#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 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 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
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 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 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
Director of First Edition, 2019 - now
"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Symbolizing the elements that create truth and beauty."
Klingons say TRANS RIGHTS.
"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Symbolizing the elements that create truth and beauty."
Klingons say TRANS RIGHTS.