#574966
Have a nice day!
//Smiley - First Edition Designer
Former First Edition Brand Manager, Creative Development Team member, Rules Committee member, and Decipher Ambassador.
My thoughts on this are that:
If we allow for 3 "Something all players need to be aware of and prepared for." it also needs to be 2 "A viable path to victory". Otherwise, it becomes half of 1 "A way to eliminate the opponent." This should never be the case! Ever! If it became a part of the other half of 1 "A way to dominate the opponent" that could be more of a better mechanic/meta/gameplay. Maybe not the most fun thing but it should exist decks like this they really need cards or an economy so that it doesn't become a cost you only have to pay once and then the opponent is so behind that he is the only one paying for it too keep up.
As the game is constructed now, the only viable solution seems to be 4"An incidental part of the game, the seizing of an opportunity. " 5
"It should be limited to battling against and uncontrolled cards."
For 6 "It shouldn't be a part of 1E" we would have to change pretty much of the rules and remove a bunch of cards from the eligible card pool as well. It could be done with a combination of 5 of course for less of an impact but still, some rules and cards would have to change/go.
The problem with 5 and 6 is that they make the game less interesting and less interactive. This is unfortunate and something most games move away from as they have a tendency to detract players. And moving the game towards 4 would require a lot of work as well to balance it at a good level. Actually much harden than allowing the 1-3 scenario (without the possibility to eliminate the enemy that is). And the 1-3 scenario still needs balancing in the form of a cost that now does not exist. And the cost of game flow each time a player's ship(s) get eliminated with a crew, really sets the game back, sometimes to the start of the game fo one player.
If we allow for 3 "Something all players need to be aware of and prepared for." it also needs to be 2 "A viable path to victory". Otherwise, it becomes half of 1 "A way to eliminate the opponent." This should never be the case! Ever! If it became a part of the other half of 1 "A way to dominate the opponent" that could be more of a better mechanic/meta/gameplay. Maybe not the most fun thing but it should exist decks like this they really need cards or an economy so that it doesn't become a cost you only have to pay once and then the opponent is so behind that he is the only one paying for it too keep up.
As the game is constructed now, the only viable solution seems to be 4"An incidental part of the game, the seizing of an opportunity. " 5
"It should be limited to battling against and uncontrolled cards."
For 6 "It shouldn't be a part of 1E" we would have to change pretty much of the rules and remove a bunch of cards from the eligible card pool as well. It could be done with a combination of 5 of course for less of an impact but still, some rules and cards would have to change/go.
The problem with 5 and 6 is that they make the game less interesting and less interactive. This is unfortunate and something most games move away from as they have a tendency to detract players. And moving the game towards 4 would require a lot of work as well to balance it at a good level. Actually much harden than allowing the 1-3 scenario (without the possibility to eliminate the enemy that is). And the 1-3 scenario still needs balancing in the form of a cost that now does not exist. And the cost of game flow each time a player's ship(s) get eliminated with a crew, really sets the game back, sometimes to the start of the game fo one player.
Have a nice day!
//Smiley - First Edition Designer
Former First Edition Brand Manager, Creative Development Team member, Rules Committee member, and Decipher Ambassador.