This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#590071
PantsOfTheTalShiar wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 8:53 pm More seriously, could you or someone else give an example of having to redo a random selection? I'm not familiar with that concept.
Under the original dual personnel rules (which I still get asked about, albeit rarely), opponent had the option to force you to redo a selection if the selection grabbed a dual personnel card and this caused a "group limit" to be exceeded.
User avatar
 
By WeAreBack
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#590080
The proposal here replaces a complex rule with a (perhaps slightly less) complex rule.

If we're going to go through the trouble of a change, it should be for something that offers a real benefit of being genuinely simpler, especially for the benefit of new players.

Before implementing a change, it would be worth play testing Smiley's proposal that:
Smiley wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 7:17 pm So maybe that's the way we should go. They are two personnel sharing one card; you have to pick which one to use when using the card. And if there is an opponent's choice, well, then the opponents can have two personnel to choose from on the same card and, as such, balance it out a bit more.
Another way to -- permanently -- fix this problem is to just do away with dual personnel cards as currently played. Every dual personnel card could be replaced with something like the trio of Marika Lansor and P'Chan. That is, when you play Data and Geordi you get two copies of the card into play, one representing each personnel, perhaps with the personnel each represents having an underline under their name (in both places it appears), classification and attributes.

So there would be "Data and Geordi" and "Data and Geordi", and playing one would download the other (potentially even from outside the game, evading General Quarters). A rule requiring a player to do this would be vastly simpler than the current rules, even if no text is added to the cards.

Then, when you go to do random selections, you know which of the two personnel you have picked. You could still have the cards joined at the hip so that killing or capturing one affects the other -- or not -- but either this or Smiley's proposal would represent a genuine simplification.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#590101
Unpopular opinion...I don't think dual personnel cards pose that big of an issue. Sure, there are some weird rule things that have to be explained, but unless I'm missing something, those are minor, infrequent, and non-game breaking.

Why try and fix this issue when there other more pressing issues (The Final Frontier, for example), that are actually having a detrimental effect on deckbuilding and the game.

I mean that honestly, does anyone regard the weirdness of dual personnel a big "have to fix right now" kind of issue?
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#590105
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:20 pm Unpopular opinion...I don't think dual personnel cards pose that big of an issue. Sure, there are some weird rule things that have to be explained, but unless I'm missing something, those are minor, infrequent, and non-game breaking.

Why try and fix this issue when there other more pressing issues (The Final Frontier, for example), that are actually having a detrimental effect on deckbuilding and the game.

I mean that honestly, does anyone regard the weirdness of dual personnel a big "have to fix right now" kind of issue?
I don't believe that this item on Dual-Personnel is gating/preventing dealing with The Final Frontier. The Balance team would be working on The Final Frontier issues and the Rules team has been talking about Dual-Personnel for "the past couple of months"... there shouldn't be a conflict here.

-James M
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#590106
WeAreBack wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:27 am Another way to -- permanently -- fix this problem is to just do away with dual personnel cards as currently played. Every dual personnel card could be replaced with something like the trio of Marika Lansor and P'Chan. That is, when you play Data and Geordi you get two copies of the card into play, one representing each personnel, perhaps with the personnel each represents having an underline under their name (in both places it appears), classification and attributes.

So there would be "Data and Geordi" and "Data and Geordi", and playing one would download the other (potentially even from outside the game, evading General Quarters). A rule requiring a player to do this would be vastly simpler than the current rules, even if no text is added to the cards.
In an alternate universe, I see dual personnel cards having developed as Dual-Faced Cards, like spacedoor or the similar. (Design space of which I wish the designers would use more, especially as we no longer have to worry about real world production logistics. More DFC cards please. Especially. missions.)
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#590111
Orbin wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:54 pm
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:20 pm Unpopular opinion...I don't think dual personnel cards pose that big of an issue. Sure, there are some weird rule things that have to be explained, but unless I'm missing something, those are minor, infrequent, and non-game breaking.

Why try and fix this issue when there other more pressing issues (The Final Frontier, for example), that are actually having a detrimental effect on deckbuilding and the game.

I mean that honestly, does anyone regard the weirdness of dual personnel a big "have to fix right now" kind of issue?
I don't believe that this item on Dual-Personnel is gating/preventing dealing with The Final Frontier. The Balance team would be working on The Final Frontier issues and the Rules team has been talking about Dual-Personnel for "the past couple of months"... there shouldn't be a conflict here.

-James M
Sure, but I'd still assert my point. What is the thing that the current rulings with respect to dual personnel that needs to be changed? What is the gamebreaking, exploited, etc etc etc thing that demands 3 pages of responses? I'm not being argumentative; I'm asking honestly.

Sure, there seems to be some weird rules, but what in 1E doesn't have some weird rules?
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#590139
I like most of the proposal, except the attributes should stay as is - that they have two separate attributes, not glomped together into one huge number. The biggest issue with dual personnel is selecting them out of a group - treating them as one card/one personnel for that would be great.

But keep the 'two sets of attribute' rules as is - the alternatives of what'd happen if you had 14-15-integrity personnel and 22-strength monstrosities running around is bad.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#590162
After thinking about this way too much my proposal is simply to ban all of the Dual Personnel. I don't think there is a way to change the rules to make them reasonably clear while also maintaining the integrity of how they work in the game.

Ban them even in Open so we don't have the rules baggage anywhere in the rules documents. I know this is probably not a popular opinion.

If this can't happen I guess I agree with the first proposal in this thread.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#590168
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:25 pm Sure, but I'd still assert my point. What is the thing that the current rulings with respect to dual personnel that needs to be changed? What is the gamebreaking, exploited, etc etc etc thing that demands 3 pages of responses? I'm not being argumentative; I'm asking honestly.

Sure, there seems to be some weird rules, but what in 1E doesn't have some weird rules?
I think I disagree with the basic idea here of that discussion for three pages is a negative.

1. It drives player engagement. People got interested in the topic.
2. More eyes on the ideas behind game design is a good thing. More people learning and thinking from different angles.
3. No sacred cows. Even the mechanics that work well and are integral to the game should be constantly questioned and examined.
4. It shows what people are passionate about.

I remember the pseudo-errata of IKC to IKS. Very minor that shouldn't take much headspace, but that would be something that I would love to get people discussing for pages.

If people care enough to talk, that's a good thing. It something is proposed, accepted, and there is virtually no discussion - either it's something that's the most blindingly obvious that should be done, or no one cares. and if no one cares, that's a bad thing.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#590211
boromirofborg wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:39 pm
stressedoutatumc wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:25 pm Sure, but I'd still assert my point. What is the thing that the current rulings with respect to dual personnel that needs to be changed? What is the gamebreaking, exploited, etc etc etc thing that demands 3 pages of responses? I'm not being argumentative; I'm asking honestly.

Sure, there seems to be some weird rules, but what in 1E doesn't have some weird rules?
I think I disagree with the basic idea here of that discussion for three pages is a negative.

1. It drives player engagement. People got interested in the topic.
2. More eyes on the ideas behind game design is a good thing. More people learning and thinking from different angles.
3. No sacred cows. Even the mechanics that work well and are integral to the game should be constantly questioned and examined.
4. It shows what people are passionate about.

I remember the pseudo-errata of IKC to IKS. Very minor that shouldn't take much headspace, but that would be something that I would love to get people discussing for pages.

If people care enough to talk, that's a good thing. It something is proposed, accepted, and there is virtually no discussion - either it's something that's the most blindingly obvious that should be done, or no one cares. and if no one cares, that's a bad thing.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you've said, but my point remains. There's alot of discussion on changing rules that could have fairly large impacts on the game for the sake of very little confusion with the current rules. There seems to be a couple of instances where dual personnel cause some minor confusion or conflict, but every proposed solution would dramatically change deckbuilding and could have detrimental consequences. I.E. if they are considered a single person with combined attributes, they become THE most valuable personnel to beat some very tough dilemma. Or, we have to create a whole new set of erratta and rules to make them not overpowered.

So, my question remains...what is so bad about the current ruleset that we need to discuss and possibly implement such changes?
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#590214
I think the point not yet being made it that Rules looks at many things simultaneously, and this is just one of those topics on their radar. They happen to be at an impasse, and decided to see what the community-at-large thinks. Also, the request for Rules to look at it could be driven by a question posed to them from a community member or perhaps even a Design Team, and needs clarification for future projects. It may even be laying ground work for the Mythical Unicorn that is a ship/personnel hybrid that has been discussed every so often.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#590215
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 11:37 am There seems to be a couple of instances where dual personnel cause some minor confusion or conflict, but every proposed solution would dramatically change deckbuilding and could have detrimental consequences. I.E. if they are considered a single person with combined attributes, they become THE most valuable personnel to beat some very tough dilemma. Or, we have to create a whole new set of erratta and rules to make them not overpowered.

So, my question remains...what is so bad about the current ruleset that we need to discuss and possibly implement such changes?
There's a distinction to be made between "oh, this card is causing grief" (which is generally the Balance Team's domain) and "lots of players end up asking this question and it's not obvious what the right answer is", which is more in the Rules space.

I could go on a big rant, but I'll keep it short and point at variable attributes as the "good" version - what's Rom's stat? Whatever you want it to be at that moment. It works the way you'd expect it to (which is helped because it generally works the way you *want* it to - never underestimate player desire for the answer to any rules question to be "the way that works better for me" ;) )

By contrast, how you handle duals is currently "it depends", and often the answer to one question doesn't help you much with the next. It's hard to learn, hard to remember, and hard to teach. Which is why it's been circulating in the background as a "there's gotta be a better way" discussion for getting close to a decade.

So - we have a pile of rules that are confusing (even to people who pay attention), and frankly aren't getting the game much in exchange. Makes it a pretty tempting target for simplification.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#590216
AllenGould wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:23 pm
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 11:37 am There seems to be a couple of instances where dual personnel cause some minor confusion or conflict, but every proposed solution would dramatically change deckbuilding and could have detrimental consequences. I.E. if they are considered a single person with combined attributes, they become THE most valuable personnel to beat some very tough dilemma. Or, we have to create a whole new set of erratta and rules to make them not overpowered.

So, my question remains...what is so bad about the current ruleset that we need to discuss and possibly implement such changes?
There's a distinction to be made between "oh, this card is causing grief" (which is generally the Balance Team's domain) and "lots of players end up asking this question and it's not obvious what the right answer is", which is more in the Rules space.

I could go on a big rant, but I'll keep it short and point at variable attributes as the "good" version - what's Rom's stat? Whatever you want it to be at that moment. It works the way you'd expect it to (which is helped because it generally works the way you *want* it to - never underestimate player desire for the answer to any rules question to be "the way that works better for me" ;) )

By contrast, how you handle duals is currently "it depends", and often the answer to one question doesn't help you much with the next. It's hard to learn, hard to remember, and hard to teach. Which is why it's been circulating in the background as a "there's gotta be a better way" discussion for getting close to a decade.

So - we have a pile of rules that are confusing (even to people who pay attention), and frankly aren't getting the game much in exchange. Makes it a pretty tempting target for simplification.
If that's truly the case then, I accept it. I suppose that the "what happens to one happens to the other" covered pretty much any scenario I encountered.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#590259
The change is small
There's alot of discussion on changing rules that could have fairly large impacts on the game...
The change affects 20 cards, so this affects less than 0.5% of all cards. On average, it would affect less than one card per deck. When quantified in this way, it is hard to see how this is "large."

Even so, the number of interactions that do change among these cards is small as the change barely affects how dual personnel work in the global picture:
-They still add their attributes to totals in the same way (which is how most dilemmas and mission work).
-They still pair in personnel battle the same way.
-They still staff ships in the same way.
-And with rare exception they still report and download in the same way.

The fear is overblown.

Never in the history of OTF has a personnel card been banned for having too high attributes and/or too many skills. Regarding dilemmas, almost all of the outstanding impacts of the change involve specific dilemmas, many of which are scantly played anyways. Except for "God" (a top 10 dilemma), no other dilemma significantly affected (except Chula dilemmas) has seen more than 25 uses among posted decklists in the past 3 years in OTF. At worst, there will be a mild shift in the dilemma meta as a result in this change. As a note: Despite James' comments, this proposal has no effect on Spatial Rift.

There is confusion that needs to be addressed
... for the sake of very little confusion with the current rules.
There is plenty of confusion with the current rules. Case and point, here is a thread where the entire community (including many now rules experts) misinterpreted the rules: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18479&start=21. As evidenced by this thread, these misunderstandings continue today especially by newer players.

The current rule would never be be implemented

Let's turn the picture around. If the proposal was the current rule and the current rule was a proposal, it would be safe to say the now current rules would never be considered let alone adopted.

Conclusion

The change affects a small subset of cards, and even among those cards, 99% of the interactions involving those cards remain the same. It's easy and clear to understand- far more so than the current rules.

Sounds like a good proposal. Punch it, James.

Other Points and Clarifications

It is possible for dual personnel cards to have more than two staffing icons, so only two of them should apply.
DUAL-PERSONNEL CARDS wrote: However, unlike most personnel cards, a dual-personnel card with multiple staffing icons may contribute up to two of them toward ship staffing simultaneously.
The proposal leaves several remaining questions about assimilation:

How do you determine icons and attributes of an assimilated dual-personnel?
Can you now assimilate a dual-personnel as a counterpart?
Dual-Personnel wrote: When a dual-personnel card is assimilated, the classification on the left becomes the assimilated personnel's first-listed skill, while the classification on the right becomes the second-listed skill and apply the requisite transformation (drone or counterpart) separately for each set of staffing icon and attributes
Assimilation - Personnel and Borg Rule: Personnel Assimilation (7.7.0.2) wrote: ...
Except for dual-personnel
no personnel may have more than one copy of any given subcommand.
[/color]
...
Dual-personnel cards may not be targeted for assimilation as a counterpart.
//
For this reason, you may not target dual-personnel cards for counterpart assimilation
...
For assimilated dual-personnel cards, apply the requisite transformation (drone or counterpart) separately for each set of staffing icon and attributes[color]
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

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

Opponents turn

Remodulation