This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#551148
Having two Deep Space Nines in play doesn't seem any weirder than having two Jean-Luc Picards in play between the two players.

It will be a leg up for Terok Nor players as they won't have to worry about getting locked out of seeding TN because DS9 can be seeded in an earlier phase.

The change would also need playtesting by some of our resident wiseacres to make sure having two DS9s doesn't open abusive strategies.
 
By jcchurch
 - New Member
 -  
#551152
Okay, here's my solution. A Nor can have a controller, and individual Sites can have controllers. Nors are so big that while a player can "own and operate" the Nor, there are still sections that they've let others operate (either through agreement or mismanagement). Think of Babylon 5's Brown Sector and how the crew just let that section run nearly ungoverned (sorry, wrong show).

Treat Sites like Missions. As in:
Missions Sites are all not duplicatable, but they work slightly differently: instead of placing your copy out-of-play, you place your copy of the mission Site on top of opponent's mission Site and they become a "shared location."
Okay. You win the coin toss and get control of the unique Nor that I was wanting to play, but since I've got my sites ready to go, I'm still going to use them and our combined personnel are going to have to figure out how to live with each other. It's a big Nor out there.

We'd have to figure how which sites would have to be errata'd by replacing "station's controller" with "site's controller". For example, we'd errata Dabo by replacing "station's controller" with "site's controller", but we could leave Garak's Tailor Shop just the way it is.

Does this work at all? Am I off? Thank you for your consideration.

This is my first post on these boards. I'm new!
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
President
Community Contributor
#551156
jcchurch wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:13 am This is my first post on these boards. I'm new!
Welcome, jc!

That's a very innovative idea for a first post! I shall watch your career with great interest.

It would help in a sense, because it would turn the one-coin-flip-determines-whether-your-deck-works into one-of-maybe-three-or-four-coin-flips-determines-whether-your-deck-works. And if you seed, say, Holosuite and opponent doesn't, it eliminates the problem altogether for certain vulnerable decks.

On the other hand, it still leaves you vulnerable to the opening coin toss!
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551182
jjh wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:00 pm
Mr.Sloan wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:39 am How about making non-dublicatalbe stations like headquarters:
useable by both for all purposes.

Then both control ds9 all the time for all purposes?
This seems simple and elegant.
That kind of defeats the purpose though.

I mean, how much errata would we need to make it so DS9 and Terok Nor would work together?

Are the Cardies really going to be cracking the whip on the Bajoran slaves down in the Ore Processing Unit while Vedek Joe is up there conducting services in the Bajoran Shrine?

I thought the 1e crowd DIDN'T want 2e- level simplification of game mechanics to the point of completely marginalizing story mode and Trek flavor, which is exactly what this kind of "simple and elegant" fix would do.

I think before we talk solutions, we need to figure out what the fundamental "want" is. Do we want station control to matter or not? Does the play/ counterplay of commandeering, retaking, and guarding provide interesting in-game plot points or does it create unnecessary noise that detracts from the game?

Running a station mechanic has a lot of benefits... should those benefits be risk-less?

I'm not sure any discussion of solutions is particularity productive until we identify the problem we're actually trying to solve.

:twocents:
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
Grand Nagus
2E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
2E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2020
#551184
I tend to agree with @Armus here. Everything needs a drawback. DS9 offers a lot of huge benefits to someone playing with it - lots of draws, the ability to Ops download whoever you want to specific sites, all the fun gametext on sites. The drawback to all these goodies is your opponent can come over and steal your bacon. (There were other drawbacks - the Walking Rule, the need to play with a docking site, etc., which Project Babylon just negated. To be sure, I don't think any of those changes were a bad idea. In my opinion, those rules tipped the cost:benefit calculation into the "don't use DS9 ever" category.)

People often complain about power creep and cards getting made that are "strictly better" than others. Once you take away the problem of "Not Duplicatable" and people commandeering DS9, you now have no reason to ever use a Bajoran outpost over DS9. It has become strictly better now. Why would that be ok in the case of DS9?
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#551186
jadziadax8 wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:43 pm I tend to agree with @Armus here. Everything needs a drawback. DS9 offers a lot of huge benefits to someone playing with it - lots of draws, the ability to Ops download whoever you want to specific sites, all the fun gametext on sites. The drawback to all these goodies is your opponent can come over and steal your bacon. (There were other drawbacks - the Walking Rule, the need to play with a docking site, etc., which Project Babylon just negated. To be sure, I don't think any of those changes were a bad idea. In my opinion, those rules tipped the cost:benefit calculation into the "don't use DS9 ever" category.)

People often complain about power creep and cards getting made that are "strictly better" than others. Once you take away the problem of "Not Duplicatable" and people commandeering DS9, you now have no reason to ever use a Bajoran outpost over DS9. It has become strictly better now. Why would that be ok in the case of DS9?
My answer to that is that one of the nice things about 1e over other card games is how it's very easy in this game to make another card that creates an engine that then makes that outpost a viable/equal option - one of the things that jumps to mind is cardassian liberation front and to a lesser degree - combined task force (in how they try to give you a carrot for no nor.)

If this goes through, it should in conjunction with cards and errata to smooth things out.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
President
Community Contributor
#551187
Armus wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:48 pm
jjh wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:00 pm
Mr.Sloan wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:39 am How about making non-dublicatalbe stations like headquarters:
useable by both for all purposes.

Then both control ds9 all the time for all purposes?
This seems simple and elegant.
That kind of defeats the purpose though.

I mean, how much errata would we need to make it so DS9 and Terok Nor would work together?

Are the Cardies really going to be cracking the whip on the Bajoran slaves down in the Ore Processing Unit while Vedek Joe is up there conducting services in the Bajoran Shrine?
If I understood Mr. Sloan's suggestion correctly, he wasn't proposing that DS9 and Terok Nor work together. Instead, he was proposing that DS9 and DS9 work together.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. Sloan, but I think this is what you were proposing:

Alice seeds DS9. Then Bob tries to seed DS9. Under current rules, Bob has to discard his copy of DS9.

Under Mr. Sloan's proposal, Bob would instead place his copy of DS9 atop Alice's copy (like a shared mission). Sites seed normally. It would be considered both "Alice's DS9" and "Bob's DS9" for all purposes -- again, like a shared mission, and quite close to how shared control of a Headquarters currently works. Both players would be able to use Reaction Control Thrusters, Establish Tractor Lock, etc., on the station.

(By contrast, if Alice seeds DS9, then Bob tries to seed Terok Nor... well, those aren't the same station, and that's not a mirror match. Bob still has to discard his copy of Terok Nor and use I Miss This Office and Greater Glory of Cardassia to download a [Univ] [Car] Outpost and so forth. Process Ore and Bajoran Shrine would still not be able to co-exist on a single station.)

If I understand Mr. Sloan's proposal correctly, this would indeed be an elegant solution. It would involve no errata to DS9, Terok Nor, Mirror Terok Nor, or any sites (as far as I can see). It would very likely require an erratum to Intruder Alert!. It would also create an odd situation where, in a ship battle at the same location as DS9, both players could use DS9's WEAPONS in the battle, potentially against one another. (That makes some story sense, though, if there's a Bajoran Civil War situation or something -- which would have to be the case for a Bajoran force to attack a Bajoran force in the first place. Rival crews fighting for control of DS9 first fire on the Circle's rebel ships, then the rebels take over fire control and shoot at Provisional Government forces.)

So it seems to me that it would effectively cure the mirror-match problem with just one errata, without touching the "Cardassian player has to download an Outpost" issue at all. (Whether that's a feature or a bug of this solution is probably in the eye of the beholder, but I am always aesthetically attracted to solutions that touch one thing without affecting anything else.)
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551191
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:01 pm If I understood Mr. Sloan's suggestion correctly, he wasn't proposing that DS9 and Terok Nor work together. Instead, he was proposing that DS9 and DS9 work together.
Jep, thx for understand me.

Its a commen rethorical trick to add something stupid(?) that is not there (make ds9 and terok nor work in strange ways) and then attack that added idea and kind of impling that was my idea, instead of the idea of the one adding it... Thats one reason i blocked ensign q and people doing that rethoric attack. I like cooperation, not manipulation. @disliking Armus rethoric strategy.

Back to the constructive part.

Also my goal is to avoid NPE, not to make DS9-Staging ground OP, because it is powerfull for the reasons Maggie said :thumbsup:

Its good that you have drawbacks and some interaction. but taking away everying (The Station) is unbalanced IMO, especially if the first dice role is playing a BIG NPE part in it. There are more ways to ensure it´s non-OP.

I just outlined the basic idea of making unique stations just like headquarters BASICLY usable by all.

When it comes to details there are many good ways to make it happen. I intendionaly did not advocate for one exact solution, a) because their are many ways to do it and b) thats for design to figur out so that it works well with everything together. :)
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#551195
Mr.Sloan wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:33 pm Its a commen rethorical trick to add something stupid(?) that is not there (make ds9 and terok nor work in strange ways) and then attack that added idea and kind of impling that was my idea, instead of the idea of the one adding it...
I'd say it's possible, and even probable that this was a case of good faith misunderstanding of your idea rather than a bad faith attempt to misstate your idea and attack the misstatement.

I honestly thought you meant DS9 and Terok Nor could co-exist as well until you cleared it up.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2020
#551197
Boffo97 wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:34 pm
Mr.Sloan wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:33 pm Its a commen rethorical trick to add something stupid(?) that is not there (make ds9 and terok nor work in strange ways) and then attack that added idea and kind of impling that was my idea, instead of the idea of the one adding it...
I'd say it's possible, and even probable that this was a case of good faith misunderstanding of your idea rather than a bad faith attempt to misstate your idea and attack the misstatement.

I honestly thought you meant DS9 and Terok Nor could co-exist as well until you cleared it up.
thx for clearification. Yeah communication is about misunderstanding. I see the issue, also in the fact that rethoic-tricks are not conciously tought. they are subcounciously tought because they are all around us in western culture. i use(ed) them too. i gained awareness of it and try to uncover and solve them. (Shoppenhauers Rethorik). So i did not take it very personal, but i´d like to uncover them in the future in order to be understood and clearify the situation.

I do not know if armus meant it is attack. i am just sentive to the patterns as they create (unintentional?) havoc and need to be resolved.
 
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Socialite
#551260
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:01 pm By contrast, if Alice seeds DS9, then Bob tries to seed Terok Nor... well, those aren't the same station, and that's not a mirror match. Bob still has to discard his copy of Terok Nor and use I Miss This Office and Greater Glory of Cardassia to download a [Univ] [Car] Outpost and so forth. Process Ore and Bajoran Shrine would still not be able to co-exist on a single station.
Still puts a TN player at a disadvantage. A Nor =/= Outpost and we already have Cardassians suffering from solo play.

Limits how a (yet to be designed) Terok Nor engine will ever work (Car + Dom) b/c they can't realiably get TN into play.

~D
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#551262
I just had a thought, what about a card that has some sort of effect akin to SWCCG's Yavin 4: Massassi Throne Room or Death Star (Dark Side)? If you're prevented from seeding your DS9 or Terok Nor because your opponent got to it first, you get some sort of play-phase advantage.
 
By patrick (Patrick Weijers)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#551263
I think I'd prefer the "just remove non-duplicatable" option. It just seems like a lot easier to understand to me. The "stack them on each other, but only if they are exactly the same, not if they are personas, even though you do stack missions on top each other if they are personas" option just seems more confusing to me.

(I'm also in favour of whatever option would allow a "Dugh naHjej" station to exist at some point. (Klingon Terok Nor, like mentioned in The Visitor (name is from a diffferent timeline))

Michael and I played to a TT, 65-65. Fascinat[…]

I won 100-65. Michael Recorded! TK

Intuition

Look at the wording for Sites in the rulebook. The[…]

Played today actually. But it's only to teach.