This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#580608
Hello all,

1E has a long and rich history. Over the years new sets introduced new affiliations, card types, and mechanics. Sometimes something a set introduces makes us want to revisit previous decisions. An example of this comes from the first two sets Premier and Alternate Universe. With Premier Jera and Tomek were introduced as [Holo] . The Alternate Universe set gave us the [1E-AU] icon to represent things from outside of the regular universe / timeline. Looking back, if the [1E-AU] icon had existed when Premier was created Jera and Tomek they might have been better served as [1E-AU] instead of [Holo] .

My question for today is:
What is something that was done one way on release that you think would have / should have been done differently if it was released today?

My Answer
My answer isn't tied to a new way of doing things, but something that feels odd / off to me. Specifically the [KCA] and [TE] factions. If they were being redone today I would advocate for them being their own affiliations instead of factions with multiple affiliations and a card that lets them mix. The multiple affiliation faction has flaws about staffing ships and attempting missions and needing the right affiliated personnel, so KCA has always felt a bit awkward to me. Additionally, the fact that [TE] covers both the Terran Empire and the Terran Rebellion feels a bit off, let alone that [TE] is the only way you can easily mix [SF] and [Fed] cards together.

-James M
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#580612
1. Treaties should have always ben seedable, probably a unique card-type, and DFC with a way to bring them back. Actually, either that or more likely the 2E-like system where once in play they can mix, but you need some way to play them. So treaties might enable that.

2. Tactics should never have done hull damage. Attribute lowering and kills alone are a big bonus, and would be more in line with most battles we see where the goal isn't destruction but a skirmish.

3. Incidents shouldn't have been their own card type. Decipher should have taken the excuse to revamp the Event template, added a "cant be destroyed icon" to the % that needed it. Is it is, there are incidents that should be destroyable, but aren't, and the flavor difference between Objective / Incident / Event is blurred.

4. All verbs should have a way of indicating affiliation. Most wouldn't use it, but for those that did they could only be in a deck with a matching facility.

5. Caretaker's Array should have been a facility, and a way to enable non-DQ decks to interact with the DQ

6. Where No One Has Gone Before should have let you move between quadrents/timelines

7. All missions should be double sided, reflecting the changes/reward after solving.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#580627
Sites. They shouldn't be Nor Specific.

I want Grain Storage and Shuttle Bay sites for K-7. A Bar for the Feds vs Klingons bar fight.
I want the office of the Nekrit Supply Depot.
I want the Biological Agent Storage area for my Biolab.
Give me some of those cool Lounges for Earth Spacedock!
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#580637
Forgot to list what might be my most controversial one.


Instead of Continuing Mission and Reshape the Quadrant, design should have just started using [1E-DS9] [1E-TNG] and had a rule explaining them.

Why? a few reasons.

1. It would make it easier for cards that should theoretically have multiple icons exist. For example, Sisko from the beginning of Emmisary should be both OR at least *just* TNG, but that's not currently possible.

2. I really, really, really hate the phrase "property logo" in game text. It takes me out of the game in a way that the icons don't. WHy? Because the icons fit the already established design language of [CF] [OS] .
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#580638
1. Treaties should have been seedable, have some kind of limitation and then the devil never gets made.

2. Black Hole should have had the text it currently has. The countdown icon existed. Lack of imagination or tunnel vision.

3. DQSS and clone machine could have had a much better cost/benefit that allowed them to be useful and drive sales but not be rediculous and be a driving force that helped kill 1e.

4. Nors should have had outpost report rules and "people on board" and the sites could have then been streamlined for useful effects only. Unlimited walking until stopped.

5. Blaze of glory design should have had every personnel get a [Tac] [DL], the BBD should have [DL] any peep with a tactic download and the side deck should have required at least 4 different tactics in it.
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#580668
i wish dilemmas had been done on a cost based system, and they should be limited to one of each dilemma per deck. There are a TON of lower powered dilemmas that you could toss in to try and help enhance a combo in a cost based system, but they are completely unusable in 1E where every dilemma has the same cost of 1 seed slot.

CC has at least made 2 the limit in OTF, but i would actually go one for more variety. In decipher's system you didn't even need to think about dilemmas because everyone just used 6 Qs or Scows or even Thought Fire back in the day when that was a wall.
Last edited by Takket on Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
By Davey1983
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#580670
I had five thoughts. The first is my biggest 'I wish we could change this', the next three bug me but not to the extent as the first one. The final one is something that I don't think is possible, but it is a nice 'what if..' thought.

1) Divide the federation (and any other group that shows up in large number in multiple series/movies like the Klingons) into different affiliations based on the series. Extend this to other affiliations. Klingons, for example, would have an OS, Movie, TNG, and DS9 affiliations. This might still be possible by using the series logo at the top of the card (or possibly the 'era icon' route).

If implemented today, it would require errata to the outposts. The Klingon outpost could be revised to only allow 'TNG' [Kli] and then make a new outpost for 'DS9' [Kli] , 'OS' [Kli] , Movie [Kli] , and so forth. I'm not a designer, but I think this would also open up some design space if the designers didn't have to worry about giving TNG [Kli] a new toy, but can't because it can be combined with a DS9 [Kli] toy. I think it would be relatively simple, but I'm sure there are a lot of rules, interactions, and unintended consequences I am not thinking about.

2) For [1E-AU] cards, have thematic groups (i.e., 'All Good Things..', Meridian Planet characters, etc.) each get their own unique icon. It makes no sense that Bortus can help staff the Future Enterprise, but Picard (Premiere) can't help staff the the Enterprise-E. Or, at the very least, divide the [1E-AU] icon into past, present, alternate timelines, and alternate realties.

3) Following up from (2), make the [EE] icon an era icon for the TNG movies.

4) Get rid of sites and change Nors to operate like a 'normal' facility. I get why sites were added, but it creates a lot of rules overhead for little gain. I would have made sites be an event card (or whatever type makes sense for the card in question).

5) Cost system for dilemmas and playing/downloading cards. This ship has sailed, however, so I don't expect this to change.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#580681
Here are ten things I would have done differently from the start:

1) Personnel, ships, and equipment should have had a cost system. Jean-Luc Picard is already objectively better than Benjamin Maxwell, the fact that they were equally expensive in terms of cost to draw and cost to play was bonkers at the time (really just a justification to make players pay more cash for the better cards). This was something 2nd Edition really got right.

2) Nouns and Verbs should play differently from one another, and probably have separate decks. This would have prevented the vast majority of verbs from having become unplayable binder fodder and yielded a much more interesting and varied game. I'd probably have two separate decks and the ability to draw from either one into your hand (perhaps your draws must be evenly split?), and your normal noun card play would be distinct from your normal verb card play (so you're incentivized to use both, instead of almost every card play being a noun).

3) I agree with Takket, dilemmas should have costs. Something a lot closer to 2nd Edition - using fixed dilemma combos is boring, incentivizes seeing the same sorts of dilemmas over and over, and results in most of a player's time investment being in the deck prep, rather than actually playing the game. Am I the only one who things dilemma combo crafting is by far the most tedious and time-intensive part of deck building?

4) Seeding for free should have explicitly been a thing (just like playing for free), instead of later being selectively applied to sites and missions.

5) Much more deck manipulation should have been incorporated into the game from the beginning. The game started out too slow, with draw-one-play-one gameplay. The "hack" to fix this was adding downloading, free plays, and dial-a-skill abilities, but that only selectively accelerated portions of the game, leaving significant other portions now unplayable. Perhaps this would be less of a problem if #2 had been implemented.

Relatedly, the game is a card game, and really should lean into that, using mechanics that are unique to cards and decks. Star Wars CCG had a really lovely design, where the cards weren't just the components of the board and the pieces of the board (like in Star Trek CCG), but they were also both the life counters (your remaining draw deck) and your currency (your Force pile). I'm not saying Star Trek CCG should use the same model, but a truly elegant game really uses its specific medium (the CCG, in this case) to create an experience that couldn't be replicated in any other medium. Does Star Trek CCG really do that?

I think 2nd Edition does this to some extent, but it also strays too far from the "Trek Simulator" that 1st Edition was. I'd like the best of both worlds.

6) Cards should have been restricted in quantity within a deck, unless that card specifically calls itself out as an exception. That way you don't end up with Q-bypass as a near-instant win strategy, for example. Takket also mentioned this as a possibility for dilemmas, but I think the same might need to have applied to draw deck cards as well. So I envision cards like Rogue Borg Mercenaries calling itself out as an exception (since their original design intent was to act as a swarm, rather than as a ping card), but I'm not sure Loss of Orbital Stability was meant to be a super-spammed ping card, and since it's not a swarm card, it should have been limited.

7) Voyager should have been a completely separate game. It was crowbarred in to the design of Star Trek CCG, even though it pretty much takes place on a different board, which severely limits interaction. It's also why two of the Voyager affiliations really shouldn't qualify as affiliations, as they aren't competitive, diverse enough, or interesting from a fan perspective - but the crowbarred design mandated that new affiliations be added to pair against the Voyager affiliation.

Imagine chess was a game with expansions, with two players bringing their pieces and fighting on a board. Then the "Voyager Chess" expansion allows players to bring their own board with their pieces...so now you're playing on separate boards, basically playing solitaire (unless the other player also brought the expansion board to play on instead of the normal board).

In other words, Voyager should have been to Star Trek CCG what Young Jedi was to Star Wars CCG. Inspired by some of the mechanics, but a wholly separate, incompatible game (although I wouldn't make it juvenile and simpler, the way Young Jedi deliberately was).

8) By the same token, mirror quadrant and gamma quadrant missions should have remained limited in quantity, to force players to come play on the "main board" of the alpha quadrant. Decipher was largely smart about that.

9) Similarly, TOS, Enterprise, and movie era cards should have been limited in quantity so that they can be "splashed" in to decks as alternate-universe guest stars, rather than being the sole focus of your deck. It doesn't make sense that in a game set in the 24th century, you can roam around with an all-23rd century crew. Your skills and technology are a century out of date, you shouldn't be able to compete. A measly Klingon Bird-of-Prey should be able to easily fly twice as fast and then one-shot you.

Or if you want to have an all-movie era bridge crew roaming the spaceline in a time warp solving missions on behalf of the Federation, fine, but then you accept it will never be able to compete against modern 24th-century decks.

10) Affiliation flavor should have been significantly greater and more diverse, with much deeper mechanical differences. The Borg, and the way they feel and play differently, is a perfect example, but nothing else lived up to that difference. For instance, the Ferengi should really have leaned into the idea of heavy borrowing and investing for massive payoffs. I'm imagining cards that cost Ferengi significant points (like a total of 50 or more points), in exchange for a lot of power that they can use to recoup those costs and profit from (in other words, giving them the ability to blast through multiple missions, which they'd have to do to make up for the heavy cost of the "loan." Other affiliations can get three missions for a win with 100 points, but Ferengi might need to get five missions because they need to get 150 to pay for their 50 point upfront cost). Cards like "Recruit Mercenaries" tried this, but they were far too weak for their benefit (the true cost of "Recruit Mercenaries" being the card play, rather than the -7 points - but again, that gets solved somewhat with #2, above). Cardassians had Nor mining, to give them mechanical advantages with "mining" their deck, but it was hard to set up, required significant infrastructure, provided minimal returns, and then got nerfed.

Again, another thing 2nd Edition may have gotten more right.

----

I don't understand the obsession with splitting up affiliations into factions. The CCG was always a Trek universe simulator, and Sisko would have had no problem working with Data. I also dislike the narrow focus that factionalization introduces, as it makes decks build themselves.

And I dislike that it's used to justify "powering up" what would otherwise be weaker factions. For instance, maybe mirror factions should be weaker! They weren't a sustainable society and can't compete with the Federation or Klingon Empire in terms of manpower, quality, or achievements. That's why they should be splashed in for fun, flavor, and skill gaps, rather than being the focus of an entire deck that stands toe-to-toe with the best of one of the major alpha quadrant powers.

Do the Klingons get a "new toy" if there's a great new Klingon card and no faction restrictions? Sure, but that's part of the fun! That's what expansions are for in the first place! Why shouldn't the existing factions get new toys to play with, instead of constantly making new factions to get their own toys?
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#580694
I find it amusing that we have such wildly, almost diametrically opposing views expressed here. Almost like everyone takes home something different from this complex game, almost as if everyone brings something different to this intricate game.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#580695
Better balance between the factions out of the gate. An awareness that [Fed] was going to have vastly more source material *and* that there'd be a natural inclination to make sure your bridge crew have all the skills in the world should have led to "ok, we're building a game - how do we make the other two teams equal in a world where one will naturally get more cards?"

If we're talking "The Doctor shows up with the TARDIS" level retcon, then I'd add in "players are going to naturally gravitate to their own missions (and thus putting all their dilemmas under the opponent's missions; so if you actually want this to be a free-for-all with the Espionages and all the other cool stuff, you need to have more mechanical push or else you'll end up just printing piles of dumb You Can't cards for years to come. Want a jelly baby?"
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#580702
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 6:36 am
Am I the only one who things dilemma combo crafting is by far the most tedious and time-intensive part of deck building?
Maybe. I find it to be the most fun part of the game. It's certainly one of the most important and in the opinion of coach Kevin, is 1 of the 2 areas that I see players separating themselves from each other - to the good and bad - in tournaments.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#580709
So many things...

But here goes...

Rotation - All games need a smaller card pool to be playable but a larger crowd. Most players can't afford and/or remember more than up to around 2000 cards at a time.

Treaties - They should never have been. If you have an outpost of the affiliation and can play them, they can mix. It should be that simple. And that would also be the cost. A seed slot for a low shield facility and a mission to go with it (and mission II with a built-in outpost should never have been made). This would also have solved so many other things like affiliations with not enough on-screen people. You can play then on your own, but you are going to struggle. Just play then with something else and you're good to go.

Equipment - They should play anywhere in play! The restriction to play than like Personnel and ship just makes them less unique. And they should probably have had a cost associated when used.

Events - they should never have been able to not be nullified. They should all have been more easily played so that there would have been more counterplay, And the counters should have had a bigger cost associated with them as well as been created specifically for each affiliation.

Affiliations - Should have had a specific and distinct flavour. All to make each one play differently and to tickle the imagination of the players to build different decks, combining them in new ways to do strange and fun things.

Silver bullets - Nopp, should never have been a thing, ever. Fix the problem card instead.

Ban - As soon as something becomes a problem. Don't wait. Release a different card that does something similar but without the problem later if need be.

Errata - Only errata if there is an error on the card when released or if a rule changes or similar things happen. Never errata the to change the power level. But do use Errata to change cards en mass to update them to the latest rules changes.

Special download - Should never have been a thing. It corrupted the game economy.

Missions - I think the original version where you could steal anything was good, in theory.

Dilemmas - Two things; they lacked a cost and they should have never been seeded. 2E got it more right I think than 1E ever did.

The seed phase - Should have been restricted to the missions and the facilities. Anything else just makes the gameplay too similar every time. Card plays should count for something.

Card Copies - There should have been a 3 or 4 card restriction on copies of cards. The game just becomes either too predictive when you can have any number of them or too similar as players had too many of them in their decks. Deck construction should be interesting but not hard and math as it is now.

There, I have managed to remember some of the things I think the game could have done better. I probably missed a lot of things that someone will remind me about further down this post. =)
Question for noob

I still think I'm misunderstanding TMW. By saying […]

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the[…]

Hey all, we are running a "Warum-up" fo[…]