This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#583346
patrick wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:18 am I really like the idea of the Dyson Sphere Door. Unfortunately it's not compatible with The Squire's Rules, and I like that one even more...
Empok nor isn't compatible with Squire either.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#583348
tribunal and referee don't guarantee anything. They grant access to tools. If your opponent shows you a situation that you have a tool for, are you not going to reach for it? So when your opponent shows up on your Headquarters and attacks, you ref download Stratagema. Then he plays out the rest of his turn and wins the game another way. You grabbed the wrong tool. Because his deck is designed to get you to use the wrong tool.

He played a psychological game and won, betting that nobody will bring refs and if they did he could psych them into burning their ref downloads for the wrong cards. He won because he planned, gambled, and made a well oiled machine, not because his deck is bonkers broken.
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#583349
winterflames wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:48 am tribunal and referee don't guarantee anything. They grant access to tools. If your opponent shows you a situation that you have a tool for, are you not going to reach for it? So when your opponent shows up on your Headquarters and attacks, you ref download Stratagema. Then he plays out the rest of his turn and wins the game another way. You grabbed the wrong tool. Because his deck is designed to get you to use the wrong tool.

He played a psychological game and won, betting that nobody will bring refs and if they did he could psych them into burning their ref downloads for the wrong cards. He won because he planned, gambled, and made a well oiled machine, not because his deck is bonkers broken.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#583352
Armus wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:04 pm Ummm.... @Hoss-Drone ....

Scorched Hand is immune to Amanda Rogers, and by extension, Quinn... :shifty:

I hadn't even thought of Revolving Door on the Civil War tent. I think I thought it was immune, but it's apparently... not?! :shock:

Oh wait... does Tribunal of Q's text make RevDoor irrelevant for [Ref] card downloads? That might explain it.
Thats what i get for writing that post in anger filled haste. I misremember something.

Tribunal may ignore but only if you play it. So if i just seed a QTR then the revolving door works.

Dukat wrote: As it has been said: No one at Kaiserfest actually complained. We were fascinated by how the deck works.

Americans however shit their pants and become cry babys 'meh meh meh ... bad deck ... ban cards ... do not likey playing with toys ... can make my deck bad bad'.

Come on guys, grow a pair and accept the fact that Peter's deck was not based on ONE card being overpowered, but the fact that he forced opponent's into making mistakes.
His deck could easily be countered with several cards in fact.


This whole thing is getting utterly ridiculous, just because the American continent likes their shitty 1E solitaire ...
Why are you trying to turn this into some kind of intercontinental warfare? You are seriously being a dick a right now. This isnt quarks bar, stop carrying your personal political grudges about how much you hate america into a legit discussion about whether or not cards that allow "unlimited X" are good or bad, and whether or not the Ref mechanic is a good or bad for the game.

Shitty 1e Solitaire? You really havent played a game in the Andorian Meta have you.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#583353
Dukat wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:47 am
Armus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:05 am
Caretaker's Guest wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:54 am Most vocal voices are not necessarily always right...
*Reads Dukat's above post*

Yup. Indeed.
I am not the loud voice that cries 'BAAAN'. I am just responding to it, so don't try this Jordan Peterson stuff on me.
That framing implies that no card should be banned ever because calling for a ban is wrong.

If that's your position, Cool. We have an app for that. It's called Open.

Seriously, next year's Euros should be Open format since y'all apparently like [Ref] wars so much. I'm sure if @Clerasil ToB asks for an exception to the OTF only for high level events rule (is that even a rule? I don't actually know), and I'd be shocked if @LORE wouldn't approve it given his long-stated "let the players play" approach to OP.

In the meantime, I'm not sure calling an entire continent a bunch of crybabies is going to win many people to your side. You're doing that thing where you're stating your opinion as objective fact and denigrating anyone with a different opinion as being objectively wrong.

I've seen this behavior before from you, and yeah, I'm going to call you on it, because regardless of the merits, stating opinion as fact IS objectively wrong, so yes. You're being both loud and wrong.

I don't need Jordan Peterson to point that out. My previous point stands.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#583361
I applaud Peter for the gamesmanship and planning it took to pull off the win! :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, I think a game where a Turn 1 win is possible is fundamentally broken. It is, plainly stated, a result of bad game design. You can't win chess in one turn, you can't win a baseball game in the first inning, you can't win a footy match in the first minute. You can certainly set yourself up for success in all of those games at the opening, but those games are designed to give the opponents the chance to continue playing.

If this was a board game, I believe it'd be termed 'Ameritrash'; high on theme, but low on design balance. As opposed to 'Eurogame', which is high on balance (and generally, doesn't knock-out players).

A turn 1 win scenario means our game is fundamentally broken.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#583364
JeBuS wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:11 am I applaud Peter for the gamesmanship and planning it took to pull off the win! :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, I think a game where a Turn 1 win is possible is fundamentally broken. It is, plainly stated, a result of bad game design. You can't win chess in one turn, you can't win a baseball game in the first inning, you can't win a footy match in the first minute. You can certainly set yourself up for success in all of those games at the opening, but those games are designed to give the opponents the chance to continue playing.

If this was a board game, I believe it'd be termed 'Ameritrash'; high on theme, but low on design balance. As opposed to 'Eurogame', which is high on balance (and generally, doesn't knock-out players).

A turn 1 win scenario means our game is fundamentally broken.
I am uncertain about the monikers, but I understand the sentiment and can agree with this statement.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#583376
For the record, you can win Chess on turn 2 though. It of course requires a total blunder on your opponent's turn 1 though. Even Scholar's Mate in 4 moves is rare to pull off and requires significant blunders.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#583379
Professor Scott wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:03 am For the record, you can win Chess on turn 2 though. It of course requires a total blunder on your opponent's turn 1 though. Even Scholar's Mate in 4 moves is rare to pull off and requires significant blunders.
Definitely. You will get no disagreement from me that when you win well ahead of the norm because of an opponent's blunder, that's on the player, not the game.

However, the possibility of winning before the opponent gets a chance to play their turn just shouldn't be a thing. (And it's entirely possible that Peter's deck can do so, even if some [or all] of his games he may have gone 2nd.)

No matter what game it is, if one player can win before the other player can take a turn, that game is fundamentally broken. Full stop.

Open is broken. That's fine. We all know how broken it is. Those of us who lived through the end of the Decipher era are well aware how broken 1E can be.

We don't want that for OTF. We don't want to go back to those days.

If you want to play broken 1E, play Open.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#583382
JeBuS wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:09 am
Professor Scott wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:03 am For the record, you can win Chess on turn 2 though. It of course requires a total blunder on your opponent's turn 1 though. Even Scholar's Mate in 4 moves is rare to pull off and requires significant blunders.
Definitely. You will get no disagreement from me that when you win well ahead of the norm because of an opponent's blunder, that's on the player, not the game.

However, the possibility of winning before the opponent gets a chance to play their turn just shouldn't be a thing. (And it's entirely possible that Peter's deck can do so, even if some [or all] of his games he may have gone 2nd.)

No matter what game it is, if one player can win before the other player can take a turn, that game is fundamentally broken. Full stop.

Open is broken. That's fine. We all know how broken it is. Those of us who lived through the end of the Decipher era are well aware how broken 1E can be.

We don't want that for OTF. We don't want to go back to those days.

If you want to play broken 1E, play Open.
Agreed, and let me be clear, my post was not intended to support a 1st turn or quick win. I was trying to point out that a fast win is only possible due to opponent's mistake and you capitalizing on it, not your superior gamesmanship. I am strongly in support of removing this possibility from the OTF game. I suspect that Balance will finally pull the trigger on some sort of report with crew cap. I also believe the unlimited DL of [Equ] is also OP.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#583401
winterflames wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:48 am He played a psychological game and won, betting that nobody will bring refs and if they did he could psych them into burning their ref downloads for the wrong cards. He won because he planned, gambled, and made a well oiled machine, not because his deck is bonkers broken.
So this gets to the heart of why I'm so surprised by the resistance to some balance here. Consider the following:

1. There are strategies/cards that are considered so powerful that cards -- and a whole mechanic for accessing those cards -- were created to stop them.

2. To win -- or even to play, sometimes -- that mechanic is basically an auto include, or so the argument in this thread seems to go. The fact that this is the case seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that these cards are so powerful the game needs a dedicated mechanic to stop them. If they are not so powerful, why pack [Ref]?

Right there I would stop and say, "Why not just deal with those cards? If the mechanic in question is essentially an auto include, how is that practically different than an errata, beyond being another thing for new players to learn or remember?"

But, your point brings it one step further:

3. The solution for this deck was simply to include more than one of those strategies.

Perhaps I'm dense, but I can't fathom a defence of [Ref] that isn't also a tacit acceptance of the problematic nature of the strategies it was created to counter.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#583405
Some of the responses to be seem to be a little defensive over the validity of the deck and the win by extension. I don't see it that way at all. The deck is a thing of beauty, amazing, excellent playing and gamesmanship by Peter.


I am glad it existed, he deserved his win, and no on e should think poorly of him or the deck.

But I also don't want to have to go to a tournament, one of the only times I might get to play 1E in a month or several, and lose before I could take a turn. That's little better than getting a bye.

I also play Magic. In Legacy, I play a dirty combo deck called Charbelcher. It frequently wins on turn 1. But it also frequently dies to very commonly played counters. I only play it at large tournaments, because I like having time between rounds. I like that deck. I'm glad it exists. In Legacy. I wouldn't want it existing in Modern, or Standard, etc.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#583407
boromirofborg wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:57 pm Some of the responses to be seem to be a little defensive over the validity of the deck and the win by extension. I don't see it that way at all. The deck is a thing of beauty, amazing, excellent playing and gamesmanship by Peter.


I am glad it existed, he deserved his win, and no on e should think poorly of him or the deck.
I love jank. I love when people find it and play it. But I don't think it should be allowed to live on once proven. Peter did a phenomenal job. Now his last reward is that the deck should be squashed (like most high-level tournament winning decks). :wink:
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]