What a Card: Subsection Q, Paragraph 10

Being a look back at cards from the Star Trek CCG, and what I thought of them back when they were fresh and new... in EPISODE order. Back to the trial and therefore the Q-Continuum side-deck...

EXPANSION: Q-Continuum

PICTURE: Black on black, this card benefits from a tight central spotlight (see how there are shadows all around the center?). Q makes a good judge here, has the perfect expression for it, but overall, the pic's a little plain. It doesn't do much for the actual concept carried by the card. A 3.1.

LORE: The title's not too hot, just a plugging of the letter Q in a code of law type format, with the magic number 10 used in the game text. The Q-uote's a line that would have been great on a card like Q the Referee though! A 3 here, but it's too bad the rest of the card couldn't take the lore's tack...

TREK SENSE: ... 'cuz all we get here is a point loss for having too many cards in hand? That's it? THAT'S the legal trickery Q's talking about? Like I said above, a cheese hoser à la Writ would have worked much better here, since cheese very often is an abuse of a loophole in the rules to achieve an effect unforeseen by the designers. But having a lot of cards in your hand? Big deal. That said, the card might work conceptually, in that Q doesn't allow Picard (in this case) to bring too many arguments to the table. He won't accept just anything as evidence. Ok, the translation is that the evidence in question is represented by your cards in hand, and the point loss, what, contempt of court? Pretty lame, since keeping evidence to yourself (in hand) isn't what he disallowed, reporting it was. And a point loss? Punishment isn't the same as forbidding something. No, even the conceptuals don't quite work. The only thing I can give a thumbs up to is the non-nullification clause, which at least, makes it read like later Referee icon cards. A disappointing 0.6.

STOCKABILITY: Oh, yeah. Eminently stockable - NOT!!! While taking away a few points can be useful, as dilemmas like The Higher... the Fewer have proven, Subsection Q has too many restrictions. For one thing, your opponent must have more than 10 cards in their hand. 10 is already a large number, but they have to have even more than that. Then, they only lose one point per card in excess of 10. So if someone has an outrageous 12 cards, you get to penalize them -2 points. Ooooh. Now, I'm scared. But wait, I'm not done. While it's quite possible to get your opponent to that number of cards by, for example, playing Kivas Fajo or Traveler: Transcendence on them, etc., you can't hit them with the card right then and there. They have to encounter a Q-Flash while their hand is full AND hit Subsection Q on that particular Flash. Chances are, you're either going to Scorch their Hand way before then or they'll have unloaded their cards on an unsuspecting spaceline. Did I mention you could be affected too if you happened to have in excess of 10 cards when your opponent encounters the card? EVERY player. A real stinker that isn't worth the effort: 0.4. So what if it ain't nullifyable?

TOTAL: 7.1 (35.5%) "There will be no wasted card slots."