To see the cards themselves, check out this Card list for the Energize! set.
PICTURE: Mayweather may get no coverage on Enterprise, but he gets a little in the card game. This is his parents' ship and his former home. The design is dynamic, in large part because of the slowly streaking stars, but the ship itself comes off as rather grainy. Not too apparent from a distance, but it's a strange effect close-up. The ayes have it in this case though, and it scores a 3.4.
LORE: Forgoing any quote, we get a pretty good sentence, evocative and fun. A good 3.5.
TREK SENSE: This is interesting. By adding Acquisition to any mission
and then solving it with that added requirement (as an extra point-worthy
goal), you're in essence stating that you ALSO made a Cargo Run at that
location. You still have to do the mission, but you run cargo at the same
time. Only... there's no actual destination at a space mission. You're
carrying cargo, yes, but not delivering it. Should that be worth the extra
points? Or are you meeting another ship there? I'm also not sure why it
had to be unique. I mean, yes, you shouldn't be allowed to play more than
one at the same mission, but once a merchant, always a merchant, no? I
could make Runs to many places, and I think the lore would back me up on
that. The Cost is fine, I won't argue with it, taking into account the
possible cost of the cargo, etc. Geez, what I thought at first was a nifty
effect turns out to be pretty problematic. As such, can't go above 2.1.
1E TREK SENSE: Let me see... I don't think there's any real difference in the effects of the card in 1E. Though possible confusion with Cargo Bay's "cargo run" may arise. Still 2.1.
STOCKABILITY: 5 points, only once per game (unless you nullify and replay).
That's not a big bounty, but every little bit helps, I suppose. If you
are using an Acquisition personnel, then you might as well add the requirement
to a space mission, but watch out, if you lose that personnel during dilemma
resolution, you could lose your ability to solve that mission. And there
aren't a lot of Acquisition personnel yet (the Ferengi will be naturals,
of course), so this danger is very real. Some affiliations will have to
rely exclusively on Non-Aligneds, but most affiliations should probably
use NAs regardless. On the other hand, you might create an Acquisition
mission with parameters more in line with your skill base just to be allowed
to play some Artifacts. Just make sure at all times that you have enough
Acquisition IN that skill base. When using alternative requirements, like
For the Cause, you don't really need to have the Acquisition present, but
you still score the points. Might as well, but not a huge reward for the
risks usually entailed, so just a 3.
1E STOCKABILITY: In 1E, you've got a heck of a lot more Acquisition personnel roaming around, including the large Ferengi base. On the flip-side, 5 points is a meager round-the-corner strategy, especially when you can't use it more than once per game. You're playing an event to do what the single objective Assign Mission Specialists can do over and over, with multiple personnel at the same mission (any kind). Adding Acquisition to your mission might help against mission thieves unready for such a skill, but that's the only small side-effect I see branching out from it. A measly 2.
TOTAL: 12 (60%) A lesser strategy.
1E TOTAL: 11 (55%) Not really worth the trouble.
PICTURE: The scene of many Klingon and Federation troops is made more poignant by the young civilian (Jake) coming upon it. A dramatic shot that really works. Gets to 4.
LORE: It's an account of a battle that might have preceded Casualties of War, but it does little with the first part of that phrase. Still an interesting look at 24th-century infantry combat. As much as 3.3.
TREK SENSE: In Star Trek, main personnel are rarely, if ever, Casualties of War. When they die, it's really not collateral damage, they die big. This dilemma represents the deaths of the little people, the extras and stuntmen that invariably fall during any firefight. Three personnel are placed in a crossfire, and if they are all "little people" (as represented by cost) and don't have a hero (high-cost personnel) in their huddle (the rest of the away team is behind a different rock), they are all killed. Either way, someone dies at random. The basis for the card is good, but anomalies do crop up. The random death, for example, may well be of a high-cost personnel, disregarding the gist of the card totally. And low-cost personnel aren't ALL non-unique extras either. A weak version of a main may find its way in the group (the sole 2-pointer, for example, or someone like Data/Loyal Brother). As for being a dilemma, and thus unconnected to combat as we know it in the game, you have to believe a war is raging on any planet were it is played. The full scale assault described in the lore, however, does deserve the Cost of 4. I do like this, but some of the ramifications do keep it at 3.5.
STOCKABILITY: Round-the-corner strategies haven't become strong enough that you can avoid the fact that you win the game by solving missions. To do this, you need skills and attributes, which are to be found on personnel. Personnel special abilities are really cool, but they're just frosting on a sometimes expensive cake. No wonder then that many players will opt for so-called "weenie decks" that mostly or exclusively use low-cost personnel. Just get the skills you need as cheaply as possible and start attempting missions. Casualties of War is one of the dilemmas designed to combat this strategy. 3 personnel are selected at random, and if they are all weenies, they all die. A total of 4 makes room for one 2-pointer and two 1-pointers, but the new Leeta/Rebel Supporter costs 0, so you could eliminate a 3-pointer where present! And if the total cost of the selectees is higher than 4, hey, you get a random death anyway. That could be a 5-pointer, you never know. An assured kill, and if you smell the weenies coming, as many as three! The cost of 4 isn't too much, I don't think. Might be a good place to bring your Alien Gambling Device. Planet only, folks, for the space version, look at Training Accident. A strong 4.3.
TOTAL: 15.1 (75.5%) Death to the weenies!
PICTURE: An otherwise appropriate Maquis shot is ruined by the heavy blur on Chakotay's face. Not dislikeable, but keep it at arm's length. A 2.5.
LORE: There are various ways to describe the Maquis, and I'm glad they made Chakotay sound heroic with that subtitle. He's certainly one of the most altruistic of those we've met. The quote itself is a little harsher, but has the virtue of patching in ever so slightly with his special ability. Nothing incredible, but enough for a 3.1.
TREK SENSE: Chakotay's a Maquis leader (Leadership/Command icon), and indeed, the commander of the Valjean (name corrected from 1E's Liberty as per onscreen evidence). His extensive knowledge of amerind culture(s) has earned him both Anthropology and Archaeology. He was also shown as quite a pilot, so Navigation is in order. Treachery is a necessary evil to fight the Cardassians, not something I think Chakotay was too comfortable with, but when you're leading Galors into the Badlands and tricking them into getting destroyed... the skill applies, as does the drop in Integrity. His dedication to the cause appears to inspire other Maquis around him and boost their attributes. I don't even mind Integrity being boosted here, since Chakotay still remained a somewhat straight arrow. To provide that inspiration, he must be facing a danger that makes him go the extra mile, so the boost only exists while he faces a dilemma. Battle might also have been appropriate and closer to the events of "Caretaker". To finish off, Cunning and Strength are at appropriate levels, and Cost seems fine too. Nothing disturbing, but nothing that really sings either. A 4.
STOCKABILITY: He won't boost attributes for the actual mission attempt where they're so important, but dilemmas require attributes too, and he'll do so there. He's got a good skill list, with Archaeology and Anthropology rarer than most skills in the affiliation (especially useful if you want to use Artifacts). The rest reads a little like Cal Hudson (right down to the attributes), but those skills are common for a reason. In fact, two of them are requirements on For the Cause, and the Anthropology/Leadership combo is a rare one required of Sermon (sure to come into its own after the event-heavy Necessary Evil ships). And let's not forget Chakotay is the commander of the Valjean. It's a pretty good ship that can boost its own attributes considerably at the cost of fooling around with an opponent's deck (a cost you're happy to pay). Captain on the Bridge gets him aboard directly at a cost of 2 instead of 3, Deploy the Fleet scores you 5 points for him just being aboard (Mission Accomplished requires little more to do the same), and you can download either the ship to him, or him to the ship, with How Would You Like a Trip to Romulus? Other uses for a Commander include boosting the ship's Range with Inspiring Leader, reducing the number of dilemmas you meet by Running a Tight Ship, and Standing Your Ground to keep Maneuver events around longer. Not a hugely important card, but if you want some Commander stuff, the Maquis don't have too many options yet. A good 3.7.
TOTAL: 13.3 (66.5%) Feels a little like a Bajoran, which I suppose is appropriate.
PICTURE: A few observations, if you'll allow me... The hologram casts a shadow... Slight blur as per plenty of TNG images... At this distance, the Romulan uniforms look more like armor... Worf stands with the Klingons, not the humans... The camera is pointed at the ground, cool... Overall, I quite like it, and you won't find many TNG shots that show all these species together. A fun 3.6.
LORE: Here's something interesting - Though the ancient humanoid's message fell on deaf ears this time around, the same actress, Salome Jens, would return as the Founder Leader, and her people, the Dominion, WOULD make all four species shown come together. For opposite reasons, really, but still... The message of hope here gets a 3.3.
TREK SENSE: Common Ground is one of those lovey-dovey cards that examplifies TNG in a way. Indeed, since the Feds are the most tolerant of affiliations, you cannot find Common Ground without the politically correct TNGers. The olive branch in this case is allowing each player (your opponents go first) to play a personnel on their headquarters mission. Thematically, this links with the idea that we're all from the same genetic tree, and so conceptually, you allow a personnel to be "born". I don't know what Common Ground we have with the Dominion though, and it's not even clear if we share parentage with the Ferengi. The Borg are also a strange proposition. Well, TNGers are just that sappy, I mean, gallant. Since the personnel don't actually come together (they don't show up at the same headquarters or anything), Trek Sense isn't high on this one. The low Cost plays into the TNGers doing something that comes naturally to them, so I'm ok with that. The rest of it plays too much into the conceptual. As a result, a low 1.3.
STOCKABILITY: TNG Feds are adept at mission solving, yes, but they have a second type of effect dedicated to them - shared effects. Shared Problems, VIP Welcome and Temba are three examples, but Common Ground is the one at hand. In this case, it allows you to place a personnel (not "play", so I wouldn't use any personnel whose special ability is keyed to being played) on your HQ (as normal), but at a Cost of only 1, i.e. the Cost of Common Ground. With all the big guns running around the affiliation, that's a pretty neat effect. The catch is that you must allow each of your opponents to do the same! Too much to ask? Well, hold on. You've got one advantage on them: You're playing Common Ground at the most appropriate time, i.e. when you have a high-Cost TNG personnel in hand. If your opponents don't have any personnel in hand, or just a simple cheap weenie, then the effect will be much less useful to them. Draining cards from opponent's hand might be of help (I'm thinking of Diplomatic Overture, for example), but TNGers now have Deanna Troi/Ship's Counselor, who, one turn in advance, can look at opponent's hand and place a card of her choice under that opponent's deck. The highest Cost personnel perhaps? The risk is probably worth it to play a Data, no? Despite that risk, I'm giving it 3.5.
TOTAL: 11.7 (58.5%) TNGers are givers... but I'm a DSNiner. ;-)
PICTURE: Great choice of pic even if some blur is showing. It's got a great villain and a situation that looks dangerous. So really, only the blur is a problem, though a big one, especially with the background, which makes it look like the two characters were pasted on top of it. Manages a 3.6.
LORE: One of Khan's lines from the pictured scene, it talks about mission expectations in a way that relates well to the game effect. Again, solid at 3.4.
TREK SENSE: Take the pictured mission. They were expecting dilemmas like Sandstorm, but no way did they imagine encountering Genetically Engineered Renegades or Ceti Eels. Ceti Alpha V/VI was much more dangerous than anticipated, and by all rights, an away team of two shouldn't have had all that to deal with. And this often happens in Star Trek, doesn't it? A seemingly routine mission goes wrong, and the Complications pile up. This card creates this effect in the game by allowing a player to add Complications to a mission attempt. More options, more "danger points" to spend. This is all fine, and the only things that hurt this card are mechanical conceits. For example, by being played in the core, Complications become "expected" (even if the exact Complications aren't known). Also, since Star Trek stories are built on Complications, the card being both unique and expensive makes little sense. But these are all necessary evils to work the concept into the game engine, so we can afford to be lenient. A 4.5.
STOCKABILITY: This card basically allows you to turn card counters into dilemma counters, but you do tend to lose counters in the exchange. Complications is Cost 5, a very hefty price, so is it worth it to play more dilemmas? Oh, I think it is. When you destroy this event, you treat a crew as if it were 3 personnel bigger, drawing 3 more dilemmas, and using up 3 more in Cost. First, this gives you more options, making dilemma decks that are heavy on planet-only and space-only dilemmas (as opposed to the dual kind) more efficient. It's also easier to fine-tune the dilemma combo. And it also makes high-Cost dilemmas (like Formal Hearing, Whisper in the Dark, Tsiolkovsky Infection and Forsaken, not to mention even the Cost 5 dilemmas) more efficient and more likely to be used. Complications' Cost can be reduced as well, with Party Atmosphere, for example, and Morik would benefit from the +5 to his attributes. Plenty of Event-related effects have come out with Necessary Evil that can help justify the use of this one (though it's placed in more danger of being discarded as well). On the other hand. Necessary Evil also features Endangered, a card that does much the same as this one, but at Cost 0. 0 in counters, but you do lose 5 points. How many points can you actually spare? You could see this as a way of going around Complications' unique status. How about Pulling the Strings for the Dominion? Well, it may seem more efficient, but it comes out at about the same counter-wise when you factor in the drawing cost. Stir Crazy, for its part, Costs much less, but will only work late in a game, possibly just on the third mission attempt. Using a mix of these cards may be the best solution. Complications, since that's the one discussed, remains a pricy, but worthy, addition to the game. Scores a 4.
TOTAL: 15.5 (77.5%) It's sometimes complicated to gauge a card's cost based on its effect.
PICTURE: A shot from the "log camera", it's certainly appropriate, and Sisko's in an interesting position. Compositionally, we've got a nice symetric effect with dynamic differences on one side, and the lines from the little bonsai thing on the coffee table lead us to Sisko and his moral dilemma. A bit dark, but it's hard to hold that against this card given the subject matter. A 3.6.
LORE: Some nice prose from Sisko's confession here, showing just how to pave hell with good intentions. Good title making use of the episode's too. A 3.6 again.
TREK SENSE: Some things I like, but I'm unsure of the actual effect. See, this kind of moral compromise is exactly what we've come to expect from DS9 as a show, and a DS9 Fed that's willing to use Treachery is the correct target for this card (Treachery comes more naturally to other affiliations). Also appropriate is the Cost, I think, since such a compromise is, in a way, taking the easy way out (i.e. at low Cost). But the effect? If we take Sisko as the example, what skill did he gain in "In the Pale Moonlight"? Looking at Man of Resolve, it would seem to be Security. Sure, ok, doing what it takes to insure the security of the Federation. But what about other skills? The scientific skills in particular don't seem to fit very well, though I could see a moral sacrifice be turned to Diplomacy, Acquisition, Intelligence, and a few others. Honor? A legal skill here, but patently absurd. It's the effect that keeps this card at plain ol' 3.
STOCKABILITY: DS9 Fed Treachery personnel, eh? For the moment, that would be Sisko/Man of Resolve (by sacrificing Diplomacy), Bashir/Unnatural Freak (by sacrificing 2 cards from the discard pile), and Michael Eddington/Traitor to Starfleet. Not many, and only one has the skill "naturally". Gaining a skill of your choice is good for mission solving/dilemma passing, especially if you've lost a key personnel to a dilemma, but it's not as good as having the skill there in actuality. And yet, it remains a good way to double a skill to go against certain dilemmas ("two-fers"), and if you also play Shady Resources, another personnel present could benefit from the extra skill. 2 instances of a skill in your crew for a Cost of 2 is better than a single one. Too few personnel to do this with? Well, you could make your Dax gain Treachery plus another skill with The Rite of Emergence (plus another skill with Confessions). Oh, and that Bashir can double the given skill with We're Mutants. It could definitely save your bacon one day. A 3.5.
TOTAL: 13.7 (68.5%) I confess I'm not too enthusiastic, but more DS9 Treachery personnel could make this perhaps too powerful a card.
PICTURE: Bah. A couple of Cardassian soldiers carrying a phaser array power cell is, ok, appropriate, but not very interesting. I suppose the "time of war" aspect finds its due in it, and the angle is at least unusual. Let's leave it at 3.
LORE: The title is dull as nails, but the lore is written well enough. We get an insight into Cardassian society and all. A 3.1.
TREK SENSE: Drafting as downloading? Perhaps, but if you're gonna draft personnel to be in your army, why would they already be Glinns? It's not the highest rank, but it's definitely not the lowest! I've been thinking about that, and maybe that's why they download to the top of the deck from where you have to pay for their entry into your hand. At the top of the deck, these personnel are enlisted, and in the course of moving from deck to hand to play, will have been promoted to Glinn. Or, and this might fix some other problems, like the fact that a guy like Damar was probably never "randomly drafted" (and that the downloads aren't random at all), maybe the new draftees allow soldiers over them to finally get promoted. The enlisted men pushing the men before them into a higher rank. It's all a bit wobbly, but it can be made to work. Another take on it has you conscripting expendable personnel into service, serving as opponent-forced discards. That's if you consider Glinns all that expendable. As for the Cost, it's ok (1 per Glinn), though the Cardassians are so militarily-minded, it wouldn't have been absurd to make their "draft act" a simple 1. All the structures are in place, I'm pretty sure of it. Score? A 3.3.
STOCKABILITY: Hey, the Cardassians have a lot of Glinns, so Conscription gives you a lot of options. If all you want is cheap skills, go grab a couple of the non-unique weenies (Daro, Jerax or Jural). You could also place them there are expendables in case your opponent is strong on causing discards. The others have various special abilities that you might want at a particular point in the game, whether that's Boheeka's card manipulations, Damar/Useful Adjutant's dilemma attrition, Nerot's Punishment relief or the "unstoppable" Seskal. The only real concern is the Cost, which basically makes the Cost of drawing each of those Glinns 2 instead of 1. Since most Glinns are cheap (mostly 1s and 2s), it's still affordable. And that kind of flexibility is always good. Conscription gets a 3.5.
TOTAL: 12.9 (64.5%) At least a military card fits into the Cardassians' theme.
PICTURE: A fun, detailed screen shot (that's pretty rare), all the better because of its unusual Klingon graphics. It's all set on their trademark triangle grid (the toothiest of grids), and features fleet movement (is the Dominion in yellow?). If I trust my Star Trek Star Charts (now there's an indulgent purchase on my part), that blotch near the middle is the Badlands, which means the thin lines are the borders of the Cardassian Union (multiple lines because of the changing fronts). Sadly, neither Bajor nor DS9 seem to be on the map, not at their "accepted" positions at any rate. Ah well, still a fun 3.9.
LORE: Gowron's big plan to defeat the Dominion... or to at least humiliate General Martok. It matches the title, though not too overtly, but in any case is a fine example of fleet strategies. A 3.4.
TREK SENSE: The Klingons have more battle initiation cards than any other affiliation, so it makes sense for them to have an other card that helps regulate all those strategies, and since Officers would be the ones making those battle plans, what you need is Klingon Officers. Three of them, in fact, since after all, we're Coordinating our Attacks. That's where it gets touchy. Aside from Render Assistance, Maneuver cards do not allow more than one ship to attack. So who are you Coordinating with exactly? Assault cards, well, many personnel are involved, even if they're all one crew (albeit possibly from different ships). Well, the answer may just be that while you're battling over here, other Klingons are doing something else over there. So by letting your entire fleet know what's going on (using a pre-agreed-upon plan), Klingons everywhere can use their time more efficiently. As in: "Martok's heading them off at the nebula, we're free to attempt this mission." Etc. No timing issues on this Interrupt, since the Order phase is the perfect place for it. Always a bit sad to see such a universal concept limited to one affiliation, but if there can only be one, that's the one to go with. A 4.1.
STOCKABILITY: The Klingons are good at battle, no question about it. They have more battle cards than anyone, and so can select from a variety of effects, from casualties to damage to scoring points to attribute boosts, and with a variety of costs and requirements. You can stuff a lot of them in your deck, but with Coordinated Attack (a free Interrupt, I do believe you should have the Officers in play), you can summon the right one to your hand at a moment's notice. To choose from: More than a dozen Maneuvers that initiate battle to date, and little more than half that number in Assaults (some cards are both), plus some non-initiation cards like Evasive Maneuvers, Power to the Shields, Render Assistance and The Truth of War. Makes your fighters all the more flexible, getting you the card the best fits your means, requirements and needs. A healthy 4.4.
TOTAL: 15.8 (79%) I'm sure other affiliations would appreciate such a card.
PICTURE: Sounds and looks more like a Maneuver (event) than a dilemma, to tell you the truth. I always find it disturbing when a dilemma is pictorially represented by an affiliated personnel or ship. I mean, if the Feds are gonna cripple you during a mission attempt, shouldn't they have a ship actually there? It of course could be an alien ship firing, but the pic says otherwise. That said, it's a really, colorful and dynamic battle shot from TNG (not that frequent), with the Galor-class ship failing at an evasive maneuver. I do have to wonder, however, if a shot to the tail is that crippling to such ships. Hmm. The various conceptual problems keep the card at a still pretty 3.
LORE: Though a direct hit is mentioned, the rest simply doesn't match the title of Crippling Attack. We hear of moderate damage (oooh), and that damage is only to the shields (whereas the card goes for all systems). Totally dissonant, and not that interesting besides, for a low 0.5.
TREK SENSE: Some ship attacks you with everything it's got, and to fend
it off, you're gonna need everyone working at 110% (possible within a warp
field ;-). That's how 2 Leadership and Officer figure into things. Such
a requirement represents a well-oiled fighting machine. Alternately, lots
of Navigation can avoid most of the blast, and lets the strongest Shields
take the brunt of the attack. Navigation combined with Shields is an odd
requirement, because you really should be either avoiding the blasts or
absorbing the damage, not both, but I imagine this Crippling Attack represents
more than one blast. You might have to do a little of both during the entire
battle. What I'm fine about is the idea of making a dilemma damage a ship
just like some Maneuvers do. Here, we've got a casualty, first and foremost,
and then all systems are at lower capacity, from engines to weapons to
shields. I wouldn't really call the Attack Crippling with those feeble
-2s, but it at least hit the ship in its entirety. The "danger factor"
of 3 is fair. Overall, I'd say this scores a 3.5.
1E TREK SENSE: Again, no real problem with a dilemma acting like a damage marker. Can't really see anything in the above review changing, so a 3.5 too.
STOCKABILITY: Excellent effects, with one random personnel dying and
the ship dropping each attribute by 2, and all without the need for a Maneuver
card or putting your ship in harm's way. The problem I see is the relatively
easy to find requirements. Even the doubled skills are quite common in
most any deck. The Bajorans are going to have the most trouble coming up
with the Shields if they go for the second set, but they've got plenty
of Leadership. The same could be said of the Maquis. And here I thought
3 was a very reasonable Cost. The advantage is that you know if the ship
has the Shields or not before you make the combo, so this might be one
of those dilemmas you either use or don't depending on the situation. You
could also precede it by Command Decisions, Confined to Quarters, Personal
Duty and the like, or to hose Navigaton, there's Magnetic Field Disruptions
and Wavefront. Not so bad after all, but risky to use alone. A 3.7.
1E SEEDABILITY: The skills required aren't just as common in 1E, they're more so. Navigation x2, for example, is often found. And unless someone's running some kind of shuttle deck, you can bet on the Shields being high enough (if not naturally, then with various boosts). Again, the right combo would be your friend, but I have to ask if a Battle Bridge side-deck and a standard ship-damaging dilemma couldn't do the same thing. Actually do more: Crippling Attack reads like a damage marker, but damage from the side-deck would yield two of those, easily as strong as this one. Mitigating this is the fact that most ship-damaging dilemmas are quite easy to pass, much more than Crippling Attack. The few that aren't, however, should be used over this one. I imagine a lot of players who came in after Blaze of Glory don't have access to Tactics, so ok, but these reviews use the entire collection. In 1E, dilemmas go to the discard pile, so it could be recycled and used with backwards-compatible William Patrick Samuels. I can muster a 2.
TOTAL: 10.7 (53.5%) If it wasn't for that misleading title...
1E TOTAL: 9 (45%) Not all 2E cards fit neatly into 1E.
PICTURE: The crew of the Voq'leng was a fun shot on the show, only slightly less so with the movement turned off. The seams aren't really visible, and there's just the nose of the Delta Flyer not registering well in the corner. A fun 3.8.
LORE: It helps explain the game text and has a couple of numbers that might interest some players and collectors, but I don't know... it doesn't hold MY interest very much. Non-descript at best, and a 3 should do.
TREK SENSE: The rationale is that while weenies are easily reported (they are, for the most part, not the best in their fields), their very presence might have hidden costs. Voyager couldn't take all those Klingons; Bajor didn't have room for the Skrreeans; and so on. So maybe that Cost 1 personnel actually costs 3 given the situation. In other words, the player of that personnel must pay the Crowd Control fee. Of course, the examples used above (and on the card) aren't really going to come up because they would be out-of-affiliation personnel (the Skrreeans could be NAs though), and the reporting isn't normally done on a ship, but rather at an HQ mission. DS9/Terok Nor might have space constraints, but not the planets. There are questions as to why 2 weenies are a "Crowd" too. Just how many personnel do weenies represent? Do they come with a batch of Ensign Bobs behind them? Unique personnel are singular, but non-uniques... are they entire staffs? That's almost how it reads. But even if it were true, I don't think 2 personnel really constitutes a Crowd, while 3 doesn't count as one (nor do uniques arriving with a non-unique). The card remains on a conceptual level. Uniqueness here is for mechanical reasons (so that it doesn't become cumulative), and the Cost is fine since it's actually paid when used. The idea makes sense enough for a 1.5, but the execution won't allow it to rise higher.
STOCKABILITY: Crowd Control is a weenie hoser to play against those players that use lots of low-Cost personnel for quick skill-pooling and early mission-solving. Who care about special abilities when what you really need to do is complete missions by assembling skills and attributes, right? What it does is make the second Cost 1 personnel played on a turn actually cost 3, but only the second one. That should be enough to keep waves of personnel from being played each turn. There's unfortunately no real easy way to get Crowd Control in play early, where it would do the most damage (not that you don't report personnel throughout the game). The Event does work on all players, which is good in the case of multi-player games, but do remember it affects you too. Don't use weenies, or report them sparingly. Crowd Control may well force your opponent(s) to do just that, though if only stocked with weenies, she'll have to pay the fee eventually. The price is right at 0, because it may wind up doing no damage at all. But seeing as weenie decks are popular and efficient, a 3.4.
TOTAL: 11.7 (57.5%) Perhaps more important to the meta-game.
PICTURE: A sad picture that doesn't dwell too much on the gore, it's a perfect example of a well-framed image. The vertical lines follow Scotty, while the horizontals are parallel to the kid, and the kid's head is encased in black, black that has seeped through his uniform. Composition is very strong, so a 4.5.
LORE: A poignant quote from Scotty that examplifies the card's title. I'm not sure we can ask for more. A 3.5.
TREK SENSE: Let's see, there's a personnel in harm's way (we're not
sure how, but it could be as simple as a randomly burst conduit of some
kind), and if that personnel stays at his or her post, he or she dies.
That's if they have Dedication to Duty. If they run, your opponent draws
some cards. Eeeech. I was with the card 'til then. This almost purely mechanical
upside might be because the opposing affiliation points a finger and goes
"ha ha, your affiliation doesn't have much courage", but how does this
translate into resources? It doesn't. Nor does linking the number of cards
drawn to the number of skills the saved personnel has. I understand it
as a fee for saving the personnel, but since the effect doesn't affect
your own cards, the relationship is tenuous at best. Cost is balanced,
and as a "danger factor", it's meant to represent the accident that puts
the character in harm's way. Kudos to actually providing a dilemma (do
I stay or do I go?), but the effect itself isn't very satisfying. Only
1E TREK SENSE: No difference, really, though the Cost doesn't enter into it anymore. Again, 2.1.
STOCKABILITY: I'm surprised this didn't wait to come out in Necessary
Evil. The dilemma always hits, either killing off a random personnel, or
giving you free card draws. The way things'll probably go down, if a weenie
is hit (2-4 skill dots), your opponent'll let him die. If a useful unique
(often 5+ skill dots) is selected, your opponent will save it and in the
process, give you 5+ card draws (to be used before you discard down). Or
will she? Win-win, even if you'd prefer a big personnel to die instead
of being saved. Then again, your opponent may not want you to run away
with the game thanks to those draws, or in the reverse position, could
really need the skills the weenie is holding. Tough spot, and sometimes
I think these stressful decisions actually distract a player from the game,
making dilemmas like this great at keeping players off-balance. While they're
thinking about whether or not to regret a decision they just made, they're
not looking at your NEXT move. The card is balanced by the fact that it's
a random selection, and that you may not get the result you hoped for,
but at a Cost of 3, that's reasonable. A 4.
1E SEEDABILITY: May not be as useful in 1E because a targeted personnel may actually have as little as a single skill dot. Mission specialists and support personnel indeed may just be sent into the grinder, without much effect on your opponent's game. Or they can be saved, only giving you one or two card draws. Boo! Hiss! If a bigger personnel is hit (usually between 3 and 6 skill dots - thankfully, special skills will have one too), there may be more of a decision to make for your opponent. Still, watch out for Scorched Hand and other big-hand hosers. For the Cardassians, this might be a good place for Elim to make an appearance, actually forcing a tougher decision by selecting the target yourself. That helps bring up the score to 3.5.
TOTAL: 14.1 (70.5%) Strong design choices overwhelm unclear Trek Sense.
1E TOTAL: 13.6 (68%) Still good.
PICTURE: A nice visual pun turns out a bit blurry, but it can be almost be explained by the strong Bajoran sunlight overexposing the image. The barren fields lead to Kira, who shows her violence through the strap on her shoulder, which looks like a weapon holster. It's a nice shot despite the blur, and I'm giving it a 4.
LORE: Well-written stuff with a not-too-obvious title attached. A likeable 3.1.
TREK SENSE: Pretty conceptual, Deep Roots plays with the idea of Bajoran Resistance personnel being destructive in spite of themselves. Violence is deeply-rooted in them, so they destroy newer avenues (here, Events). The buck stops there though. Events will usually be on an opponent's side, so will have nothing to do with the Resistance. You could theoretically destroy your own battling Event, so the ingrained violence argument doesn't hold. The justification may or may not hold when you imagine Resistance members as violent toward anything your opponent puts out. I mean, how exactly do they accomplish this? Some plots can be foiled, but other cards are less helpful in that regard. Even the Cost isn't satisfying, even if it is balanced. Seems a bit much for allowing people to essentially be true to themselves. Old habits die hard, they shouldn't cost a lot. But since the effect doesn't really work in the "real world" (and is way too vague to even work well conceptually), it doesn't really matter much. Can't go above 0.5.
STOCKABILITY: The ability to destroy an Event is a powerful one, here balanced in two ways. First, it's costly, and second, it can only be used when you report a Bajoran Resistance personnel. Most such personnel only cost 2, so it's possible to use the effect directly after playing Deep Roots, at a total Cost of 6. Destroying Events has as many uses as there are Events, obviously, including preventing battles (especially space battles against your weaker Bajoran ships), captures, dilemma manipulation, etc. You might even use it on your own Event if it affects all players negatively and you need a quick out (also, one of those revolving events like The Crystalline Entity). Though limited to Bajoran (and even more limitedly, DS9) decks, Deep Roots gets a still strong 4.
TOTAL: 11.6 (58%) Deeply flawed Trek Sense.
PICTURE: The composition is pretty stiff, and it looks like Neral has a shriveled up little arm (the other one majorly poofy). It does the job of setting up the lore, but it misses on the aesthetics. A 2.
LORE: Refers to the "live long and prosper" hand sign, it comes off as hypocritical when matched with the title. It also links the pic to the game text, so everything's fine here. The likeable title gives it the extra push to make it to 3.1.
TREK SENSE: Totally agree that this is a Romulan concept, but the execution unfortunately falls into the conceptual arena. Ahh, those Romulans... Even the Diplomats can't be trusted. They come with open hands, but use the opportunity to spy on you (your draw deck). If the Diplomat is spying on a specific personnel, he or she can learn skills from that personnel to use for him/herself. Right there, that's conceptual. We've got Neral in the pic telling us he learned one simple Vulcan custom, and from that we extrapolate that the Diplomat can learn any skill (multiple skills even), including complex sciences and, yes, even Telepathy. Never mind that the example used Romulan-on-Romulan skill sharing. Even more conceptual is the fact that your Diplomat is nowhere near the affiliation he spies upon, being in the process of facing a dilemma instead. Ok, so he or she must've had the Diplomatic contact before then and is only now using the skills. Even so, why the current top card of the deck? And where do the skills go afterwards? Gets bogged down in mechanics fairly quickly, and so only 1.5.
STOCKABILITY: Interrupts are great because they have no Cost other than the counter used to draw it into hand (or a discard if directly to Neral when facing a dilemma). Diplomatic Masquerade is a nice one, allowing a Diplomacy personnel to give you a peek at your opponent's next drawn card, and if it is a personnel, to gain all that personnel's skills for the rest of a dilemma. Ok, that's not very long, but if you're missing skills to overcome a dilemma, and you have the Masquerade in hand, you might try your luck. The extra skills may come in handy. They may not, or the card revealed may not be a personnel at all, so this has to be seen as an opportunity to take a peek at a card. Any player would have reasons to see what's there. Maybe to get info for Sensing a Trap. It's unfortunate that it's too late for a lot of things you might want to do (Deep Hatred, At an Impasse, Getting Under Your Skin, etc.). Fact of the matter is though, Chance Observation is just as free and has a more probable effect. If you're just into revealing cards (cards that are farther down so you can possibly use some of the cards mentioned just above), then Security Sweep is the Interrupt for you. The trick may just be to use Diplomatic Masquerade once you already have revealed the top card some other way, and so you know what skills, if any, are on there to gain. The risks of a dud effect otherwise are too high. You could use it in combination with Prejudice and Politics to prevent that card's card draw, but still an unconvincing 2.5.
TOTAL: 9.1 (45.5%) That's what you get for not being genuine ;-).
PICTURE: 2E makes use of some of the great, multi-ship, battle shots from DS9, and in this confrontation from "Sacrifice of Angels", the Galaxy-class starship could well be hitting the Galor in the "sensor area", something close to the bridge, at any rate. It's a nice shot, with either side represented by different colors, and the many ship elements in the shot give us a reason to hit sensors, sensors that would make sense of the battlefield. A strong 3.9.
LORE: Not a quote, so no episode context, and the brevity does limit its appeal. I like how the three things mentioned could be elements of various space missions, but the fact the card doesn't affect battles puts that last one in doubt. Only as high as 2.5.
TREK SENSE: With this Maneuver, your Leader initiates an engagement
with the express purpose of Disabling Sensors. I'm game for the Leadership
requirement, showing that a Leader would more readily think of more subtle
attacks. Perhaps better would be requiring a high-Cunning Leader, but it's
acceptable as is. The difficulty of the Maneuver is expressed in the Cost,
which is ok too. The Damage done makes it impossible for personnel to attempt
missions from the ship because the Sensors are offline. A ship cut off
from the outside makes itself a prison from which you can chart, study,
wage battles, or intercept or escape other ships. Very elegant. We do have
to wonder about that battling though, since the ship can still begin engagements
(or participate in them unimpaired). No Clash at Chin'toka, but ship-to-ship
battles are fine. An anomaly that keeps this otherwise very good card at
1E TREK SENSE: Everything pretty much stands as is, though a Leadership-initiated battle is fairly redundant here. Still a 4.
STOCKABILITY: This battle-permission slip may be used by any affiliation,
as long as they have a Leadership personnel, to effectively shut down an
opposing ship's space-mission-solving capabilities. Since all players must
complete at least one space mission, this form of attack will work best
BEFORE the required mission is completed. Getting it out early, perhaps
with Coordinated Attack if you're a Klingon, may be key. That opponent
would then have to spend counters on another ship, or lose a turn fixing
the Damage before moving on. An alternate way of using the card is to drop
it on an infiltrated ship with Changeling Sabotage. William Patrick Samuels
would do something similar for the Maquis. Note that while it doesn't lower
a ship's attributes, 2 more Damage cards will still destroy the ship. The
Cost is just on the pricey side, but not extreme. Best worked in early,
I'm giving it a 3.7.
1E STOCKABILITY: Don't need permission to battle in 1E, though this'll allow Feds to battle despite their usual limits, but the requirement for using the Event is close to the 1E standard (OFFICERs need not apply unless they also have Leadership). In this environment, a space mission must also be completed if The Big Picture is to be respected (make sure you play it), and repairing damage may be a more time-consuming endeavor depending on facility positions on the spaceline (there's also no Cost to worry about). Unfortunately, the Damage won't do anything against the Borg who don't attempt missions, and the many carriable ships (shuttles, etc.) in 1E makes ditching the main ship all to easy. Thing is, this is very similar to the Quantum Torpedo damage marker, only QT does more damage to attributes. If you don't have a Battle Bridge side-deck, sure, it's an option, but not a very dependable one. Dropping a full point to 2.7.
TOTAL: 14.1 (70.5%) Play early.
1E TOTAL: 13.1 (65.5%) I can't see!
PICTURE: Somewhat claustrophobic, in a stopped elevator, with Sisko, the pensive man of decision dominating the image, and all expressions in great earnest. And though all that works as Discreet, it's still just two people talking (or not talking at this exact point). A 2.5 on the elements, but plain to look at.
LORE: Makes promises it doesn't keep (the cost isn't very messy at all), but it's tight, Garak dialogue from a delicious episode. Consequently, a 3.3.
TREK SENSE: If DS9 Feds have a theme, it should be one of nebulous ethics. That theme appears here, though it isn't exactly carried off in the game text, i.e. there's no morally ambiguous cost to be paid for the Discreet Inquiry. What happens is that your Niner makes a Discreet Inquiry, which gives him or her certain information corresponding to the contact's skills. Don't take that as meaning the actual mastery of each skill is transferred, but rather that the contact gave your personnel the exact piece of information they needed on the subject. Needed for whatever dilemma is overcome with the skills, or for ultimately completing the mission. When the skills are NOT used, well, they can be ignored, as indeed, they were. The contact in question is a personnel in the game (your deck) that is accessible (your hand is accessible), but not busy elsewhere in play (which would be too out in the open, and not Discreet). The cost is to "use up" that personnel as a resource for further Discreet Inquiries, as Garak says - it goes on top of the draw deck, where it must be redrawn (paid for again). I'm not sure that's "used up" enough for my tastes, nor is there much of a cost for what is heralded as a very messy, bloody business. As an Interrupt, there's not even much of a cost in time. Too instantaneous for this kind of thing. As an Event, it might have allowed you to stretch your tendrils out before the mission attempt. Doesn't go far enough, but is less conceptual than it first appeared. Hits 3.3.
STOCKABILITY: Could help your DS9 Feds (and just plain regular DSNiners, as long as a DS9 Fed is along) get through their missions, but that depends on what you have in hand, of course. There are various personnel you could stock to specifically interact with Discreet Inquiry. High-cost personnel with many skills could be kept in hand, and their skills used for free by another personnel instead of for whatever Cost the personnel has. If you do plan to play the personnel, it's like an advance on that personnel's skills on a prior turn. It doesn't even have to be a personnel compatible with your affiliation, and would be a fair way to get access to some of the rarer skills, like Telepathy, Intelligence or Acquisition. The personnel in hand goes back to the draw deck and must be redrawn (no doubt will, since it's on top), which still costs fewer counters than playing it outright (if that's even an option). Don't need it anymore? It can easily be used as a discard for some other effect, or alternately, discard it with Visionary. But if you do, it's there for reuse, as long as you have more Discreet Inquiries up your sleeve. Part of loading up on skills when heading on a mission attempt, it lasts until the end of that attempt (not just for a dilemma as some do). A 3.5 should do here.
TOTAL: 12.6 (63%) Not much of a ping on the radar.
PICTURE: I really like this pic because it is so bizarre. The faceless uniforms are cool and creepy, almost from out of The Day the Earth Stood Still. They're walking on the ceiling, so the perspective is already strange, but the fish-eye lense adds even more to that effect. And I like the light bars on the floor/ceiling, and how they go in the same direction as the phaser blasts. Interesting lighting too. A cool 4.5.
LORE: Explaining the Disgraceful Assault pictured on the card, and how such an attack would be dishonorable (good idea to make Klingons the victims for this example). The lore is solid, but of course, no fireworks. A 3.2.
TREK SENSE: Reproduces the Disgraceful Assault from Star Trek VI well
enough, being a similar beam-in in space, but of course, it can't handle
the part about the ship being damaged. We should imagine that the intruders
have somehow brought your shields down for a moment during the mission,
and that they use this opportunity to board the ship and commit a (truly
disgraceful) hit-and-run. To stop the intruders from boarding the ship,
you need enough Security (2, like the number of assassins pictured) and
Transporters. Why Transporters? Because they seemed to be using the Klingon
ship's own transporter systems (or at least the pad). The skill could be
used to block their arrival. If they get aboard, they wind up shooting
a personnel, and that personnel dies if 2 Medical and Biology are not present
(McCoy didn't have the proper Klingon Biology, I assume). Otherwise, the
shot personnel is only stopped. A couple of things deviate from ST VI here:
First, the assassins managed to shoot more than one Klingon, and secondly,
there was nothing random about their true target, Chancellor Gorkon. Of
course, a hit-and-run in another situation might yield this result, with
just one "main" personnel shot and possibly killed before they head back
to whatever ship they came from. This is followed by putting a stop to
all personnel present as they investigate, recuperate, etc. after the Assault.
The Danger Factor is set at 3, which I find agreeable, since your security
is compromised by armed intruders. Makes sense, but doesn't quite follow
its pictured example. Manages a 3.9.
1E TREK SENSE: No difference except for the lack of Cost. The same 3.9.
STOCKABILITY: There are two separate sets of requirements, but to get
to an outright death and full stop of the entire crew, both sets must be
absent when encountering the dilemma. Only missing the 2 Security and Transporters
filters out a single, random personnel (this isn't a fine tool). If 2 Medical
and Biology aren't also present (perhaps you were fortunate enough to have
just stopped a Medical personnel), then the target dies and everyone is
stopped as the dilemma becomes a killer/wall. Of course, 2 Medical and
Biology can be found together on a couple of Feds, but other affiliations
will need 2 Medicals to get everything together. There's a good variety
of skills between the two requirements, though crews are expected to bring
everything they can along. Weeding out both Security and Medical before
playing this dilemma is obviously recommended. At 3 counters, you don't
want to waste this, but it may well happen. Nothing here's very hard to
get. Ultimate effect is good though. A 3.5, I think.
1E STOCKABILITY: In 1E, skill distribution is a little different. Transporter Skill, for example, is much rarer, especially in older affiliations. That makes the filter more likely, though not at all foolproof. On the other hand, the MEDICAL demands are much easier to come up with (the Feds shouldn't even blink), so the kill and wall are much less likely. If this only amounts to a random 1-personnel filter, it's not quite useful enough for more than a 3.
TOTAL: 15.1 (75.5%) Gracefully done.
1E TOTAL: 14.6 (73%) Again, can't complain.
#2113-Disruptor Accident, Dilemma, space, Cost: 3, BC /Ener/
-Randomly select a personnel. Unless you choose to kill that personnel, he or she and a second randomly selected personnel are stopped.
"There was an alien here... who'd taken Romulan form. I was firing at her. ...The doctor got in the way."
PICTURE: Sickbay never looked so expansive... Pretty dramatic because a main
character is being disintegrated, and the whole thing conveniently freeze-framed
for Decipher by the time bubbles. And for all that, it's still very blurry (we
need cleaner TNG transfers, methinks), and the angle really doesn't support the
excuse given in the lore. Still a cool 3.5.
LORE: The quote's the Romulan excuse for what appears to be a pretty incriminating picture. Standard fare, I give it a 3.
TREK SENSE: The dilemma doesn't need a hand weapon present, but unseen NPCs (to use role-playing terminology here) could be providing the weapon that goes off by accident (or is the cause of friendly fire). So either someone at random dies, or two personnel are stopped. That's gonna take some thinking to get through... Obviously, there are two people involved: there's the unintentional target, of course, but I don't think the second personnel is the shooter. Rather, it's a third person that interferes and maybe pushes the target personnel out of the way. Both are stopped as they topple to the ground. Very thin justification, since they could just get up, right? Well maybe they both get glancing blows - it would fit the lore's "getting in the way" theme. Workable, though it doesn't really exploit the idea much at all. Danger factor (3) is fine, but I can't endorse this being a space dilemma only. This sort of thing has as much chance of happening on a planet. Nope, no more than a 1.9.
1E TREK SENSE: The only tangible difference is that the Cost/Danger factor
ISN'T a factor. So an even lower 1.8.
STOCKABILITY: Not a bad one, it'll filter either one or two personnel, and in the former case, makes that filter permanent (kills). So your opponent is up against the wall and must make that difficult choice. If the random selection falls on a cheap or redundant weenie, it's probably dead. If too good a personnel, a player may be tempted to just have it stopped, but at the cost of another random stop. Maybe that'll be the personnel whose absence shuts down the mission attempt. And hey, follow the dilemma up with Don't Let It End This Way, you still get a kill (at Cost 0)! An interesting, and requirement-less, dilemma worth its 3.7.
1E SEEDABILITY: Since it doesn't have requirements, it doesn't stop the crew
that encounters it, so the filter/killer will send them headfirst into the next
dilemma. Unfortunately, random selections are much less useful than specific
ones when building your dilemma combos. There are just better shots at doing
this in 1E with other dilemmas. Still a 3.4.
TOTAL: 12.1 (60.5%) Slips by ok.
1E TOTAL: 11.7 (58.5%) Competition's stiffer in 1E for dilemmas.
#2126-Divok, Personnel, Klingon, Cost: 2 /Ener/
-Klingon; Biology, Honor, Medical, Physics
-When you play this personnel, if you command Kahless, you may draw a card.
"Kahless! I see Kahless! He is standing before me... with a sword. He wants something. ...Me! He wants me!"
-INTEGRITY: 6, CUNNING: 5, STRENGTH: 6
PICTURE: Divok having his vision from the front this time (1E had a profile shot) has some fun with the flames in both background and foreground, and his expression is way over-the-top (and I don't think that's a bad thing). He seems to see you as Kahless (you are a kind of god to CCG personnel, after all). Some graininess and too many shadows are to its detriment. A 3.4.
LORE: A very fun, melodramatic quote with a slight gaming double-entendre ("yes, I do want to put you in play"), it patches right into the special ability. I does lack something to make him non-unique (seems very specific to me this way), but the elements still carry the score to 3.7.
TREK SENSE: Divok worked on the project to clone Kahless (I suppose he's "typical" of Klingons working there - as small a group as that would need to be), so Biology and Medical would be musts. Though the monastery wanted to deceive the Klingon Empire into thinking he was the real Kahless, they still did it for good reasons. Enough for Honor? Sure (if he really did have a vision, he is worthy), but Integrity shouldn't go too high. It doesn't, everything's fine. Physics seems less important to the idea, though I can't claim to understand everything about their cloning process. Looks tacked on to me. The special ability tells us that if Kahless is in play, you get a card draw, i.e. that Divok has a vision, and this translates into a resource (from his idea). Ok, though perhaps it would be more satisfying the other way around, with Kahless arriving instead of already being there. Never seen aboard a ship, I suppose the Staff icon wasn't deserved. Cunning is average, and we saw nothing to contradict that. Strength's above average, but not very high for a Klingon. Not surprising for a Medical, actually. As for Cost, it patches into the rarity of such personnel. Overall, he's hard to believe as a non-unique - though he'd work as a universal pilgrim, his skills involve him to much in the cloning project - and not everything quite works. A 3.4 for what does.
STOCKABILITY: Both Kahless cards are very good, so if you are using either of them, a Divok or two should be indicated. A card draw is a card draw, so it's like Divok actually costing 1 counter. Medicals aren't a dime a dozen for the Klingons anyway, so there's room for Divok regardless. Well, I say that, but with B'amara being an exact duplicate of him, replacing the special ability with the extra skill of Programming and a Staff icon (everything else is identical), Divok SHOULD only be used in Kahless decks. I'm kind of sorry that Kahless' special abilities don't quite benefit Divok. For example, Divok's ordinary self-same attributes don't make much difference when Great Warrior switches requirements to Strength. And if The Unforgettable places Divok on a ship, that's not the same as playing, and you wouldn't get the card draw. Solid, but overshadowed by B'amara (of all personnel), whose differences are good for the entirety of the game, not just when reporting. All good skills and no flawed attribute, but outclassed by a very similar personnel. A 3.
TOTAL: 13.5 (67.5%) And yet, still 2 points ahead of B'amara.
#2139-DNA Security Scan, Dilemma, space/planet, Cost: 4, BC /Ener/
-Unless you have Engineer and 2 Programming or 2 Security and Cunning>36, all your personnel are stopped and this dilemma returns to its owner's dilemma pile.
"Unauthorized entry detected. ...Access to programmer interface has been denied."
PICTURE: The Dreadnought scanning B'Elanna is a distinctive enough image, though it's harder to engage the viewer with far-away shots. The big stained glass window is certainly interesting, but the whole thing floats in darkness. It's like there's wasted space on the card. But the elements are pretty good, so still a 3.3.
LORE: Exactly what you'd here before you had to submit to the Scan, no doubt. So while that's fine, there's only so much you can do with computer-speak. An ok 3.
TREK SENSE: Though you'd be hard-pressed to justify a high-tech computer system at every mission (especially space missions where you'd basically stay aboard your own ship), they're common enough to warrant their own dilemma. In this case, the computer system cannot be easily accessed because of a DNA Scan. If you don't have the right DNA (and you surely don't), you have to bypass it. B'Elanna's solution is up first, with Engineer and 2 Programming working the machine directly. 2 Security could also do it (security systems is their thing), but only if they are Cunning enough. I'm ok with all that. If not overcome, everyone is stopped (you can't get through), and the dilemma goes back to the dilemma pile to be used again. After all, it HASN'T been overcome, but of course, that whole 2E mechanic is pretty unsatisfying. I mean, where does the Scan go if not drawn and played on the next mission attempt? I'm also concerned about the Cost, since I can't really call it a "danger factor" this time. It's more of a "difficulty factor", I suppose, but then the requirements don't even support that. Eh... Too many problems for more than a 2.3.
1E TREK SENSE: The two last problems are solved in 1E, since 1) there's no Cost, and 2) the wall actually stays put. Rehabilitates the score to a 3.8.
STOCKABILITY: Hmm, I'm not sure this dilemma is worth such a high Cost. Sure, it's a flexible space/planet dilemma, and it does stop the entire crew if its requirements aren't met, but are those requirements really that hard to come up with? Engineer and 2 Programming? Those are often found together and are rather common. 2 Security isn't too hard either, though the Cunning requirement might be. With enough personnel, there's no real problem though. It all seems easier than similar space/planet dilemmas with the same effect and Cost. Compare to Ornaran Threat, for example, which has a little more bite. Even Cost 3 dilemmas have more bite before stopping the entire crew. I must say I'm a little disappointed, and can give no more than an average 3.
1E SEEDABILITY: Engineer and 2 Computer Skill, or 2 Security and 37+ CUNNING? Even easier than in 2E, I dare say. The first set of requirements especially so, but with CUNNING numbers being higher in 1E, even the second is fairly simple. No Cost, of course, which removes a weakness, but still, this is too easy to ever solidly hit. With 2 possible requirements, it's even difficult to successfully include in a combo as a set-up for something else. The same 3.
TOTAL: 11.6 (58%) Scan complete... fail.
1E TOTAL: 13.1 (65.5%) Second scan complete... pass.
#2152-Drex - Arrogant Warrior, Personnel, Klingon, Cost: 2, unique /Ener/
-Klingon; Astrometrics, Officer, Security; Staff icon
-Order: Return this personnel to his owner's hand to kill an opponent's personnel present who costs 2 or less.
"A Klingon's nature drives him to seek conflicts. If there are none to be found, some Klingons will create their own."
-INTEGRITY: 4, CUNNING: 4, STRENGTH: 7
PICTURE: Great expression on Drex, certainly making him look like a loose cannon. The background lines that seem to issue from his eyes are great at drawing attention to them. I'd have liked him more centered and without a pal behind him, but there you go. A good 3.5.
LORE: I like this a lot... but as lore for some non-unique Klingon. Does explain the special ability well, and is finely written, so I don't hold it that much against it. But as long we're not using a quote here, why not also mention that this guy is the Son of Martok? Why so generic? As such, I cannot go above 2.5.
TREK SENSE: Drex is a Klingon soldier (Security, Staff icon), but perhaps his father got him his commission. I don't know where the Officer really comes from otherwise. I don't dispute it, I just don't know of any onscreen evidence of this. Likewise for Astrometrics, which is no doubt useful in getting the fleet to Cardassia, but has little to do with the character we saw on the show. The special ability is more in line with it though: he does something like an Assassin would without having that keyword, basically by getting into some kind of brawl (if the attack on Garak can be seen as such) and killing the poor soul that made him angry. Garak didn't die because he's too important a character, and that storytelling conceit is here in the form of a cap on the victim's Cost. If it'd been some kind of unnamed extra, he might've been killed instead (but see below). I like it, though of course, mileage may vary - Drex can still kill cheap mains like Data/Loyal Brother, not to mention that all current versions of Elim Garak cost 2 counters (he should be dead). Killing a non-unique might have been a better handle on things. The return to hand might, in this case, signify that Drex's action wasn't authorized by his commanders, and so he's been sent to quarters without his evening gahk, or somesuch punishment. Fair enough. Attributes include the famous 4 Integrity, which has meant to represent someone loyal to his or her affiliation, but totally disdainful of others' rights. He's a none-too-smart bigot with a bad temper, amounting to some low Cunning, while the Strength is that of a powerful bully. As for Cost, he may be the General's son, his attitude probably keeps him at junior officer level, and besides, Klingons do in part believe that the individual makes his own way. A 2 looks perfect for all that. The score then? Well, the skills are largely unjustified (but not unjustifiable), but the rest holds up well. A 3.4.
STOCKABILITY: Drex has an Assassin-like ability, but without the keyword (which would only have given him access to Assassination Plot anyway). Send him back to hand, and you get to kill any personnel worth 2 or less. Yeah, sounds like non-unique victims for the most part (though those worth 2 have a lot of skills and/or a special ability), but there are also plenty of cheap uniques that you might want to get out of the way, including the aforementioned version of Data. I might also name The Traveler, lots of Dissidents, Garak, Benjamin Sisko/Man of Resolve, etc. Plenty of choices. Since Drex only costs 2 counters himself, he'll be easy to report back to use again. While this killing doesn't require a combat initiator, Drex is equally useful in battle, with his high Strength. The other attributes are rather lackluster however (Warrior's Birthright is recommended), and the skill list is slim. Slim, but not useless. It's got something for either planet or space efforts, and 2 of what we used to call classifications (they are still more often required than other skills). The violence he's capable of is worth its 3.8.
TOTAL: 13.2 (66%) He must have been reeeeeeeal happy to see Worf be brought into the family.
< Previous 20......................................................................................................................Next 20 >
Contact me if you wanna talk about any of these :-)