[BCSWowbagger]

I'm going to take you behind the scenes today to help us figure out what to do about dual-personnel cards. This is a long, rulesy 1E Friday Question, so buckle up.

THE (FIRST) PROBLEM: DUAL-PERSONNEL CONFUSION

Dual-personnel cards confuse people. Complaints about them abound... especially when players get them involved in random selections, romantic pairings, downloads (with or without criteria), and anything else where the distinction between a "personnel" and a "personnel card" suddenly becomes relevant.

You don't need to search the Rules Questions board or the Facebook group for long to find complaints and questions about this behavior... and it goes back many years. Just this morning, I received a question about whether Royale Casino: Elevator reads the combined attributes of Data and Geordi or just one set of attributes. (The answer is just one, the one you targeted for the reporting action.) The Glossary has some fairly esoteric rulings about this, too:

if you hit Chula: Trickery with a dual-personnel card, do you read all the attributes as-printed, or pick one of the personnel on the card and just read one set? (The answer is you read them as printed-- "3 plus 3" and so forth -- which is almost the opposite of the Elevator answer, but that's because the Elevator was your choice and Trickery is random selection.)

Can Jake and Nog use Visit Cochrane Memorial? No.

But can they build a Ferengi Trading Post? Yes.

If Distraction's random selection is a dual-personnel card, do you select one or two additional personnel (and of which genders) (and what if only one of the secondary targets has Honor)? (Answer too complicated; check DRG.)

The rules for random selections involving dual-personnel cards have been through three revisions (in 1997, 2001, and 2002), and the rules for downloading them have been written twice (in 2011 and 2013). Each revision seems to leave the community more confused than before.

Then there was that clever trick with Sons of Mogh and a Medical Kit that gave Worf MEDICAL that forced us to rewrite the dual-personnel rule to be mushier and more confusing. Whoever came up with that stupid post in the first place, you're a dick.

Like I said: dual-personnel cards are confusing.

So people often ask Rules to "do something" about dual-personnel cards. It's a Top 5 Request for the Rules Committee. We've been thinking about it for years, but, this year, Design asked us to Do Something about all this. So we finally buckled down and wrote a proposal for a new rule.

THE PROPOSAL:

Decipher taught us to "treat dual-personnel cards as if they were two separate personnel on one card." This is what causes all the problems: you can't actually have two personnel on one personnel card, and the rules get all crinkly when they pretend you can.

Our proposal is simple: treat dual-personnel cards as if they were a single personnel for all purposes.

THE DETAILS:

These are the actual textual rule changes in our proposal. Look how many rules and clarifications we would be deleting! As the guy who has to maintain those rules and clarifications (and explain them, over and over again, to the confused), I have to admit, the prospect makes me smile.

DUAL-PERSONNEL CARDS
A few special personnel cards, such as Sons of Mogh and The Trois, have two individual personnel printed on the same card represent two characters rather than one. They count as two personnel, but the individuals on a dual-personnel card have a linked destiny: what happens to one usually happens to the other. For game purposes, the card is treated like any other personnel card. However, unlike most personnel cards, a dual-personnel card with two staffing icons may contribute both to ship staffing simultaneously.

If either personnel on a dual-personnel card is: stopped, killed, captured, moved, removed from play, downloaded, reported for free, or otherwise experiences some change in status or position (for example, is phased, "held by aliens", or changes affiliation), then the same thing automatically happens to the other personnel on the card. One cannot survive without the other, so they can never be separated.

Clarifications: Random Selections and Dual-Personnel Cards
When a dual-personnel card is in a group that is facing a random selection, it is treated as though it were one personnel (in order to maintain the randomness and effectiveness of the selection). If selected, the effects of the random selection are applied to both personnel on the card. For example:

Armus - Skin of Evil, enhanced by All-Consuming Evil, randomly selects two personnel in the Away Team to die. Shuffle all personnel in the Away Team and select two cards at random. All selected personnel die. (That is, if one of the cards selected is dual-personnel, both personnel on the card are killed, even though this means Armus kills three personnel instead of two.)
An Away Team consists of one dual-personnel card and one regular personnel card (a total of 2 cards and 3 personnel). Denevan Neural Parasites randomly selects "half the Away Team" (rounded up) to face death. The dual-personnel card is treated as a single personnel during the random selection, so "half the Away Team" equals 2 personnel / 2 = 1 card. That card is selected. All personnel on that card face death, and will die unless protected by a phaser or disruptor. Because the random selection has ended, the dual-personnel card is now treated as two personnel again — which means that, if selected, they will require two guns, not one, if they want to escape with their lives.
Lineup selects four members of the Away Team at random. If a dual-personnel card is selected, both personnel on the card are affected equally, both join the "lineup", and either can meet the INTEGRITY requirements.
Chula: The Chandra randomly selects one personnel, and a dual-personnel card is drawn. Both are affected equally, so the attribute numbers of either can be used to pass the dilemma.

Dual-personnel cards are treated as single personnel only during random selections, and only during the selection (not the effect, which hits them both equally). In all other selections, a dual-personnel card is treated as two separate personnel. For example:

Reluctant Informant targets lowest INTEGRITY member of the crew or Away Team. That happens to be Nog on the card Jake and Nog. Nog is stopped. (Jake is then stopped because if either personnel on a dual-personnel card is stopped, both are stopped.)

On a succesful probe, Chula: Crossroads forces a player to choose two personnel from his or her own Away Team to be stopped. If that Away Team includes The Twin Mistresses of Evil, that player may choose to meet the dilemma's requirements by stopping Demonica and Mallica. This contains the stop to one card, but counts as stopping two personnel.
Include a dual-personnel card in all selections that are applicable to either personnel on it. It is thus possible for a dual-personnel card (such as Beverly and Will) to be randomly selected as both the male and the female for a card like Parallel Romance. (If one is selected but not the other, both are nevertheless stopped, because if either personnel on a dual-personnel card is stopped, both are stopped.)

Clarifications: Dual-Personnel Downloads
Dual-personnel cards are downloaded normally; if you download Seska (on Cullah and Seska) with Defend Homeworld, Culluh automatically downloads, too. If a card allows the download of multiple personnel, all legal targets on a dual-personnel card must count towards the limits of the download. For example, suppose you use Ferengi Conference to download CIVILIANs with up to 11 . First, you download Jake and Nog. They are both CIVILIANs and both count, using 6 of your . Then, you download Deanna Troi on The Trois, using 2 of your . (Lwaxana is not a CIVILIAN, so her do not count.)

Clarifications: Dual-Personnel Attributes and Icons
Dual-personnel cards have two classifications. 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.

Dual-personnel attributes are written as two different attributes (for example, "5+7"). Add them together for all purposes. "5+7" is simply a colorful way of writing "12".

Dual-personnel cards have skills written out separate for each character represented on the card. This is simply for flavor and has no game function.

As with other cards, it is possible for a dual-personnel card to be its own romantic partner.

Attributes, classifications, and icons on a dual-personnel card appear in the same order as the individual personnels' skills are listed. For example, on Sons of Mogh, Kurn's skills, STRENGTH (8), staffing icon ([Cmd]), and classification (OFFICER) are listed before Worf's skills, STRENGTH (10), staffing icon ([Cmd]), and classification (SECURITY).

romantic partner - a personnel card is the romantic partner of a nother personnel card if the lore (on either card) both card names (or is named by) the other partner in lore and states that they are or were "romantically involved". For example, Pel and Quark are romantic partners of one another, but Pel and Deputy Quark are not. Mr. and Mrs. Troi is a romantic partner of itself. See named in lore.

The following terms (even if preceded by "ex-") are considered equivalent to the phrase "romantically involved": "husband", "wife", "mate", "married", "wedded", "imzadi", "beloved", "bride", "mistress", "widow", "divorced".

THE IMPLICATIONS:

In random selections, a dual-personnel card is selected and dies like any other personnel card -- no need to do complicated adding or card limits or re-selections.

Sons of Mogh used to be two 3-skill personnel. Under this proposal, the card becomes a single 6-skill personnel. Hello, Hero Worship!

Similarly, Sergey and Helena used to treat Sergey and Helena as separate personnel, and thus you could download Sergey with Assign Support Personnel (and Helena would tag along). Under this proposal, Sergey and Helena are a single three-skill personnel with a special download, not a support personnel.

All downloads with dual-personnel cards just work normally under this proposal. No need for special rules or other handling anymore. They work like you expect. Go ahead and download Jake and Nog to Ferengi Conference, but that counts as 6 (it also counts as 6 today, but some players mistakenly believe it's 3 , and there is a limited exception under today's rules).

Attribute scores are always combined. "CUNNING 4+9" is a flavorful way of writing "CUNNING 13". Beverly and Will (INTEGRITY 14) can contribute their INTEGRITY to passing "God" (but you'll still need another personnel with INTEGRITY > 8!). If present with Kukalaka, their INTEGRITY becomes 16 (not 18).

Dual-personnel cards have two classifications. It's what the template does. It's unusual, but we don't see a problem with it.

A dual personnel may have multiple species. Just as Alexander Rozhenko is both Klingon species and Human species, so also Worf and Jadzia is a single personnel who is both Klingon species and Trill species.

Similarly (but it feels weirder), a dual personnel may have multiple genders. Worf and Jadzia is a single personnel who is both male and female. This card can pass Primal Urges by itself. Worf and Jadzia can be targeted by cards that target males and cards that target females (or twice, by a card that targets both males and females!) and that's just fine. (The gender rules already allow a single personnel to have multiple genders, but it's never been done before.)

A specific allowance in this proposals permits dual-personnel cards to contribute both their staffing icons to ship staffing. This is the only special rule remaining for dual-personnel cards in our proposal.

The persona rule still applies, so this proposal won't change the fact that you can't have The Trois in play at the same time as Deanna Troi or anything of that sort. Also, persona swapping for dual-personnel cards still works the same way.

Our proposal rewrites the romantic partners rule to allow a card to be its own romantic partner if indicated by lore. That means dual-personnel cards like Mr. and Mrs. Troi that were specifically designed to be romantic partners (and intuitively seem like they are) will still function correctly. This isn't necessarily just for dual personnel, either: if the CC ever makes a card out of Gross Rom from "Bar Association", that version of Rom could be his own romantic partner.

Our proposal would make The Beating Heart work less gorram weird with dual-personnel cards.

Our proposal would make dual-personnel cards each count as a single personnel, which means Sisters of Duras would be only one personnel, which means you could not use Sisters of Duras to get double matching-commander benefits on Cha'Joh (you would need separate cards for Lursa and B'Etor to get those benefits). Sisters of Duras could contribute both staffing icons, but would not both be matching commandrixes.

We shipped this proposal over to playtesting in May.

THE (SECOND) PROBLEM: MIXED FEEDBACK

Playtester feedback on our proposal over the past half-year has been mixed.

About half of testers think this proposal is a fantastic idea that greatly simplifies dual-personnel cards. They love it.

That half of testing sometimes asks me when this proposal is finally coming out.

On the other hand, about half of testers think that this proposal is either:

more confusing than current rules OR

the same amount of confusing, but effectively more confusing because everyone has to relearn the rules (again) OR

slightly less confusing but not enough to justify a big change OR

less confusing but dumbs down the game - "1E is more than draw-three-play-three-fly-to-missions-solve and pretty please stop trying to make it that way" OR

unbalancing: because their attributes are combined in the proposal, dual personnel smash dilemmas like Row, Row, Row Your Boat and Spatial Rift, and are almost always highest CUNNING/INTEGRITY/STRENGTH for cards like Hippocratic Oath and Misinterpreted History (this can be good or bad, depending on the dilemma and the team) OR

too nice to blue: in the current game, there are 7 dual-personnel cards, so everyone has access to the mechanic... but some affiliations have more access than others:

, , , , and all have zero dual-personnel cards; , , and each have 1 dual-personnel card; and each have 2; have 3; and have 9.

True, the cards are duplicative: you can't have Jean-Luc and Beverly, Beverly and Will, Mr. and Mrs. Troi, Data and Picard, and The Trois in play at the same time, because of persona conflicts. I think you can get, at most, any two of those. And they are spread out across a several subfactions, so it's probably not practical to get even most of them together in the same deck. But still has more options than any other affiliation, and people are understandably reluctant to give anything more.

Naturally, a big thanks to Playtesting for trying this out and sharing their honest feedback. All of it (on all sides) makes sense!

THE QUESTION(S) (finally!)

Unlike most situations where Playtesters try something out for us, the dual-personnel rules are something that ordinary players can think through and have an opinion on. We will always take Playtesting feedback more seriously, because it's backed by game data, not just forum theorycrafting, but this specific rules question is broad enough that we can take this particular issue out from "behind the curtain" and invite broader feedback. (Although, hey, if you go play a test game with the new proposed rule and come back with game data like the testers, that would be even better!)

We in Rules just aren't sure quite what to do about this whole thing right now. There doesn't seem to be a good way of addressing the concerns that the more negative reports revealed, at least not without spoiling the simplicity that the more enthusiastic testers responded to with such gusto. Everything we can think of to make this proposal better would also make this proposal worse. So it's starting to feel more like a binary choice: do we go ahead with this proposal despite the concerns and revise dual-personnel rules for hopefully the last time? Or so we stick with the current dual-personnel rules... most likely forever, given how long it took us to get to this point for this proposal?

Or is there some other path? Is there some way of addressing the concerns?

Does this proposed approach to dual-personnel cards seem promising enough to pursue further? Or was the whole thing a mistake? Is it actually less confusing, or is it more confusing? Is it worth it just for how many rules it allows us to delete?

Is there a way we can make everyone happy? (that would be ideal)

What should the Rules Committee do?

I can't promise we'll take any advice offered here, but Rules has been pretty stumped about the path forward for the past couple of months, so I figured it really couldn't hurt to start a 1EFQ discussion about it.

I look forward to reading your thoughts!

P.S. If anything in this post didn't make sense, ask! That in itself is useful feedback, both about current rules and the proposal.

[nobthehobbit]

So is the idea here that dual personnel will more or less be treated like Bones?

[Armus]

So is the idea here that dual personnel will more or less be treated like Bones?

With a few tweaks (e.g., attribute summation), sounds like generally yes.

[SirDan]

A lot of proposals that go by to make the game simpler eat away at the fabric of what makes 1E unique: The rich history of weird things that are part of the fabric of the game.

But also there's just complicated stuff that sounded like a good idea a the time, but would make things easier if it were extracted.

I like this proposal because it leaves the weird (dual personnel) but it lets them fit in with the rest of the game a lot smoother. Yeah, they will get past Altonian Brain Teaser. But you know what? I bet a dual personnel of Julian and Jadzia could manage it if they were stuck at the hip working together.

I'm all for this change. (And maybe those missing affiliations will get their hands on a dual personnel if they are simpler to play and understand.)

Dan

[boromirofborg]

A lot of proposals that go by to make the game simpler eat away at the fabric of what makes 1E unique: The rich history of weird things that are part of the fabric of the game.

But also there's just complicated stuff that sounded like a good idea a the time, but would make things easier if it were extracted.

I like this proposal because it leaves the weird (dual personnel) but it lets them fit in with the rest of the game a lot smoother. Yeah, they will get past Altonian Brain Teaser. But you know what? I bet a dual personnel of Julian and Jadzia could manage it if they were stuck at the hip working together.

I'm all for this change. (And maybe those missing affiliations will get their hands on a dual personnel if they are simpler to play and understand.)

Dan

I agree with this (and the proposal), I love the weird quirkiness of 1e. I don't love the weirdness that doesn't make sense OR that outweighs the enjoyability of the game.

I do think it might be interesting to make these changes alongside a release of a mini-expansion bringing dual personnel for the mission affiliations as a celebration.


Question for the group though; if we are treating as a single personnel, would we like in the future for the dual personnel to be templated that way?

As in, not calling out who has what skill, and merging the attributes to a single number?

And/or alternate images of dual personnel having it either way? (I know, greedy)

[Exon]

* Attribute scores are always combined. "CUNNING 4+9" is a flavorful way of writing "CUNNING 13". Beverly and Will (INTEGRITY 14) can contribute their INTEGRITY to passing "God" (but you'll still need another personnel with INTEGRITY > 8!). If present with Kukalaka, their INTEGRITY becomes 16 (not 18).

At first glance, this would be my biggest concern. Because right now, the individual numbers do, and should, matter. Most cards are written expecting personnel attributes to typically fall along a roughly 1-10 spectrum. Suddenly creating a class of personnel who frequently have stock attributes in the 11-20 range breaks too much.

Sure, getting +2 instead of +4 from a phaser is a small cost to your away team's total attributes. But there is a disproportionate benefit in avoiding attribute losses at the individual level.

For example, Data and Picard and The Trois face a reasonably strong combo of Distracted by Thoughts of Home + "God". Current rules: I have Integrity 7+7+5+6 = fail. New rules: I have Integrity 15 + 12 = smashing success. Suddenly I want to squeeze as many dual personnel into my deck as I can, because even the weakest of them usually have better stats than high-quality single personnel, including androids or Pendari Champions.

Other types of penalties or limitations based on number of personnel also become skewed in favor of duals (e.g., The Higher, the Fewer, The Genesis Effect).

unbalancing: because their attributes are combined in the proposal, dual personnel smash dilemmas like Row, Row, Row Your Boat and Spatial Rift, and are almost always highest CUNNING/INTEGRITY/STRENGTH for cards like Hippocratic Oath and Misinterpreted History (this can be good or bad, depending on the dilemma and the team)

More dilemmas that would be impacted. Admittedly, not all are top tier cards to begin with, but still, this is a significant power swing:

El-Adrel Creature
Wind Dancer
Flash Plasma Storm (goes from killing 13/20 to 0/20 dual personnel!)
Firestorm (8/20 to 2/20)
Kazon Bomb (16/20 to 2/20)
Common Thief (15/20 to 1/20 targets)
Malfunctioning Door
Angry Mob
Dejaren
Drumhead
Trabe Grenade
Framed for Murder
Lethean Telepathic Attack
Twisted
Chula: The Dice
Chula: The Door
The Clown: Beneath the Mask
Gorn Encounter
Paralyzed by Fear
The Weak Will Perish
Clan People
Altonian Brain Teaser
Enemies of the State
A Crime of Passion

With this change, how would one write any future cards looking at individual personnel attributes that wouldn't either be too harsh against non-duals or too weak against duals?

[Armus]

* Attribute scores are always combined. "CUNNING 4+9" is a flavorful way of writing "CUNNING 13". Beverly and Will (INTEGRITY 14) can contribute their INTEGRITY to passing "God" (but you'll still need another personnel with INTEGRITY > 8!). If present with Kukalaka, their INTEGRITY becomes 16 (not 18).

At first glance, this would be my biggest concern. Because right now, the individual numbers do, and should, matter. Most cards are written expecting personnel attributes to typically fall along a roughly 1-10 spectrum. Suddenly creating a class of personnel who frequently have stock attributes in the 11-20 range breaks too much.

Sure, getting +2 instead of +4 from a phaser is a small cost to your away team's total attributes. But there is a disproportionate benefit in avoiding attribute losses at the individual level.

For example, Data and Picard and The Trois face a reasonably strong combo of Distracted by Thoughts of Home + "God". Current rules: I have Integrity 7+7+5+6 = fail. New rules: I have Integrity 15 + 12 = smashing success. Suddenly I want to squeeze as many dual personnel into my deck as I can, because even the weakest of them usually have better stats than high-quality single personnel, including androids or Pendari Champions.

Other types of penalties or limitations based on number of personnel also become skewed in favor of duals (e.g., The Higher, the Fewer, The Genesis Effect).

unbalancing: because their attributes are combined in the proposal, dual personnel smash dilemmas like Row, Row, Row Your Boat and Spatial Rift, and are almost always highest CUNNING/INTEGRITY/STRENGTH for cards like Hippocratic Oath and Misinterpreted History (this can be good or bad, depending on the dilemma and the team)

More dilemmas that would be impacted. Admittedly, not all are top tier cards to begin with, but still, this is a significant power swing:

El-Adrel Creature
Wind Dancer
Flash Plasma Storm (goes from killing 13/20 to 0/20 dual personnel!)
Firestorm (8/20 to 2/20)
Kazon Bomb (16/20 to 2/20)
Common Thief (15/20 to 1/20 targets)
Malfunctioning Door
Angry Mob
Dejaren
Drumhead
Trabe Grenade
Framed for Murder
Lethean Telepathic Attack
Twisted
Chula: The Dice
Chula: The Door
The Clown: Beneath the Mask
Gorn Encounter
Paralyzed by Fear
The Weak Will Perish
Clan People
Altonian Brain Teaser
Enemies of the State
A Crime of Passion

With this change, how would one write any future cards looking at individual personnel attributes that wouldn't either be too harsh against non-duals or too weak against duals?

Counterpoint: what design space opens up if the standard general 1-10 has more exceptions? Maybe a dilemma that targets dual personnel (maybe a better version of Divided Loyalties, for example) or a wall that "big" personnel can't get past...

(Sidebar: since Miri is one of those few episodes that currently don't have any cards, maybe "No Grups!" or "Bonk! Bonk!" could provide some good source material for such a card... cc:@KazonPADD)

Maybe if done in conjunction with some in-game answers to these power costs, this change can reap the benefits of the rules simplification while not breaking the game at an unreasonable level.

[Exon]

Counterpoint: what design space opens up if the standard general 1-10 has more exceptions? Maybe a dilemma that targets dual personnel (maybe a better version of Divided Loyalties, for example) or a wall that "big" personnel can't get past...

(Sidebar: since Miri is one of those few episodes that currently don't have any cards, maybe "No Grups!" or "Bonk! Bonk!" could provide some good source material for such a card... cc:@KazonPADD)

Maybe if done in conjunction with some in-game answers to these power costs, this change can reap the benefits of the rules simplification while not breaking the game at an unreasonable level.

I do think there's room for more anti-high attribute/power cards, and more pro-low attribute/power cards.

But there's such a wide gap between even the best single personnel and the average dual personnel that I'm having trouble envisioning how to address it fairly in practice, without creating "magic bullets" aimed at duals (of which Divided Loyalties is sort of a weak version).

It seems like solving a complicated, but niche, rules issue by creating a larger-scale gameplay balance issue without obvious answers.

[Daimyoshi]

As a Player that Favours Traditional play this proposal is interesting and clearly I have less to worry about than some because I not really worried about future cards. I seem to be ok with it but remain a little unsure about it, mostly because of my format experence.

[KazonPADD]

I agree with Exon. I dislike the change because of the easy dilemma busting that comes with it (in particular Row, Row, Row Your Boat, "God", Enemies of the State, Clan People, etc), a feature that surprise surprise would heavily benefit the Federation, who seriously do not need ANY help right now.

2 personnel on 1 card works. It might be a little tricky for newbies to understand at first, but it works. 2 cards on 1 personnel leads to it being broken, and would force the CC to not make any more dual personnel.

I’d like this proposal to die in a fire frankly.

[Corbinq27]

The proposal is fantastic! I love the way it solves a very very complicated problem with a very simple solution. Cheers to that.

The actual game implications found especially around dilemmas seem like they need further discussion. Are the dilemmas popular? If the dilemmas become “useless” is that so bad? Do the dilemmas need errata or simply do newer dilemmas need to come out just take their place?

Games evolve. That’s an ok thing.

[Hoss-Drone]

I would be in favor of this IF AND ONLY IF it was not implemented until design was able to create cards that interacted with the new rules reality. Dilemmas that filter them, hammer them, etc and other cards that require them and others that punish them.

Saltah'na Discord


Seeds on table. When revealed all players must personna swap all dual personnel in play. (Downloading as necessary). Discard any dual personnel that were not swapped.


Saltah'na encounter

Disable all dual personnel on planet. Opponent may download to your away team Saltah'na Clock here (as if earned). Cannot get past unless you have two separate away teams on planet.

[BCSWowbagger]

I cross-posted this to the Facebook group, where some interesting discussion has happened as well: https://www.facebook.com/groups/stccg/p ... 136489216/

[Armus]

I cross-posted this to the Facebook group, where some interesting discussion has happened as well: https://www.facebook.com/groups/stccg/p ... 136489216/

Any chance we can get a transcript/screenshots for those of us who haven't been Assimilated into the collective?

[BCSWowbagger]

Reasonable! I'll skip my comments because they're mostly just "thanks for the feedback!" (sincerely meant but not interesting enough to repost):

This proposal makes me very unhappy. I would like for nothing to change and for design to just deal with it.

They’re basically the same reasons I opposed the Q-flash changes. I’m fundamentally very jealous of 1e’s built-in nostalgia-driven player base (I’m one of them!), which is something that 2e just doesn’t have. Changes like these don’t appear to have much upside to me, while having the tremendous downside of reducing the overall nostalgia of the game.

That said, this change is no where near as cataclysmic as the Q-flash change, but it still sure doesn’t spark joy.

I think I fall under “* the same amount of confusing, but *effectively* more confusing because everyone has to relearn the rules (again)”

I think this is a fantastic way of handling the rules and simplifies things.

I think the proposal makes sense and is easy to implement and opens the door for more cards.

my old playgroup always treated duel personnel as one person, the only difference was attributes, we would select who on the personal card we would be using before attempting missions. So in most cases Picard & Data. I am attempting a mission that requires high strength, then I using data attributes, even though Picard is there only data's would be relevant, same for skills, etc. *shrugs* we found it easier that way, but for all other instances like random selection or opponents choice they are one card, and one person

In house rules I’ve been treating them like one person but my game frequency is low and the folks I play with are also just learning

Why not just ban dual personnel from OTF?

when I think of 1E and all the card combinations the only dual personnel card that has an impact on other cards is George and Gracie. I will be honest, thinking about how to solve this problem the first thing I ask myself is, what would Decipher do? Then I thought of how they started making incidents to take the rules out of the rulebook, ie Cybernetics Expertise. Then I thought of why not make cards that represent both personnel of a dual personnel card and have them be persona of each other. Then create a dual-personnel side deck. If at anytime an effect would target/resolve against only one personnel of a dual personnel card replace.the dual personnel card with it's replacement pair.

Very interesting to see the thought process. It basically falls into the "1E is a mess" category. I'm so glad they avoided Dual personnel in 2E, it was a very wise decision. I never actually played with Dual personnel myself. It was a nice thing for collecting purpose, but in term of gameplay, it just feel like too much trouble. I think your proposal simplify things, but in the end, it's imperfect (as any proposal would be). The idea of having combined stats feels simple, but makes some ridiculous situations ("sure, Jake and Nog are as strong as Ben Sisko..."). The only solution to fix the problem entirely is to ban them from the game, but even then, it's not a great solution... Good luck with this "dilemma"! It's harder to pass than most dilemmas in the game! Cheers!

Generally I don't ever use Dual Personnel anyway. Fun to collect, but a PITA to use.

1) This is a good change. It is logical, fair, and balanced. I approve.

2) Not the entire player base is going to be happy, this cannot be helped.

3) Since a primary of the current state of the game is to support fair and structured tournament play, that should be the focus.

4) For those complaining the game is becoming too easy? The only way to keep this game alive is to recruit new blood into the hobby. Gatekeeping the game with over complexity hurts the community, and thus the game. If you need more depth to satisfy YOUR needs, please add it yourself at home. Likewise, if the game is still too hard as is, one can simplify it at home. Forcing everyone to play it YOUR way is not the answer.

First of all, thanks for sharing this. It's important to occasionally get some insight like this.

My first instinct to this proposed change is to reject it. Without going into too much detail, just some stream-of-consciousness things that went through my mind after having read your detailed post (wall of text incoming):

- How can I use this rule change to power-game more? This allows me to dump even more stats on the table with Brunt's Shuttle, T'Ong, and to a lesser extent single STP-drop decks. Wall dilemmas that require attributes might fall a turn earlier, might accelerate the speed at which some decks can win by a turn.

- Otoh, I can no longer double-boost guys. Makes my Bluegilled Worf and Jadzia hit squad sad...

- I'm definitely not going through all my youtube videos to double-check how many of the things I've published will now be illegal without people realizing. There is precious little content out there, I'd hate to see somebody who's found their way (back) to the game be put off because stuff they've seen from me turns out to be a load of bollocks now

- The point about having to forget part of the rules and re-learning the new way being as difficult as learning from scratch is definitely valid. I would argue changing old habits/rules knowledge is even more challenging, at least at this point in my life I feel that way.

- I'd imagine that for every person who finds it a tad easier to get into the game because of a perceived simplification to one of the many obscure rules issues, you risk alienating those existing players who don't have the time to stay on top of those things by making their decks unplayable. This change has effects that can outright make a deck unplayable (relying on ASP to set up Love Café and Duck Blind). You WILL have situations where players find out the hard way that their deck can only draw one card per turn after all, instead of three.

- While I would love the game to grow again in terms of players, it has always been my feeling that keeping the existing player base happy and enthusiastic enough to teach others is healthier for the game than driving them away bit by bit and hoping to make up for that by potential newcomers. This is not a dying game, this is a dead game. When I play, I don't see myself as much as trying to reanimate or revitalize it, but rather as honouring its memory and sing songs about its glory

- Nostalgia IS an important factor. The proposed change is probably a simplification of the game. At the same time, it takes something away that makes it special (and unwieldy, and strange, and frustrating, and...bad, at times), but personally I'm not overly interested in stripping away all those trappings bit by bit to end up with a very different game. If I wanted to just move cards with Trek pictures around, I can find other things. This has never been an easy game, always weird. You could of course try to apply more modern game design principles to it and end up with a "better" game, but the more 1E goes into that direction, the more it will likely drive me away from it. Mind you, not because the proposed change - and similar ones that have happened in the past or might come after - are bad, but just not my personal preference or reason why I love this game.

Would I continue to play this game despite the change? Oh, certainly.

Would I vote to adopt this change if the CC simply put it up for public vote (why don't they do that anyway if they find themselves at impasse?)? Probably not. But I would read what others think about it, and could see myself voting whichever way if I feel might help to keep as many of friends/current players around for the future.

So the forum conversation has gravitated toward concern about attributes, but the Facebook conversation has gravitated more toward complexity / learning issues.