[Faithful Reader]

Effective immediately, we are issuing the following emergency errata for Change of Venue, 49 V 12. Please use the following text for it:

When you play this event, if you have a lower score than each of your opponents, it is cost -4. Choose an opponent's dilemma or event on one of your non-headquarters missions. Place that card on one of your opponent's non-headquarters missions. Destroy this event.

A problem was discovered over the weekend necessitating this change. The card was always meant to be defensive. If you get a Biogenic Weapon on a mission you want to solve quickly, you have a means of moving it, for example. It was never meant to be used on offensively against your opponent.

One playgroup played Expand the Collective and then used Change of Venue to move that event to an opponent’s mission. Because you are placing Expand the Collective and not playing it, you aren’t limited by the quadrant or point requirements. From there, you can attempt and solve your opponent’s mission and make it possible for them not to win the game. This was nicknamed 'Mission Stealing in 2E!' It’s a horrible interaction and very much a negative play experience.

It got worse looking at Ignored Jurisdiction. That card will entirely shut down Voyager, Khan and Relativity from the very first turn of the game, making it impossible for them to even play. That’s one of the main series of Star Trek!

This came in just as the window was closed to join Devinoni Ral in the November errata, but we will make these changes for December.

[monty42]

Well first of all: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The card was always meant to be defensive. If you get a Biogenic Weapon on a mission you want to solve quickly, you have a means of moving it, for example. It was never meant to be used on offensively against your opponent.

Bullshit! The fact that one might end up with two Biogenic Weapons on one's missions was brought up during playtesting and not acted upon!

[Armus]

Well first of all: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The card was always meant to be defensive. If you get a Biogenic Weapon on a mission you want to solve quickly, you have a means of moving it, for example. It was never meant to be used on offensively against your opponent.

Bullshit! The fact that one might end up with two Biogenic Weapons on one's missions was brought up during playtesting and not acted upon!

I don't think that's what Ross meant. In a Mirror match, it's still entirely possible to end up with two biogenics on the same side of the table (play yours, move your opponent's).

It's honestly a bad example of the problem.

It's unfortunate though, as I've always wondered what a meta mission counter would look like, and the thought of shutting down Alpha 5 Approach or - especially in light of the new set - Mediate Peace Treaty and the thought ott having that in the game held some appeal to me.

But alas, the fundamental premises of not having lockouts and mission stealing as a thing in 2e had to win out.

Maybe Design can explore this space more intentionally in the future.

[The Prefect]

Well first of all: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The card was always meant to be defensive. If you get a Biogenic Weapon on a mission you want to solve quickly, you have a means of moving it, for example. It was never meant to be used on offensively against your opponent.

Bullshit! The fact that one might end up with two Biogenic Weapons on one's missions was brought up during playtesting and not acted upon!

I looked to see if I could find your alleged play test warning. I had no luck. And, frankly, I don't remember it coming up, either. Now, it's possible I'm wrong, or that I missed something, or that my memory is faulty. I'm only human, after all. But, the design teams I've been on also don't have a history of ignoring tester feedback, and it's a personal pet-peeve of mine never to ignore tester feedback. So, I took your allegation seriously.

Here's what I found:

Back then it was called 4783 Turning the Tables. Here's the run-down of all of the reports that mention the card (none of which came from you). Comments appear unedited and in their entirety - only the names of the testers have been withheld:

Version A:

"4783 Turning the Tables - Interesting. Obviously it hits some big-name cards like Tragic Turn and Biogenic Weapon, but we’re not sure if it’s worth also hitting other cards like Skeleton Crew and Chained Environment."

"Like that it has a catch-up mechanic (being cheaper if you're behind). Can lead to fun things - give your opponent back their Biogenic Weapon! (Apparently I deserved that after Saturday morning)."

"Time for sleep. And more thinking of weird beverage combinations! But we love Turning the Tables, it's fun."

Version B:

No mention.

Version C:

No mention.

Version D:

No mention.

Version E: - At this point it was renamed Change of Venue by Creative. This is also the version thread in which you basically refused to test cards because you "didn't give a shit."

No mention.

Interdepartmental Thread:

No mention I can find except for proofreading notes.

[Naetor]

Are there designer notes? Or are they considered confidential?

[eberlems]

No more Cargo Run and Legal Proceedings for your opponent.

[jadziadax8]

No more Cargo Run and Legal Proceedings for your opponent.

*snerk*

[The Prefect]

Are there designer notes? Or are they considered confidential?

Just internal deliberations back and forth that would be hard to distill into a post. But, as a designer, I will say I don't remember the possibility of "mission stealing" coming up at all in any of our deliberations, or we would have absolutely moved to address that. When I searched through the design thread, I couldn't find any, anyway.

Now, the possibility of double Biogenic Weapon between two Maquis players was brought up when the card was publicly spoiled (well after testing had concluded) but it wasn't mentioned as the sort of "doom and gloom" warning Ben seems to be alleging here with his "hahahahahahaha!!!! - idiots I told you" post.

For reference, that discussion can be found here.

[monty42]

... but it wasn't mentioned as the sort of "doom and gloom" warning Ben seems to be alleging here with his "hahahahahahaha!!!! - idiots I told you" post.

You misinterpret my post.
My amusement/astonishment is not because "I told you so" (I didn't) but because a.) there's yet another fuck up with this set and b.) contrary to Ross' statement I don't believe the card was "always intended to be defensive only". You have to ask the designer about that though.
Also with saying it wasn't acted upon I didn't mean that feedback got ignored but that the card was intednded to be the way it was.

As far as it coming up in playtesting, it did. I would quote the post to you but oh wait...

[Naetor]

This card was clearly meant to be broken. But this set is very good. I am giving them a pass.

I think the conditional -4 cost should be revisited in the errata, and just make it 1 always. The situational-ness is now built into the card as defensive-only.

[Fritzinger]

Another fun effect that this stop is moving your ripple effect onto your opponent's mission to meet one of the victory conditions so you only have to solve one type of mission.

Thank you so much to the fella who posted that deck so the rest of us could have the joy of knowing that combo existed at one point in the game.

Edit: I see Will posted another whole thread on this topic, go look at it!

[The Prefect]

... but it wasn't mentioned as the sort of "doom and gloom" warning Ben seems to be alleging here with his "hahahahahahaha!!!! - idiots I told you" post.

You misinterpret my post.
My amusement/astonishment is not because "I told you so" (I didn't) but because a.) there's yet another fuck up with this set and b.) contrary to Ross' statement I don't believe the card was "always intended to be defensive only". You have to ask the designer about that though.
Also with saying it wasn't acted upon I didn't mean that feedback got ignored but that the card was intednded to be the way it was.

As far as it coming up in playtesting, it did. I would quote the post to you but oh wait...

If you noticed in my above post, I searched pretty hard for this warning you allege we didn't address. I couldn't find it. Do you remember which version triggered the warning? If you remember the tester you can message me and I'll see if I can find it. As I say, this something I take very seriously. If a tester warned us about this very problem and we didn't act, I want to know so I can do better next time.

[Latok]

... but it wasn't mentioned as the sort of "doom and gloom" warning Ben seems to be alleging here with his "hahahahahahaha!!!! - idiots I told you" post.

You misinterpret my post.
My amusement/astonishment is not because "I told you so" (I didn't) but because a.) there's yet another fuck up with this set and b.) contrary to Ross' statement I don't believe the card was "always intended to be defensive only". You have to ask the designer about that though.
Also with saying it wasn't acted upon I didn't mean that feedback got ignored but that the card was intednded to be the way it was.

As far as it coming up in playtesting, it did. I would quote the post to you but oh wait...

That's still defensive though, the thing with Biogenic is it's unique, so you can't play one on the opponent and then one on yourself and then move it to the opponent or any other actually dodgy shit, your opponent has to actually give you the opportunity to put two Biogenic's on his mission, so you they can just not do that....

[nickyank]

Effective immediately, we are issuing the following emergency errata for Change of Venue, 49 V 12. Please use the following text for it:

When you play this event, if you have a lower score than each of your opponents, it is cost -4. Choose an opponent's dilemma or event on one of your non-headquarters missions. Place that card on one of your opponent's non-headquarters missions. Destroy this event.

A problem was discovered over the weekend necessitating this change. The card was always meant to be defensive. If you get a Biogenic Weapon on a mission you want to solve quickly, you have a means of moving it, for example. It was never meant to be used on offensively against your opponent.

One playgroup played Expand the Collective and then used Change of Venue to move that event to an opponent’s mission. Because you are placing Expand the Collective and not playing it, you aren’t limited by the quadrant or point requirements. From there, you can attempt and solve your opponent’s mission and make it possible for them not to win the game. This was nicknamed 'Mission Stealing in 2E!' It’s a horrible interaction and very much a negative play experience.

It got worse looking at Ignored Jurisdiction. That card will entirely shut down Voyager, Khan and Relativity from the very first turn of the game, making it impossible for them to even play. That’s one of the main series of Star Trek!

This came in just as the window was closed to join Devinoni Ral in the November errata, but we will make these changes for December.

I completely agree that Ignored Jurisdiction could be bad, I'm not so certain about Expand the Collective.

Plays on your mission worth 35 or fewer points. You may attempt and complete it using your personnel with these requirements blah blah

I would have ruled that the text (may attempt and complete it) refers to the mission it was played on, and not where the Event currently was placed. It doesn't, after all, say "may attempt and complete this mission" as many other cards do. "it" in this case would refer to the mission upon which it was played.

[Fritzinger]

Nick would've robbed the world of that great trek moment. Boo I say unto him, and again I say: Boo!