[dragoncymru]

I would like to explore how changing 1 or 2 words on a card could ripple out and effect the game in a major way - possibly for the good...

I can see 2 cards that nearly all decks use: AMS and LD.

So here's the premise:

AMS: Remove the 'Seed or' from start of the card.

LD: Make it only +1 to stats, only +2 if Personnel has Youth.

Thoughts on the impact on decks in the game...??

[Lobo]

-The more of your comments i read, the more i think you just really want to play 2e but are afraid to commit to it.

Which is to say, a different game than the 1e we have currently.

It's okay, just take the plunge ;^)

[dragoncymru]

No I REALLY want to play 1e but I can see it has issues.

Some of these were addressed in 2e, but for me (aside from the cards themselves and their reduced availability) is that they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Needing a card to attack - ugh!

Reducing span on cards, 1 less Mission - ugh

Costing cards, staffing ships - great!

But....what about my question...?

[Smiley]

If AMS were designed today, The card would have been 3-4 different cards and only do parts of each (with other mechanics attached).

When the card came out, it was needed to make the one skilled people be played. Later, this changed as they became better and better over time.

[Smiley]

If AMS were designed today, The card would have been 3-4 different cards and only do parts of each (with other mechanics attached).

When the card came out, it was needed to make the one skilled people be played. Later, this changed as they became better and better over time.

[AllenGould]

When the card came out, it was needed to make the one skilled people be played. Later, this changed as they became better and better over time.

The personnel didn't get better, we just got more options. Which is a good lesson - if you're making a card to make the "bad" cards "good", and then start making more "bad" cards (so they work with your mechanic), you have probably done something wrong along the way.

[Smiley]

Yes, I might have misjudged the use of "better and better" as I was talking about the concept and not the specific personnel. =)

[stressedoutatumc]

I would like to explore how changing 1 or 2 words on a card could ripple out and effect the game in a major way - possibly for the good...

I can see 2 cards that nearly all decks use: AMS and LD.

So here's the premise:

AMS: Remove the 'Seed or' from start of the card.

LD: Make it only +1 to stats, only +2 if Personnel has Youth.

Thoughts on the impact on decks in the game...??

But, WHY though? What's the problem that changing those two cards in the way you are proposing supposed to solve?

I would offer that Assign Mission Specialists's nerf was a good compromise for the Bonus Point Problem with still keeping the spirit of the card in place. What do you think it's still breaking? Just being able to start with a couple of folks?

Same with Lower Decks. What is that breaking that necessitates a change?

[dragoncymru]

It seems that almost ALL decks are built with these two cards.

Take a look.

That means they are too good. Either invent cards to balance them (bad idea but that's what Decipher did ad nauseum) or (better) modify them so that playing without them is doable.

Dozens of cards have had errata over time. These 2 are LONG overdue.

[AllenGould]

It seems that almost ALL decks are built with these two cards.

Take a look.

Well, they're definitely popular/staples, but they're not 1 and 2. If you're looking for "in every deck", then I would point your attention to Dead End, Friendly Fire, Q's Tent, and Defend Homeworld - all have seen more play than either of those two.

And even the #1 Q's Tent is only 446/877 decks (just over 50% of decks). AMS is under 30%, and Lower Decks is less than that. Hardly "almost all decks".

[dragoncymru]

OK - I stand corrected, but it seemed to be all the decks I looked at.

[stressedoutatumc]

It seems that almost ALL decks are built with these two cards.

Take a look.

That means they are too good. Either invent cards to balance them (bad idea but that's what Decipher did ad nauseum) or (better) modify them so that playing without them is doable.

Dozens of cards have had errata over time. These 2 are LONG overdue.

I don't think it's a healthy move to alter or ban or whatever cards just because they get used a lot. Only if they are used alot and creating an imbalance, whichis what I was asking you to identify. Most games don't do that. MTG doesn't ban land just because it's used in almost every deck, nor did they ban Raging Goblin or Birds of Paradise or Mox's (when they were in-block) just because they were good and people used them. No offense dude, but that's a silly argument. Change cards for no reason other than people use them? Common dude.

[dragoncymru]

Well, both of them were on the 'watchlist' for a while so others must have had concerns over power levels?

[stressedoutatumc]

Well, both of them were on the 'watchlist' for a while so others must have had concerns over power levels?

Maybe. I've noticed it's really easy to get placed on the watchlist. AMS for sure because of bonus points. Lower Decks, I'm unsure of but its usually listed.

I'm not trying to be completely dismissive, but it does seem now that, for the 3rd time, you've balked at letting everyone know what problem YOU think the current build of the cards are causing? Yep, they are used alot. But most engines need cards to start and AMS is one of a few choices to make that happen. Lower Decks does boost attributes, but it's only useful for roughly half (I'm not really sure of the split, but it doesn't affect everyone universally like a Kukulaka, PADD, or Firearm does.

[dragoncymru]

I think I'm entitled to an opinion at least...

If you don't agree, that's fine. Your opinion is important too

The thread was supposed to ellicit discussion rather than be critical.