This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 - The Center of the Galaxy
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
boromirofborg wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:10 pm Personally, I like the idea of supporting it akin to Magic with Vintage/Legacy/Modern.
Except that Magic does it with ban lists and (generally) not power-level errata. And what errata they do is still global across formats. Ajani's Pridemate (the last card I know got proper functional errata) plays the same way whether you do it in Standard or Vintage.

Did some digging, because there is an unofficial "93/94" format (where you can only play using cards printed in those years), but they still seem to be playing using current wordings and ruleset (guess no-one wanted to back and relearn batches?), so that doesn't help either.

The problem with supporting two copies of the cards officially is that you now have to support two sets of rules. Unofficially is fine, because the answer to rules questions is "whatever you wanna do, it's your table". But keeping one set of 1E rules in my head is enough work - not really keen on having to append "but only in this format" to all of them. :)
By HoodieDM
 - Delta Quadrant
Correct. People barely play OPEN as is. I think partly b/c there are still "restrictions" of their favorite "old" cards. Also Vintage/Physical cards only is a limited cardpool or special format, but the problem is then there's only DQ and that's it. Having [1E-TNG] be able to use all the broken combos that [1E-DQ] used to use, is fun. No Holds Barred! And that's really what OPEN should be. Play the cards as they were originally designed. Virtual or non-virtual.
 - Beta Quadrant
I would like the ban list to be as small as possible -- ideally zero -- but I admit this reflects my neuroses as much as anything else. (Broken links bother me for the same reason.) I can convince myself that the [Ref] bans are actually the opposite of a ban and that players are being forced to seed them "for free."

And yes, this means finding a solution for Raise the Stakes. Which might be easier than we think, since a lot of people understandably get hung up on the ante bit. To me, the essence of the card is to give your opponent a *literal* dilemma: choosing an immediate negative outcome A, or risking a worse future outcome B which may or may not happen. And that's a cool design space to be working in.

It's hard to think of keeping A as "you lose the game," but I have faith that the CC designers can come up with balanced versions of A/B, maybe even keeping the flavor of the poker story. Maybe something like this

Plays on table. When opponent begins a mission attempt, they must select an attempting personnel ("ante"). Opponent chooses: stop "ante" OR discard "ante" if mission attempt fails. (Cumulative.)

Almost certainly needs tweaking in lots of ways (e.g., if too strong, can make it discard after use, or the ante discard only triggers if the mission is unsolved at end of turn) but you get the idea.

I agree errata should change the card as little as possible -- but the more problematic the original is, the more latitude I'm willing to accept in interpreting what is in line with the original "spirit".

jadziadax8 MW treebel 40-35 Thanks for the good g[…]

Come play tonight![…]

What's Good These Days?

Anyone make a good DS9 Ferengi deck yet? Sta[…]

Sorry I'll have to miss this. Going down to Key La[…]