This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#577796
But you don't win a game/tournament by just fighting and shooting.
Also, with homeworlds and stuff, people have a lot of ways to avoid being attacked in the first place.

However, anyeone who doesn't even care for the possibilty of including strategies against that ... well ... they had it coming.


Space is dangerous.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577798
Dukat wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 10:54 am But you don't win a game/tournament by just fighting and shooting.
Also, with homeworlds and stuff, people have a lot of ways to avoid being attacked in the first place.

However, anyeone who doesn't even care for the possibilty of including strategies against that ... well ... they had it coming.


Space is dangerous.
Yeah, that's my point, exactly. The danger that there is a deck-type and player who will play it that just aims to make the whole experience negative for the opponent with no intention of trying to actually win or knows from the onset that the chances of them overcoming dilemma is low. In my opinion, this undermines the game and should not be validated. This is Star Trek, and diplomacy and clever application of skill has always been the point.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#577800
stressedoutatumc wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:08 am
Dukat wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 10:54 am But you don't win a game/tournament by just fighting and shooting.
Also, with homeworlds and stuff, people have a lot of ways to avoid being attacked in the first place.

However, anyeone who doesn't even care for the possibilty of including strategies against that ... well ... they had it coming.


Space is dangerous.
Yeah, that's my point, exactly. The danger that there is a deck-type and player who will play it that just aims to make the whole experience negative for the opponent with no intention of trying to actually win or knows from the onset that the chances of them overcoming dilemma is low. In my opinion, this undermines the game and should not be validated. This is Star Trek, and diplomacy and clever application of skill has always been the point.
Unfortunately, the mass murder decks have been given people with actual skills who *can* pass dilemmas and solve missions, so the Slaughter- your-opponent-off- the- board- and-then-bungle-through-a-mission-or-three strategy *is* a plausible path to a full win these days.

Especially if your opponent is locked out and their turn consists of draw-go. That gives you basically the entire clock to work with.

Note, I'm not saying this is a *good* thing, just acknowledging the basic truth it's *a* thing.

I know @AllenGould has mentioned this before, but maybe @LORE it's time to revisit the concession rules so a player can concede and retain whatever points they earned in game. Nobody likes sitting around watching their opponent play solitaire.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#577804
stressedoutatumc wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:08 am Yeah, that's my point, exactly. The danger that there is a deck-type and player who will play it that just aims to make the whole experience negative for the opponent with no intention of trying to actually win or knows from the onset that the chances of them overcoming dilemma is low. In my opinion, this undermines the game and should not be validated. This is Star Trek, and diplomacy and clever application of skill has always been the point.
That feels like a very Federation centric viewpoint though. If I am playing Borg, shouldn't assimilating all my opponent's personnel to join my collective be a valid way to play?
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577808
boromirofborg wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:55 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:08 am Yeah, that's my point, exactly. The danger that there is a deck-type and player who will play it that just aims to make the whole experience negative for the opponent with no intention of trying to actually win or knows from the onset that the chances of them overcoming dilemma is low. In my opinion, this undermines the game and should not be validated. This is Star Trek, and diplomacy and clever application of skill has always been the point.
That feels like a very Federation centric viewpoint though. If I am playing Borg, shouldn't assimilating all my opponent's personnel to join my collective be a valid way to play?
Valid way to play? Yes. I think all the ways are a valid way to play.
Equally valid way to win? No, probably not. I'll ponder this more, but it's essentially the same as battling. I'd argue that the game agrees since assimilating a species or a starship doesn't garner any points for the Borg (I think anyway).

I think it's fair to say the whole game takes a Fed-centric lean, in terms of theme (i.e. clever application of skills to overcome dilemma). Early, the advantage was certainly to that affiliation, but I think the game is well-rounded now.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#577811
stressedoutatumc wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 12:26 pm
boromirofborg wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:55 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:08 am Yeah, that's my point, exactly. The danger that there is a deck-type and player who will play it that just aims to make the whole experience negative for the opponent with no intention of trying to actually win or knows from the onset that the chances of them overcoming dilemma is low. In my opinion, this undermines the game and should not be validated. This is Star Trek, and diplomacy and clever application of skill has always been the point.
That feels like a very Federation centric viewpoint though. If I am playing Borg, shouldn't assimilating all my opponent's personnel to join my collective be a valid way to play?
Valid way to play? Yes. I think all the ways are a valid way to play.
Equally valid way to win? No, probably not. I'll ponder this more, but it's essentially the same as battling. I'd argue that the game agrees since assimilating a species or a starship doesn't garner any points for the Borg (I think anyway).

I think it's fair to say the whole game takes a Fed-centric lean, in terms of theme (i.e. clever application of skills to overcome dilemma). Early, the advantage was certainly to that affiliation, but I think the game is well-rounded now.
Contingency Plan, Assimilate Counterpart, and Add Distinctiveness would all like a word... :borg:
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#577856
From a game design perspective, silver bullets just perpetuate the problem that they are designed to quench. As you put the agency in the hands of the victim of the problem and not the perpetrator. They'll have to bring the extra cards, design their decks around them, seed them or make sure to draw them or download them in time to stop what negative they are meant to stop. After a while, the tactic is going to be played less and less and the players of the solver bullets don't need the cards and said cards will then be dead cards or at least with less value in their decks, and as such, they might stop using it, this is when the tactics or card that it was designed to stop will return. Creating a negative spiral for the game and the players.

This is why it's much better to remove the rule or card that breaks the game rather than try to make them go away with silver bullets.

And it's not simply anyway. It might look like someone has played the game for a while or has made it their lifestyle. But for anyone without deep knowledge of the game and the meta, any silver bullet is a hard thing to use and just a negative experience to be forced to use.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#577873
Smiley wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 6:07 am From a game design perspective, silver bullets just perpetuate the problem that they are designed to quench. As you put the agency in the hands of the victim of the problem and not the perpetrator. They'll have to bring the extra cards, design their decks around them, seed them or make sure to draw them or download them in time to stop what negative they are meant to stop. After a while, the tactic is going to be played less and less and the players of the solver bullets don't need the cards and said cards will then be dead cards or at least with less value in their decks, and as such, they might stop using it, this is when the tactics or card that it was designed to stop will return. Creating a negative spiral for the game and the players.

This is why it's much better to remove the rule or card that breaks the game rather than try to make them go away with silver bullets.

And it's not simply anyway. It might look like someone has played the game for a while or has made it their lifestyle. But for anyone without deep knowledge of the game and the meta, any silver bullet is a hard thing to use and just a negative experience to be forced to use.
I've drafted comments regarding this several times over. I could not have said it myself any better. :thumbsup:
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#577878
FranklinKenter wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 2:16 pm
Smiley wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 6:07 am From a game design perspective, silver bullets just perpetuate the problem that they are designed to quench. As you put the agency in the hands of the victim of the problem and not the perpetrator. They'll have to bring the extra cards, design their decks around them, seed them or make sure to draw them or download them in time to stop what negative they are meant to stop. After a while, the tactic is going to be played less and less and the players of the solver bullets don't need the cards and said cards will then be dead cards or at least with less value in their decks, and as such, they might stop using it, this is when the tactics or card that it was designed to stop will return. Creating a negative spiral for the game and the players.

This is why it's much better to remove the rule or card that breaks the game rather than try to make them go away with silver bullets.

And it's not simply anyway. It might look like someone has played the game for a while or has made it their lifestyle. But for anyone without deep knowledge of the game and the meta, any silver bullet is a hard thing to use and just a negative experience to be forced to use.
I've drafted comments regarding this several times over. I could not have said it myself any better. :thumbsup:
Now that, is some might high praise!
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[…]