[MidnightLich]

why should I? nothing has changed here, as i expected. wanna randomly ban my account again?
oh no wait, there were checks and balances to prevent that right?

The Department of First Edition has nothing to do with forum moderation. Nothing. Any concerns you have about 1E you are welcome to share; concerns about forum moderation can be discussed here.

As the Ghostbusters would say, don't cross the streams.

-crp

[Professor Scott]

i think checks and balances last longer than complaints from the community.

on the other hand, looking at US politics...

For a guy who's handle is No Comment, you sure have a lot to say. Why don't you introduce yourself properly, Q?

I already said that.

[Caretaker's Guest]

@MidnightLich : Thanks for elaborating! Since 1E is thrieving I have faith that things like this do not happen again. But not as a top-player, who I am not, but as a Veteran, I can only warn you that rushing things regarding Ref is playing with fire and requires great caution. If you overdo you will scare players away who actually like playing shizzle from time to time.

Isn't the fact that CC is waiting show that they are listening to the concerns that were raised from the "changes before European Continentals" issue? Shouldn't this be a good thing?

That is true.

[NoComment]

i think checks and balances last longer than complaints from the community.

on the other hand, looking at US politics...

For a guy who's handle is No Comment, you sure have a lot to say. Why don't you introduce yourself properly, Q?

I already said that.

well, Q was testing this place and it failed. no reason to channel that persona any longer. but "LORE" is a pretty telling username as well.
no comment means: dont reply to me

[NoComment]

why should I? nothing has changed here, as i expected. wanna randomly ban my account again?
oh no wait, there were checks and balances to prevent that right?

The Department of First Edition has nothing to do with forum moderation. Nothing. Any concerns you have about 1E you are welcome to share; concerns about forum moderation can be discussed here.

As the Ghostbusters would say, don't cross the streams.

-crp

nothing has to do with anything. im not confusing my amusement about your constant fails to properly manage the game or the team with the other half of the board decaying in anarchy as well.
i admit I like to put salt in the festering wound the board really became, but now the pus is all over the forum and i wasnt even here. HAHAHA
ofc nobody steps back until the game is gone for good, so keep going
i think you should ban empok nor or STP or both, just to prevent the game from evolving.

[Clerasil ToB]

why should I? nothing has changed here, as i expected. wanna randomly ban my account again?
oh no wait, there were checks and balances to prevent that right?

The Department of First Edition has nothing to do with forum moderation. Nothing. Any concerns you have about 1E you are welcome to share; concerns about forum moderation can be discussed here.

As the Ghostbusters would say, don't cross the streams.

-crp

nothing has to do with anything. im not confusing my amusement about your constant fails to properly manage the game or the team with the other half of the board decaying in anarchy as well.
i admit I like to put salt in the festering wound the board really became, but now the pus is all over the forum and i wasnt even here. HAHAHA
ofc nobody steps back until the game is gone for good, so keep going
i think you should ban empok nor or STP or both, just to prevent the game from evolving.

I feel sorry for you - obviously you don't have better things to do than doing this try to break the community apart...

[Clerasil ToB]

As for the discussion: I think I've made my point clear multiple times - the crusade against is an insane one.

To make my thoughts clear:

Decipher invented to counter abusive strategies able to break the game in a very good and easy way, with counter cards, downloadable ANYTIME.

CC enforced that with Tribunal and the Tent:Civil War. Some of those Counter cards have been included into OTF rules.

There will be always broken stuff brought aboard thos many cards we have. is an ultimate, and always adjustable weapon against it.

An idea that came up my mind lately: what about making the -set a really adjustable one? As an example: Temporal Narcosis - Revolving Door was played; everybody agreed how broken/unintended this is. Just bring out a new or or whatever with the icon just to Nullify Temporal Narcosis (or whatever broken card) - it would solve the case without banning and afterwards it could go through playtesting to see, what else "damage" this card could do...

[BCSWowbagger]

An idea that came up my mind lately: what about making the -set a really adjustable one? As an example: Temporal Narcosis - Revolving Door was played; everybody agreed how broken/unintended this is. Just bring out a new or or whatever with the icon just to Nullify Temporal Narcosis (or whatever broken card) - it would solve the case without banning and afterwards it could go through playtesting to see, what else "damage" this card could do...

Friendly question, as I'm trying to understand your perspective: what's the practical difference between "make a new card that kills Temporal Narcosis [or whatever broken card]" and "ban Temporal Narcosis [or whatever broken card]"?

If we ban Temporal Narcosis [or whatever broken card], nobody can play Temporal Narcosis. The abuse is prevented. Playtesting can then work on an errata at leisure and eventually put out a working version.

If we make a new card to nullify Temporal Narcosis [or whatever broken card], people can technically play Temporal Narcosis, but, in most games, they will simply see it nullified. The abuse is mostly prevented. Playtesting can then work on an errata at leisure and eventually put out a working version. Then what? Do we ban the anti-Narcosis card we just created, since we fixed the card?

These seem very similar to me, in practical terms, but the first option seems more effective (it blocks all the abuse) and less expensive (no new card production needed, no future ban needed, no pressure on players to stock /Tribunal/Civil War.) That's why I prefer bans to . But clearly you see some benefit in doing a instead, and I'm trying to fully understand that benefit.

My magic wand fix, is a rule that report with crew = number of staffing icons. (Minimum 1).

Then you are literally reporting with the crew, and no extras.

Not only would this fix prevent report with crew from becoming crazy powerful, but it would make more sense as well. It confused the heck out of me the first time I had an opponent drop a "report with crew" with way more personnel than just the crew. Bonus benefit, it gives players more reason to use ships with big staffing requirements.

I'm personally fond of this idea, but it is worth noting that it would break / require errata to at least Type 18 Shuttlepod and Bajoran Raider.

EDIT: oh, right, and Brunt's Shuttle.

[boromirofborg]

My magic wand fix, is a rule that report with crew = number of staffing icons. (Minimum 1).

Then you are literally reporting with the crew, and no extras.

I'm personally fond of this idea, but it is worth noting that it would break / require errata to at least Type 18 Shuttlepod and Bajoran Raider.

I may not have been clear. By Minimum 1, I meant that the rule could be if a ship has 0 staffing icons, 1 personnel may still report.

The difference would be a shuttle could report with someone that had no staffing icons if wanted, where a ship would require someone with a / icon.

[BCSWowbagger]

My magic wand fix, is a rule that report with crew = number of staffing icons. (Minimum 1).

Then you are literally reporting with the crew, and no extras.

I'm personally fond of this idea, but it is worth noting that it would break / require errata to at least Type 18 Shuttlepod and Bajoran Raider.

I may not have been clear. By Minimum 1, I meant that the rule could be if a ship has 0 staffing icons, 1 personnel may still report.

The difference would be a shuttle could report with someone that had no staffing icons if wanted, where a ship would require someone with a / icon.

No, you were clear. It's just that there exist decks that are built around the report-with-crew function on these two cards, and those decks don't work if they're reduced from 2 reports to 1 report.

"Breaking" them was stronger language than is really warranted, but I know it would be a concern.

[nobthehobbit]

It isn't necessarily the cleanest solution but the rule could just be "minimum 2" instead of "minimum 1".

Other solutions that come to mind would be allowing a report-with-crew limit rule to reference restriction boxes on ships, or having it not apply to ships using their own report-with-crew abilities, so that it only applies to STP drops and such, or not having it apply to report-with-crew abilities that already have specified limits (for instance, Full Complement of Shuttles).

The biggest casualty, however, would be Brunt's Shuttle.

[Caretaker's Guest]

Just leave the Ref be, mark my words. Fix the things you might find most abusive on a level not to make them unplayable (this is important!) and leave the Ref mechanic as strategic choice. As Julius claimed: View it as a strategic element and a chance, not a burden.

I feel sorry for you - obviously you don't have better things to do than doing this try to break the community apart...

The ban must have done more damage to his ego than expected. View it this way: At least despite all possible differences and difficulties: We are playing, EnsignQ. You probably never will again, if you continue this way... So stop annoying us and move on to Magic, which is in your opinion, to which you are entitled, the far superior game...

[winterflames]

I tend to agree that you can work on fixing the things cards address without touching the cards themselves at all until well down the line. I also note that there has been a call to remove from Defend Homeworld for years. I recall there being a push to limit in the zone to discard if you have more points than the opponent as well?

I feel like the community at large is full of disparate opinions, each taking any decision which seems to go against them as a personal attack.

sorry, i went spelunking in the forum search for the threads i am referencing, but got distracted by this gem from ages past.

Edit: apparently the ref tag is case sensitive.

[phaserihardlyknowher]

Just leave the Ref be, mark my words. Fix the things you might find most abusive on a level not to make them unplayable (this is important!) and leave the Ref mechanic as strategic choice. As Julius claimed: View it as a strategic element and a chance, not a burden.

I don't really understand how is strategic. There's no cost, no timing element and no counter. You basically say "no you can't do that" and that's the end of the strategy. It's a magic bullet that you can fire whenever you want and never misses. I always feel like I'm missing something obvious, but if it's an auto stock and you can't stop it, how is it different than a de facto rule?

Compare that to another meta policing card like Lack of Preperation where both sides have some choice to make and making a choice counter to the meta is a meaningful risk. That seems more strategic than .

[boromirofborg]

I think the argument is that choosing to use a seed slot on QtR and choosing when to use the download is strategic.

We saw recently how a smart player can bait out a ref download before employing their real strategy.

That's also part of why I have issues with it.

I think that particular type of counter play, like the defensive shields in Star Wars, is a part of that era of game design.

Better to actually ban/errata cards instead of pseudo-banning them, and leaving it open for an occasional lucky meta shot.