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
#566264
Well, looks like it's Friday! This week, it's my turn to ask you a Friday Question, and I've got kind of a vague one for you:

What do you think about batch seeding in the dilemma phase?

Traditionally (and still in Open), the game used alternate seeding in the dilemma phase, just like in every other phase: you took turns. You seeded a card, your opponent seeded a card, you seeded a card, until there were a bunch of dilemmas under every mission on the spaceline.

In May 2009, Revised Format v5.6 officially introduced a slew of new rules to the World Championship Series, including a four-card limit, a once-per-game interrupt restriction, the ability to move between quadrants on your turn, the first version of the Intermix Ratio rule... and batch seeding. (Revised was primarily a local format until v5.6.) Most of those early Revised rules are gone now, but batch seeding has stuck around as part of Official Tournament Format.

In batch seeding, both you and your opponent make piles of seed cards you want to put under missions, then you shove 'em under simultaneously. There have been several minor variations on this (especially how batch seeds deal with shared missions), but the gist of it has remained the same for about 12 years now. (Here is the current rule, which I know for a fact from the PM'd questions I get that most of you haven't re-read recently.)

That means that batch seeding has been around almost as long as alternate seeding was! I, for one, returned to the game in 2011, after this change was made. As a result, I have never played a game using alternate seeding in the CC era.

The argument for batch seeding was really, really straightforward: Batch seeding speeds up the game

The argument for alternate seeding was also straightforward:Alternate seeding is a creative and strategic element of the seed phase (and the wider game).

Supporters of batch seeding counter-argued that the "creative and strategic element" destroyed by batch seeding was actually bad for the game. A common sentiment was "The only reason at this point in the game you are going to be self-seeding is if you are doing something you really shouldn't be doing... An experienced player will be able to see and stop a self-seed trick from a million miles away anyways."

Supporters of alternate seeding counter-argued that batch seeding didn't really save very much time, if any; alternate seeding shouldn't take more than a few seconds per card, after all. If it is taking longer than that, supporters suggested, it was really necessary for T.D.'s to step in and hurry things along.

To me, this question of timing is a core question with an empirical answer: is batch seeding actually faster? To my knowledge, there is no formal data or reporting about this. Batch seeding was playtested, but the playtester notes have not survived (and reputedly focused mostly on the "rule of 4" copy limits). Many of you out there will have had experience with both methods for seeding -- perhaps you can share some memories.

Supporters of alternate seeding had one additional argument: alternate seeding is fundamental to the game. It's a core strategic element introduced by Decipher in the Premiere Rulebook, which survived all subsequent rules overhauls. Not only shouldn't we remove it, alternate-seeders argued... by doing so, we were changing the STCCG in a fundamental way. We are supposed to broaden and streamline and add layers to the STCCG... but there's a line somewhere where you start changing the game into a different game like 2E, and many alternate seeders felt that batch seeding crossed that line.

2009 and 2010 were times of ferment and change. Card copy limits were imposed and lifted in quick succession; the first ban list came into being (and a ton of cards got banned with very little discussion). The Director of 1E ran Worlds in Revised format, but paid cash prizes to players who played X-List-compatible decks at Worlds in order to promote both formats. Did you know there was briefly a rule that batch seeding happened in the Facility Phase, too? That lasted about six months. Suffice to say that most changes that were proposed eventually happened, and batch seeding won the argument back in 2009. This aggressive attitude toward change was, I think, necessary at the time, and many of us agree OTF saved the game.

But now it's 2021. We are much more conservative now. I have a reputation as a fairly aggressive Rules Master, but even I quail at the idea of taking a major dimension of the Premiere Rulebook and chucking it out the window. If the batch seeding debate happened today instead of ten years ago, there's just no way it would have gotten through this community.

And there are some pressures on the idea: there's been no serious open conversation about batch seeding in at least a decade. Alternate seeding still has advocates, but no rules support (unless they want to play Open, which is very rare among this player community). There are modern decks (like Obsession and Amargosa decks... and does anyone remember Return Orb To Bajor and actually getting to turn on a Bajoran Shrine? Or triggering a self-seeded Balancing Act?) that would really like to be able to get an occasional strategic self-seed that isn't dead last in the dilemma stack. We have also recently come into contact with fairly large populations of Traditional players (in the Facebook world and so forth) who would like to see gameplay pulled back in the direction of Traditional gameplay.

I think we're about due for a check-in on batch seeding. So that's today's 1EFQ. Some things you might consider in your answer:

Is batch seeding accomplishing its goals? Does it actually save time? Has the dilemma phase gotten shorter since it was implemented?

Is alternate seeding desirable? Is it an important dimension of the game?

Is the current version of batch seeding the best version it could be?

Is there a way to bring back that strategic ability to bluff the seed phase a bit, and maybe get a self-seed into a useful position, under batch seeding?

Is there a compromise available where batch seeders are able to batch seed and alternate seeders are able to alternate seed -- that is, the rules support both methods somehow?
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
#566266
I can offer this piece of my own experience from the Decipher Days. My play group always asked this series of questions at the dilemma phase:
  • Are you self-seeding any dilemmas?
  • If yes, we did alternate seeding.
  • If no, we generally agreed to batch seeding.
Batch seeding always seemed faster.

As long as self-seeded dilemmas are by default encountered last, I think this question is largely irrelevant. Alternate seeding doesn't matter if you can only put dilemmas under you own missions in one place.

I feel like that rule was only put in place to knock out Q-Bypass, but since Q received errata, I wonder if it's needed? I can't think of any other abusive strategies where you put your dilemmas first.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#566267
jadziadax8 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:26 pm I wonder if it's needed? I can't think of any other abusive strategies where you put your dilemmas first.
Oh my sweet summer child... :shifty:
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
#566268
Armus wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:35 pm
jadziadax8 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:26 pm I wonder if it's needed? I can't think of any other abusive strategies where you put your dilemmas first.
Oh my sweet summer child... :shifty:
We were a low-stakes, low cheese meta, for the most part.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#566277
Fantastic question. My gut instinct is that it's better - but it's good to check that.


1. I remember batch seeding to save time even looooong before the end of Decipher, as in playing via text chat over Kedenya station. Then it was more a "Do you have any self seeds? No? Then batch seeding ok?"

2. Related to that point, the game has a large amount of digital play now, possibly more digital then physical (although I hope not.). When playing over lackey, would alternate seeding add a time or interface burden?

3. The seed phase is a large part of what makes 1E, 1E, for better or worse, and batch seeding *does* lessen that slightly.

4. It seems to me that the worst of the self seed ills (Q mainly) have been suitably de-fanged enough that I don't see the dangers in trying again.
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#566286
I used to love alternate seeding, so much strategy was involved on what you seeded when and where. I have won quite a few games because of decisions made during alternate seeding. Unfortunately, the seed phases could take up 1/3 to 1/2 of the game.

For me now I appreciate Batch seeding. In fact, one of my favourite cards is The Squire's Rules, which speeds up seeding even more than batch (no worrying about combos and what to seed where). I would much rather get to playing sooner and I feel that batch seeding does this.

-James M
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#566288
I have many and varied thoughts on this issue.

However, there is one specific point I'd like to hit here in the context of the "compromise" question.

I recently played a DS9 vs. DS9 game. I lost the coin toss so my opponent got the station down at their preferred location before I got it down at mine.

My opponent also seeded more dilemmas than me.

That didn't quite feel right for some reason I can't completely quantify.

Had we done alternate seeding it's entirely possible (nay, likely) that they would have dropped DS9 from jump as the first card of the dilemma phase, but really the dilemma phase is two parts: the dilemmas part and the "other dilemma phase seeds" part, and my opponent getting to go first in both sub-parts didn't feel right.

This is probably sounding like rambling, and I apologize, but as long as we're doing dilemma phase seeds that don't go under missions, can we have one be a function of the other? Like, if my opponent seeds 20 dilemmas, and I only seed 18, can I get the tradeoff of at least getting first shot at DS9?

Does that even make sense or am I off in crazy town (either is possible at this point... ) :?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#566302
Armus wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:35 pm
jadziadax8 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:26 pm I wonder if it's needed? I can't think of any other abusive strategies where you put your dilemmas first.
Oh my sweet summer child... :shifty:
The classic (as in "was in the Strategy Guide") was the Cytherian Shuffle - put Barclay Protomorphosis Disease + Cytherians under the four outermost missions, ship with Barclay's Requirements, and OG Wormholes (I guess nowadays just some variation of "make ship go vroom"). Attempt one, score 10 points off Barclay, zoom to opposite side, score 15 off Cyth, attempt the mission on that side, wash-rinse-repeat.

Also, Return Orb To Bajor is pretty much built assuming that you're getting your Orb artifacts seeded last (to encounter first).

But, single-seed *also* rewards you for playing fewer kickstart cards, because more dilemmas = you get to put your stuff last.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#566304
It pains me to say this, since I really loved slow-seeding, but keep batch-seeding in OTF. This is for two main reasons:

1. Cheap insurance against a lot of cheese. People have already mentioned Q-Bypass and Cytherians shuffle as extreme examples, and to a lesser extent Return Orb to Bajor/Mysterious Orb. But there's way more: early Borg Ships for Retasking, Ooby Dooby for draws, trip a Sheliak or other [Self] dilemma at your leisure, and so on. The OTF standard is that you have to fight your way through the opponent's dilemmas before you get to whatever goodies you wanted to encounter for yourself, and this is a good idea. This both slows down such strategies and ensure that your deck is legitimate enough to actually pass dilemmas.

2. Speeds up the game -- and more importantly sidesteps a portion of the game that has a very different sort of feel. The seed phase really could become a game in and of itself -- strategic passing, bluffing, adapting your strategies based on how your opponent is seeding, tuning your deck so you have more seeds in one phase or another based on what you are trying to do (e.g. last seed in dilemma phase if you are self-seeding; last seed in facility phase if playing battle) and so forth. I remember a game with Todd Soper where the seed phase lasted for 15-20 minutes as there were a few duplicated missions and we were trying to figure out what the other was doing.

I happen to like this kind of thing (this was a fond memory!) but it's a very different game than what happens during the play phase, and not where the true flavor of 1E lies. In the past I've said it's like if you were playing Monopoly, but before you started you had to play a few rounds of Dance Dance Revolution to figure out where the properties go. I personally happen to like DDR and would have no problem with that, but that doesn't mean it makes for a better game.

For games without a time limit (exhibition format?) I might have a different opinion...
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#566307
I tried building a deck once with Armagosa Observatory. Was going to try doing it first turn to get Trilithium weapon, rotate Investigate Incursion then drop Assimilator and Renegade Borg Sphere with tons of people every turn (auto destruct the ships so you can play more).

It broke down because I had to self seed The Nexus and plow through all my opponent's dilemmas to get The Nexus out, and at that point, well why didn't you just seed Trilithium Weapon there to begin with and to hell with the whole Observatory nonsense? And by the way you already need to get lot of people out to complete a mission which means you need a play and draw engine which means there is no point in rotating the mission to make it a play engine because you already HAVE a play engine to complete the mission. GASP. See the issue?

So it might sound like I'm making a case to bring back alternate seeding to make this deck possibly viable but... I'm not. I like batch seeding, I don't think the game needs to spend more time on the seed phase, it really doesn't add much except making it easier for your opponent to score some cheesy NPE bonus points without at least dilemma busting first, and HQ:ROTB should likewise make you do SOMETHING like dilemma bust for the benefit it provides.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#566323
In most cases, I do not think it matters. Well, in a friendly game anyway.

But I think batch seeding combined with the rule of having to encounter your seeds last is perfect. The argument against, and someone already said it, is to allow for some dumb cheesy thing. Dumb cheesy things aren’t good for the game (see these last world championships and the defend home world quarks bar thing). Like yeah, cheese works, but it’s against the spirit of the game.

Alternating is also that kind of cheese. Do you pass? Well maybe I’ll pass too and see who’s faster. Just play the game people, and stop looking for easy outs.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#566341
we batch seeded sinece FC more or less. The other took too much time and only the abuser where unhappy when it went away.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#566347
stressedoutatumc wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:09 am The argument against, and someone already said it, is to allow for some dumb cheesy thing.
This isn't quite true, or at least not true in entirety.

Yes, you can do tricks with single-seed. But you can also do tricks *everywhere* else in the game.

What you call cheese, I call strategy - and one of the things that makes 1E unique and special in the CCG space. The seed phase isn't setup, it's half the game - it's laying out strategy before the tactics. And it used to be the point where you could disrupt your opponent's strategy with guile, and cunning, and yes - sometimes daring an opponent to pass so you could run a game with almost dilemmas on the board.

Too many things have been stripped away from 1E in the name of making it more like 2E, and it seems silly, because players who don't want seeding and mission stealing and shenanigans can go play the game that doesn't have any of that.
User avatar
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#566357
Add me to the list of players who've also been batch seeding since the Decipher days. (Well before 2E existed, so "wanting to turn it into 2E" is not a factor. (I don't play 2E.))

FIRST pair? You got more cooking? I am hoping t[…]

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[…]