[Discovery suxs]

It seems like everyone in star trek ccg is known people. It would be nice to have some lesser known personnel in the game. Star trek 4 always brings up the unphased cop. He could report for free on the whales time location. Personnel with not very good attributes could come in handy for alot of dilemmas. chula door for example. It would help to provide filler in the sets too.

Unphased cop
Int 4
Cun 3
Str 3
Skill security
Classification sercuity
So unphased cop would actually be worth playing honestly.

[KazonPADD]

I took a while to twig that "unphased" was nothing to do with being in or out of phase (The Next Phase, Time's Arrow, etc). Stoic cop might be a better description!

What about "Alameda woman" from the same scene?

[Discovery suxs]

I took a while to twig that "unphased" was nothing to do with being in or out of phase (The Next Phase, Time's Arrow, etc). Stoic cop might be a better description!

What about "Alameda woman" from the same scene?

Stoic cop might be better. I would of put a picture but that is against the rules of this forum.

Alameda woman could be a civilian with medical 232. I think all generic personnel should be mission specialist except for a few cards you would call rare of course.

[SudenKapala]

Actually, I thought "unphased" was really funny as a joke-name, but I do see the confusion it brings to the board in this franchise, so "stoic" it would have been.

However... Do you really, specifically, want them NOT to have names (and instead, have only a generic description)?

In that case:

No. Nope. Uh-huh. No.

I hate that! ( )

Star Wars CCG did that; cards like Rebel Trooper, Stormtrooper, Such-and-such Technician, etc. -- and it is one of the reasons that STCCG appeals to me more. SWCCG did mention imagined names for such characters in their lore, but it was not the same to me.

E.g., ❖ Jace Michaels was given that name -- he is not named in the episode! -- because the actor's name is Michael Jacen. I really appreciate that he has a name. He's in my deck, and I wouldn't want a guy who's called "Token Executive Officer" in my deck. His name is Robert Paulson Jace (or Commander Michaels).

In the same vein, the name Thomas McClure was given by Decipher. (He is not ❖ , though.) Which became a funny story later, but -- there's many examples of course, of names that Decipher and TCC thought up. (But I also really like how Suzanne Dumont was a name/lore they took from an actual TNG episode.)

So, while I'd support such personnel, I'd be opposed to create them without a proper name. Let's think of one for the "stoic cop" -- which can be in his lore. "Unphased", too.

Officer Small. (Too obvious?)
Officer Laffalotte. (He had NO sense of humour, IIRC; but too obvious?)
Officer Sam Crowe. (Because a biker cop -- SAMCRO -- Sons Of Anarchy MC Redwood Original. I like that one.)

There's so many ways to go with names! This was only a quick stroll down "funny" lane.

[GooeyChewie]

Star Wars CCG did that; cards like Rebel Trooper, Stormtrooper, Such-and-such Technician, etc. -- and it is one of the reasons that STCCG appeals to me more. SWCCG did mention imagined names for such characters in their lore, but it was not the same to me.

That's funny to me, because i played Star Wars CCG first. Switching over to Star Trek, the idea that non-unique characters had unique names felt really out of place to me.

[SudenKapala]

Star Wars CCG did that; cards like Rebel Trooper, Stormtrooper, Such-and-such Technician, etc. -- and it is one of the reasons that STCCG appeals to me more. SWCCG did mention imagined names for such characters in their lore, but it was not the same to me.

That's funny to me, because i played Star Wars CCG first. Switching over to Star Trek, the idea that non-unique characters had unique names felt really out of place to me.

It's a matter of taste, of course... Something stuck in the eye of the beholder, or some such...

Do you still play SWCCG?

[Discovery suxs]

I honestly think it is weird when characters you know the episode where they are from in your head. They are universal in the game. I much rather have lt. Grant be a unique personnel and have red shirt no 1 as universial personnel in the game.

It was easier to do in star wars especially for people that had helmets. They were just pawns in star wars. Why should they have names?

[SudenKapala]

It was easier to do in star wars especially for people that had helmets. They were just pawns in star wars. Why should they have names?

I thought about mentioning that, too... But only the Imps have helmets. Of the Rebels, you can see their faces.

Which reminds me -- why do the most military of Starfleet's forces, like the MACOs and the infantry/marines we see in DS9 sporadically, not have helmets or armour!? Their thin-looking suits could perhaps be crafted really sturdy -- but there IS the lach of head protection.

[Discovery suxs]

It was easier to do in star wars especially for people that had helmets. They were just pawns in star wars. Why should they have names?

I thought about mentioning that, too... But only the Imps have helmets. Of the Rebels, you can see their faces.

Which reminds me -- why do the most military of Starfleet's forces, like the MACOs and the infantry/marines we see in DS9 sporadically, not have helmets or armour!? Their thin-looking suits could perhaps be crafted really sturdy -- but there IS the lach of head protection.

I feel like the last part is a question you should ask in all trek.

[SudenKapala]

It was easier to do in star wars especially for people that had helmets. They were just pawns in star wars. Why should they have names?

I thought about mentioning that, too... But only the Imps have helmets. Of the Rebels, you can see their faces.

Which reminds me -- why do the most military of Starfleet's forces, like the MACOs and the infantry/marines we see in DS9 sporadically, not have helmets or armour!? Their thin-looking suits could perhaps be crafted really sturdy -- but there IS the lach of head protection.

I feel like the last part is a question you should ask in all trek.

Perhaps you're right -- but I always have so many questions, and not all demand -- or are worth -- their own subjects.
C'mon, let's have it got over with -- 2 or 3 people may answer my question on the side, and then get on with your topic. That's how it usually goes. (And as you may have seen -- I've, at times, eventually steered back to the OP myself, if need be.)

But if you really hate it that my question about lack of Blue Helmets mucks up your thread, I'll apologize herewith -- and perhaps make a new thread elsewhere when I get back around to changing my "no one there"-avatar into a "present" one again. (I.e., I hope to remain AFK for the weekend. Discipline permitting.)

[/ At the next TCCFAA meeting: "I am Suden and I am a CC Forum addict."]

[Discovery suxs]

I said ask the question in all trek. It needs love too. I'm taking over dream cards. Since this forum is buried and needs a resQ by me.

[GooeyChewie]

Do you still play SWCCG?

Sadly, no. I was a teenager throughout most of its life cycle, which meant I had a limited collection. Their player's committee requires physical cards, so I can't really make decks. If they could allow players to print everything and make full new cards like the CC does, I'd play. But I assume they face more legal obstacles in that department.

Which reminds me -- why do the most military of Starfleet's forces, like the MACOs and the infantry/marines we see in DS9 sporadically, not have helmets or armour!? Their thin-looking suits could perhaps be crafted really sturdy -- but there IS the lach of head protection.

In Star Trek, a phaser and vaporize an enemy. Armor would provide no protection from such weapons. Worse yet, it could restrict the movements of the wearer, making them even more vulnerable to phaser fire. It's the same reason modern armies don't wear plate mail or chain mail any more. That stuff is good against Stone Knives and Bear Skins, but not contemporary weaponry.

[SudenKapala]

I said ask the question in all trek. It needs love too. I'm taking over dream cards. Since this forum is buried and needs a resQ by me.

I'm not sure what your intentions are with this. You want me to stay away from Dream Cards, because you took over? (No, that doesn't sound like you.) And/or you want me to breathe new life into All Trek? (Yeah, that sounds right.) But I don't feel this forum needs Res-Q'ing, myself. The life you bring into this place is fine for me peronally -- but also, enough. And while I'm conservative with starting threads, I do have some planned. (Not in All Trek, though. And maybe not this week.)

Do you still play SWCCG?

Sadly, no. [...]

Me, I should say, "not yet". Always collected the cards (a bit less fanatic than ST) but I never really played; couldn't even get theoretically get used to the game. Yet. Want to, though.
But ST was an instant hit with me, gameplay-wise. I loved it from the 1st game -- the Premiere rules, and the rule booklet, made it seem easy and intiutive. Little did I know.

Their player's committee requires physical cards, so I can't really make decks. If they could allow players to print everything and make full new cards like the CC does, I'd play. But I assume they face more legal obstacles in that department.

That's what I also always assumed -- and part of my reasons, too. It's a shame.

Which reminds me -- why

do the most military of Starfleet's forces, like the MACOs and the infantry/marines we see in DS9 sporadically,

not have helmets or armour!?

Their thin-looking suits could perhaps be crafted really sturdy -- but there IS the lachk of head protection.

In Star Trek, a phaser and [disruptor?] vaporize an enemy. Armor would provide no protection from such weapons.

Worse yet, it could restrict the movements of the wearer, making them even more vulnerable to phaser fire. It's the same reason modern armies don't wear plate mail or chain mail any more. That stuff is good against Stone Knives and Bear Skins, but not contemporary weaponry.

That seems logical, in a way. I should've thought of that. But didn't. Which makes you a smart person. (And which makes me not-at-all want to start a dedicated thread on the issue.)

OTOH... Is there really no material, whatsoever, that hampers those beams? And are portable shield units not an option? Well, prolly not. But it just feels funny, still, that those soldier-type Feds run around in near-pyamas...

And now. Back to topic, lest the wrath of the OP be unleash'd upon us?