This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#583035
Hi folks,

Please use this thread to ask questions directly to the design team of Paradise Lost. Which, if this team looks familiar, is because it's the same team that brought you Second Star to the Right as well. Regardless, through the magic of the internet, they will edit their responses directly into your posts - as they have time, of course. Please keep the questions on topic, and start separate discussion threads if you wish to go more in depth into a topic.

Your design team is:

Paddy Tye[KazonPADD]
Derrick Marsh [HoodieDM]
Niall Matthew [sexecutioner]
Allen Gould [AllenGould]

Have fun!

-crp
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583036
Why is the card called 'Chariot of "God"' and not 'Chariot of God?'

The card appears to be a version of the Enterprise, from the perspective of the Galactic Army of Light, who consider it to be God to be at the center of the galaxy, not the false "God."

The dilemma '"God"' is in quotes because dilemmas are generally written from an objective viewpoint, and we as viewers know that the being at Sha-Ka-Ree is merely "God" and not God.

Only Kirk would call it the 'Chariot of "God"', and this [NA] [SKR] ship is most decidedly not his anymore. It's actually a lot more likely he'd just consider it "Hijacked Enterprise," the term "Chariot" being one that only actual believers would use. And if you're a true believer, you don't think of him as "God" in quotes.

EDIT: Looking to previous precedent, the hijacked Voyager is titled merely "Voyager," as that's what the new owners (Kazon) called it, rather than "U.S.S. Voyager," which is what the Federation views it as. By the same token, the "U.S.S. Enterprise" would be called "Chariot of God" by its new owners, not "Chariot of "God"".

The issue originates with the use of the word “God” at all. In certain religions (Judaism I believe) you aren’t meant to use the name in written form (I’m not an expert in theology, apologies if I’m not getting this right). This is why the speech marks around the name are used as they are, rather than whose perspective it’s viewed from. So we’ve used consistent naming with the dilemma and with the existing 2E version. There was a big debate around this when TMP:R reprinted the dilemma, and ultimately (we hope) the speech marks avoid any potential offence.
Last edited by DISCO Rox No More on Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583037
Has there been any thought to curating a supplemental release of pre-existing cards (missions, dilemmas, headquarters, etc.), to make a [CF] only environment (or "block")?

Does the recent TMP: Remastered release, combined with existing Virtual cards not provide that?

Between the Federation, the Klingons, and two sets of [NA] decks, it seems like there's enough material to justify doing that now.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E The Void Regional Participant 2022
#583041
How many times round the schoolyard did Bones get kicked to end at his current form?

The 2 persona/one personnel form, that is.
Honestly, he didn’t change much really. However Rules did make a tweak to the persona replacement rule in April to ensure that Bones worked as intended…
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583046
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:42 pm The issue originates with the use of the word “God” at all. In certain religions (Judaism I believe) you aren’t meant to use the name in written form (I’m not an expert in theology, apologies if I’m not getting this right). This is why the speech marks around the name are used as they are, rather than whose perspective it’s viewed from. So we’ve used consistent naming with the dilemma and with the existing 2E version. There was a big debate around this when TMP:R reprinted the dilemma, and ultimately (we hope) the speech marks avoid any potential offence.
But Sybok and his followers had their own religion, they weren't Jews. Why would they follow the naming conventions of Jews?

Here's my alternative non-religious view - we already have the quotes established from the dilemma (so consistency is a bonus), it's clear that the big glowy head ain't an actual god (of any religion, much less the human ones), so frankly - why do something that's going to at least annoy and probably offend a chunk of people for no good reason?
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:45 pm Has there been any thought to curating a supplemental release of pre-existing cards (missions, dilemmas, headquarters, etc.), to make a [CF] only environment (or "block")?

Does the recent TMP: Remastered release, combined with existing Virtual cards not provide that?
No, I don't think they do.

Between the first two TMP sets, there are only 5 missions, precisely 0 of which can be attempted and completed by Klingons. Even if this next set adds a bunch of missions to fill that hole, cards like Ceti Alpha V and Qo'Nos are critical for these deck types. Does this next set contain persona versions of those missions, as well as a new The Great Hall?

Are there enough dilemmas between this set and the previous two [CF] sets to create an interesting environment?

I'm sure there are other obvious considerations necessary for a [CF] -only environment.
I did say existing Virtual cards too. Sounds like you want cards from HF1, HF4 etc plus a bunch of other missions and dilemmas all packaged up and re-issued. That could be done, but would be more likely achieved similar to the “core block list” we had a few years back. This is kind of diverging into an OP issue, but if someone wants to run such a tournament to test the concept, I’d happily play in it!
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583047
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:36 pm But Sybok and his followers had their own religion, they weren't Jews. Why would they follow the naming conventions of Jews?
I took the response as similar to Turanj, there are times where real world sensibilities may impact things like naming or images, because, well, the people who play the game play in the real world, and it's preferable not to offend any of the small number of players if there's a solution to do otherwise.

(This is just my reading of it from the outside - and there are certainly precidents for similar but in STCCG and other larger games.)m

Correct
(But don’t forget to ask a question next time!)
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#583061
With both Charter a Space Flight and To Rule in Hell allowing movement of large numbers of personnel without a ship in play, I have a few questions please.

How is this being balanced?
So Charter a Space Flight has to occur at the END of your turn, meaning they have to exposed on the planet’s surface during your opponents turn, which can be a big drawback. Clearly a six-planet strategy can try to use that to avoid space interaction, although needing 140 points and end-of-turn movement provide balance.

To Rule in Hell only relocates BACK to Ceti Alpha V. But a Khan deck will be trying to interact AND get Genesis aboard the Reliant, so will still need to be in space and at risk from attack.


Were there any concerns during design and testing that this could be too powerful or lead to an NPE against decks which are built around ship to ship interaction?
There was early concern around sending in Jem’Hadar Shock Troops, but the end-of-turn requirement enabling an opponent’s escape soon allayed that concern.

No-ship decks have existed for ages - Iconian Gateway, for instance (or pre-errata MDD). And I personally think bad matchups are a good thing - if the skies are full of Klingon Death in your meta, having an option to avoid that is a plus in my book.

And are there any cards in the set which punish players for using these sort of non-ship travel mechanics?
Not specifically. Clearly there’s an in-built discard with To Rule in Hell and I’ve already mentioned the end-of-turn drawback for Charter a Space Flight. If a bigger cost is needed down the line, that can be added through future cards or errata.

Thanks.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
User avatar
 
By sexecutioner (Niall Matthew)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Counterpart
1E British National Champion 2021
1E Austrian National Runner-Up 2020
#583077
I'm out in town and drunk, post your questions now!

Sex
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Participant 2022
#583171
Clearly a six-planet strategy can try to use that to avoid space interaction, although needing 140 points and end-of-turn movement provide balance.
Also you can't get past Jol Yichu or Crisis without getting a ship (yes hidden fighter exists but that's more pieces to make things work and the popular Jol Yichu/"God" means you need a second hidden fighter or at least a pre-emptive hidden fighter and good integrity).
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
Praetor
#583175
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:36 pm
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:42 pm The issue originates with the use of the word “God” at all. In certain religions (Judaism I believe) you aren’t meant to use the name in written form (I’m not an expert in theology, apologies if I’m not getting this right). This is why the speech marks around the name are used as they are, rather than whose perspective it’s viewed from. So we’ve used consistent naming with the dilemma and with the existing 2E version. There was a big debate around this when TMP:R reprinted the dilemma, and ultimately (we hope) the speech marks avoid any potential offence.
But Sybok and his followers had their own religion, they weren't Jews. Why would they follow the naming conventions of Jews?

But there are Jews who play the game and the issue is with the name being printed on the card. Anything with the name on it has to be carefully tended to and not damaged or destroyed (without proper religious ritual), so avoiding it is a general good.

This is not about trek logic, it is about being good to other people in real life
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583341
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:36 pm Here's my alternative non-religious view - we already have the quotes established from the dilemma (so consistency is a bonus), it's clear that the big glowy head ain't an actual god (of any religion, much less the human ones), so frankly - why do something that's going to at least annoy and probably offend a chunk of people for no good reason?
Uh, what? "No good reason?"

How about "consistency with previous precedent and convention?" Is that not a "good reason?"

I've already pointed out " [Kaz] Voyager vs [Fed] U.S.S. Voyager" as being the most relevant example here. Contrary to what you've stated, Sybok very much does see the Enterprise as a Chariot of his God, not a Chariot of a phony quote "God". I've also pointed out how dilemmas are written from the objective, rather than subjective, point-of-view, so I'm not sure why you're quoting the "God" dilemma as an example of consistency, when I've already pointed out its lack of relevance. Perhaps one should also point to "What Does God Need With A Starship?" (Note that it is not "What Does "God" Need With A Starship?" Are a "chunk of people" getting in a tizzy about that card?).

Or how about authenticity and fidelity to the lore of the Trek universe? Also not a "good reason?" Going to broader, secondary sources, I'd also point out that Memory Alpha's article on the subject doesn't put quotes around God...Memory Alpha being considered the definitive source on Trek lore, and frequently cited within discussions on these boards. (See entries on "Galactic Army of Light" and "God").

Meanwhile, I could also turn it around on you and say perhaps a "chunk of people shouldn't get annoyed or offended for no good reason?"

It boggles the mind that we're talking about playing within a universe whose creator (and whose foundational tenets for the setting) are clearly humanistic, atheistic, and anti-superstitious in nature, and yet you're going out of your way to worry about the superstitions that some people have about their magic sky man getting mad at them for writing the name God in reference to a fictional character's belief about his own God on a card game card. Roddenberry would be turning in his grave, if you'll excuse the expression.

(I noticed that Commander Uhura, from the same batch of cards, is represented with an image clearly presenting her face and hair and not wearing a hijab and correctly showing modesty for God. I guess some superstitions are worth observing, and not others?)
pfti wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:21 am This is not about trek logic, it is about being good to other people in real life
You mean it's about disregarding Trek logic, for the sake of foisting some people's religious requirements upon all of us?

Post hidden until the Moderators deal with it…

MOD EDIT (nobthehobbit, 2022-08-17): Post restored for the time being.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E The Void Regional Participant 2022
#583345
So we got a new Biolab! I see the dilemma text is written out long. I guess you couldn't use the phrase "science related" because that means something different In 1e, how much work did it take to get the wording right? And you can't really use Dr. Mccoy as a precedent, since that wording causes confusion and delay.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Community Contributor
#583351
To Moderators: Any chance we could shunt the great "God" debate off into its own thread please, so this one can get back to being a fun thread about the new set? Thank you.

And to keep on topic, a couple of questions:

When designing non-aligned versions of aligned personnel, such as the new Commander Chekov and Professor Scott , do you look at potential persona swapping?
The main persona swapping shenanigans involved Bones really. Also downloading old Saavik, using her download, then switching to new Saavik for better skills…
And are there any fun persona swapping shenanigans with the new cards you'd like to share?
Though not in the final set, there was a version of Bones in play testing that could also be exchanged with a hologram via I've Been Waiting for You (Using Baker Street of course)

EDIT: Actually one more. Does the "controlled via Ceti eel" on the new Chekov and Clark Terrell mean they aren't discarded by Revenge Is a Dish Best Served Cold ?
Just the Khan in lore is sufficient to avoid them being discarded…
Thanks.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#583371
New Chekhov and Terell have "Khan" in lore, that is what Revenge cares about.

Anyway. Are there any other plans for Bones-style 2 personas in 1 personnel for the future like Tuvix?
I am aware of one future design team looking at it…

It brings me one step closer to the dream of "Scotty in Shuttlecraft" dual personnel/ship. :shifty:
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#583380
jrch5618 wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:53 am New Chekhov and Terell have "Khan" in lore, that is what Revenge cares about.

Anyway. Are there any other plans for Bones-style 2 personas in 1 personnel for the future like Tuvix?
The [1E-DQ] block design teams are discussing it, but awaiting to see how the community-at-large embraces or doesn't embrace Bones.
Ssh! :shifty:
Also, not a question!
THE RAGE THREAD

LOUD NOISES!!!!

More cards? Less cards? Bigger or smaller releas[…]

Was Patrol ship considered a shuttle at some p[…]

Ref is in a bad place

My playgroup is so small and we arent world beater[…]