This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#583636
Armus wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:55 am Why not make [KCA] , [TE] , and [1E-Maq] affiliations instead of factions? Makes a whole Lotta stuff a lot simpler...
I've actually thought about that more then I would like. The arguments for are plain: Less complex, and fit better all the way around logically.

Against: card economy (A KCA Regent Worf can only ever really be played in a KCA deck, where a Klingon one can be played in a Klingon deck, in theory) and not wanting more affiliitions that have a hard cap on size.

I think the Decipher designers were probably having VOY in the back of their mind when designing the Maquis and didn't want to make them a seperate Affilition, but I would have much preferred the crew to be Fed/Maq instead of Fed/Non.

(And witht he original built in treaty of Kazon/Vidiians, it shouldn't have affected gameplay that much)
 
By StuartL
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#583905
I realise that this 1EFQ was posted a while ago, but I only just spotted it now.

I have always enjoyed the "playing an episode of trek" aspect of the game more than the "playing a game" aspect. As such, themed decks are much more my speed than a 'pick the best cards from across the game' approach. So when I think about what I would have done differently in the design of the game, it is with that in mind.

1. More affiliation specific cards.Borg and to a point Ferengi are good examples of this. The Rules of Acquisition and Latinum cards are a fun way to make Ferengi different from other affiliations. On the other hand, White cards for Jem'Hadar were always a pain to use.

2. More ways to get points.
I like that you have to complete missions to win the game, but I also like the way that some objectives make you interact with the game in different ways. Rescue Personnel is a good example of game design. I would also reduce mission points slightly across the board and cap them at 30 or 35 points.

3. No redshirting.
It never felt right to have Picard feed disposable personnel through a meat grinder in a game. For some affiliations, it made more sense, (Borg were seen redshirting in some episodes for example), but it always felt like part of the game, not part of the show.

4. No single affiliation missions.
All missions should have at least three affiliation icons between the two sides of the card. Locking opponents out of missions outside of a mirror match isn't fun. Having different requirements for affiliations would be good too. E.g. A mission has the [Fed] icon and Diplomacy x2 on one side and the [1E-Fer] [1E-Rom] icons and Treachery x2 on the other would be both flavorful and would open the game up in some ways. Reformatting the missions so that both ends of the cards were the same format would also increase mission options by allowing players to choose which way round they played the cards.
Along with this, I'd have do away with the concept of missions belonging to players. All missions being (affiliation allowing) attemptable by all players would reduce the feeling of two people playing solitaire that can sometimes happen.

5. More player interaction.
Aside from battles, there aren't many ways to directly interact with your opponent or their cards during the game. Being able to mess with your opponent's strategy would add a few more options to the game. The "Incoming Message" cards (which should be universal rather than affiliation locked) are a great way to buy yourself time against a speedier deck. I don't really like the cards that specifically target two or three other cards which don't see a lot of play anyway, (E.g. Howard Heirloom Candle) but having events and interrupts that can be applied to a broad range of targets, (E.g. Amanda Rogers) would give players new options and strategies.
Included in this, no way to lock players out of the game should exist. Countering one or two key cards should be possible, but players should still be able to do something during their turns. Being able to destroy an opponent's outpost early in the game and therefore win by default shouldn't really be possible.

6. More deck/discard options.
So, you need one specific skill to complete a mission, but all of those Personnel died already. In a lot of cases, you're out of luck. Having a way to bring Personnel (or ships, equipment etc) back into play from the discard pile should be a viable option. How many times are characters at death's door in the show only to be patched up by a quick trip to sickbay? The Ferengi have been shown using derelict ships before (USS Stargazer), so why not have the option to acquire ships from an opponent's discard pile?

Anyway, thats just my :twocents: . I hope the CC continues to produce amazing cards for this great game, but also that they look through this thread (and others) for new options for the game and new possibilities for players to explore.
Thanks for reading. :cheersL:
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#584197
I want a "you control" vs "you own" dichotomy and I don't care how much errata would be required to reach this goal.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]