This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#565445
Armus wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:41 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:33 am Why would they errata mortal q like that? It makes the whole set kinda too high risk to play.
Pretty sure the functionality hasn't changed, it's just the wording that's improved.

Risk isn't any higher than it already was. At least with respect to Mortal Q showing up and shutting your noise down.
As far as the "Your Q-Continuum is inactive for the rest of the game" goes, you're right. Mortal Q has always shut down the Q Continuum for the player who plays him, and The Naked Truth has always been a way to force your opponent to play him (closing your opponent's Q Continuum for the entire rest of the game).

I admit that I actually suggested changing Mortal Q to weaken that skill, because I think the ability to shut down opponent's Q stuff completely is stupid and counter-productive, for all the reasons you mention.

But it was also pointed out to me that Mortal Q has been doing this exact thing for twenty-odd years, and it hasn't been a problem. He can only do this horrible thing if you are playing Q-Flash AND your opponent happens to ALSO be playing Q-Flash AND your opponent runs The Naked Truth AND successfully hits you with it AND you aren't running Immortal Again. So Mortal Q is a real edge case, and his effect on the meta is thus closer to N'Rana than Strategema.

And, of course, the First Edition Department does not nerf 25-year-old cards without good evidence that it should do so. No such evidence exists today.

So Mortal Q kept his very powerful skill, which has always done this exact thing (except it used to be in a restriction box instead of being a skill).

On the other hand, Mortal Q's skill "Nullifies each dilemma named Q" has been dramatically improved -- not because of errata to Mortal Q, but because of the decision to name all the new Q-Flash causing cards "Q."

All I can say about that is that Rules did point it out to Design and, as far as I know, Design raised it with Playtesting to make sure it was okay. I presume they said it was, because the card got printed!

It probably helps that it's very hard to download Mortal Q and very hard to play him for free (It's basically War Council and that's it), and he's just not a very good card unless your opponent is playing Q-stuff, so he's rarely stocked.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#565449
I apologize if this has been asked because I do not want to relitigate naming rules, but my understanding is that Mortal Q nullifies Q: A Dazzling Flash and Q, and I think Q-uality Time (dash rule?). But is Exe-Q-tioner covered by that rule? What about Q Gets the Point or Q's Vicious Animal Things?

EDIT: I suppose should have realized that a hyphen and a dash are not the same thing. No forum posts before noon for me. Sins against grammar are the worst sins.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#565457
Armus wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:41 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:33 am Why would they errata mortal q like that? It makes the whole set kinda too high risk to play.
Pretty sure the functionality hasn't changed, it's just the wording that's improved.

Risk isn't any higher than it already was. At least with respect to Mortal Q showing up and shutting your noise down.
That's what I mean. The CC has gone to great lengths to incentivize playing with a q flash, then re-offers Mortal Q as a way to shut that noise down. Kinda seems counterintuitive given that there is now a Miss Q and Q2 in existence. Seems overpowered specific to this set the same way multiple-nullifiers were until they were errata'd. Why would you guys shoot yourself in the foot like that? It's like working on and releasing a whole set for borg then including a revised Shelby that can destroy all borg that is at her location, just to "shut[ting] your noise down".
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#565458
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:15 am
Armus wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:41 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:33 am Why would they errata mortal q like that? It makes the whole set kinda too high risk to play.
It probably helps that it's very hard to download Mortal Q and very hard to play him for free (It's basically War Council and that's it), and he's just not a very good card unless your opponent is playing Q-stuff, so he's rarely stocked.
Yeah, but isn't it reasonable to think he will be now there's a great incentive to play with a flash again? As stated in the release article, many people including me, stopped because 2 flashes per game weren't enough. Now I can essentially make my opponent flash in every mission, I WANT to play q flash again, but Mortal Q kinda makes that difficult to justify. Multiple nullifiers have all but been eradicated from the current game because they are too powerful. Too, it seems over-torqued now that there is a Miss Q in addition to Q2. Seems like a huge oversight not to also errata Mortal Q to be once per game.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#565459
Mortal Q existed anyway, so if Q-Flash got really popular, people could start stocking it with The Naked Truth as a way to shut down their opponents' Q-Flash shenanigans. The erratum, arguably, just serves to bring the card further in line with Trek Sense.

Also, The Naked Truth only allows any given personnel to be reported once using it, so if your opponent does have an Immortal Again to get rid of the Mortal Q you gave them, you can't give them another. There's no need for a once-per-game restriction on Mortal Q.
StateofSTCCG, who is currently listed as a forum troll [unconstructive and disruptive behavior], made this post. Responding to forum trolls is discouraged.
Display this post.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#565461
I finally got a tease of what the last card from a close friend on the set and after seeing everything from this 9-card set, TTNE is one of the most disappointing sets in 1E from the CC in years! I cannot believe what we got and what can be used to get rid of the Flash! I'm curious what the play testers have to say about this set seriously. #NotmyQFlash
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
#565463
What’s the text of the card then? If you don’t post it now, I will be reassured you’re all hat and no horse @StateofSTCCG.
User avatar
 
By Ensign Q
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#565464
StateofSTCCG wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:31 pm I finally got a tease of what the last card from a close friend on the set and after seeing everything from this 9-card set, TTNE is one of the most disappointing sets in 1E from the CC in years! I cannot believe what we got and what can be used to get rid of the Flash! I'm curious what the play testers have to say about this set seriously. #NotmyQFlash
i kinda like it. i dont know if QF will ever become meta relevant,but its certainly a cute tool and the change from doorway to dilemma makes it compatible with squires rules. that sounds like fun.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation