ST CCG Dream Cards AtoZ: Ablative Armor to Acamar III

Another round of dream cards for the Star Trek Collectible Card Game, resurrected from the late 90s and given graphics for the first time. Still in the A's of the Star Trek Encyclopedia...

THE ENTRIES:
[6] ablative armor
[7] academy commandant
[8] Academy Flight Range
[9] academy range officer
[10] Acamar III 

Ablative Armor did get its own card in the Holodeck Adventures expansion. Let's compare!
NOTES:
[6] My version of Ablative Armor doesn't do a thing for Dilemmas or Missions that require certain shields. In any case, Decipher's solution is clearer than mine.
[7] I'm breaking a Decipher rule here by not giving him some invented name. Personnel don't generally go by title alone. Red Squad personnel would eventually be designed, but I don't think I got to make many because of alphabetical concerns. I really wanted it to say "Red Squad Personnel", but this is the first instance where my knack for slightly long game text forced me to simplify things to fit the bounding boxes.
[8-9] Tractor Beam is included because a large enough ship has to bring the training craft. In these cases, I did make some slight changes to bring the card in line with later game text, namely changing the region to Sector 001 as opposed to "Solar System". The source for both cards is, of course, "The First Duty".
[10] Acamar III is in the Acamar Region because the Encyclopedia also has an entry for Acamar system. Source: "The Vengeance Factor".

Let's keep going, it's a big book!

Comments

Rich said…
Well done, buddy. I was on the Decipher boards as Oxmyx (back in the days when that was the accepted spelling! Ha!). Nitpick: i feel pretty sure Decipher would have given the Academy Commadant a name, even if they made it up. I know that sometimes they just were lazy and reversed the actor's first and last name.
Rich said…
I just read where you understood that you were breaking a Decipher rule. Any reason why? Was it to be alphabetical?
Siskoid said…
The card titles don't need to be alphabetical and often aren't. I'm commenting on what 1997 Siskoid did and I don't know why he did it.
Rich said…
A very good answer. I should have expected no less from the great Siskoid ;-)