This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
 
By Dunnagh (Andreas Micheel)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Contender
#570448
winterflames wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:31 pm I am going to assume you hit the wrong quote. Your counter argument has no application to my list of things I have to do to get my treaty back.
It has to do something with the "trump your opponents trump" - because it was worded in a way that made it look like YOUR cost is much higher than your opponents - I just wanted to add to that. If you didnt mean that, then I read something into it that just wasnt there, correct.
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Donor
#570478
Gotcha. I meant it was a reasonable cost to protect your treaty, but I can see how it could be read the other way.
User avatar
 
By geraldkw
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Participant 2022
#570496
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:03 am I recognize that the release event was a calamity -- the result of a very unique, completely untested meta.
Not trying to make trouble, honestly, I am just seeing "completely untested meta" and wondering if there was a difference in the playtesting process for DoW vs previous sets or what is being done for playtesting now?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Architect
Community Contributor
#570512
No trouble!

DoW was tested the same as all other sets. But the assumption in playtesting is that you're building for general Constructed Complete. In general Constructed Complete, running The Devil x3 (or x99) doesn't make any sense at all.

But release events usually run with either a hard requirement or a strong incentive (via achievements) to run 8+ cards from the new set. With DoW (a set very focused on its three factions), that incentive made it rather difficult to build a non-DoW deck (at least, not if you wanted the achievements).

That, in turn, meant deckbuilders could assume that most opponents would be running treaties. And they built accordingly.

That's a very strange assumption that you can make in almost no other contexts. Treaty decks are a clear minority in Trek. Playtesters assumed during playtesting that these cards would enter the regular meta, and tested accordingly. The regular meta simply doesn't have enough treaties to make The Devil a very good stock, therefore not a big threat.

But the meta of a DoW release event (specifically) was bound to be majority-treaty, nobody tested that, nobody thought to test it, and it ran into a buzzsaw. (It was only that event that suffered, afaik. Other events launched the same month didn't seem to have any treaty-related difficulties -- because they weren't in the DoW Release Event Meta.) Now that we're past the DoW release window, we're unlikely to ever see that weirdly specific, treaty-heavy meta ever again.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Goateed
Community Contributor
1E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#570531
Ensign Q wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:59 pm not beating the dead horse, but it was obvious for most players that devil was a powerful card in the release. still treaty players didnt come prepared, nor the TO banned the devil in advance.
Speaking for myself, I both ran, and prepared for, ONE copy of The Devil. And the Designers were right. Staging Ground can recover from losing the treaty once. It costs you a card play to download Kai Winn, which sets you back a turn. Fair enough.

What sucked all of the fun out of it for me was MULTIPLE opponents running MULTIPLE Devils - one player had 10% of his (Very Large) deck as copies of the Devil. It was exactly the kind of one-off fishbowl meta that would invite such shenanigans, and I guess it's at least a bit on me for not seeing it coming and trying a different deck (@Hoss-Drone sent me a Big Happy Family deck with a Nor that would let you get Turrell on Turn one before flipping your Car/Dom treaty over... clearly that was the "play with the new cards, but also fuck the sharks" move and I didn't take it).

And @BCSWowbagger is right that there's probably no reason Staging Ground can't be run in the "normal" meta of today and do just fine. If anything, it's a reason to bring The Devil BACK into the meta, as that one turn toe stub could make a difference in a close game. That's all fine and healthy. And if somebody wants to devote 10% of their deck to one card, I'm fine with that in the broader meta too... my treaty deck may go down in flames, but that deck will get lollerstomped by the first [OS] solver or Battle Borg deck to come along... an "interesting" meta choice, to say the least.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#570532
Ensign Q wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:59 pm not beating the dead horse, but it was obvious for most players that devil was a powerful card in the release. still treaty players didnt come prepared, nor the TO banned the devil in advance.
Not banning The Devil for that event was a massive mistake the entire department regrets. We've made changes to make sure the same problems don't happen in future release events.

-crp
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#570534
MidnightLich wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:16 pm
Ensign Q wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:59 pm not beating the dead horse, but it was obvious for most players that devil was a powerful card in the release. still treaty players didnt come prepared, nor the TO banned the devil in advance.
Not banning The Devil for that event was a massive mistake the entire department regrets. We've made changes to make sure the same problems don't happen in future release events.

-crp
:thumbsup:
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#570683
Armus wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:13 pm
And @BCSWowbagger is right that there's probably no reason Staging Ground can't be run in the "normal" meta of today and do just fine. If anything, it's a reason to bring The Devil BACK into the meta, as that one turn toe stub could make a difference in a close game. That's all fine and healthy. And if somebody wants to devote 10% of their deck to one card, I'm fine with that in the broader meta too... my treaty deck may go down in flames, but that deck will get lollerstomped by the first [OS] solver or Battle Borg deck to come along... an "interesting" meta choice, to say the least.
It brings up an interesting question though; what % of decks posted or played are treaty decks in the broader game? If its low, then I surmise its because the possibility of a toe-stub is enough now that there are enough cards in any one affiliations card base + NA's to accomplish the job. Back in the day, I played treaties because I didn't have enough good ___ or good ___ but I could combine to make it happen. That would be objective enough data to answer the question of treaty nullification. Personally, with the exception of the new 4-way, I don't think the risk of losing a treaty outweighs the benefits of mixing affiliations together. Like what is really 'gained' in a fed/romulan deck or a bajoran/cardassian deck?
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#570721
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:29 am If its low, then I surmise its because the possibility of a toe-stub is enough now that there are enough cards in any one affiliations card base + NA's to accomplish the job. Back in the day, I played treaties because I didn't have enough good ___ or good ___ but I could combine to make it happen. That would be objective enough data to answer the question of treaty nullification. Personally, with the exception of the new 4-way, I don't think the risk of losing a treaty outweighs the benefits of mixing affiliations together. Like what is really 'gained' in a fed/romulan deck or a bajoran/cardassian deck?
I probably shouldn't have mentioned the Dogs of War release in the original post, as that derailed a bit. But this I think nails the underlying point I was trying to address:

1. Outside of limited card pool, such as OTSD, or DS9 only type decks, the affiliations are all pretty well good enough they don't need treaties. (Overall a good thing)
2. Given that, what benefit do treaties give, aside from Roleplay?
3. If there is not real gameplay benefit, aside from cosmetics, then the risk is not generally worth it.
4. If we think treaties are a good thing as a possible meta choice, then they either need more reward, or less risk.
5. Which I generally think every strategy should have counterplay, I am not currently convinced that (most) treaties have enough gameplay to count as an actual strategy, and I'm nervous about the arms race of strengthening them more.

So to 2 above, I would say the biggest benefit is multiple free engines. After all, a Rom/Car deck could have access to 3 headquarters, etc. That's not nothing, but given the already decent seed cost those decks have, I don't know that the treaty vulnerability is needed.

It also reminds be of all the downsides of Decipher's attempt at meta balance with Writ of Acquisition and other silver bullets.

If the cost of playing a strategy is "if opponent has card X, you lose the game", that means you probably aren't going to play the strategy, unless it's so good you automatically win without card X.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#570727
boromirofborg wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:35 pm
stressedoutatumc wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:29 am If its low, then I surmise its because the possibility of a toe-stub is enough now that there are enough cards in any one affiliations card base + NA's to accomplish the job. Back in the day, I played treaties because I didn't have enough good ___ or good ___ but I could combine to make it happen. That would be objective enough data to answer the question of treaty nullification. Personally, with the exception of the new 4-way, I don't think the risk of losing a treaty outweighs the benefits of mixing affiliations together. Like what is really 'gained' in a fed/romulan deck or a bajoran/cardassian deck?
I probably shouldn't have mentioned the Dogs of War release in the original post, as that derailed a bit. But this I think nails the underlying point I was trying to address:

1. Outside of limited card pool, such as OTSD, or DS9 only type decks, the affiliations are all pretty well good enough they don't need treaties. (Overall a good thing)
2. Given that, what benefit do treaties give, aside from Roleplay?
3. If there is not real gameplay benefit, aside from cosmetics, then the risk is not generally worth it.
4. If we think treaties are a good thing as a possible meta choice, then they either need more reward, or less risk.
5. Which I generally think every strategy should have counterplay, I am not currently convinced that (most) treaties have enough gameplay to count as an actual strategy, and I'm nervous about the arms race of strengthening them more.

So to 2 above, I would say the biggest benefit is multiple free engines. After all, a Rom/Car deck could have access to 3 headquarters, etc. That's not nothing, but given the already decent seed cost those decks have, I don't know that the treaty vulnerability is needed.

It also reminds be of all the downsides of Decipher's attempt at meta balance with Writ of Acquisition and other silver bullets.

If the cost of playing a strategy is "if opponent has card X, you lose the game", that means you probably aren't going to play the strategy, unless it's so good you automatically win without card X.
If I would forward an idea about treaty and treaty decks, I would right at the "Second Star to the Right" as a model. The thing I like about how that set addresses eras is to not exactly punish you for having non-era cards and give you great bonuses for playing only in-era.

I could envision a card that says something like:

"Seed one at the start of your dilemma phase and immediately download one treaty. While you control 1 facility of each affiliation on downloaded treaty and at least two personnel in play from each affiliation you may play an additional personnel for free per turn and draw one extra card at the end of of your turn." Twice per game you may nullify devil if you have one VIP from each of the treaty's affiliations in play and at least 3 total diplomacy together at one location. Once per game you may discard one VIP from each of your treaty's affiliations to return a treaty from your discard pile onto this incident."

Something like that would incentivize playing treaty decks with more balanced personnel rosters and also give the deckbuilding meta something to also think about.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Architect
Community Contributor
#570730
boromirofborg wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:35 pm2. Given that, what benefit do treaties give, aside from Roleplay?
They let you combine powers from different affiliations to cure their mutual weaknesses.

For example, DS9 Baj has a lot of weaknesses. DS9 Fed has a lot of weaknesses. Treaty: Bajoran/Federation pretty much removes those weaknesses, allowing players to focus on the strengths of both groups.

We see enough treaty play (~30% of decks, at a random guess?) that I don't think there's a good case to be made that treaties are underpowered right now -- even though it has been a while since anyone ran the once-popular Klaestron build.
Strange New Worlds

An enemy returns on Federation Memorial Day. https[…]

Prisoner Exchange - wording

Hi guys, the wording on Prisoner Exchange is a […]

Nerdy Duolingo

I think it’s been stated here that French at[…]

Enterprise e

As I understand it, Decipher decided to make t[…]