earlier point - do we even *know* if there's a significant first-turn advantage?

I mean, my gut instinct says that there is, purely on the theory of: if player 1 can win in N turns, they will win games where player 2 also needs N turns and will only lose if player 2 can win in N-1 turns. I don't think we need to make more assumptions about particular draws and plays and decks, but just one key question: How often does the first player win?

I think trying to find solutions is a bit premature when we don't know for sure how bad the problem is or if we even *have* a problem (as far as I know -doesn't seem like anyone has any sort of hard numbers right now). And if folks want to try testing out alternatives, I'd argue a first step would be collecting those baseline stats - otherwise you don't know what effects your changes are having!
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#557465
AllenGould wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:03 pm
JeBuS wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:20 pm If two players played equally in such a case, shouldn't they have a draw, rather than rules-mandated win/loss?
I could see an argument that the lower-ranked player in the tournament should win, since they just fought a superior opponent to a draw.
pfti wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:20 pm Also argument theory places the burden of proof on change. You have to prove the alternative is definitivle better than the status quo because we know what happens in teh status quo, but change without proof of a better outcome jus invites random problems. so actually the logical argument is because we dont, unless you can prove the alternative is definitivly better.
Which goes back to my earlier point - do we even *know* if there's a significant first-turn advantage?

I mean, my gut instinct says that there is, purely on the theory of: if player 1 can win in N turns, they will win games where player 2 also needs N turns and will only lose if player 2 can win in N-1 turns. I don't think we need to make more assumptions about particular draws and plays and decks, but just one key question: How often does the first player win?

I think trying to find solutions is a bit premature when we don't know for sure how bad the problem is or if we even *have* a problem (as far as I know -doesn't seem like anyone has any sort of hard numbers right now). And if folks want to try testing out alternatives, I'd argue a first step would be collecting those baseline stats - otherwise you don't know what effects your changes are having!
I think the only way to gather an evidence is to follow these steps:

On games where 1st player achieves a win condition, mark the current game state as a win for player 1 and stop the play clock (Result 1), then player 1 should continue their turn and score as many more points as they are able unless the win was due to New Civilizations. Then Player 2 plays one additional turn scoring as many points as they are able and compare the new result (Result 2). If player 2 does not have a win condition, then player 1 wins regardless of going first and the Result 2 information is not retained; if player 2 has a win condition (New Civ or points), then the original win condition (Result 1) is published and the secondary condition (Result 2) is submitted directly to the TD for collation. At the end of the tournament, the TD collates all such Result 2's to the Balance Team so they can beginning collecting a larger sample. Unless we as players start allowing the game to get that extra turn, we really have no way of confirming a player 1 bias.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]