This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By WeAreBack
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#564704
I think there's an adjustment design can make to retain the flavor of the original Q-Flash that will respond to those of us old players who still just like the old cards, because well, we do. I know I'm not the only one who agrees with the following:
edgeofhearing wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:46 pm But, when I use those PAQ cards in decks, it makes me feel happy. I love seeing Taitt as much for the 500th time as I did the first time, and I know I'm not the only one.
Specifically, couldn't we retain the original image of the Q-Flash on this new card, including by eliminating the border around the art that is featured on basically all non-doorway cards (other than missions)? The card would still be a dilemma and could even have two text boxes (lore and game text) but would have a "feel" more similar to the original Q-Flash or to Quantum Incursions.

As far as the substance goes, I understand why it has to say "has a Q-Flash" -- it's because of the seven existing [Q] cards that say "until any Q-Flash."

Clearly, design is trying to fit a big concept into a small textbox on this card. I think we could all forgive you if you gave us more detail and cut the lore box down or eliminated it. After all, this is not just any dilemma: it is a dilemma that asks players to use a completely different mechanic than all other dilemmas, including drawing, playing and resolving multiple other cards. Indeed, making the Q-Flash look exacly like a "regular" dilemma can actually understate just how weird and unique (and wonderful) the card is.

I agree that making this card a "Q" colon card seems incongruous. I agree that it is a Q-related card for the purposes of Adapt: Negate Obstruction whether or not it obeys the colon rule.
The recent errata to Hide and Seek means that there is no other reference to a "Q dilemma" on any other card.
So that means by putting Q in the title, we're just having to add in the game text that this is "Immune to Q2."

So, if you are retaining the lore box, you can leave the reference to Q there, remove the reference to Q in the title ("Flash" or "A Dazzling Flash" are both fine as titles) and then delete the reference to Q2. Or keep Q in the title and get an errata to Q2 to free up space on this card.

Then maybe you can have a bit more space to include the other details requested by some of the players responding above.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#564948
I don't understand why we are bringing back something as badly designed as the Q continuum was. Let the poor cards be and just move on. The game does not need them anymore.

The game needs to explore new things, not rehash old broken things that was never a good design to begin with.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#564976
I do hope that all the seeming negativity towards the card doesn't :
a. delay the release of 'The Trial Never Ended'
or worse
b: Cancel it's release altogether.

Many thanks for all the hard work the design team put in to try and improve the game - it's very much appreciated.
User avatar
 
By TyKajada (Alexander Schmitz)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
2E The Neutral Zone Regional Participant 2021
#564986
dragoncymru wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:57 am I do hope that all the seeming negativity towards the card doesn't :
a. delay the release of 'The Trial Never Ended'
or worse
b: Cancel it's release altogether.

Many thanks for all the hard work the design team put in to try and improve the game - it's very much appreciated.
This.

We (I) have seen only this card. I guess there will be more that clears this all up.
Personally I am absolutely looking forward to reviving these Q cards with a new set. Can't wait to see them.

:cheersR:
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#564987
I wonder if the Q dilemma will see a new errata with this expansion? It could explain why we have a Q colon card as well.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#564994
Smiley wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:47 pm I don't understand why we are bringing back something as badly designed as the Q continuum was. Let the poor cards be and just move on. The game does not need them anymore.

The game needs to explore new things, not rehash old broken things that was never a good design to begin with.
Nostalgia is a not-horrible reason. I loved the idea and 75% of the execution of the Q-Cards. (ad to sound repetitive, since the CC broke them to unplayable with the 2-dilemma limit, I do think there's a burden to restore it back to at least the level it was before.)

Besides that, Q is a staple of 90's Star Trek, appearing in more episiodes then many affiliaitons. He needs some proper representation in the game.
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#565063
The 2 copy limit for cards acting as dilemmas was a good thing that made the game not being just q-flash side decks. I understand that my experience may differ as everyone played with a Q-flash side deck here.

But it still doesn't change the fact that the Q cards were bad design from the start.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but something like a Pl[…]

Love interest question...

When my away team member elopes to the farthest […]

I was considering playing pre-errata, since I only[…]

I decided I want another thing for Christmas. L[…]