Discuss all of your questions, concerns, comments and ideas about Second Edition.
User avatar
Second Edition Art Manager
By edgeofhearing (Lucas Thompson)
 - Second Edition Art Manager
 -  
Community Contributor
#599577
Armus wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 5:05 pm
edgeofhearing wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 4:50 pm Looks like it has been a few years since I last gently pushed back on the "Lego Design" phrase. (TLDR: Generally, cards accused of being "Lego" cards are generally just powerful cards that you can use in different combinations to different effect, like cards in a CCG.)
*Clicks on link*
YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO READ THIS FORUM
I guess that pushback was in-house.
Must’ve linked the wrong thread, I had a few tabs open. I retread most of that ground in this post anyways.

Edit: Now that I'm back at my computer, here's the thread I meant to link.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599741
boromirofborg wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:19 pm
Armus wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 10:08 am Cold. Dead. Hands.
...
Every time I hear anyone on the 2e Staff talk about "fixing" KCA I cringe. It ain't broke.
I knew you'd react. ;).

I think where I fundamentally disagree with you is that IMO, KCA is terribly broken. Arguably not in gameplay (but I could argue that) but in theme and flavor.


I've played it repeatedly in different local tournaments, for and against it. I've built my decks and I've used decks from worlds.

And in the end the thing wrong with them is exactly your argument against new affiliations. They have no real identity other than generic solver. Their big claim to difference is that they get to include multiple colors of borders instead of just 1 + NA.

Because of their sandbox nature, they get to do everything the cardassians, Klingons, Ferengi (except Ferenginar stuff), bajorans, and NA do.

[AU] Worf can be used in any [Kli] deck or [KCA] . Every non-unique [Kli] or [Car] has to be evaluated with not just their affiliation but KCA in mind.

There's a reason why Decipher broke the Federation into many sub-affilaiitons. (And why I believe not including quadrant as an unloaded icon that would let design restrict which NA could report where is a mistake.)


To be clear, I lean far more to your desire for open sandboxes more than premade decks. That's part of why 1E is so great. But there are walls to any sandbox. That's what contains the sands and keeps it from scattering. A HQ that lets you report ANY [Fed] would be incredible from a sandbox design. And horrible from a gameplay defining pov.

But at it's core, I do not think that any affiliated card should be able to report to more then 1 HQ(1). That's the fundamental cost of a card. Affiliation limits where it can report and what choices your deck can make. You shouldn't be able to combine this many affiliations in one deck and use 1 HQ.

Current KCA design is the equivalent of a Nimbus III HQ that lets you report any [Pa] [Fed] [Rom] [Kli] AND gives the [Pa] icon to people that didn't have it.

Then on flavor, the KCA and Maquis both meet the definitions of full fledged affil ions as much as any of the rest.

On top of that, it's clunky and their lack of a unique marker makes identifying them hard for the future. Not all [AU] [Kli] or [AU] [Car] and from the mirror universe, and Deciphers decision to abandon flavor text in favor of quotes makes differentiating that hard.

I get that there's inertia and resistance to undo existing cards. I get the desire to have more sandboxes - and would love more added to existing affiliations. But if you want more then just solvers, if you want an affiliations to have a reason to exist, then I should think the KCA would be top of your list of things that shouldn't exist in their current form.




(1) By which I don't mean the different HQs for one affiliation are bad. I like the design tension of AFF+NA, or AFF only.
You know what's even dumber than all of this?

Running Memad in a NeuNeuDominion deck with Cardassia Prime, Subjugated Planet to fetch Audacious Assault.

Hat tip to @Faithful Reader for that one, as I didn't even catch it. I thought Memad was useless unless you're running some sort of Kraxon nonsense, and for [Car] Cardassia Prime I more or less stand by that take. But in NeuNeuDominion? Shit, he's actually GOOD.

The problem is this is YET ANOTHER case of helping affiliations that don't need it. I doubt this one was even intentional, but the fact that the best use for a [Car] jumpstart card is in a [Dom] deck is laughably dumb.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#599750
Armus wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:54 am You know what's even dumber than all of this?

Running Memad in a NeuNeuDominion deck with Cardassia Prime, Subjugated Planet to fetch Audacious Assault.

Hat tip to @Faithful Reader for that one, as I didn't even catch it. I thought Memad was useless unless you're running some sort of Kraxon nonsense, and for [Car] Cardassia Prime I more or less stand by that take. But in NeuNeuDominion? Shit, he's actually GOOD.

The problem is this is YET ANOTHER case of helping affiliations that don't need it. I doubt this one was even intentional, but the fact that the best use for a [Car] jumpstart card is in a [Dom] deck is laughably dumb.
This is what happens when you (the game, not you - not sure when this templating started. If Decipher or CC) template cards by referring to the HQ by name and reuse the name for different affiliations.

Honestly, in gametext cards should probably say [H] [Car] . (And the headquarters themselves should use the icon in the bottom where they say the affiliation HQ.)
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599830
Danny wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:41 am
Armus wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 6:45 pm Same answer as last week: we shouldn't make a new affiliation unless such an affiliation would bring something new to the game besides yet another color solver.

So I guess to answer the question asked: we should make whatever affiliation best embodies whatever new mechanic that gets developed that doesn't fit into any of the existing affiliations.
I'd echo this, but with a reverb tweak - the "new mechanic" should include a new win condition, as anything that doesn't create this is going to have to win by being a solver of some description.
I've never understood this argument, and I doubt I ever will. And, I've tried.

To show you my difficulty in understanding the argument that any new affiliation must have a brand-new mechanic (or even an alternate win condition) let's apply the same logic to existing affiliations - [Baj] [Bor] [Car] [Dom] [Fed] [Fer] [Kli] [Rom] [SF] . How many of them do something literally no other affiliation does? How many of them have built-in alternative win conditions? Aren't they all just "solvers of different colors"?

Now, what they each do have are their own unique flavors. That, I totally support in any new affiliation.

[Baj] cares about the discard pile in ways no other affiliation does, but other affiliations do sometimes utilize discard piles.

[Car] cares about captives, but so does [Rom] - they just each do it in different ways.

[Kli] cares about battle, but so too does [Dom].

[Dom] Infiltration is unusual and more limited, but there are infiltrators of other colors. [Dom] just does it better than anyone else.

[Bor] Assimilation is really just a variation on combat and engagement mechanics, and Interlink is simply skill sharing done more efficiently. Most affiliations have some form of skill sharing, and many gain unique benefits from battling an opponent.

[Fer] comes closest to the idea of doing something no other affiliation does by putting cards under Ferenginar for benefit, but in the end the Ferengi player often does this for getting extra counters, and other affiliations and factions do that too in their own ways.

And each of the above listed solves missions to get to 100 points - that's how they win. [BB] and [Voy] have built-in variations of the solver (all space or all planet) but they're still solvers of some color.

So, if we got into a time machine and went back to 2002, how many existing affiliations (as they existed upon release) would withstand scrutiny according to this same standard of demanding something entirely new? I don't think any would. And if they did, I think the game would be infinitely more complicated than it is now.

By holding any new affiliation created to a far higher standard than any previous affiliation, we push Design towards one of two outcomes: an affiliation that runs the real risk of being overcomplicated and overwrought, or no new affiliations at all. And given that 2e hasn't seen a new affiliation since 2006, I think we can assume what our future looks like if we continue to hold Design to this standard.

And what are we leaving on the table? Whole expansions worth of story-telling and creative content that could keep the game vital and exciting for years to come - both to players and volunteers.

Consider this: [1E] doesn't seem to suffer because it has [Hir] [Kaz] [Vid] and [Vul]. Are there any [1E] players that could honestly tell me that they are 100% certain the game would be better off if it only had the same affiliations as [2E] and no more?
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599831
Short response:

1e's [Vid] , [Kaz] , and to an extent [Hir] affiliations have spent the last decade getting woefully neglected. That's finally changing, and there should be a decent amount of new [1E-DQ] quadrant content coming out in the next 12-18 months.

However, that's the real risk of additional affiliations: the more you have, the more you have to sustain. If there's no strategic plan or manpower on what to do with these affiliations, then Under-resourced affiliations either get left untouched for a really long time and/or, you have to dilute your new sets to give a little something to everybody.

So maybe the bar to adding a new affiliation should be a little higher, since there's real tradeoffs and opportunity costs involved when you bring one in.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599832
Armus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:10 pm Short response:

1e's [Vid] , [Kaz] , and to an extent [Hir] affiliations have spent the last decade getting woefully neglected. That's finally changing, and there should be a decent amount of new [1E-DQ] quadrant content coming out in the next 12-18 months.

However, that's the real risk of additional affiliations: the more you have, the more you have to sustain. If there's no strategic plan or manpower on what to do with these affiliations, then Under-resourced affiliations either get left untouched for a really long time and/or, you have to dilute your new sets to give a little something to everybody.

So maybe the bar to adding a new affiliation should be a little higher, since there's real tradeoffs and opportunity costs involved when you bring one in.
That feels like moving the goal post.

Resource allocation and demanding higher standards for new affiliations are two different things - unless the higher standards are instrumental in preventing the development of a new affiliation due to resource allocation concerns.

In other words, if you're saying that you don't have confidence that [2E] can effectively sustain new affiliations, and therefore we as a community need to create a high barrier for Design to overcome in order to discourage the development of said new affiliations, then that's a different argument from the one previously made. So, is that the argument that you are making?

If that is the argument being made, then as a former designer I would tell you it would be more intellectually honest to simply tell designers: no new affiliations, period. Then, none of us would have any expectation of the possibility and none of us would devote any time or resources to it. Because, even if we were able to come up with an idea so new and so amazing that everyone would universally agree that the affiliation would be great, we wouldn't be able to sustain it anyway if we did, in fact, have an unsurmountable allocation problem.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599836
The Prefect wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:26 pm
Armus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:10 pm Short response:

1e's [Vid] , [Kaz] , and to an extent [Hir] affiliations have spent the last decade getting woefully neglected. That's finally changing, and there should be a decent amount of new [1E-DQ] quadrant content coming out in the next 12-18 months.

However, that's the real risk of additional affiliations: the more you have, the more you have to sustain. If there's no strategic plan or manpower on what to do with these affiliations, then Under-resourced affiliations either get left untouched for a really long time and/or, you have to dilute your new sets to give a little something to everybody.

So maybe the bar to adding a new affiliation should be a little higher, since there's real tradeoffs and opportunity costs involved when you bring one in.
That feels like moving the goal post.

Resource allocation and demanding higher standards for new affiliations are two different things - unless the higher standards are instrumental in preventing the development of a new affiliation due to resource allocation concerns.

In other words, if you're saying that you don't have confidence that [2E] can effectively sustain new affiliations, and therefore we as a community need to create a high barrier for Design to overcome in order to discourage the development of said new affiliations, then that's a different argument from the one previously made. So, is that the argument that you are making?

If that is the argument being made, then as a former designer I would tell you it would be more intellectually honest to simply tell designers: no new affiliations, period. Then, none of us would have any expectation of the possibility and none of us would devote any time or resources to it. Because, even if we were able to come up with an idea so new and so amazing that everyone would universally agree that the affiliation would be great, we wouldn't be able to sustain it anyway if we did, in fact, have an unsurmountable allocation problem.
You asked for the 1e perspective. I gave it to you. There's a lot of history there that I didn't go into, but the resources concern is real. Also real: The practical limits of a new affiliation in terms of available screen material. IIRC, one of the problems the 1e crew has with [Vid] is that they've literally used all of the Vidiians that have ever appeared on screen. That forces some real creativity when making new Vidiian personnel. In some of my preliminary Design work in this area, we did find *some* workarounds, but there are practial limits.

And there's use cases even in 2e today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't [TN] running up against that same wall?

And actually, [TN] is a really good use case for this whole discussion. Should it have ever been made? Maybe, maybe not. I could argue that it SHOUDLN'T have been made when it was, as it didn't bring anything new to the table. Mouth of the Wormhole, Terok Nor took away the quadrant-hopping of Mouth of the Wormhole, Deep Space 9 and replaced it with... nothing. There was a subset of mainly [Baj] , [Car] , and [Dom] personnel that made up the core of the faction, but they didn't really have an identity... no mechanic (maybe dissident discard, but that was even more niche than [TN] itself, and to operate effectively in the Decipher era, usually required a second HQ with a healthy number of dissidents), no flavor, no nothing.

And it showed. Terok Nor was probably one of the least played headquarters missions for most of the Decipher era. And why wouldn't it be? There wasn't much incentive for anyone to play it.

Now fast forward to (I can't believe I'm saying this)... Peak Performance. Say what you will about the execution of Ruling Council but it at least gave Terok Nor something that was uniquely theirs. Even better, fast forward some more to Balance of Terror, where Design built on Tenuous Alliance and really fleshed out the identity of Terok Nor with the "Dilemma Mill" mechanic.

Now Terok Nor still isn't the most popular headquarters on the block, but it shows up occasionally, and makes for a nice meta curveball when it does. Add on the fact that it can benefit from the Common suite of cards and it really starts to look like something all its own.

Now... how long did that whole process take? 11 years-ish? And of those 11 years, how many did TN sit fallow with no new support? That's really what I don't want to see.

And, believe it or not, I'm actually NOT against new affiliations as a whole, and nowhere did I say I was. I welcome the innovation a new affiliation can open up, whether it's a new mechanic, new flavor, or something else. But let's skip the 11 year stop/start of Terok Nor and instead start from a paradigm of "I'd like to see X Affiliation in the game (say, Vidiians for argument's sake). Cool. What would Vidiians look like in 2e? What would they do? How would they feel? Is there a gap in gameplay that they could thematically and flavorfully fill? etc."

Doing that sort of holistic analysis on the front end is more work, and there may or may not be the Design resources to do it - I can't speak first-hand to that one way or the other - but opportunity cost is still a thing no matter what you do. If you're designing Vidiians, what cards/mechanics/etc. for the current affiliations are you not working on?

That's not to say there's no way to do it, but I don't think I'm raising invalid concerns. You say more affiliations allow for "Whole expansions worth of story-telling and creative content that could keep the game vital and exciting for years to come - both to players and volunteers," and I actually could agree with that point, with the caveat of "If done correctly" in front of it. And that's been my whole case: doing it "correctly" involves the kind of holisitic look I described above, and if the conclusion reached is "Vidiians are a pretty color with a great template, let's give them some people, ships, and missions, and turn them loose!" then you're basically making 2003 Terok Nor. That's not going to realize that vision in the best way, if at all. Sure, those are all NECESSARY components, but they aren't in and of themselves, SUFFICIENT.

And if the answer to that Holistic analysis is "We don't have a good idea for a mechanic or identity, we just have another solver affiliation" then, that's ok too, but the best move might be tabling that affiliation and seeing if anything better develops down the road and revisiting it.

Maybe I'd be a lot less inherently resistant to the idea of new affiliations if there was an actual vision and strategy for the game from The Powers That Be, and/or if there was a known design process that was in place that enforced consideration of these types of angles. To my knowledge, none of that exists - The Director of Second Edition (@tjark) has been on record saying he wants to give his designers the opportunity to work on things they want to work on... which while admirable, does not demonstrate much of a strategic vision, to say nothing of a design process. That lack of framework and strategic direction, to me, poses the highest risk of such endeavors not being successful.

On that front, I'd love to be proven wrong.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599838
@Armus

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. If so, my fault and let me try it another way.

In this thread, those who have argued for a higher standard for new affiliations than the standard applied to existing affiliations (and I am grateful, at least, that we do all seem to recognize that there are two different standards being applied) have done so based on three distinct lines of reasoning:
... we should make whatever affiliation best embodies whatever new mechanic that gets developed that doesn't fit into any of the existing affiliations
... the "new mechanic" should include a new win condition, as anything that doesn't create this is going to have to win by being a solver of some description.
... However, that's the real risk of additional affiliations: the more you have, the more you have to sustain. If there's no strategic plan or manpower on what to do with these affiliations, then Under-resourced affiliations either get left untouched for a really long time and/or, you have to dilute your new sets to give a little something to everybody.
My argument was intended to address the first two. The third was a new argument brought up after I addressed the first two.

I don't doubt your sincerity in making either argument you've made. And I am not necessarily arguing against the second point. But I want you to recognize that they are two different arguments. One says, essentially, that whatever we do has to be totally new. The other says, essentially, that whatever we do, no matter how new, is doomed to failure anyway.

And what I am saying is that if that second, doomed to failure argument is where we're at as a community, then I just wish people would tell designers, in no uncertain terms, that no new affiliations will be allowed. It sets expectations commensurate with reality. It frees up designers (and volunteers for Art for that matter) from ever putting forth any effort or energy towards any new affiliation. It also allows designers to explore ways of bringing in unused characters, events, interrupts, dilemmas, missions, and equipment that might otherwise be affiliated as non-aligned or universal cards.

But if we say "totally new" when we really mean "doomed to failure" we're sending mixed messages to volunteers and we're unintentionally sabotaging their success by forcing them to attempt to meet an unrealistic standard that is really meant to discourage effort in the first place.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599841
@The Prefect

I fundamentally disagree that my latest argument is saying that ANY effort is doomed to failure. If I thought that was the case I'd make it real easy and say NO NEW AFFILIATIONS.

And maybe, not definitely, but maybe, that's the right answer.

There's only so many ways to play 2e and still have it resemble 2e. Have all of those ways been explored and developed? Maybe, and if so, then there's really no reason to add another affiliation - all of the bases are already covered.

But then again, maybe not. And if not, then there's possibly room for more affiliations.

But exploring that new space, developing that new mechanic or flavor, determining what that new affiliation looks, feels, and plays like, takes work. Probably a lot of work.

And that's where we run into the resource problem. How many Designers are there on the active roster? 5? 6? And what needs does the game have already that would be a competing demand for those designers' limited time?

I'm not saying any effort is doomed to failure, I'm saying any effort involves tradeoffs - you can't get away from opportunity cost.

So the fundamental question is, is it worth exploring design for a new affiliation, and doing it in a way that allows best chance of success, which inherently involves more work - and by extension, more tradeoffs - knowing there's a risk that that work could come up short, or are those design resources better invested in building out existing affiliations/ factions, addressing current meta weaknesses, etc.?

I don't think I'm in a position to answer that question, but it definitely strikes me as one worth asking.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599842
Armus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:30 pm @The Prefect

And that's where we run into the resource problem. How many Designers are there on the active roster? 5? 6? And what needs does the game have already that would be a competing demand for those designers' limited time?

I'm not saying any effort is doomed to failure, I'm saying any effort involves tradeoffs - you can't get away from opportunity cost.

So the fundamental question is, is it worth exploring design for a new affiliation, and doing it in a way that allows best chance of success, which inherently involves more work - and by extension, more tradeoffs - knowing there's a risk that that work could come up short, or are those design resources better invested in building out existing affiliations/ factions, addressing current meta weaknesses, etc.?

I don't think I'm in a position to answer that question, but it definitely strikes me as one worth asking.
Thank you for the clarification.

I think different managers will answer these questions in different ways, depending on their management style. But, in general, I would agree it has to start with a plan and a mandate from the top in order to sustain that level of support. Not micromanaging, mind you, but direction.

But whether the cost benefit analysis tells us it's worth it or not, I think it's helpful to decide what standard we're going to hold designers to, and I disagree that volunteer designers today should be held to higher standards than professional designers working twenty years ago.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#599844
I really like the idea of adding the missing affiliations. I think what can be done to help 2E feel like another edition of the same game as 1E, rather than a different game, is a good aspirational goal. Specifically, anything that can be done to bring more interaction to the non-AQ quadrants is good for the game.

I would want the mechanics associated with these new affiliations to have Trek-sense and be balanced. The latter is where I am concerned. I am worried that 2E doesn’t have a good handle on balance right now. Seeing NeuHawk and Dial-A-AudaciousAssault hasn’t exactly assuaged those concerns. This is where Armus’ “opportunity cost” point resonates most with me. If it’s a choice between a new affiliation and say (I’m making this up), strengthening GQ DS9 so that it can help to reign in the Dominion, I’ll take putting the resources into the older factions.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599847
abargar7510 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 6:22 pm Seeing NeuHawk and Dial-A-AudaciousAssault hasn’t exactly assuaged those concerns. This is where Armus’ “opportunity cost” point resonates most with me.
Well, I don't think it would surprise anyone for me to say I think these concerns are a bit overblown. I'm still waiting for Bar Brawl to destroy the game as we know it. :shifty:

As I understand it, the concern with the TNG Dissident deck was dealt with when Matthew Dougherty, Misguided Admiral got his errata - errata that might have been a long time coming anyway. And since Hawk, Conn Officer requires [H] Earth to be part of the ship movement (go to or coming from) I don't anticipate it being broken - and to the best of my knowledge none of the testers made any such concerns part of their official reports - if I missed said concern being expressed then my apologies, but I'm not recalling any. And if that concern was expressed privately, it hardly seems fair to hold designers accountable for information of which they were unaware. Now, time may prove me wrong. But, at the moment, I'm not concerned.

Regarding Memad being used to get Audacious Assault out on a first turn in a deck using Cardassia Prime, Subjugated Planet, then I would say to maximize the chances of this kicking off the deck builder would need to include three copies of a card they had no other use for, as Memad cannot be played to that persona of Cardassia Prime - not even with Brief Reunion. And so, that's some real cost-benefit thinking on the part of the deck builder. But if the option to even do something like that in the first place bothers you, it might assuage your fears a bit to know this card came straight out of The Process - and we all know designers working under The Process were damn-near infallible. Well, except me. I'm a lego-loving fanboy that doesn't know a sandbox from a hole in the ground. :wink: :cheersL:
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#599849
Of course time will tell on if those strategies will be OP. But that’s still two slots that could’ve gone to helping decks that need help instead of cards that best case help decks that don’t.
Last edited by abargar7510 on Tue May 30, 2023 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
By The Prefect (Michael Shea)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Prefect
2E Sector 001 Regional Champion 2023
#599850
abargar7510 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 6:49 pm Of course time will tell. But that’s still two slots that could’ve gone to helping decks that need help instead of cards that best case help decks that don’t.
Well, not every card that makes it into a set does so as a life raft to a deck in need. There are lots of reasons for cards to be included in a set. But, if it's your contention that every card in a smaller set must help a struggling deck, then my response is that's a valid opinion with which I simply disagree. I'm not sure there's an objective right or wrong here...

In any case, that's a whole different concern from "these cards are clearly broken." I don't think they are. You seem to disagree. It will be interesting to come back in six months to see which of us didn't know what they were talking about. If it's me, I'll admit it. :cheersL:
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#599852
The Prefect wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 6:41 pm
abargar7510 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 6:22 pm Seeing NeuHawk and Dial-A-AudaciousAssault hasn’t exactly assuaged those concerns. This is where Armus’ “opportunity cost” point resonates most with me.
Well, I don't think it would surprise anyone for me to say I think these concerns are a bit overblown. I'm still waiting for Bar Brawl to destroy the game as we know it. :shifty:

As I understand it, the concern with the TNG Dissident deck was dealt with when Matthew Dougherty, Misguided Admiral got his errata - errata that might have been a long time coming anyway. And since Hawk, Conn Officer requires [H] Earth to be part of the ship movement (go to or coming from) I don't anticipate it being broken - and to the best of my knowledge none of the testers made any such concerns part of their official reports - if I missed said concern being expressed then my apologies, but I'm not recalling any. And if that concern was expressed privately, it hardly seems fair to hold designers accountable for information of which they were unaware. Now, time may prove me wrong. But, at the moment, I'm not concerned.

Regarding Memad being used to get Audacious Assault out on a first turn in a deck using Cardassia Prime, Subjugated Planet, then I would say to maximize the chances of this kicking off the deck builder would need to include three copies of a card they had no other use for, as Memad cannot be played to that persona of Cardassia Prime - not even with Brief Reunion. And so, that's some real cost-benefit thinking on the part of the deck builder. But if the option to even do something like that in the first place bothers you, it might assuage your fears a bit to know this card came straight out of The Process - and we all know designers working under The Process were damn-near infallible. Well, except me. I'm a lego-loving fanboy that doesn't know a sandbox from a hole in the ground. :wink: :cheersL:
1.) I never said the version of Bar Brawl that got made would break the game, just the previous versions that led up to it. I stand by those assessments. Non-combat free points or Hand Bouncing stacks of personnel was absurd.

2.) 6 cards in, say a 54 card solver means the odds of Memad or AA in your opening hand is 58%. Without Memad those odds drop to 36% (3 cards in a 51 card solver).

You can play with the numbers a bit but that's a fairly reasonable example.

You build your personnel mix correctly, you're going to save 6-10 counters of personnel cost and another 6-10 counters in free HQ draws. For 3 "dead" cards? That's a no brainer. I'm hard pressed to find a NeuNeuDominion deck with even a basic species diversity that wouldn't benefit greatly from this move.

3.) I tried to tell everyone how awesome The Process era was, but @Latok, @The Guardian, @monty42, @GooeyChewie, and a few others all told me I was wrong.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]