This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634046
Maybe I missed the collection of feedback on Remastered sets, or maybe there was no collection of feedback, just a lot of vocal people complaining about them, but I feel like I am not alone in liking remastered sets. Feel free to share your positive feelings towards remastered sets here. Negative feelings are also valid but it seems they have already been heard since we aren't getting any more remastered sets, so lets stick with positivity for Remastered sets here.
User avatar
 
By sekce31
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634053
I am glad it makes rare cards more accessible. I just wish sometimes balance team would take part in it more and make some folder fodder viable, but that's just me and I accept that general sentiment wants to keep Impassable Door absolutely passable. :shrug: :D
User avatar
 
By sekce31
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634055
Ashigaru wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 2:24 pm Repeating my suggestion, not for a Remastered set, but a Revisited set.
I am OK with whatever nomenclature we will give it, but my strive for real buffing the most useless cards in the game directly (and not by adding new cards to enable them) is still strong. In the meantime and back to the original topic. I thing this is good work and more sets would deserve similar treatment, although I am not sure which one is most "desperate".

My favourite would be remaster of First Contact, combined with - making [EE] a proper era icon instead of strange hybrid it is know. And making First contact set icon only (i.e. solving the riddle of staffing Enterprise-E differently than now). And also... remaking Borg, who the game treats wery differently and it is not always that great. But that would be truly great effort and again going against general sentiment to keep things as much as it once was (while moving forward which is well tough to do at the same time).
 
By Dunnagh (Andreas Micheel)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Contender
#634108
sekce31 wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 2:04 pm I am glad it makes rare cards more accessible. I just wish sometimes balance team would take part in it more and make some folder fodder viable, but that's just me and I accept that general sentiment wants to keep Impassable Door absolutely passable. :shrug: :D
Cards like these are important for limited formats where having a Computer Skill might be at least a bit difficult.
User avatar
 
By sekce31
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634114
Dunnagh wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 1:09 am Cards like these are important for limited formats where having a Computer Skill might be at least a bit difficult.
Even in some limited format, you have some choice to use one dilemma or another, right. So unless you are - I don't know in a draft - and you only have just so dilemmas so Impassable door is choice between this or nothing, I can hardly imagine a dilemma less useful. I can see that some cards might be useful - in some scenarios - but I have trouble to see it with this one. (To add insult to injury, consider the name of the card.) But hey. The sentiment is to keep Raise the Stakes in the ban list, the sentiment is to keep many cards in the folder forever. Why not. There is still plenty to choose from. I am just saying, if it were up to me, I would be more radical when there is so much work going into a remake.
User avatar
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#634124
sekce31 wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 2:04 pm I am glad it makes rare cards more accessible. I just wish sometimes balance team would take part in it more and make some folder fodder viable, but that's just me and I accept that general sentiment wants to keep Impassable Door absolutely passable. :shrug: :D
I agree that it would be nice if opportunity was taken in these remastered sets to correct stuff that has *long* been superseded. Like Major Rakal's [1E-AU] , or Evek, Ocett, Madred, Bok, Dr. Farek, and Dr. Reyga being [NA] instead of their respective affiliations.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634174
Caffinicus wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 1:05 pm
sekce31 wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 2:04 pm I am glad it makes rare cards more accessible. I just wish sometimes balance team would take part in it more and make some folder fodder viable, but that's just me and I accept that general sentiment wants to keep Impassable Door absolutely passable. :shrug: :D
I agree that it would be nice if opportunity was taken in these remastered sets to correct stuff that has *long* been superseded. Like Major Rakal's [1E-AU] , or Evek, Ocett, Madred, Bok, Dr. Farek, and Dr. Reyga being [NA] instead of their respective affiliations.
:thumbsup:
 
By jrch5618
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#634175
Ba'el was shown in Premiere Remastered to be Kli/Rom. It's possible that the Ferengi and Cardassians in Premiere Remastered will be NA/Fer and NA/Car respectively.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634177
jrch5618 wrote: Sun Dec 29, 2024 11:37 pm Ba'el was shown in Premiere Remastered to be Kli/Rom. It's possible that the Ferengi and Cardassians in Premiere Remastered will be NA/Fer and NA/Car respectively.
I'm pretty sure they said they didn't do that. Ba'el is the only one they did that for.
User avatar
First Edition Creative Manager
By KazonPADD (Paddy Tye)
 - First Edition Creative Manager
 -  
1E British National Champion 2024
1E Omarion Nebula Regional Champion 2024
#634186
Correct. Evek, Farek, Reyga etc already have affiliated versions available. Ba’el was a separate case.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#634201
sekce31 wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 8:00 am
Dunnagh wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 1:09 am Cards like these are important for limited formats where having a Computer Skill might be at least a bit difficult.
Even in some limited format, you have some choice to use one dilemma or another, right. So unless you are - I don't know in a draft - and you only have just so dilemmas so Impassable door is choice between this or nothing, I can hardly imagine a dilemma less useful.
Depends on the format. In OTSD draft, you usually don't have a full 30 seed slots so there's no reason not to add it in. Maybe you'll get lucky.

In more general terms, you can't have good cards without bad cards for them to be better than. And we can always make new cards - Stuck Door, Unopenable Door, Door Where There's This Trick to Get It To Open, etc. We have over a dozen Picards, after all - why can't the same logic apply to verbs?

(Although it would be really interesting if we just told Design "No, if you want a new Picard you have to errata an old one"... :shifty: )
User avatar
 
By sekce31
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#634231
AllenGould wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2024 1:19 pm In more general terms, you can't have good cards without bad cards for them to be better than.
So, according to this we should probably intentionally create few bad cards in each set, to produce some good, right. I do not deny, that some cards might end stronger than others, but this is not a good enough reason to left complet "duds" without change and not make them better.
AllenGould wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2024 1:19 pmAnd we can always make new cards.
Sure. Or we can repair what is wrong. When you have a leak in your house do you buy a new house or do you call for a plumber? :shrug:
AllenGould wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2024 1:19 pm(Although it would be really interesting if we just told Design "No, if you want a new Picard you have to errata an old one"... :shifty: )
Isn't it a bit straw man argument? There is nothing wrong with any Picard card I am aware. And there was a version that was not working as intended (which is the case with a dilemma, that pretty much is not doing anything) well, I would want it to be repaired. Why the hell should the game have Picard card that you keep in the folder and not playing?

Or the more general question. Why sould game have many cards that are basically not played at all? What sense does it make, especially in situation where there is no profit in printing new sets? (Which is why power creep might be happening in for-profit games.)

(Also, I suppose - altough I might be wrong - that it is easier to just change text on that in doing a new one from scratch.)
User avatar
Director of Operations
 - Director of Operations
 -  
Architect
#634239
sekce31 wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2024 4:50 am So, according to this we should probably intentionally create few bad cards in each set, to produce some good, right. I do not deny, that some cards might end stronger than others, but this is not a good enough reason to left complet "duds" without change and not make them better.
Games where you simply have to pick the strongest cards/factions/strategies to win are boring and personally, just something that I have very little interest in, particularly from a competitive play standpoint. I can grudgingly acknowledge why a designer would want to set that kind of environment up in a for-profit game, but I don't see any reason why that would be desirable in the current ST:CCG setup. In fact, we have evidence that it's not.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#634246
sekce31 wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2024 4:50 am Or the more general question. Why sould game have many cards that are basically not played at all? What sense does it make, especially in situation where there is no profit in printing new sets?
Because if all the cards in the game are used, you have a box set? :shrug:

Ignoring the "profit", card evaluation is a skill, which feeds into this skill-based game. If all cards work and are fine and are roughly equal, where is the skill?
1EFQ: Love Machine

Babies. "Once each turn, stop your cou[…]

Personnel rating system

:thumbsup:

MN 2025 Gatherings

Thank you for grabbing the torch, you good man. I[…]

My flawed deck loses to Remo ML 30-65 W[…]