[stressedoutatumc]

Okay, so this just came up.

Can you complete Betray Captain by killing The E.C.H.? My thinking is no because you cannot kill a holo.

Further, can you score Quite a Coincidence off of aforementioned Holo

[jadziadax8]

I would rule no as well.

DEATH AND ERASURE

Any time a hologram is targeted to be killed or destroyed, it is deactivated instead (not erased).

Since they are not killed, you shouldn’t get the Objective.

I would rule the same for Quite a Coincidence.

[Armus]

I would rule no as well.

DEATH AND ERASURE

Any time a hologram is targeted to be killed or destroyed, it is deactivated instead (not erased).

Since they are not killed, you shouldn’t get the Objective.

I would rule the same for Quite a Coincidence.

Shit, really?!

I was doing this trick with Revised Janeway in my Regional deck and nobody complained.

[AllenGould]

I think Betray Captain still works, because it tells you to kill the holo, and you can do that - it just deactivates them instead. (I think you could also do any sort of "prevent the death" shenanigans as well.)

By contrast, Quite A Coincidence triggers "when personnel is killed" (past tense), and a holo is never killed - just deactivated or erased. So I don't think you can score those points off a holo, because you'll never meet the condition.

[jadziadax8]

I would rule no as well.

DEATH AND ERASURE

Any time a hologram is targeted to be killed or destroyed, it is deactivated instead (not erased).

Since they are not killed, you shouldn’t get the Objective.

I would rule the same for Quite a Coincidence.

Shit, really?!

I was doing this trick with Revised Janeway in my Regional deck and nobody complained.

Yeah, I’m not sure on my instinct on this one. I may be thinking too much 2E here.

[stressedoutatumc]

I would rule no as well.



Since they are not killed, you shouldn’t get the Objective.

I would rule the same for Quite a Coincidence.

Shit, really?!

I was doing this trick with Revised Janeway in my Regional deck and nobody complained.

Yeah, I’m not sure on my instinct on this one. I may be thinking too much 2E here.

So…yes to betray and no to QAC? Lore wise the holo would come back pretty upset though.

[WeAreBack]

Unless your contender moves to a different ship, you're going to have trouble with Consolidate Power though. The attack restriction is quite tough to get around, as your only legitimate target for the objective would be a dilemma, unless you could get something like Incoming message: attack authorization

[Armus]

Unless your contender moves to a different ship, you're going to have trouble with Consolidate Power though. The attack restriction is quite tough to get around, as your only legitimate target for the objective would be a dilemma, unless you could get something like Incoming message: attack authorization

Oh my sweet summer child...

[WeAreBack]

Yes, a deck with six copies of the card I mentioned would be one way of doing this. I'm quite familiar with this deck. There are just a dozen easier ways to complete all 4 contender- related objectives in fewer turns and using fewer seed slots than by using U.S.S. Voyager and a holographic captain.

For those who love the Delta Quadrant I would recommend using Voyager as the ship instead, since you get no attack restrictions and a captain who you can download on your opponent's turn who fully staffs the ship, and thus (assuming your opponent goes first) can help you staff the ship on the turn you download your contender, clearing the way for Assert Authority on turn 1 and Betray captain on turn 2 regardless of your card draws. No need for AMS in that combo, and since you would be able to download your Maje again after he dies, you have nearly the same benefits as deactivating a hologram. And you probably wouldn't need New Arrivals, since you would have 2 free card plays from the very cards you need to make the contender-related part of the deck work anyways (although I suppose you would have to give up using Full complement of shuttles.)

There is also one way to complete all 4 contender objectives in 4 turns, in the alpha quadrant and bag all 40 bonus points and do a two mission win using only 4 seed cards, whereas I believe this deck uses 7 (a big reason why there are only 16 dilemmas). I'll keep the "4 in 4 for 40" under my hat, but I respect your intelligence and experience as a player, and so am sure you can figure it out.

And I believe the deck you linked to is missing a way to ensure that you can complete Consolidate Power by either (a) traveling to whatever quadrant your opponent is in easily (I'm thinking that in practice Quantum Slipsteam Drive was used) or something like a card to shoot at if your opponent is not nearby.

And lets keep our references in universe: I'll take "Brain Trust," "Mr. Broccoli," "Lobeless" and "Lieutenant McGive-ers" over a GOT reference any day of the week.

[Armus]

You complete Consolidate Power by shooting your own shuttle with IM:AA.

So, in Summary the ideal start is:

End of your Turn 1 = Assert Authority
End of your Turn 2 = Betray Captain
OPPONENT'S turn 2/3 = Consolidate Power
Start of your turn 3 = Declare New Sovereign via Empress.

Turn 3+ = ball out with shuttle drops and dial-a-skill downloads from your Empress to roll through opponents' dilemmas. It's a 3 mission win but it's stupid fast and the holos on shuttles in space = amazing (that's right, I put a Holodeck Door on a shuttle craft. Holo-shuttle is game-winning).

I can't take credit for this, as @Winner of Borg was winning with it 3+ years ago, but I finally put a version together for the regional last year because it's just stupid how efficient Voyager is at crowning an empress.

When they're better at it than the crowd who's "supposed" to be the ones doing it, I'd call that a Design flaw!

[WeAreBack]

While it is true that you can use IM:AA to attack your own ships, my position is that it would be definitionally impossible to "win" such a battle.

According to the rulebook:

The winner of a ship battle (for the purposes of cards like Data's Medals) is the player whose ships and facilities sustained the least HULL damage. If both sides took equal HULL damage, there is no winner (or loser).

No ship or facility sustains more than 100% HULL damage. If more than 100% HULL damage is inflicted on a single card, the points beyond 100% do not count toward winning the battle.

Since you are attacking your own ship, you cannot be the "player" whose ships and facilities take the least hull damage -- the only hull damage at all is on your ships -- so you cannot just have "won a battle" as Consolidate Power requires.

If you want to blow up a shuttle you put into play to complete the objective, you would need to no longer be the player controlling it first. Self seeding A Fast Ship Would Be Nice and leaving the empty shuttle there when you attempt a mission would do the trick, but -- in OTF at least -- you would risk running into a wall blocking you for several turns.

[Armus]

While it is true that you can use IM:AA to attack your own ships, my position is that it would be definitionally impossible to "win" such a battle.

According to the rulebook:

The winner of a ship battle (for the purposes of cards like Data's Medals) is the player whose ships and facilities sustained the least HULL damage. If both sides took equal HULL damage, there is no winner (or loser).

No ship or facility sustains more than 100% HULL damage. If more than 100% HULL damage is inflicted on a single card, the points beyond 100% do not count toward winning the battle.

Since you are attacking your own ship, you cannot be the "player" whose ships and facilities take the least hull damage -- the only hull damage at all is on your ships -- so you cannot just have "won a battle" as Consolidate Power requires.

If you want to blow up a shuttle you put into play to complete the objective, you would need to no longer be the player controlling it first. Self seeding A Fast Ship Would Be Nice and leaving the empty shuttle there when you attempt a mission would do the trick, but -- in OTF at least -- you would risk running into a wall blocking you for several turns.

Huh.

That's interesting. I always thought winning a ship battle was more like winning a personnel battle (my weapons > your shields = I win).

I'm hardly the only person with this view, because not only did not a single one of my opponents question my move, I'm not aware of it coming up at any other point in the 3+ year history of this deck archetype's existence!

So maybe Voyager/Empress isn't as stupid good as I thought it was...

Now I'm wondering how long that rule has been on the books... @BCSWowbagger ?

[DarkSabre]

As the player with both the ship that had the most damage and the least damage, then wouldn't that just mean that you both Won and Lost a battle?

That's how I would see it & rule it at a tournament.

[JeBuS]

As the player with both the ship that had the most damage and the least damage, then wouldn't that just mean that you both Won and Lost a battle?

That's how I would see it & rule it at a tournament.

But in total, which is what the rule is looking at, you as the player tied you as the player. It's not looking at which force took more or less damage.

[DarkSabre]

As the player with both the ship that had the most damage and the least damage, then wouldn't that just mean that you both Won and Lost a battle?

That's how I would see it & rule it at a tournament.

But in total, which is what the rule is looking at, you as the player tied you as the player. It's not looking at which force took more or less damage.

Disagree, because there are two sides of the battle, you as a player with a ship vs you as a player with a ship. You lose or win a battle due to your ship winning or losing said battle. I would definitely argue that you are both the winner and loser of A battle.