This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#564012
Don't like it. Unless the game-text is a rough draft, it seems like this only makes Q-continuum side decks more confusing. What's the goal here?

When I look at "Q-Flash," it explains what it does pretty clearly. I don't need to look at any rules or other cards to understand. It indicates what a Q-Continuum is, it defines a "Q-Flash" as the name of the card, and it indicates it can be seeded so that an away team or crew encountering it will have to experience X cards from a Q-Continuum, which again, is defined by the first function of the card. Great. A little verbose (the third function could conceivably have been dropped or moved elsewhere), but not confusing.

But when I look at this card, I'm just left with questions. The crew or away team "has a Q-Flash with..."

Wait a minute. Q-Flash is the name of a card. Is this card naming a card? What does it mean when a crew or away team "has a <card>?" How does that work? It's as confusing as if it said "Crew or Away Team has a Jean-Luc Picard with..."

Ok, so now I've got to look up what the "Q-Flash" card is because that card is named (assuming I have prior knowledge that "Q-Flash" is the name of a card in the first place), and even so, I don't know what it means to "have a card."

But then I haven't seen the rest of the set. So maybe "Q-Flash" isn't going to be a card anymore at the end of the day (though since I've played 1E before, I will forever have knowledge that "Q-Flash" is a card even if you say it's not anymore, because it still is, it still was, and those cards still exist). So maybe I don't need to know what it means for my away team to "have a card."

In which case, I still don't know what it means to "have a Q-Flash," since that's a term that's defined elsewehere, presumably. I either have to look it up in the rules or look at another card which defines the term (which card? Is there a way for me to know by looking at this card? Nope). So now to even understand what's going on, I'm looking at two different places at a minimum.

We're not done yet, though. Even if I know what it means to "have a Q-Flash," apparently I have to do it with X cards from my opponent's "Q-Continuum." But what is my opponent's "Q-Continuum?" Again, not defined on this card. Once again, I'm looking at the rules or looking at relevant other card, once I figure out somehow what that relevant other card is.

So there are two populations of players that you make these kind of revised cards for - old players and new players.

Old players are probably going to figure all this out pretty quick - because they recognize it's just a revamp of the mechanics and cards from the Q-Continuum expansion, so it should work pretty similarly. But remember, moving mechanics and rules from documents to cards, or from one card to multiple cards, isn't really done for the sake of older players, because they're not the ones who are liable to be confused by weird mechanics and rules in the first place, since they've alreayd learned them and have been playing with them for decades.

So what about the other population? The new players? I can't imagine a new player looking at this card and having any sane clue about how it works or what it does or why they should put it in their deck.

Whereas I was a new player once, when Q-Continuum came out. And I remember looking at that ONE card and getting the gist of the entire mechanic. And I can put myself in the shoes of a new player now and compare how a new player might look at old Q-Flash versus how they might look at this card, and even though old Q-Flash has a lot more text, I think it's a lot more self-explanatory and easy to understand than this new card.

So if that was the goal, streamlining things for new players, then this card fails.

ETA: Also, why make it a Q colon card, so that it's linked to the "Q" dilemma by the colon rule? It can be a Q-related dilemma by having "Q" in the title without using the colon rule. Is there a reason it should be linked to "Q"?
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#564024
I THINK, and I could be wrong, but I think they are going to errata the Q-flash doorway and that those explanations might still exist on that card??? We'll see.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:48 pm Don't like it. Unless the game-text is a rough draft, it seems like this only makes Q-continuum side decks more confusing. What's the goal here?

When I look at "Q-Flash," it explains what it does pretty clearly. I don't need to look at any rules or other cards to understand. It indicates what a Q-Continuum is, it defines a "Q-Flash" as the name of the card, and it indicates it can be seeded so that an away team or crew encountering it will have to experience X cards from a Q-Continuum, which again, is defined by the first function of the card. Great. A little verbose (the third function could conceivably have been dropped or moved elsewhere), but not confusing.

But when I look at this card, I'm just left with questions. The crew or away team "has a Q-Flash with..."

Wait a minute. Q-Flash is the name of a card. Is this card naming a card? What does it mean when a crew or away team "has a <card>?" How does that work? It's as confusing as if it said "Crew or Away Team has a Jean-Luc Picard with..."

Ok, so now I've got to look up what the "Q-Flash" card is because that card is named (assuming I have prior knowledge that "Q-Flash" is the name of a card in the first place), and even so, I don't know what it means to "have a card."

But then I haven't seen the rest of the set. So maybe "Q-Flash" isn't going to be a card anymore at the end of the day (though since I've played 1E before, I will forever have knowledge that "Q-Flash" is a card even if you say it's not anymore, because it still is, it still was, and those cards still exist). So maybe I don't need to know what it means for my away team to "have a card."

In which case, I still don't know what it means to "have a Q-Flash," since that's a term that's defined elsewehere, presumably. I either have to look it up in the rules or look at another card which defines the term (which card? Is there a way for me to know by looking at this card? Nope). So now to even understand what's going on, I'm looking at two different places at a minimum.

We're not done yet, though. Even if I know what it means to "have a Q-Flash," apparently I have to do it with X cards from my opponent's "Q-Continuum." But what is my opponent's "Q-Continuum?" Again, not defined on this card. Once again, I'm looking at the rules or looking at relevant other card, once I figure out somehow what that relevant other card is.

So there are two populations of players that you make these kind of revised cards for - old players and new players.

Old players are probably going to figure all this out pretty quick - because they recognize it's just a revamp of the mechanics and cards from the Q-Continuum expansion, so it should work pretty similarly. But remember, moving mechanics and rules from documents to cards, or from one card to multiple cards, isn't really done for the sake of older players, because they're not the ones who are liable to be confused by weird mechanics and rules in the first place, since they've alreayd learned them and have been playing with them for decades.

So what about the other population? The new players? I can't imagine a new player looking at this card and having any sane clue about how it works or what it does or why they should put it in their deck.

Whereas I was a new player once, when Q-Continuum came out. And I remember looking at that ONE card and getting the gist of the entire mechanic. And I can put myself in the shoes of a new player now and compare how a new player might look at old Q-Flash versus how they might look at this card, and even though old Q-Flash has a lot more text, I think it's a lot more self-explanatory and easy to understand than this new card.

So if that was the goal, streamlining things for new players, then this card fails.

ETA: Also, why make it a Q colon card, so that it's linked to the "Q" dilemma by the colon rule? It can be a Q-related dilemma by having "Q" in the title without using the colon rule. Is there a reason it should be linked to "Q"?
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#564035
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:48 pm Don't like it. Unless the game-text is a rough draft, it seems like this only makes Q-continuum side decks more confusing. What's the goal here?

When I look at "Q-Flash," it explains what it does pretty clearly. I don't need to look at any rules or other cards to understand. It indicates what a Q-Continuum is, it defines a "Q-Flash" as the name of the card, and it indicates it can be seeded so that an away team or crew encountering it will have to experience X cards from a Q-Continuum, which again, is defined by the first function of the card. Great. A little verbose (the third function could conceivably have been dropped or moved elsewhere), but not confusing.

-snip-

Whereas I was a new player once, when Q-Continuum came out. And I remember looking at that ONE card and getting the gist of the entire mechanic. And I can put myself in the shoes of a new player now and compare how a new player might look at old Q-Flash versus how they might look at this card, and even though old Q-Flash has a lot more text, I think it's a lot more self-explanatory and easy to understand than this new card.
I guess I was terribly unlucky back in the 90s, but it wasn't until like my 5th pack of Q Continuum that I got a Q-Flash. Up to then I had a bunch of weird looking [Q] Events and Interrupts that didn't seem to work for me. And some odd and cool [NA] personnel.
looking at you, data's body

13 year old me had just wasted all my birthday money on freaky, stupid cards. Why would I play Lemon-aid, Door-net or Dr. Q? What on earth are they thinking at Decipher? That was $15 I was almost certain I had wasted. And I couldn't use them for a few weeks, because I had a whopping 1 Flash and had to wait until I could buy another pack, which had like 3 flashes in it, so that was good.
Then I had to convince my 10 year old brother that he just made me win when he hit are these truly and had to hand me one of the 5 Tormentors I had made him face. Which wasn't easy. He wouldn't play Trek with me for months after that.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#564056
winterflames wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:38 pm I guess I was terribly unlucky back in the 90s, but it wasn't until like my 5th pack of Q Continuum that I got a Q-Flash. Up to then I had a bunch of weird looking [Q] Events and Interrupts that didn't seem to work for me. And some odd and cool [NA] personnel.
looking at you, data's body

13 year old me had just wasted all my birthday money on freaky, stupid cards. Why would I play Lemon-aid, Door-net or Dr. Q? What on earth are they thinking at Decipher? That was $15 I was almost certain I had wasted. And I couldn't use them for a few weeks, because I had a whopping 1 Flash and had to wait until I could buy another pack, which had like 3 flashes in it, so that was good.
Then I had to convince my 10 year old brother that he just made me win when he hit are these truly and had to hand me one of the 5 Tormentors I had made him face. Which wasn't easy. He wouldn't play Trek with me for months after that.
Wait, Are you me?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#564070
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:17 am
winterflames wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:38 pm I guess I was terribly unlucky back in the 90s, but it wasn't until like my 5th pack of Q Continuum that I got a Q-Flash. Up to then I had a bunch of weird looking [Q] Events and Interrupts that didn't seem to work for me. And some odd and cool [NA] personnel.
looking at you, data's body

13 year old me had just wasted all my birthday money on freaky, stupid cards. Why would I play Lemon-aid, Door-net or Dr. Q? What on earth are they thinking at Decipher? That was $15 I was almost certain I had wasted. And I couldn't use them for a few weeks, because I had a whopping 1 Flash and had to wait until I could buy another pack, which had like 3 flashes in it, so that was good.
Then I had to convince my 10 year old brother that he just made me win when he hit are these truly and had to hand me one of the 5 Tormentors I had made him face. Which wasn't easy. He wouldn't play Trek with me for months after that.
Wait, Are you me?
Nope, he's me.

I stocked Dr. Quinn in my draw deck for months. Only reason I didn't stock Gift (my lucky early rare pull) was because it felt too obviously broken to have an interrupt that instantly won the game.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#564096
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:40 pm
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:17 am
winterflames wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:38 pm I guess I was terribly unlucky back in the 90s, but it wasn't until like my 5th pack of Q Continuum that I got a Q-Flash. Up to then I had a bunch of weird looking [Q] Events and Interrupts that didn't seem to work for me. And some odd and cool [NA] personnel.
looking at you, data's body

13 year old me had just wasted all my birthday money on freaky, stupid cards. Why would I play Lemon-aid, Door-net or Dr. Q? What on earth are they thinking at Decipher? That was $15 I was almost certain I had wasted. And I couldn't use them for a few weeks, because I had a whopping 1 Flash and had to wait until I could buy another pack, which had like 3 flashes in it, so that was good.
Then I had to convince my 10 year old brother that he just made me win when he hit are these truly and had to hand me one of the 5 Tormentors I had made him face. Which wasn't easy. He wouldn't play Trek with me for months after that.
Wait, Are you me?
Nope, he's me.

I stocked Dr. Quinn in my draw deck for months. Only reason I didn't stock Gift (my lucky early rare pull) was because it felt too obviously broken to have an interrupt that instantly won the game.
Attachments:
well.jpg
well.jpg (72.52 KiB) Viewed 2512 times
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E North American Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
ibbles  Trek Masters Tribbles Champion 2023
2E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#564100
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:48 pm Don't like it. Unless the game-text is a rough draft, it seems like this only makes Q-continuum side decks more confusing. What's the goal here?

When I look at "Q-Flash," it explains what it does pretty clearly. I don't need to look at any rules or other cards to understand. It indicates what a Q-Continuum is, it defines a "Q-Flash" as the name of the card, and it indicates it can be seeded so that an away team or crew encountering it will have to experience X cards from a Q-Continuum, which again, is defined by the first function of the card. Great. A little verbose (the third function could conceivably have been dropped or moved elsewhere), but not confusing.
Actually, there is a lot of associated confusion with Q-flashes, which is why it has a pretty big glossary entry.
[*]It doesn't specify how many cards can go in it, like a lot of the other side decks do. Nor does it tell you specifically that [Q] cards go in
[*]Once you start the flash, it doesn't specifically tell you that you can't experience the same card twice in a flash
[*]It also doesn't tell you what to do with those duplicate cards when they're drawn
[*]It doesn't generally tell you what to do with [Q] cards once they are encountered (put them under face up)
[*]It doesn't say what to do if you run out of [Q] cards (shuffle face-up cards and put them face-down)
[*]The Glossary says that crews are not stopped if they fail the requirements of a [Q] cards, which is different from all other dilemmas

I played a deck with a Flash in it last year when @Armus was running his Return to Talos IV events, and I had to have the Glossary up every time my opponent hit a flash, just to make sure we were doing it right.

So, the part where it lays out how many cards you encounter is pretty clear. After that? Not so much.

Anyway, if you're interested in a discussion of the idea behind breaking up the Flash (code named Blue Crash here) into two cards, there was a 1E Friday Question about it.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#564118
jadziadax8 wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:43 pm
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:48 pm Don't like it. Unless the game-text is a rough draft, it seems like this only makes Q-continuum side decks more confusing. What's the goal here?

When I look at "Q-Flash," it explains what it does pretty clearly. I don't need to look at any rules or other cards to understand. It indicates what a Q-Continuum is, it defines a "Q-Flash" as the name of the card, and it indicates it can be seeded so that an away team or crew encountering it will have to experience X cards from a Q-Continuum, which again, is defined by the first function of the card. Great. A little verbose (the third function could conceivably have been dropped or moved elsewhere), but not confusing.
Actually, there is a lot of associated confusion with Q-flashes, which is why it has a pretty big glossary entry.
[*]It doesn't specify how many cards can go in it, like a lot of the other side decks do. Nor does it tell you specifically that [Q] cards go in
[*]Once you start the flash, it doesn't specifically tell you that you can't experience the same card twice in a flash
[*]It also doesn't tell you what to do with those duplicate cards when they're drawn
[*]It doesn't generally tell you what to do with [Q] cards once they are encountered (put them under face up)
[*]It doesn't say what to do if you run out of [Q] cards (shuffle face-up cards and put them face-down)
[*]The Glossary says that crews are not stopped if they fail the requirements of a [Q] cards, which is different from all other dilemmas

I played a deck with a Flash in it last year when @Armus was running his Return to Talos IV events, and I had to have the Glossary up every time my opponent hit a flash, just to make sure we were doing it right.

So, the part where it lays out how many cards you encounter is pretty clear. After that? Not so much.

Anyway, if you're interested in a discussion of the idea behind breaking up the Flash (code named Blue Crash here) into two cards, there was a 1E Friday Question about it.
I'm looking forward to seeing all the ways that design has hopefully
1. Fixed/removed the baggage
2. Made new q cards that are worth playing
3. Made the entire thing more flexible.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#564189
Seeing those in the know excited about the mechanic has gotten me hopeful [Q] icon cards will be more than things that exist.

As for the spoiled card in particular, I'm just sitting here fascinated by the "has" in "has a Q-Flash" and what interoffice memos might have been involved with that phrasing.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#564199
edgeofhearing wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:50 pm
jadziadax8 wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:13 pm
edgeofhearing wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:46 pm I can't remember ever having a more viscerally negative response to a card reveal since DQSS.
What about it didn't you like?
I love PAQ cards. I know they're weird and and poorly worded and don't always always don't do what they say, and I know that causes a lot of problems.

But, when I use those PAQ cards in decks, it makes me feel happy. I love seeing Taitt as much for the 500th time as I did the first time, and I know I'm not the only one.

This card, if I understand correctly, replaces a PAQ card. I guess I'll still have a Q-Flash doorway on the side deck, but I will sorely miss seeing that card with its oversize image popping up during mission attempts.

Now, it's true, other cards have replaced PAQ cards over the years. I grumbled when Coming of Age dumped a bunch of 4-skill TNG-icon universals on us, because they crowded out the old PAQ TNG universals (and diluted the TNG flavor of having a low average skill density to boot). But there (as with similar cases), those cards didn't outright replace a function of a PAQ card, which is I think why my gut reaction is so negative towards it.

I'll still play this silly game of course, I'm not rage quitting or anything.

I'm just flipping a few tables here and there.

Image

(That's energy I really should have spent writing up articles for the new Caretaker beginner decks, sorry.)
Feeling the same.

I also feel that this is really in response to the OTF rule of two. One which sadly, due to design, cannot be revisited due to cards that have been designed with that rule in mind.

Instead of a scalpel, the design team uses a hatchet instead.

The bigger issue I have is the following:

There are many Q Flash Sidedeck Cards that are really good and if an opponent doesn't have a strategy against them (Fightn Words as an example) you are going to be deadlocked by this. We just saw Worlds won with a Q Flash concept (great concept, if unprepared will take you down, hard to defend against, lots of other comments for another time)

The only way to stop certain cards is having to put into your deck certain magic bullet cards BUT Design doesn't want us to have to stock magic bullet cards BUT counter cards are okay BUT counter-cards also can cost you the game in terms of points.
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#564200
You will still be able to use all of your q icon cards. In fact, many of them will be easier to get into play
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#564224
DarkSabre wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:49 am Feeling the same.

...snip...

There are many Q Flash Sidedeck Cards that are really good and if an opponent doesn't have a strategy against them (Fightn Words as an example) you are going to be deadlocked by this. We just saw Worlds won with a Q Flash concept (great concept, if unprepared will take you down, hard to defend against, lots of other comments for another time)

The only way to stop certain cards is having to put into your deck certain magic bullet cards BUT Design doesn't want us to have to stock magic bullet cards BUT counter cards are okay BUT counter-cards also can cost you the game in terms of points.
I don't think I'm following. It sounds like you both want more [Q] cards, but feel like they are too powerful? Can you give me a specific example of what you feel is broken here? Which counters will cause you to lose the game, for example?
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#564364
phaserihardlyknowher wrote:
I don't think I'm following. It sounds like you both want more [Q] cards, but feel like they are too powerful? Can you give me a specific example of what you feel is broken here? Which counters will cause you to lose the game, for example?
Using any counters that make you lose points (Q2, Amanda, etc) where sometimes yes, 5 points can cost you the game, isn’t ideal at all.

I’m not saying that Q flash are too powerful but there are good design reasons why it has to be encountered the way it is.

But making dilemmas that can bring in q cards isn’t a solution to the real issues such as:

1) the rule of two botched the Q Flash in the beginning and wasn’t cared about for the longest time leaving the Q Flash side deck lingering on a death bed.
2) Q cards don’t have a lot of bite and would need a lot more added to them to make them an actual option
3) fightn words is really the only great Q card against the rapid fast mission skill heavy decks but it can be countered by a card with a ref counter on them.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#564365
pfti wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:04 am You will still be able to use all of your q icon cards. In fact, many of them will be easier to get into play
Yeah not sold on that idea at all. Will see when the set comes out I guess but I’m not holding hopes about it.
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[…]