A New Type of Hero...?

[GreyOwl]

I'm starting a new thread for this so we don't take away from the ongoing trials. This came up in the Michaelangelo and Sentinel trials, but it's better suited to it's own topic.

Here's the issue: there are some characters that thematically are common, but are very hard to model accurately in Heroscape with only 1 Life. Some example that came up are:

Doombots
Sentinels
from Star Wars, AT-AT Walkers

These are all clearly things that shouldn't be able to be killed with a single hit. So the point of this thread is to brainstorm ideas for how we can have a Common Hero figure with more than 1 Life, or something that is essentially like that.

Idea 1
Make Common Heroes have more than 1 Life and find a way to identify which one is which so you can keep track of damage. There are various ways to do this, all of which involve tracking wounds on the base or the figure itself.

Problems with this approach is that it can make these types of figures too powerful. As rdhight pointed out, you would have to ability to choose which to activate on a given order marker and they would be immune to specials that affect Unique Heroes only, yet they would be as powerful as Unique Heroes.

Idea 2
Come up with a third type of Hero in addition to the existing "Common" and "Unique". They would be treated as Unique for all purposes, except that you can have more than one of them.

Problem with this is the same as before...how do you tell them apart? If you give them different names or designations, then they are essentially Unique and you have to make a different card for each one. If they have the same name, you can't tell them apart.

Ideas? Please?? :?

[Grungebob]

Youn don't need to come up with a new type of hero. You could give the common hero an ability that allows them to last longer. Take Deathwalkers as an example. They could easily be common as they have just one wound. An ATAT could be similar with a high defense or some other ability that prolongs their stay on the battlefield.

[GreyOwl]

The problem we've seen from that approach is that it doesn't always fit thematically. With that approach you either kill them or you do nothing, whereas we're trying to find a way that allows you to wear it down over time through wounds. Plus we want to remove the possibility of killing the figure with a single strike, regardless of how probable or improbable it may be.

[rdhight]

Youn don't need to come up with a new type of hero. You could give the common hero an ability that allows them to last longer. Take Deathwalkers as an example. They could easily be common as they have just one wound. An ATAT could be similar with a high defense or some other ability that prolongs their stay on the battlefield.

I realize that you can approximate it in some cases with other defensive powers, but even the best and most thematic variation on Stealth Armor or Tough doesn't have the same wearing-down effect that losing life conveys. I don't see it as a 1-Life problem, but a multiple heroes on one card problem, with the 1 Life only a symptom.

I suggest calling them "standard heroes" if we go with a new type.

Really, I think they should be mechanically identical to unique heroes who are alike in every way but name.

[Grungebob]

The problem we've seen from that approach is that it doesn't always fit thematically. With that approach you either kill them or you do nothing, whereas we're trying to find a way that allows you to wear it down over time through wounds. Plus we want to remove the possibility of killing the figure with a single strike, regardless of how probable or improbable it may be.Having done many customs throughout the last several years I don't think that there is anything you can't do within the current rules. If you are wanting to create a new hero type, then go for it, but I don't think it necessary. If you want to show an effect from a wound that was shrugged off, you remove order markers, if you want to make a figure really tough to kill, you raise defense or use an ability to shrug off wounds. There are tons and tons of ideas and ways to do it wiothout having to create another class of hero.

[Boromir_and_kermit]

A high defense still has the possibility of an unlucky/lucky roll on either side.
For example, a figure with 4 attack attacks a figure with 7 defense. The attacker rolls 4 skulls, the defender rolls 3 skulls (not uncommon really) and boom, defender is dead. It doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. A lucky shot with a sword isn't going to take down a Sentinel for example.

The only ways to tackle this that I can think of at the moment are these:

1) Leave as Common Hero and give 'Armour' points that act as wounds (mentioned somewhere) kept track of on the base of the figure.
* This is not viable as things such as doom bots won't have much room on a base for multiple markers

2) Make them Unique Heroes and designate each figure a subtitle. For example: Sentinel: Alpha, Sentinel: Beta etc... figures are told apart by dots on their shoulder and on their card. This way they are legally able to have more than one life.
* Some people have a problem with making multiple Uniques that are essentially the same. Really it is just a conflict of words (ie. Unique and multiples meaning they aren't really Unique) and of course thematically Sentinels, Doombots and AT-AT walkers aren't Unique.

3) Create another class of Heroes - eg. Special Heroes, Uncommon Heroes etc... Treat them just like a Unique Hero except that there are more than one and they have multiple life. Basically as per 2) but labelling them as Special Heroes/Uncommon Heroes.

My personal opinion is #3 as I don't think 1 or 2 provide a complete solution. There are problems with both options. Number 3, whereas even though there is no pretense for them in the game, it makes sense to include this new class. It is quite clearly a limitation on the game that needs to be rectified.

Looking forward to some good discussion.:wink:

Ben.

[rdhight]

The problem we've seen from that approach is that it doesn't always fit thematically. With that approach you either kill them or you do nothing, whereas we're trying to find a way that allows you to wear it down over time through wounds. Plus we want to remove the possibility of killing the figure with a single strike, regardless of how probable or improbable it may be.Having done many customs throughout the last several years I don't think that there is anything you can't do within the current rules. If you are wanting to create a new hero type, then go for it, but I don't think it necessary. If you want to show an effect from a wound that was shrugged off, you remove order markers, if you want to make a figure really tough to kill, you raise defense or use an ability to shrug off wounds. There are tons and tons of ideas and ways to do it wiothout having to create another class of hero.

Again, 1 Life is not the heart of the issue. There's also the problem of being able to choose which common hero you move at the time you reveal the marker. That's going to be a huge advantage if Sentinels and Imperial walkers are common. I like the idea that if you draft two Sentinels, you have to choose where to put your order markers ahead of time. That means you need two cards-- with identical stats.

I think Boromir and kermit's No. 2 is the way to do it within the existing rules. I'm kind of conservative, so I won't be sorry if that's where the consensus lands. But I don't have my heart set on it. For one thing, people will probably draw a line in the sand over the word "unique" and fight for the idea that it has to mean there is only one of them in existence.

[Grungebob]

If it is mechanicly no different than a unique, this discussion is unnecessary as you can simply make them all unique and as suggested just include some way to tell them apart.. Call it what you want but it is no different really and that is essentially what I have said above. My point is that no new mechanic needs invention.

[Boromir_and_kermit]

Rdhight you are correct.
The major issue is not just the 1 wound (although it definetly is part of it) but having the figures operate as independents (Independent Heroes?) and not as Commons.

I respect your view and experience in the field Grungebob, but I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. I think it is necessary to thematically represent some characters/figures.

EDIT: The problem is the wording Unique. You cannot have more than one Unique with the same name. It is that rule that keeps these figures from going down that route.

Ben.

[GreyOwl]

The reason I didn't want to go the route of making them Unique with different subtitles as that it still requires you to make a separate card for each one. Since you have no idea how many someone will draft, this is problematic. It would be nice to have a solution that requires only 1 card.

[Grungebob]

Rdhight you are correct.
The major issue is not just the 1 wound (although it definetly is part of it) but having the figures operate as independents (Independent Heroes?) and not as Commons.

I respect your view and experience in the field Grungebob, but I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. I think it is necessary to thematically represent some characters/figures.

EDIT: The problem is the wording Unique. You cannot have more than one Unique with the same name. It is that rule that keeps these figures from going down that route.

Ben.Like I said, call it what you want but it is no different than a unique. I have seen folks make uniques out of each of the Nikitas as an example so that you have three nikitas, that have the exact same abilities, multiple wounds, yet act as uniques and are told apart on the field by their sculps.

[GreyOwl]

Like I said, call it what you want but it is no different than a unique. I have seen folks make uniques out of each of the Nikitas as an example so that you have three nikitas, that have the exact same abilities, multiple wounds, yet act as uniques and are told apart on the field by their sculps.

Yes, but essentially what we're trying to figure out is how do you solve that problem if the sculpts are identical?

[whitestuff]

Youn don't need to come up with a new type of hero. You could give the common hero an ability that allows them to last longer. Take Deathwalkers as an example. They could easily be common as they have just one wound. An ATAT could be similar with a high defense or some other ability that prolongs their stay on the battlefield.For Doombots I can see this as a potential thematic problem.
Doombots are the exact copy of Dr Doom. In the comic books there have been occasions where The Fantastic Four have been fighting Dr Doom only to find out that they have been fighting a Doombot. (The art of deus ex machina is alive and well in the comic book world ;) )

Give Doombots the same stats as Dr Doom with only 1 life and they will no longer be an exact copy of Dr Doom. Give them more defense to counter the 1 life and again, they are broken thematically.

If the truth be told, Doombots have inbuilt programing which Dr Doom uses to make them self destruct. This leads me to imagine that the Doombots would easily be worth more than Dr Doom himself, but, a common squad member that costs 250 points with only 1 life? That just doesn't seem reasonable.

Doombots are common (the fact is that Dr Doom has about 50 Doombots at any time (thanks to the Marvel Database (http://en.marveldatabase.com/Doombot) for that useful bit of trivia)) but they really aren't common, if you get my drift.

It leads to a sticky situation indeed.

[Boromir_and_kermit]

That's a good example Grungebob and if you have different sculpts, that would work really well. But unfortunately figures such as Sentinels, Doombots and AT-AT walkers to name just a few are unlikely to have multiple sculpts.

If you were to leave them as Unique Heroes then I suppose the only way to run them would be leave it as one card and mark the card using dots that match dots somewhere on the figure. Then you only need the one card, but all will be named the same and being Uniques, you break the rule that you can only have one Unique with the same name on the field. If no-one has a problem with that then maybe it's the way to go... I'm not sure that everyone would go for it though. There seems to be a hang up with the word Unique. Theme has a lot to do with it as well of course.:wink:

Ben.

[GreyOwl]

That's a good example Grungebob and if you have different sculpts, that would work really well. But unfortunately figures such as Sentinels, Doombots and AT-AT walkers to name just a few are unlikely to have multiple sculpts.

If you were to leave them as Unique Heroes then I suppose the only way to run them would be leave it as one card and mark the card using dots that match dots somewhere on the figure. Then you only need the one card, but all will be named the same and being Uniques, you break the rule that you can only have one Unique with the same name on the field. If no-one has a problem with that then maybe it's the way to go... I'm not sure that everyone would go for it though. There seems to be a hang up with the word Unique. Theme has a lot to do with it as well of course.:wink:

Ben.

So they would be unique, but called something else, and therefore it won't violate the rule that you can't have more than one of the same unique. I like that part. Now maybe you can explain your dot thing in more detail. Is there way to do it without permanently marking up the cards and figures?

[Boromir_and_kermit]

Is there way to do it without permanently marking up the cards and figures?

Not that I had thought of, but now that you mention it, you could have a small counter/marker with the dots on it. One for the base of the figure and one for the card. They match up and so can be identified easily, yet it doesn't permanently mark the figure/card. That seems the easiest way to do it.

Ben.

[GreyOwl]

That sounds almost TOO simple to work. :)

So what do we want to call this new type? Some of the ones I liked were "Standard Hero", "Uncommon Hero", and "Special Hero".

[allskulls]

I like Uncommon Hero but would not be opposed to Unique Hero...what's the hang up on the word? It's a custom. Customs are acustomed to altering rules. Actually almost all of the official cards alter the rules in some way with special abilities. With that said, there may need to be an ability made just for this rule if we go with Unique Hero. If we go with another type of Hero, we will need an addendum to the rules like the new object rules.

As for the application, these figures will all need to be rebased so just make the bases different colors then place a colored maker on the card to match each figure's base.

[GreyOwl]

The only reason I'd vote for a new name over "Unique Hero" is because the official cards now have Unique Heroes with the same name (Sgt. Drake, Raelin), but they cannot be used at the same time. I'd like to avoid a situation where our custom rule would have to explain how you can't have two different Unique Heroes with the same name, except in such-and-such case, and then we'd have to figure out how to differentiate the two cases. Since pg. 14 of the SoTM rules say "A player cannot have two Unique Heroes with the same name.", it would be a much simpler custom rule to state "A player can have more than one Uncommon Hero with the same name."

[GreyOwl]

So how about this for a custom rule?

An Uncommon Hero is similar to a Common Hero that can have more than one Life. For the purposes of all special abilities, glyphs, and rules they are treated as Unique Heroes. The only exception is that more than one can be used at at time by the same player. In order to track which figure corresponds to which hero, place a number token (any token with a number on it) on the base of the figure and another one with the same number on the corresponding card.

I'm sure someone could word that a lot better, but that's the general idea.

[IAmBatman]

I'm with Grungebob on this one. There's nothing wrong with calling these units "unique". Even robots that all look identical have serial numbers to differentiate them - this is nothing different thematically, in my opinion.
If you have a bunch of the same sculpts that you want to differentiate it's no different then when you want to differentiate your figures from one of your friend's. Just pain the base a different color. Simple as that.
As for worrying about the cards and not knowing how many you'll use, you'll still need the aforethought to print out one of the cards for each one you want to use. It's not a hard task to put a little extra word in the title of the card for each new one you want to make - whether it's color to go with the base (Sentinel Red) or number to be like a serial number (Doombot 1) or so on.
That is, of course, unless you think the unit is fine just having one life, in which case, make it common. I don't think you need to make a new unit type, b/c then you're, perhaps, straying a bit too far into the realm of an entirely different game. Not like we haven't gone there before, but in this case it seems like it's more trouble than it's worth.

[GreyOwl]

Well, I didn't want to paint the base a different color or mark up the figure in any other way (that's just me, I like them to all look as "official" as possible). Plus we don't always have the luxury to modify the card, because it may not be our own custom. If I make 3 Sentinels and someone else wants to play with 5 of them, it's not that easy for them to make a modification to the card.

Sure, we could put the number tokens on multiple Unique Heroes, but you wouldn't want to allow that with all of them (the two different Raelins for example or 2 different versions of Superman). The new type is really only there to clarify which unique heroes you can do that with and which you can't. If it's an Uncommon Hero, you can do that. If it's a Unique Hero, then you can't.

[IAmBatman]

This sounds like something house rules could pretty much cover anyway? In terms of which uniques of the same name you'd allow and which you wouldn't. If a creator intends for multiples of their uniques to be useable, we could always ask them to post several of the card with additional numbers on the end to a reasonable amount, depending on the cost.

I guess the tokens could work - but it seems like they'd flop around a lot in terms of the actual figures. If you're concerned about permanent markings, you could use rubber bands or other nonpermanent marking systems.

[Boromir_and_kermit]

I like the idea of having a new type of Hero as it just makes it cleaner for this type of unit.

However as an alternative I just thought of, you could always put a little sentence down the bottom of the card. Or even have it as a power.

Doombot clones
When drafting your team, you may draft more than one Unique Doombot.

This would also make it clear, without the use of a new Hero type and then just use the tokens (or even dice, 1PiP for Sentinel/doombot 1, 2PIPS for Sentinel/Doombot 2 etc... you can get really small dice.

The other option is a small magnet on the underside and top of the base with dots on it. Then it doesn't move around. Easy fix.

I don't mind either way.

Ben.

[Grungebob]

Well you could have just one card ...put wound markers on that card and when it gets to a certain amount, remove a figure and remove all of those wound markers from the card. Your opponent chosses which figure to remove.

So say you have 3 of these Sentinels and each has 5 wounds apeice. You have one card that represents them just like a common. When the card accumulates 5 wound markers, remove one Sentinel of your opponents choosing and remove the 5 wound markers from the card. Once it gets filled up to 5 again do the same thing. etc.. Would this work?

[Boromir_and_kermit]

This is a great idea, but you would have the situation where an untouched Sentinel on the other side of the map gets brained on it's first hit because there is 4 wounds on the card. I don't think it would work because of this. But that's not to say others might not like it.

[whitestuff]

I am no artist but I mocked up a way to help track the additional uncommon figures. I made a small card which could be easily modded (by adding a number, even in paint if you like) and then printed.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/sentinel2.jpg
All you would need to do is use a removable sticker on the base of the figure with the number on it.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/sentinel.jpg

[GreyOwl]

So would that be the size of a glyph, but placed under the figure's base?

[Boromir_and_kermit]

Or a magnet strip then it never needs to be 'attached' to the base. You just need a small strip magnet underneath the figure and then a small 'glyph' such as Whitestuff's with another strip magnet attached to that. The magnetism holds it onto the base. No problems :)
Ben.

[rdhight]

The reason I didn't want to go the route of making them Unique with different subtitles as that it still requires you to make a separate card for each one. Since you have no idea how many someone will draft, this is problematic. It would be nice to have a solution that requires only 1 card.

Well you could have just one card ...put wound markers on that card and when it gets to a certain amount, remove a figure and remove all of those wound markers from the card. Your opponent chosses which figure to remove.

So say you have 3 of these Sentinels and each has 5 wounds apeice. You have one card that represents them just like a common. When the card accumulates 5 wound markers, remove one Sentinel of your opponents choosing and remove the 5 wound markers from the card. Once it gets filled up to 5 again do the same thing. etc.. Would this work?

To me, multiple cards isn't the drawback, it's the goal. Multiple cards means all order markers must be placed independently, all wound markers must be placed independently, and powers like Mindshackle can steal one Sentinel but not another.

As far as not knowing how many someone will draft... if we were doing these all the time with super-cheap horde figures, it might become a problem, but it takes a little trouble and expense to get a Sentinel figure ready to go on a Heroscape board. I don't think expecting the end user to print a card per figure is too much to ask.

Also, this is not the right answer for Sentinels or walkers, but the other day, I was wondering how Naruto's water clone jutsu would work in Heroscape. Since the clones disappear after one hit, making them squad figures seems like a no-brainer. I think the best way to do it would be to start the unique hero Naruto off the board and a common squad of water clones on the board. When the clones are reduced to 1, he's obviously the real Naruto, so you make the last squad figure the hero Naruto and transfer any remaining order markers to the hero's card.

Maybe this could work for Doombots... acquire more Dr. Dooms from people who are selling extra Marvel figures and make a unique squad of three, let's say. They could have similar stats to Doom-- flying, ranged attack of 5, etc.-- except for being 1-life squad figures. After two fall, the last one is revealed as the real Doom, and you replace the Doombot squad card with his hero card.

[GreyOwl]

When I said I didn't want multiple card, I didn't mean printing off multiple copies. I want that. I don't want different cards for each figure - they should be identical copies of each other.

[IAmBatman]

They could be identical copies with a number added to the title to make them unique. It'd really be no different than adding a number to that sample marker glyph.

[Doc_Savage]

page 1 of thread lots of discussion about whether we need something new besides the 4 types of Army Cards we have now.

page 2 - lots of talk about not wanting to mark identical figures, but wanting to use multiples of identical figures. They will have to be marked in some way, otherwise they are identical.

page 3 - When I said I didn't want multiple card, I didn't mean printing off multiple copies. I want that. I don't want different cards for each figure - they should be identical copies of each other.

So how will you tell them apart? You will mark them so they won't be identical. There is no other way. The cards and the figures will have to be marked so that you can tell which one gets the wounds, and how many wounds each one has.

What do we call something that is identified in such a way? UNIQUE!!!

Just add a little color dot sticker to the card and figure. Or Number them, or whatever...

As pointed out earlier, you just need to put a power on these cards.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
You may have any number of Doombots in your army.

You can even add the following power to the card.

COORDINATED ASSAULT
When one Doombot you control takes a turn, all Doombots you control may take a turn.

OR

COORDINATED ASSAULT
One order marker will activate all Doombots you control.

Then figure out your favorite way of marking your identical common figures to make them Unique.

Heroscape is all about breaking the rules of the game and there is nothing wrong with making multiple copies of the same Unique Hero as long as you have a power that allows you to break the rule.

[IAmBatman]

If the cards are numbered in the name of the unit, then that extra power won't even be necessary, b/c they won't be uniques of the same name - they'll be uniques of very similar, but slightly different names.

[whitestuff]

So would that be the size of a glyph, but placed under the figure's base?Well, it could be, but I was thinking more of this...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/s1-1.jpg
and then using a number decal for the figure, like this...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/s2.jpg

That way you could have the multiple figures attached to the one card but not have to have make numerous whole cards with each individual name on it. This way you could also place order markers on the small glyph sized cards, as well as individual damage counters. This would also solve the problem of a player being able to move which ever Sentinel he/she felt like on a turn, like other common squads. They would work like individual unique heroes but be all the same, like a squad. See, they are uncommon. ;)

That was what my original thought was but you know, like, whatever... 8)


*EDIT* I forgot to say..
Maybe this could work for Doombots... acquire more Dr. Dooms from people who are selling extra Marvel figures and make a unique squad of three, let's say. They could have similar stats to Doom-- flying, ranged attack of 5, etc.-- except for being 1-life squad figures. After two fall, the last one is revealed as the real Doom, and you replace the Doombot squad card with his hero card.That is a fantastic idea. Best I've heard for the Doombots yet. :thumbsup:

[rdhight]

They would work like individual unique heroes but be all the same, like a squad. See, they are uncommon. ;)

That was what my original thought was but you know, like, whatever... 8)

This actually looks really, really practical and useful. I still think "standard hero" sounds better than "uncommon," because some of the units you'll be using this for are things like robotic war machines, mechs, elephants, vehicles, etc. that are mass-produced bread-and-butter combatants. "Uncommon" sounds more like you're limited to 3 or something.

*EDIT* I forgot to say..
Maybe this could work for Doombots... acquire more Dr. Dooms from people who are selling extra Marvel figures and make a unique squad of three, let's say. They could have similar stats to Doom-- flying, ranged attack of 5, etc.-- except for being 1-life squad figures. After two fall, the last one is revealed as the real Doom, and you replace the Doombot squad card with his hero card.That is a fantastic idea. Best I've heard for the Doombots yet. :thumbsup:

Thanks. One of these days I want to make some custom cards for disused Classic figures to make them more interesting in Marvel games, and if no one else has done it by then, the 3-Doom-figure Doombots could fit right in with that.

[GreyOwl]

So how will you tell them apart? You will mark them so they won't be identical. There is no other way.

Yes, but the idea is not to permanently mark anything. If you want more than one card, you just print out more without having to modify it. Like I said earlier, it may not be too easy to modify it if it isn't your own custom your dealing with. Ideally, I'd want someway to mark the figure and the cards that can be removed easily.

If the cards are numbered in the name of the unit, then that extra power won't even be necessary, b/c they won't be uniques of the same name - they'll be uniques of very similar, but slightly different names.

Right, but again that would require a separate card for each one. I'm trying to find a solution where only one card type is necessary and for multiples you either print out more or use whitestuff's method. Actually, I'm really liking whitestuff's idea, if I could find or make removable decals. It will even save space at the table! :)


As for the name, "Standard Hero" vs. "Uncommon Hero"...it doesn't really matter to me. "Uncommon" does seem to carry a slight conotation of a limited number, so maybe "Standard" would work better. Any other opinions on the name?

[whitestuff]

I'm trying to find a solution where only one card type is necessary and for multiples you either print out more or use whitestuff's method. Actually, I'm really liking whitestuff's idea, if I could find or make removable decals. It will even save space at the table! :)If you go to any scrapbooking store they will have heaps of rub-on decal or transfers (thanks for the tip my good wife ;) ). You can also buy transfer decal paper if you want to make your own design (not that this is the cheapest option). http://www.waterslide-decals.com/rubon-paper.html

Good thing about rub-on decals is that they are not permanent. A bit of warm water and a fingernail and off they come.

As for the name, "Standard Hero" vs. "Uncommon Hero"...it doesn't really matter to me. "Uncommon" does seem to carry a slight conotation of a limited number, so maybe "Standard" would work better. Any other opinions on the name?I agree that Standard Hero works much better.

[IAmBatman]

Whitestuff, I like what you came up with there. That said, why can't you just have those available for players to go along with the card, but keep the card as a Unique hero? Why do we have to create a new category? The little glyph cards are clearly not exactly the same, they're clearly marked as being other numbers. Why does a new category have to be created to go along with it?
My biggest concern is what does this do to all the cards and rules out there that refer to either common or unique heroes? What about the person who just wants to print out and use one of these cards but doesn't look and find the new rules you guys are coming up with? I think it's much nicer if the Sentinel card can be played without people having to worry about completely new rules that aren't spelled out on the card. Maybe you want to put in a power on the Sentinel card that spells out in a line or two how those little glyph things are used. Or maybe just a note by where you post the Sentinel card. But is an entirely new category distinction that would not have been referred to on any prior cards or in any prior rules really be necessary? Would it really be cool for powers that currently affect either unique or common heroes to suddenly be unclear when it comes to whether or not they affect this new category? I just don't see the need for the left box change. I think these cool looking glyphs work just fine with these guys as unique heroes.

[GreyOwl]

I think putting a note next to the Sentinel card and putting the new rule next to it aren't that different. The new rule is nothing more than "treat them as Unique Heroes for the purposes of all special abilities and glyphs, except you can take more than one". So either way there would be a note next to it. That being said, I guess there's not much difference between the two.

Ideally, it would make sense to put the explanation on the card itself, but I don't think there's enough room. If the card simply said "you can draft more than one", the player is still going wonder how they keep track of the different cards. So they'll still have to refer elsewhere. I agree that it would be nice to have evertyhing necessary self-contained on the card, but I can't think of a way to do that effectively given the space constraints.

Another possibility is to put some sort of symbol on a normal Unique Hero card that means all this stuff. It would keep the card concise and not require a new category, but it would still require people to look up what the symbol means.

[Boromir_and_kermit]

A symbol sounds like a good idea actually. I think that may be the best way to do it.

[IAmBatman]

I could get on board with a symbol much more than a new category of hero.

[GreyOwl]

Alright then, we're getting somewhere! :)

So what should the symbol be? Here are a couple I put together (I didn't really make these, but just modified icons I found on the web). I was thinking of something that would symbolize "multiple", hence the "M".

http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/symbol_ideas.jpg

I'm not much of an artist though, so I bet someone else could come up with something much better.

[IAmBatman]

The M's not bad. I'd like to see what others come up with as well, though. My photoshopping skills are pretty sad, so no attempts from here!

[whitestuff]

The idea of a symbol would work for me. Here's my attempts.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group2.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group3.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group4.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group5.jpg

All slightly different but mostly the same. ;)

[rdhight]

The idea of a symbol would work for me. Here's my attempts.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group2.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group3.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group4.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group5.jpg

All slightly different but mostly the same. ;)

Aww... they look so cute! Shouldn't they have guns or something? I mean, it looks like an "add to my friends list" button. The little guys need to be more hostile. Maybe give them little military helmets?

Also, maybe the background could be a hexagon instead of flower petals. But only if you feel like it. Maybe if you leave it, it will help to attract more girls to the game.

(high-pitched voice) "I can have as many as I want!?" Squee! "Mark I Sentinels, I wuv you!"

...and no, before you ask, I could not have made those icons myself if you put a gun to my head. I'm just safely planted in an armchair way back here, lobbing complaints from afar....

[bad_calvin]

I am a bit confused here on what you all are attempting to do here, but If I am reading correctly (and I am probably not) then the solution is simple.

If you are saying that you want to have a single card that represents a common unit with multiple wounds then do what my son does. He puts a number underneath each of the targeting silhouettes on the card (you know the red picture with the green dot to the right of the card). This number represents the number of life each of those figs has. When he takes a wound he puts his wound markers on those silhouettes. He has a merc unit that has a big guy, a little guy, and a chick. The big guy (ogryn) gets three wounds, the others get two.

So if that is what you were asking, then there is your solution from a 9 year old. If not, then sorry ignore me completely.

Another solution (from my point of view) would just be to make each of them their own character with "bonding" to each other. One moves they all move... call it "walkie-talkie" or "coordinated strike" or something.

If the sculpts are all the same then mark the bases of the sculpts with a color, have the silhouettes match that color.


edit: Also, I think having sentinels and AT-ST's moving and attacking at the same time should cost some serious points. That is a LOT of firepower for one order marker.

[ej]

Simple solution... keep the 1 life, keep the Common designation, but add a power that says Whenever a unit takes damage, place only 1 wound marker on this card. No unit is destroyed until 3 wound markers are on this card. If a unit receives damage after 3 wound markers are present, destroy that figure.

Couple that with high def and there you go.

[Grungebob]

I am a bit confused here on what you all are attempting to do here, but If I am reading correctly (and I am probably not) then the solution is simple.

If you are saying that you want to have a single card that represents a common unit with multiple wounds then do what my son does. He puts a number underneath each of the targeting silhouettes on the card (you know the red picture with the green dot to the right of the card). This number represents the number of life each of those figs has. When he takes a wound he puts his wound markers on those silhouettes. He has a merc unit that has a big guy, a little guy, and a chick. The big guy (ogryn) gets three wounds, the others get two.

So if that is what you were asking, then there is your solution from a 9 year old. If not, then sorry ignore me completely.

Another solution (from my point of view) would just be to make each of them their own character with "bonding" to each other. One moves they all move... call it "walkie-talkie" or "coordinated strike" or something.

If the sculpts are all the same then mark the bases of the sculpts with a color, have the silhouettes match that color.


edit: Also, I think having sentinels and AT-ST's moving and attacking at the same time should cost some serious points. That is a LOT of firepower for one order marker.I don't think that is what they are going for BC. They want to have multiples of identical uniques, and have no way of telling them apart short of marking the figure in some way.

[GreyOwl]

If you are saying that you want to have a single card that represents a common unit with multiple wounds then do what my son does. He puts a number underneath each of the targeting silhouettes on the card (you know the red picture with the green dot to the right of the card). This number represents the number of life each of those figs has. When he takes a wound he puts his wound markers on those silhouettes. He has a merc unit that has a big guy, a little guy, and a chick. The big guy (ogryn) gets three wounds, the others get two.


That's essentially what we're doing. The glyph sized cards are the equivalent of those pieces of paper, but they look nicer. :)


Another solution (from my point of view) would just be to make each of them their own character with "bonding" to each other. One moves they all move... call it "walkie-talkie" or "coordinated strike" or something.

That wouldn't solve the problem of them having only 1 Life though.


If the sculpts are all the same then mark the bases of the sculpts with a color, have the silhouettes match that color.


We were trying to avoid marking the figure or card in any permanent fashion. But the removable decals proposed earlier accomplish the same thing you said, but without it being permanent.


edit: Also, I think having sentinels and AT-ST's moving and attacking at the same time should cost some serious points. That is a LOT of firepower for one order marker.

The idea wasn't to have them moving at the same time. They would be activated like Common Heroes, meaning one per order marker. Not like a squad.


Simple solution... keep the 1 life, keep the Common designation, but add a power that says Whenever a unit takes damage, place only 1 wound marker on this card. No unit is destroyed until 3 wound markers are on this card. If a unit receives damage after 3 wound markers are present, destroy that figure.

But the problem with this is keeping track of which figure the wounds go with. That's the purpose of the glyph-sized cards. You track the wounds on those smaller cards, and then you only need one copy of the main card.

[whitestuff]

The idea of a symbol would work for me. Here's my attempts.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group2.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group3.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group4.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/bwhit89/heroscape/group5.jpg

All slightly different but mostly the same. ;)

Aww... they look so cute! Shouldn't they have guns or something? I mean, it looks like an "add to my friends list" button. The little guys need to be more hostile. Maybe give them little military helmets?It needed to be representative of a wide variety of figures so I made (read: copied) them quite generic.

Also, maybe the background could be a hexagon instead of flower petals. But only if you feel like it. Maybe if you leave it, it will help to attract more girls to the game.None of the other symbols (super-strength or flying) are on hexes so I didn't bother doing it either. I've actually had a bit of a new idea for the symbol so if it comes together I'll get back to you ;)

[GreyOwl]

Well, I took whitestuff's idea and other people's comments regarding it (background of hexes, people more "warrior-like") and came up with this:

http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/symbol_3warriors.jpg

[whitestuff]

Well, I took whitestuff's idea and other people's comments regarding it (background of hexes, people more "warrior-like") and came up with this:

http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/symbol_3warriors.jpgThat looks great :thumbsup: I'm not going to bother with my other idea. I think you've nailed it.

The only thing is how does it look when made the same size as the other symbols? Can you still see the detail?

*EDIT* I had a quick look for myself and you lose the detail of the hexes but the three figures are still easily seen.

[GreyOwl]

I can try making a version with more spaces between the hexes, so hopefully they'll be easier to distinguish when it's smaller. What's the small size we're going for? 64 x 64 pixels, roughly?

[whitestuff]

I can try making a version with more spaces between the hexes, so hopefully they'll be easier to distinguish when it's smaller. What's the small size we're going for? 64 x 64 pixels, roughly?If this symbol is to be the same size as the other symbols already used then I guess they would be your guide. I don't actually know the size needed.

[GreyOwl]

I guess since everyone makes their cards at different resolutions and DPI, and not even always the same size it would be better to offer a larger version that people can scale down to whatever size they need.

But at 64x64, here's what it looks like:
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/standard_hero_symbol_64.jpg

Now as far as placement on the card, it's hard to find room :). Here are some idea though, using the Sentinel card as a mock-up:

OPTION 1
I personally like this one the best, because it's in the left box, near "Unique Hero".
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/sample1.jpg

OPTION 2
Above the Marvel logo. It keeps it out of the way, but I don't think it looks too nice. :roll:
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/sample2.jpg

OPTION 3
At the bottom, with the Superstrength and Flying logos. I like it because it's consistent with the placement of the other symbols, but I don't like it because it eats up even more of the valuable space for specials text.
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/sample3.jpg

[whitestuff]

I vote for this one.
OPTION 1
I personally like this one the best, because it's in the left box, near "Unique Hero".
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/sample1.jpg

[IAmBatman]

I echo the vote for option one.

Btw, I think you misinterpreted EJ's idea. I think he pretty much was saying that you could just use one common card for all your common figures - so one Sentinel card - and you would have to accumulate 3 wounds on that card before ANY of them could die. But, once you accumulated 3 wounds on that card, any extra wound would automatically kill the unit it was given to. So there'd sort of be 3 group wounds to begin with.
If we were going to go in that direction, though, I might suggest that instead of 3 wounds, it'd be something like 3 wounds for every Sentinel you have in play. However, the one problem with that, thematically and in sense of gameplay, is that you couldn't divide and conquer them. They'd all survive until they were all down to 1 life, essentially, and then they could start getting killed one by one. Which could be a real pain.

[LilNewbie]

Or every third wound kills one Sentinel.

Newb.

[Grungebob]

I echo the vote for option one.

Btw, I think you misinterpreted EJ's idea. I think he pretty much was saying that you could just use one common card for all your common figures - so one Sentinel card - and you would have to accumulate 3 wounds on that card before ANY of them could die. But, once you accumulated 3 wounds on that card, any extra wound would automatically kill the unit it was given to. So there'd sort of be 3 group wounds to begin with.
If we were going to go in that direction, though, I might suggest that instead of 3 wounds, it'd be something like 3 wounds for every Sentinel you have in play. However, the one problem with that, thematically and in sense of gameplay, is that you couldn't divide and conquer them. They'd all survive until they were all down to 1 life, essentially, and then they could start getting killed one by one. Which could be a real pain.Well you could accumulate three wounds and then the next wound destroys the sentinel that took it, the wound markers are removed and the process starts over.

[ej]

I echo the vote for option one.

Btw, I think you misinterpreted EJ's idea. I think he pretty much was saying that you could just use one common card for all your common figures - so one Sentinel card - and you would have to accumulate 3 wounds on that card before ANY of them could die. But, once you accumulated 3 wounds on that card, any extra wound would automatically kill the unit it was given to. So there'd sort of be 3 group wounds to begin with.
If we were going to go in that direction, though, I might suggest that instead of 3 wounds, it'd be something like 3 wounds for every Sentinel you have in play. However, the one problem with that, thematically and in sense of gameplay, is that you couldn't divide and conquer them. They'd all survive until they were all down to 1 life, essentially, and then they could start getting killed one by one. Which could be a real pain.Well you could accumulate three wounds and then the next wound destroys the sentinel that took it, the wound markers are removed and the process starts over.

Yeah, I could see that, but thematically, think of it this way...

You're beating on these guys turn after turn and they seem invincible. You keep pounding on them and they keep not dying. Then someone overcomes one (finds their weakness, whatever), and the "method" to defeat them is told to the others and the rest of the squad falls a little easier. If you couple this wound accumulation idea with a high defense I think you'll find it's pretty playable, and don't forget my idea includes getting only one wound per successful hit, no matter how many skulls were rolled over the shields.

I'll make an "official" wording.

Hard to Kill
Whenever a _______ takes damage, reduce that damage to 1 and place a wound marker on this card. No __________ can be destroyed until 3 wound markers are on this card.

[IAmBatman]

That's true, Grungebob. How much text would a power like that take?

SENTINEL SWARM
Do not destroy Sentinels when they take one wound. Instead, collect wound markers on this card, and for every fourth wound placed on this card, destroy the Sentinel that took the wound.

How's that look? Too much? Not as easy as a symbol, certainly. Can it be shortened without losing meaning?

[GreyOwl]

We discussed a similar idea earlier, but some people didn't like it because one Sentinel could take the max wound (minus one) and then another one that was way off somewhere takes a single hit and dies. It kind of messes up certain strategies of trying to protect one of them or whatnot.

[ej]

Okay. I'm going to see what's going on over here...

[Doc_Savage]

I guess since everyone makes their cards at different resolutions and DPI, and not even always the same size it would be better to offer a larger version that people can scale down to whatever size they need.

But at 64x64, here's what it looks like:
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/standard_hero_symbol_64.jpg

Now as far as placement on the card, it's hard to find room :). Here are some idea though, using the Sentinel card as a mock-up:

OPTION 3
At the bottom, with the Superstrength and Flying logos. I like it because it's consistent with the placement of the other symbols, but I don't like it because it eats up even more of the valuable space for specials text.
http://www.hiddendragon.com/hs_customs/sample3.jpg

I think that this new symbol is nice. It does the job well and we can put it on the Unique Heroes to give them the power of having more than 1 of a unique hero. You still have to mark the figures and cards somehow so you know who's who, but with this symbol you don't have to put the power on the card.

Regarding the icon itself, I think you really only need the pic of the 3 soldiers. The little hexes aren't necessary and kinda look like dots at that size anyway.

Does this power have a name?

[GreyOwl]

Personally, I just call it "Standard Hero", but I'm open to suggestions. I can make a version without the hexes to see if that looks better at the small size.

[PochoMan]

Personally, I just call it "Standard Hero", but I'm open to suggestions. I can make a version without the hexes to see if that looks better at the small size. Wow 5 pages of reading. Thats exhausting. I like B&K's Idea of the "UnCommon Hero".
Unique means ONE OF A KIND, Common means LIMITLESS, so UnCommon would be LIMITED?
Think of a Platoon, PLT SGT Unique, Squad Leader UnCommon, Squad Member Common?

I may have missed it in the many pages of reading and trying to understand, also may have missed it in the actual Official rulling, but where does it say a Common Hero HAS to be 1 life? IF you had more than one common hero in Classic HS how did you keep track which card moved which figure? IE Dumetef Guards.

In the 1st ED RotV MS you recieved a sheet of little white dots to distinguish 2 sets of figures. Why not use Small Dots on the figures rim, put the card in a card sleeve and then a fiz the dot to the sleeve?

I may just be :deadhorse: but this was only an opinion.

[MaJic_Rat]

page 1 of thread lots of discussion about whether we need something new besides the 4 types of Army Cards we have now.

page 2 - lots of talk about not wanting to mark identical figures, but wanting to use multiples of identical figures. They will have to be marked in some way, otherwise they are identical.

page 3 - When I said I didn't want multiple card, I didn't mean printing off multiple copies. I want that. I don't want different cards for each figure - they should be identical copies of each other.

So how will you tell them apart? You will mark them so they won't be identical. There is no other way. The cards and the figures will have to be marked so that you can tell which one gets the wounds, and how many wounds each one has.

What do we call something that is identified in such a way? UNIQUE!!!

Just add a little color dot sticker to the card and figure. Or Number them, or whatever...

As pointed out earlier, you just need to put a power on these cards.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
You may have any number of Doombots in your army.

You can even add the following power to the card.

COORDINATED ASSAULT
When one Doombot you control takes a turn, all Doombots you control may take a turn.

OR

COORDINATED ASSAULT
One order marker will activate all Doombots you control.

Then figure out your favorite way of marking your identical common figures to make them Unique.

Heroscape is all about breaking the rules of the game and there is nothing wrong with making multiple copies of the same Unique Hero as long as you have a power that allows you to break the rule.

Sorry for the long quote ... I didn't see this discussion go much further but this weekend my group and I tried to do a Dr. Doom & 'bots senario. The current soulborgs are just not up to the job.

I see this discussion included a sub-discussion of common vs. uncommon. Here was my solution:

Doombot, 250 points

Marvel, Earth (Latveria), Common

Medium 5, Robot, Duplicate, Egomaniacal

Life 4, Move 6, Range 6, Attack 5, Defense 5

Flying

Mind Exchange Enhancement
You may add 4 to Doctor Doom’s roll for Mind Exchange with a Doombot.

I Am Doom!
Each Doombot is integrated with others of its kind – each believing they are Doctor Doom. No Doombot can end their move within 3 clear sight spaces of any other Doombot. When a Doombot is adjacent to Doctor Doom subtract one attack and one defense from each Doombot on the board. When an order marker activates a Doombot that Doombot may take a turn with another Doombot first.

Basically a bonding power with other Doombots while paying homage to the traditional caveates that 1) each Doombot believed itself to be Doom and 2) Doom had a failsafe to weaken them in his presence.

You could even add them as equipment to Doom instead of as Heros.

[GreyOwl]

I just realized (in another thread) that a case like this already exists with the official cards, namely a common card with greater than 1 Life (which makes me feel better about using the same idea in a custom). If you build a castle with more than one Fortress Door, it is analogous. Each door has more than 1 Life, but there is no way to distinguish one from the other. And since the card doesn't say "Unique" on it anywhere, I would think it is legal to have more than 1 door per map. Of course, it would've been nice if they provided an official way to handle the situation, but they just kind of ignored it. Maybe it would make a good question to submit?

[MaJic_Rat]

I just realized (in another thread) that a case like this already exists with the official cards, namely a common card with greater than 1 Life (which makes me feel better about using the same idea in a custom). If you build a castle with more than one Fortress Door, it is analogous. Each door has more than 1 Life, but there is no way to distinguish one from the other. And since the card doesn't say "Unique" on it anywhere, I would think it is legal to have more than 1 door per map. Of course, it would've been nice if they provided an official way to handle the situation, but they just kind of ignored it. Maybe it would make a good question to submit?

I was just reading that thread last night so I'm familiar with the quandry. Just recently I purchased a second castle set. Before then I hadn't even considered the issue especially not until I tried to create a custom unit.

I could solve the Doombot issue by making 4 cards: Doombot 1, Doombot 2, etc. and making the cards unique. Then, I'll change "robot" to "doombot" and have the special power work off this keyword.

I also considered a unit of Doombots with considerable lower stats (3 attack, 3 defense, 1 life). Perhaps 4 'bots for 250 points same powers but without bonding.

As for milti-life units, I liked the suggestion (in the other thread) of placing wound markers on the bases of each figure as they take wounds. It'd be messy when moving.

Also, have a unit power of "No figure is removed until 3 wound markers are placed on this card." The number of wounds could match the number of figures in the unit to simulate 2 wounds each. A weakness of this method is that your opponent could just gang up on one figure. You could use this to your advantage ...

[SoulfulKillingMachine]

If you don't think AT-ST walkers have Deathwalker syndrome, you haven't seen the same Star Wars I have.

[RickyDMMontoya]

I don't see what the problem with this is. This issue comes up any time you mind shackle a unique hero which you already control. Sure it takes a bit of work, but my group has never had a problem telling them apart, or confusing their wounds or anything.

I would have no problem with common heroes having more than one wound, and I really don't see a need for all the work that has gone on in this thread. At worst it's a minor annoyance keeping the cards for the heroes sorted, but the best way to do it is to just keep the cards oriented left to right the same way the figures are on the board.

No confusion, no need for the frankly silly "take X wounds then remove Y figures" stuff going on here.

[MaJic_Rat]

No confusion, no need for the frankly silly "take X wounds then remove Y figures" stuff going on here.

To each his own but calling it "silly" is a bit harsh for a friendly conversation on creating mechanics without having to eyeball every's cards and figures.

The power of the common units is that the player doesn't need to sort that stuff out. There are enough things to keep track of during a game and the honor system only goes so far.

I still think it's an interesting idea for special power on a squad to not have to remove figures until a threshold of wounds is met.

[RickyDMMontoya]

That's such an artificial and "gamey" gimmick though. It totally shatters the suspension of disbelief (limited though it may be in this instance anyways). It changes the perspective of the player from playing the game to playing the rules. I can suspend disbelief just enough with the regular rules. I'm attacking to kill things. When I'm attacking to accumulate wounds on a functionally indestructible unit to pass an artificial threshold which will then render that unit and all others of its type destructible, it kills the fun. It's so obviously a blatant "game rule" and has no air of reality to it. It's the shred of reality which makes the game fun. Rules like the one proposed above take away from that.

It really doesn't make any sense in a realistic way how wounds accumulated on unit X somehow make unit Y more vulnerable later to totally unrelated attacks.

It especially doesn't make sense for the unit frequently brought up as an example in this thread, the Sentinels, because they are frequently depicted as having near Borg-like adaptive capabilities, rendering later Sentinels less vulnerable to attacks which would destroyed an earlier model. http://en.marveldatabase.com/Sentinel_Mk_II

That said, I still think the Sentinels are a pretty good candidate for Deathwalker style 1 Wound, high defense anyways. They typically have a bunch of attacks that do nothing, and then one (often little attack) that destroys them outright. Rarely are they depicted as taking battle damage that isn't either immediately repaired or immediately fatal. Even Doombots are often shown the same way. Yes, they're supposed to be "perfect duplicates of Doctor Doom," but they rarely actually act like that in comics. See Marvel Ultimate Alliance for how Doombots are treated. 3 hit enemies you beat on in the first level, so there's a pretty good precedent for not making them as difficult and intelligent as Doctor Doom...

In a 400-600 point game, you're going to have damn few of these things in your list anyways. So it really won't be a problem to just use them as common heroes with multiple wounds. Maybe the 12 year olds who have never played before might get them confused, but even they would be able to get it straight after a game or two.

If you're playing a 4000+ point game, then keeping these guys straight is a minor problem compared to some of the other issues that can arise, so again it shouldn't be a major issue. This is especially the case because presumably a player capable of playing such a game would be experienced and well equipped to deal with such a minor difficulty.

[MaJic_Rat]

My Doombot idea was envisioned for 1000+ point Marvel games ... say Dr. Doom and 4 Doombots = 1245 points vs. 5 of your favorite Marvel figures.

Also, this idea came from trying to use Deathwalkers as Dr. Doom's robots. They just don't stack up to the other Marvel characters.
- no matter how many you have. The biggest problem was that there wasn't enough 1) order markers to go around or 2) enough hero units to fill up the points.

In a mixed game this is less of a problem.

As for the other idea: it was off the cuff idea that maybe I should have left out of the discussion. Creating custom rules and units is in part a function of ones gaming philosophy and style of play.

[dablue2]

The problem we've seen from that approach is that it doesn't always fit thematically. With that approach you either kill them or you do nothing, whereas we're trying to find a way that allows you to wear it down over time through wounds. Plus we want to remove the possibility of killing the figure with a single strike, regardless of how probable or improbable it may be.

Grungebob, what GreyOwl means is give the figures more lives.

[IAmBatman]

Necromancy! :reaper:

[kurisenshi]

What about Doombots or Sentinels in the video games? Does anyone remember playing that X-Men arcade game from the 90's where you had 2 screens & could play up to 4 characters? The "common" enemies were man-sized sentinels, weren't they?

For Heroscape purposes, is it really so bad to not be 100% accurate on themes? I know it's tough with customs of established characters, wanting to make them as true to their comic book forms as possible, but remember that the game we're playing is Heroscape here, & so it's OK to format them to fit Heroscape.

It happens all the time in video games like I said earlier anyway. I mean, didn't a Justice League game come out last year that let you play as Superman? Special abilities were limited, weren't they. really, couldn't Superman just beat down almost every "common" enemy in that game if they were translated into the comics?

I say either make a Unique Squad (1 life), Common Squad (1 life), or set of Unique Heroes (more than 1 life). That's what I would do, anyway.

But still, that's just my opinion & I look forward to seeing what you all come up with anyway.

[PlaneswalkerXan]

I'm not sure if anyone has thought about this (I didn't have time to read the entire thread, will soon and will edit this post accordingly).
Why not have a mechanic:
Armored Transport (Ability name)
Rules text: If AT-ST would receive a wound counter, decrease the defense die by 1. If AT-ST would have a defense die count of zero, it dies.

1 Life
Move 3
Range 6 (I kinda want it to have "Range >2" for the flavor that it cannot attack something underneath it)
Attack 4
Defense 7

I'm totally open to suggestions.

[UranusPChicago]

Why not just use a simple mechanic like the following...

Sentinel Bonding - Instead of taking a turn with this Sentinel, you may take a turn with any Sentinel you control. If the Sentinel from this card is destroyed, you may transfer any unused Order Markers to another Sentinel's Army Card that you control.

[GreyOwl]

Because without the new type, you couldn't draft more than one Sentinel in the first place. If it was unique, you could only draft one. If it was common, it would only have 1 Life.

[UranusPChicago]

Use "Sentinel" as the Class for the card.

Then add the following verbage to Sentinel Bonding...

"Your army may contain more than one Sentinel at a time."

In the same way that Cyberclaw negates the game mechanic of Disengagement, I think it would be alright if an ability negated the restriction of having more than one unique "unique" in one's army.

However, unless each Sentinel has a separate card, it will become near impossible to track wounds.

[GreyOwl]

That's essentially the purpose of the symbol. It just a more condensed form than writing out the power like that, similar to the superstrength or flying symbol. And yes, you still need a separate card for each Sentinel in order to track wounds, but at least each card can be identical (just print multiple copies).