This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.

How should future cards from Yesterday's Enterprise be named?

Stick with Decipher precedent, so we'll have Jean-Luc Picard - Alternate.
10
32%
Keep Tasha Yar - Alternate, but give new cards more traditional names, i.e. Battleship Enterprise.
1
3%
Errata Tasha Yar - Alternate to match the new naming style, whatever it ends up being.
18
58%
Other (explain in a reply to this thread.)
2
6%
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#561186
Hello folks,

It's Friday, and it's time for another Friday Question. If you haven't seen one of these before, we're turning to you to get information about 1E's past, present, and future. Your answers often shape our decisions about what's coming. This question, in particular, will be doing so because I want to know about your take on cards from Yesterday's Enterprise.

In this classic episode, a space/time anomaly pulls the Enterprise-C from the past, removing them from battle against the Romulans in defense of a Klingon colony. This disrupts the timeline, leading to variants of the TNG ship and crew at war with the Klingon Empire. It's a surprisingly untapped episode, given it's popularity.

One of the few cards we do have is Tasha Yar - Alternate, representing Tasha from this "Battleship" reality. She's an [1E-AU] personnel, so she can exist with the regular Tasha Yar. (In spite of her title, the colon/dash rule doesn't apply.) This is a wording that hasn't been repeated, with other [1E-AU] variants of personnel just getting different titles, i.e. Lt. (j.g.) Picard. My question today is about this unusual naming convention and how we should treat it, moving forward.

How should we name new cards from the "Battleship" timeline of Yesterday's Enterprise?

I see a few different options we could use, which I've put into a poll in this thread. But, I'm also eager to hear other options you might come up with. Vote for whichever option you prefer, and then post with your reasoning. Argue your case, and you might sway enough people to make your preferred option reality.

Have a great weekend. It's a long one, at least in the US, so I hope you enjoy it.

-crp
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#561189
I voted "Other", specifically because of this:
MidnightLich wrote:She's an [1E-AU] personnel, so she can exist with the regular Tasha Yar. (In spite of her title, the colon/dash rule doesn't apply.)
I haven't checked if she was the only card where this applied, but if she is the only one who uses the "ignore the colon/dash rule" then I think whatever we do should be to remove that rule.

This cold be renaming Tasha Yar - Alternate so that she doesn't use the "-" in her title OR making it so that Tasha Yar and Tasha Yar - Alternate are actual personas of each other. After the decision is made then we should make the other personnel we create follow that decision.

NOTE: I am in favour making them personas (Tash Yar and Tasha Yar - Alternate can't exist at the same time)

EDIT: @Armus I voted and then started typing up my response and you got in before I was finished :P

-James M
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
#561197
Names shouldn’t be the point here.

Having a whole 2nd TNG bridge crew NOT co-existing with the main TNG bridge crew strikes me as the first priority.

I won’t mind Tasha being an exception though. She’s the only one who ever crossed over, so co-existing with another version makes sense for her.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#561199
Make her match the new naming style. (Which I think should be regular naming, no "Alternate" or anything else.)

In order to fit TrekSense, and fit within the existing rules confines, I can only come to the conclusion that TYA remains [1E-AU] and be able to exist with TY, but any new variants of the "Prime" characters should not receive [1E-AU], because they should not be able to coexist with their alternates.

That being said, the idea that we can't play with multiple universes at the same time is a drag. So, another option is to create a new "quadrant" icon, like the Mirror Universe did. It's a separate universe, after all. But... we don't really have the on-screen material to flesh that out the same way we do Mirror.
Last edited by JeBuS on Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#561201
Design considerations, like having two entire sets of bridge crew, will be addressed. The name issue will matter no matter what, which is why I asked about it.

-crp
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#561207
I voted "Other," so here is my explanation.

"Well, well, well. What seems to be the problem?"

Diagnosis: The "Tasha Yar exception" to the colon rule is the problem. There is no reason for any player looking at that card to think that the colon rule doesn't apply.

Treatment: The exception should be removed. If Design chooses to follow her precedent going forward, then the Alternate Bridge Crew will not be able to co-exist with the Prime Bridge Crew. If Design goes a different direction, then they will not be able to co-exist. Either way's fine, IMHO, although I guess I have a bias against errata where unnecessary.

(105*-C)

(P.S. Yes, she is the only noun with a hyphen or colon in her name.)
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#561211
I voted rename her to match, but I think there is a good argument they should all just have their normal names but the (AU) icon.

In Star Trek, we have seen multiple variants of time travel and alternate universes.

Often, this is Parallels / Mirror Universe style where the subject travels to a different timeline.

That is not what happened here. In this case, the past was changed and the universe we knew changed.

With the Mirror Universe, or the Kelvin timeline/universe, we see people being able to cross back and forth and the world keeps existing while they are gone.

With YE, they were traveling up and down the same timeline, without ever leaving it. Now that it's fixed, there's now YE-universe to hop in to Parallel's style.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#561215
I always felt the name Tasha Yar - Alternate was pretty dumb (and non specific since the longer lived characters have lots of "alternates"). So I'm a fan of changing it to meet the standard of the other people from that timeline.

Definitely keep the [1E-AU] icon and they should not be persona versions of the "main timeline" characters.

This does leave a potential issue with giving [Fed] more toys, but [Fed] as a whole has so many toys this won't make a difference at this point since you can only stock so many. If it's a problem for [Fed] [1E-TNG], maybe give the YE people a special YE icon that a YE play engine card specifically says YE cannot have [1E-TNG]. But all that's not my area of expertise and this may in fact be a very stupid suggestion.
 
By sevencrdspud (Jason Beyer)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#561216
JeBuS wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:37 pm In order to fit TrekSense, and fit within the existing rules confines, I can only come to the conclusion that TYA remains [1E-AU] and be able to exist with TY, but any new variants of the "Prime" characters should not receive [1E-AU], because they should not be able to coexist with their alternates.

That being said, the idea that we can't play with multiple universes at the same time is a drag. So, another option is to create a new "quadrant" icon, like the Mirror Universe did. It's a separate universe, after all. But... we don't really have the on-screen material to flesh that out the same way we do Mirror.
The new crew can have [1E-AU] and be personas.

Paging Major Rakal!
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#561218
We already have a use case for this: Revised [Holo] [1E-DQ] [Fed]

They're good. Probably tier one.

I'm not so sure they're so good that [22] , [OS] , [Bor] ,or several other things can't beat them.

There's a lot of strong options right now. Tier one is a reasonably diverse place these days.

And I'm guessing there's a way to cap their utility even if they're allowed to coexist with main timeline bridge crew.

You only get so many card plays... don't allow both crews to play for free in the same deck and I'm guessing you can get there.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#561221
Addendum: my bigger fear is an all- [1E-AU] bridge crew that can be STP-dropped aboard an [1E-AU] Enterprise. Gonna have to deal with that if you want to both make these cards AND continue the long-term goal of phasing out [Ref] cards...
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#561227
I voted for Jean-Luc Picard - Alternate.

We already have an established method of dealing with "groups" of "alternate" people.

Excalbian Kahless
Revised Janeway

These are set apart with a keyword. Though I would have no objection to errating Tasha Yar - Alternate to Alternate Tasha Yar, to ditch the colon.

and if you are going to errata her anyway i guess it doesn't matter if you change the keyword if you want, since she is the only one.

and i literally just talked myself into changing my vote to the 3rd option...
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#561229
Where are people seeing a rule that the colon rule doesn't apply to Tasha Alternate?

Now, I don't think under current rules Tasha-Alt and Tasha-Prime are personas, but that's because the persona rule is currently written to be stricter than the colon rule. (The persona rule says "if the two cards have the exact same card title, letter-for-letter", which is a step beyond the colon rule's "when a card references a particlar card title, cards that have that exact title followed by a colon, dash, or the numeral "II" are equivalent to that card title")
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[…]