User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#587080
VioletBlaze wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:12 pm You may be on to something, what if all ❖ missions could seed in any quadrant?
There's too many of them that tie in to lore, I think. Patrol Neutral Zone comes up first. Study Badlands.

So the next fix would be ❖ that aren't in regions. But at this point I think the rule would be getting kinda complicated.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#587086
It's easier to justify for missions with no point box. The quadrant rule for missions says something like (not checking rn) "mission quadrant is determines by the symbol in its point box. Triangle = Delta, M = Mirror, no symbol = Alpha. A mission with no point box, like Nebula, seeds in the Alpha Quadrant."

It would be both logical and grammatically simple to change that to say, "A mission with no point box, like Nebula, can seed in any quadrant."

Other changes could not be as smooth as that.

Fwiw, me in 2021: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=43667&p=546981&hil ... nt#p546981
BCSWowbagger wrote:So today's question: What is your favorite rule that isn't a rule anymore?

Mine is the old rule that missions without a point box ( ❖ Space, ❖ Nebula) could seed in any quadrant. I thought that was elegant and kinda nifty.
Rules has never looked at restoring it for two simple reasons: (1) nothing made it a priority to come off my punch list (my personal fondness for it isn't compelling) and (2) I didn't think it had enough support to win a consensus at the R.C..

The usual rebuttal is, "Why not use this as an opportunity to make NEW Space and Nebula cards for the other quadrants?" However, I, speaking for myself, find this unpersuasive: (1) this doesn't help the main thing people want to do this for, which is pollute opponent's spaceline, which was the original intent of Space it seems to me (2) design has shown zero interest in doing this after lo these many years (and who can blame them? It's six card slots on basically two cards that are likely to fail testing anyway), and (3) the mission template itself doesn't support it. (Where do you put the Delta symbol on a mission with no point box? And now you have to rewrite the rule as well.)

I feel like I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, but if some other Rules Committee member wanted to bring it up, I'd love to slap an initial discussion on the R.C.'s November agenda.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#587194
Klauser said a couple years ago it was due to a transient balance issue: viewtopic.php?p=524060#p524060
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#605702
I unstickied this thread like, five minutes ago, because nobody used it for its intended purpose, and then all of a sudden you use it for its intended purpose?! Coincidence?!

Anyway. Yes, I think that clarifying that rule would be good and it is on our agenda.
User avatar
 
By admiral-mogh (Jorn Engstrom)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
#605704
BCSWowbagger wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:50 am I unstickied this thread like, five minutes ago, because nobody used it for its intended purpose, and then all of a sudden you use it for its intended purpose?! Coincidence?!

Anyway. Yes, I think that clarifying that rule would be good and it is on our agenda.
I just found this thread, so pure coincidence! :D

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

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[…]