Add discussion related to the CCG here.

Forum:CCG Roster, a few questions

I had a few questions. If you don't know, I started a project to list the CCG cards here at Memory Alpha. I saw that they had been started, but hadn't been edited for a while. See: CCG Roster. Anyways, in trying to link everything that I can, I did find that some characters did not have a canon name, while they have a name in the CCG. Point to all this is I do not have a clue how to link to a page and have the new page go to a specific place (i.e. not just the top). Also, I would ask for some feedback on linking some of the non-personnel and non-ship cards to either the episode or actual event if they are listed here. Please leave any feedback on the CCG Roster talk page. THANKS! ----Willie 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Check Dukat's Bird-of-Prey for a ship referencing the non-canon name. to go to the middle of an article, you can go to section headers. For example Dukat's Bird-of-Prey#Apocrypha to see the precise location... hope that helps. -- Sulfur 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question. There are several expansion packs in the First Edition of the Star Trek Customizable Card Game that are very short. I am wondering what the consensus would be in listing them on one page or leaving them on their own pages. I don't really know which one causes more strain on the database: one longer page or several shorter pages. I will mark the short pages on my CCG Roster page. Thanks! ----Willie 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Database-wise, I don't think that it makes a difference, and I'd be tempted to suggest simply using one article per pack. If you do have multiple packs in one article, then you should at the very least, redirect all of the pack names there or something. But I'd still be tempted toward one pack per article, as you have been doing thus far. -- Sulfur 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. The only reason I bring it up is because the CCG: Armada only has one card and some others only have between two and ten cards. Anyways, thanks Sulfer. To anyone else, I would still value any feedback on the CCG lists if you have any. ----Willie 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Armada" "set" sounds like a special set or something then... Perhaps indicate as such? Idaknow... Just a thought. :) -- Sulfur 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Several of the smaller sets are special in that you mail in for them or they are released with other new sets. I have the history (from the Premiere Edition to the Mirror, Mirror sets) at home. Once I am done imputing the card lists, I'll go back and add histories and set release details and stuff. I've already done one at CCG: The Fajo Collection. I'll do that to the others when I get the info. I know I should probably have everything in order before starting these lists rather than "inflating" my edit count, but having two different computers with three thumb drives and one external hard drive and editing Memory Alpha primarily from work where I can't go to the Decipher site kinda hampers my long-term planning. Oh well. ----Willie 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One more question. I have been adding the CCG names to the unnamed lists as I go along, however some of them are already there. Is there any standard format for how they are worded. I also saw that some of them link to the card at the Decipher site. Thanks! ----Willie 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, internal links are preferred... so, link the CCG name to your internal page... and then you can always link to the cards on the decipher site here and there if you want. I think that the best way is to choose a format you like that fits with the rest of MA's format rules and layouts, and go with that, converting things to that along the way. Remember, be bold! Or something. -- Sulfur 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

CCG moves...

This discussion was moved from here to keep all CCG related correspondence in one location.

I'm not convinced that the Second edition article for the CCG should not have been moved... since the title is "Star Trek CCG: Second Edition". Not just "CCG: Second Edition". -- Sulfur 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the expansion packs are fully name "Star Trek CCG; Second Edition:(insert expansion pack name here)" on the Decipher page. "Second Edition" can refere to either the entire Second Edition or just the initial pack. The reason I moved it was conformity in naming. The name, as it stands, is how most of the CCG community would refer to it as. Hope this helps. ----Willie 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, if it's only referring to a single pack, then the naming convention makes sense. I guess. -- Sulfur 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CCG suggestion

This discussion was moved from here to keep all CCG related correspondence in one location.

If I might make a suggestion? Instead of putting the quotes that appear on the cards, which - in my mind - don't provide useful information, why not put something about the function of the card instead? This would provide the reader with more useful information about the cards, and expand our coverage, especially with things like Interrupts and Dilemmas.

Also, instead of removing the Adversaries Anthology, why not create the page, and indicate that the cards come from other expansions, with links to those? There is always the possibility that someone may be looking for information on that particular release. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi DH. I had thought about (and I believe Enzo Aquarias suggested as well) doing something like that. I do like the idea of putting the use of the cards in the lists, but I also like the quotes. Once I have all of the pages created, I will probably go back and add more information. Thanks, though, for the suggestion. In reference to the Adversaries Anthology, I did a little more research into it. This is what I found. Two of the cards are in a "set" that I haven't added to the list yet. The other 18 are foil re-makes of other cards. I did find a list of them all (found here: ). It isn't in the "main" list (found here: ), however after my research I believe that it should be included. I will add them back in. Thanks again. ----Willie 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new page for clarification

Due to suggestions from DarkHorizon and Enzo Aquarius, I have started putting in "Game Play" information on each card entry of the Star Trek Customizable Card Game pages. As DarkHorizon said above, this provides additional relevant information to each card. While this is fairly straight-forward in most aspects, sometimes additional information might be required, can't be properly explained, or would have to be explained on each card or cards across several expansion packs. To this end, I am requesting input on the creation of a "CCG Rules" page that would cover this information. I believe that one page will be suficient for both editions of the game. Thank you in advance for any input. ---- Willie LLAP 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good for me. You might be able to put it as a section in another article, not sure (I may be misunderstanding the problem). Past that, I don't know enough about the CCG to be of much help. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, to clarify, this new page would also detail each card type, their uses in the game, and any restrictions on playing said cards as well as the different icons used. In response to Cobra; Thanks for the input! The only article this information might be included in is the main CCG article. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate there or in a seperate article just for this info. This is why I wanted discussion on the subject before I went ahead and created it. ---- Willie LLAP 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be a separate page - but a new section on the main CCG article about the gameplay would be a nice addition. It wouldn't necessarily need to be as detailed as the rulebook itself, but for example state that there's a line of "mission" cards (plus additional "dilemmas") to be solved using "personnel" and "starships". You can probably leave out some of the more obscure gameplay details such as side decks, doorways and all of that... ;)
Generally, I'd say: just get a new section started, and we'll see where that leads us. -- Cid Highwind 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To Boldly Go

Great work you're doing on the CCG pages. I had started work on an article on the To Boldly Go set a while back, nothing as expansive as what you've been doing, just a list of the cards by subdivision with links, and I haven't finished yet, but would it help you for me to post what I have when I do get it done? Or would that cause you more of an editing headache that you don't need? Please let me know. Thanks, and again, great work on these. -- Bridge 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Absolutely, I would welcome anything you have. I don't think it will be much of an editing headache at all and would actually help in the long run. :) Once again, thanks for the support! ---- Willie LLAP 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: CCG: To Boldly Go has been created. I've posted what I have thus far, but at the moment, I've slapped an "inuse" tag on it because there's still some more work I need to do. - Bridge 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much!! I don't want to sound to presumptious or rude or anything, but please let me know when you are done so that I can format it like CCG: Strange New Worlds. That is going to be the way that all of the Second Edition is going to be formatted eventually. Don't worry if you don't get all of the episode references and all the other stuff. Also, don't worry about how long it might take. Strange New Worlds took me about two weeks to complete.:) Again, thank you for your interest and contributions!! ---- Willie LLAP 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant about I still have more work to do. My goal all along has been to get it formatted and completed as far as I can so it looks like the other articles. Just haven't made it that far yet; still much to do. :) - Bridge 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean anything by my previous statement. :) Hope I didn't offend. Thanks! ---- Willie LLAP 14:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. No apology necessary; you didn't offend. I just wanted to let you know that I was planning to make the To Boldly Go article correspond to the Strange New Worlds article. To that end, I've done some more (incomplete) work on the personnel section. Let me know if this on the right track. - Bridge 15:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+