#564704
I think there's an adjustment design can make to retain the flavor of the original Q-Flash that will respond to those of us old players who still just like the old cards, because well, we do. I know I'm not the only one who agrees with the following:
As far as the substance goes, I understand why it has to say "has a Q-Flash" -- it's because of the seven existing cards that say "until any Q-Flash."
Clearly, design is trying to fit a big concept into a small textbox on this card. I think we could all forgive you if you gave us more detail and cut the lore box down or eliminated it. After all, this is not just any dilemma: it is a dilemma that asks players to use a completely different mechanic than all other dilemmas, including drawing, playing and resolving multiple other cards. Indeed, making the Q-Flash look exacly like a "regular" dilemma can actually understate just how weird and unique (and wonderful) the card is.
I agree that making this card a "Q" colon card seems incongruous. I agree that it is a Q-related card for the purposes of Adapt: Negate Obstruction whether or not it obeys the colon rule.
The recent errata to Hide and Seek means that there is no other reference to a "Q dilemma" on any other card.
So that means by putting Q in the title, we're just having to add in the game text that this is "Immune to Q2."
So, if you are retaining the lore box, you can leave the reference to Q there, remove the reference to Q in the title ("Flash" or "A Dazzling Flash" are both fine as titles) and then delete the reference to Q2. Or keep Q in the title and get an errata to Q2 to free up space on this card.
Then maybe you can have a bit more space to include the other details requested by some of the players responding above.
edgeofhearing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:46 pm 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.Specifically, couldn't we retain the original image of the Q-Flash on this new card, including by eliminating the border around the art that is featured on basically all non-doorway cards (other than missions)? The card would still be a dilemma and could even have two text boxes (lore and game text) but would have a "feel" more similar to the original Q-Flash or to Quantum Incursions.
As far as the substance goes, I understand why it has to say "has a Q-Flash" -- it's because of the seven existing cards that say "until any Q-Flash."
Clearly, design is trying to fit a big concept into a small textbox on this card. I think we could all forgive you if you gave us more detail and cut the lore box down or eliminated it. After all, this is not just any dilemma: it is a dilemma that asks players to use a completely different mechanic than all other dilemmas, including drawing, playing and resolving multiple other cards. Indeed, making the Q-Flash look exacly like a "regular" dilemma can actually understate just how weird and unique (and wonderful) the card is.
I agree that making this card a "Q" colon card seems incongruous. I agree that it is a Q-related card for the purposes of Adapt: Negate Obstruction whether or not it obeys the colon rule.
The recent errata to Hide and Seek means that there is no other reference to a "Q dilemma" on any other card.
So that means by putting Q in the title, we're just having to add in the game text that this is "Immune to Q2."
So, if you are retaining the lore box, you can leave the reference to Q there, remove the reference to Q in the title ("Flash" or "A Dazzling Flash" are both fine as titles) and then delete the reference to Q2. Or keep Q in the title and get an errata to Q2 to free up space on this card.
Then maybe you can have a bit more space to include the other details requested by some of the players responding above.