This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
By Se7enofMine (ChadC)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#574756
WeAreBack wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:02 pm I know that the Committee set up Project Babylon to work on issues related to sites, and gave us some big changes when Dogs of War was released. Might I suggest that something similar with regard to Tactics might be appropriate?

In my mind, the goals would be:
(1) Increase the variety of tactics that are available, as well as the variety that get played in any deck. (Basically make tactics and damage markers a fun part of the game that interacts with a player's overall strategy, rather than allowing people to have a single "one-size fits all" sets of tactics that work in any deck.)
(2) Lower the barrier to entry for players to play decks using tactics, so as to reduce as much as possible cases where rotation damage and damage marker damage apply in the same game (such as with [Self] cards and uncontrolled cards).

At a minimum, I think this is an idea that we might want to take a poll on.
I agree. The only downside is that these 'special projects' often take a backseat to offical set releases so it would take quite some time to flesh out.

Eg. The borg project (Annika i believe) has been on the books for at least a few years and, from what i gather, not a whole lot has been done on it.

That's not a complaint. Set releases should be the priority. Just pointing out is all.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#574820
Takket wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:38 pm crazy idea #4682

Get rid of default damage?

If you want to damage a ship, you have to have a BBSD
That's a very 2e change.

You sure that's the direction you want 1e to go in?
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#574823
Armus wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:00 pm
Takket wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:38 pm crazy idea #4682

Get rid of default damage?

If you want to damage a ship, you have to have a BBSD
That's a very 2e change.

You sure that's the direction you want 1e to go in?
As someone who very vocally hates the 2e battle system and has said repeatedly that that was the biggest factor in not playing 2E for years - yes, I think this would be a fine change.

The difference to me is that 2E requires the card to initiate battle at all that limits the ability to interact on the fly.

With this BBSD would be seeded, so it’s not like you can’t battle if you do draw that interrupt you need.

The other issue is that most of 2E damage effect are, bluntly, boring. And so is default damage in 1E.

Tactics make it where the average baseline for winning a battle is a few attribute points and a random death.


The downside is that if I have a BBSD and you don’t, there’s no risk to a battle (like today in 2E). But arguably, that’s not really different then today in 1e if I have a BBSD and you don’t.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#574826
What if instead of scrapping default damage, it's changed to something like all attributes -1, 35% hull damage?
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#574838
Takket wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:38 pm crazy idea #4682

Get rid of default damage?

If you want to damage a ship, you have to have a BBSD
No. Nope. :thumbsdown: Please don't. :P :twocents:
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
#574841
nobthehobbit wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:17 am What if instead of scrapping default damage, it's changed to something like all attributes -1, 35% hull damage?
That’s an intriguing thought. 🤔
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574850
nobthehobbit wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:17 am What if instead of scrapping default damage, it's changed to something like all attributes -1, 35% hull damage?
What would the goal be here (other than making non-BBSD damage objectively worse than BBSD damage?)
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
#574860
AllenGould wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:29 am
nobthehobbit wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:17 am What if instead of scrapping default damage, it's changed to something like all attributes -1, 35% hull damage?
What would the goal be here (other than making non-BBSD damage objectively worse than BBSD damage?)
This way it does all the same type of damage whether you're using tactics or not. A small way to reconcile the two different types of systems.

Image
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#574861
I noticed that many are talking about Default Damage when I believe the mean Rotational Damage.

Rotational Damage: Rotational Damage Marker or turn ship 180 degrees, range reduced to 5, Cloaking device offline.

Default Damage: [Flip] [Flip]

You cannot have Default Damage it opponent has no BBSD.
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
#574863
Yeah, I assumed @nobthehobbit meant rotation damage and not default damage.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#574864
Oh me too, but just wanted to clarify that if Rotation Damage goes away, Default Damage will remain and if Tactics go away, then so does Default damage.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#574867
Professor Scott wrote:I noticed that many are talking about Default Damage when I believe the mean Rotational Damage.

Rotational Damage: Rotational Damage Marker or turn ship 180 degrees, range reduced to 5, Cloaking device offline.

Default Damage: [Flip] [Flip]

You cannot have Default Damage it opponent has no BBSD.
The Rulesmaster who was sitting over here twitching but sitting on his hands thanks you.

On-topic: if rotation damage went away, but were replaced by some version of tactics damage that doesn't cost you a seed slot, I think that'd be an overall win for the game's rules environment without actually hurting anybody. (The game already requires you to bring Rotation Damage Markers, so "bring some cards to do damage" is not a brand-new concept.)
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#574890
boromirofborg wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:11 pm
SudenKapala wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:29 am No. Nope. :thumbsdown: Please don't. :P :twocents:
Would it still be a no if this was part of the OTF ruleset, and explicitly not part of Open / Traditional?
Yes. It would be horrible for the game if it were clear from the very start of the seed phase, that a player with no Tactics would not be able to ever attack an opponent. This would probably force everyone to run BBSD; essentially, this would reduce seed diversity from nominal 12 cards, to nominal 11 cards. That's not a good thing.

Better (not GOOD at all, but BETTER) to have an OTF rule that BB doorway seeds for free. ("Please don't", but with less emphasis.)

That was the generic side.

(On a personal note, I like the difference between the two battle styles; it makes for (even) more diversity in gameplay. The basic, bare rotation damage has it's drawbacks and perks; so do Tactics. In one deck, I like to run the one; and in the next, I'm content with the other.)

Please keep both. :)
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation