Oh and official Klingon character sheets for Roll20 and other vtts!
1 Like
right now we’re sort of at the end of nemsis is the timeline correct? and Picard and discovery content is now allowable. my suggestion for a future book “Crisis Report: Romulan super nova” this book as I envision it would bring the timeline up to the evacuation of romulus (about the point of the end of the last best hope) and serve as a general descriptor of the post dominion war political enviroment, including the new romulan ship types. maybe a federation Oddessy class Spaceframe etc
Not sure if modiphius will do this. There is almost no canon information covering this period, and the general strategy (rightly) seems to be not to publish any source books without canon to back them up. Adventures and I’m assuming campaign settings are a little different obviously.
I honestly don’t think there should be a source book produced for the new licenses until the series’ have had chance to fill out their pictures a bit more (so they don’t end up as incomplete or wrong)
Give us a little more respect than that. 
2 Likes
Hey Jim, with the new Disco and Picard licences does that extend to Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, Prodigy and other future series or Is the licence extention solely for Disco and Picard where you’d have to get separate licences for each new series (assuming you want to produce books for them)?
I would love to see Klingon tokens the way that was made like Starfleet ones.
As far as I know, each series has its own license. We have Disco and Picard now, not the others. Hopefully we’ll get them all eventually.
1 Like
Well, there are Klingon deck/floor plans. Or did you mean like in the Starter Set?
@MisterX, I believe what he means are the acrylic Threat and Momentum tokens that are available for purchase for the core game.
1 Like
Ahh! Great! I want those, too! 
+1 for DS9 crew, Cardassian, and Dominion miniatures!
3 Likes
Just a minor editing thing this time: You introduced a great colour plot component focusing on department matrix with the Division Supplements. Could you maybe indicate how this applies to the adventures you release? I.e. “Concerning the Storylines Toolbox presented in the various Division Supplements, this adventures primarily uses gold plot components focusing on the command department” or sth? It would really help to structure the campaign and choosing the right adventure to play next.
I’ll consider it, though 1) the adventures aren’t built off the plot components so there’s often not a 1:1 connection between the generators and the adventures, and 2) most of the adventures can be dialed in to focus on specific roles if the gamemaster desires. So one gamemaster might run an adventure with a command focus while another might go with sciences. I think noting which plot component color an adventure best fits might affect the perspective of the user (e.g., “Oh this says it’s for blue, hard pass sine I want a gold adventure”) and impact sales.
Well, maybe expand the sidebar on adapting the adventure and present options? I saw a ‘spotlight roles’ sidebar in today’s Another Roll of the Dice, this would also be a great place. I’d be okay with “This adventure will probably put spotlight on your command or science departments. However, it can be easily tweaked to focus on engineering by changing NPC 1 with NPC 2 or using RandomTechA instead of SpacePhenomenonB.” or something.
The colour on department matrix is just to good to not be used!
To clarify: Envisioned use-case for such a hint would be a GM owning several adventures (e.g. a Mission Compendium) who says “okay, I just had an adventure with a gold plot component focusing on command. adventure A says it’s a good choice if I want to have a blue component focusing on engineering and adventure B will give me a red plot componend focusing on command. I already had a focus on command, so I’ll go with A before B to keep spotlight balanced.”
My request is about reducing time. I will most likely play through all of the missions, but would appreciate support on choosing order. 
So better they buy it and then discover they should have given it a pass but didn’t have enough information up front?
No, better they buy it an see it’s a great product rather than discard it because of misleading information.
OK, so, there was one GREAT idea in the TNG First Year Sourcebook that I still use for my TNG-era games to this day.
The Bridge Command Specialist. The idea that a young officer would be cross-trained in many different disciplines and allowed to stand watch at many different stations to get a feel for starship operations before being promoted to full Lieutenant and settling into a career path. For instance, Geordi and Worf were both in red uniforms as Lieuteants, (j.g.) and often swapped between Conn and Ops, and Worf sometimes at tactical. In Encounter at Farpoint, Worf commanded the saucer even though there were undoubtedly more senior officers available. In Arsenal of Freedom, Geordi took command and we know for a fact there were senior officers available since one tried to take over from him. Why were such relatively junior officers given such responsibility? They were in the command training program as Bridge Command Specialists.
Say what you will about the FASA TNG stuff, but this particular concept was something I thought explained what we saw on screen pretty well.
4 Likes
That would be the fault of the one putting the misleading information forward, but providing honest information is always appropriate.
Let’s not go into communications theory here, please, but: hones information can be misunderstood, and this is what I meant with ‘misleading’.