Project Pokemon - **The Return To Greatness**

[wulfhunter667]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/this_is_project_pokemon.gif
This thread is now the primary thread for the creation and design of Pokemon cards for the Heroscape game.

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1. To make, refine, and post high-quality Pokemon-themed cards usable with the official Heroscape game.
2. To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. Any and all available references to the Pokemon in question will be used to recreate that Pokemon's feel and abilities within Heroscape.
3. To maintain a core group of Heroscapers community members that will make final decisions regarding the cards.
4. To allow any and all members of the Heroscapers community to provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.

Rules of Project Pokemon
- The core group of members (Trainers and Junior Trainers) has the final say on what is approved and rejected. Anyone may make suggestions, but only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote "Yes" or "No". This applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.

- In order to unify and focus the group (and subsequently ensure a higher-quality product), only one card will be in the development phase at a time and one card will be in the playtesting phase at a time.

- As cards are finalized, new cards will be submitted. New cards may only be submitted by core group members.

- A new card will be drafted by one core group member and then submitted to the rest of the group to be revised and prepared for playtesting. The original designer of the card dictates what is and what is not appropriate for the card.

- The core group as a whole has the final vote on whether the card accurately captures the theme of Pokemon within the mechanics of Heroscape as best as possible. This vote is necessary for a card to move on to playtesting.

- The most important rule to remember is to please keep things polite. We are all working toward the same goal. Although we will not always agree with one another, all we ask if that you be polite about the way you express your opinions. If you cannot express your opinion nicely simply do not comment. If you find fault with another person's conduct, PM another core group member or myself.

Member Status and Levels of Participation
There are three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation, revision, and playtesting of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the project. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project.

Currently, anyone seeking to join the Project will start as an Ally. As positions become available, your level of participation will determine whether you advance or not.

W/R/I System and HS compatibility
W/R/I System:
- Optional Pokescape rules only. When using classic Heroscape and/or Marvelscape, ignore these rules.

- Each special attack on a Pokescape army card will be assigned a type, represented by a symbol.

- At the bottom of every card there will be 3 lists of symbols: Weakness, Resistance, and No Effect.

- A symbol in each list corresponds to what happens when attacked by a special attack of that type/symbol.
- Weakness means roll one less defense die
- Resistance means roll one more defense die
- No Effect means you can target the Pokemon for that attack, but the targeted Pokemon will not receive any damage or effects from the attack. Likewise, if the Pokemon has an immunity to an area affect attack of that type, it will not receive any damage or effects from that attack, but other Pokemon who are not immune and within range may still receive damage or effects.


Classic Heroscape Compatibility:
- W/R/I system does NOT work with classic heroscape, and is NOT influenced by terrain. For example, a figure that is weak to fire type attacks won't receive a penalty from being on a lava space unless explicitly stated on the card.

- Some pokemon will have abilities, such as fly or lava resistant, specifically spelled out on the cards in standard Heroscape fashion and wording in order to reduce confusion and streamline mixing of classic Heroscape, Marvelscape and Pokescape.

Designing Cards
Each member of the core group will be responsible for creating an least one card about every 2 monthes or so, starting with the first R/B/Y 151 Pokemon. In keeping with the best interest of the project, no card may be made for an evolved form of Pokemon until the base Pokemon has been created, ie, don't try to make Charizard without making Charmander and Charmeleon first, in that order.

Voting
On any matter that has nothing to do with a card in creation or playtesting, only the Group Moderator may call for a vote. Only Trainers may call for a vote in the Design Phase. All members may call for a vote in the Playtest Phase.
When a card receives 50% positive votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 50% positive votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding , Book Of and Release.
From this point forward, from the point a Trainer calls for a vote on a card, the ONLY votes that will be counted are votes cast without 24 hours of the original post. The majority of votes cast will determine the outcome of the vote. If, in the total number of votes cast, the majority is less than 3 votes apart, an additional 24 hours will be allowed to either gain a true majority (3/4 total voting ability or 10 total votes) or until every Trainer and Jr. Trainer's vote has been counted. If a majority is not achieved in this time, the card remains for revision and a new vote can be called for later.

Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.
Our design thread is located here...
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=30243

Playtesting Cards
Our playtesting thread, based on the incredible system developed over at C3G is located here...
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=30274

Finalizing Cards
All cards must receive final comments, critques and error checks before being ready for release.

Book Of ______
It is the duty of any and all core group members to create a Book Of for released Pokemon cards. Each Book Of will consist of a single post in the Project Pokemon Display thread linked back to the first page of that thread.

We are currently accepting applications for Allies.

Current Master Set List v. 2.0
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venusaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Jynx, Magnemite, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Haunter, Scyther, Kangaskhan, Dratini, Dragonair, Paras, Parasect, Lapras

Current Membership
Wulfhunter667 (Thread Moderator/Trainer)
White Knight (Assistant Thread Moderator/Trainer/Artist)
mac122 (Trainer/Art Director)
Warlord Alpha (Trainer/Chief Editor)
fiddlerjones (Trainer)
NightSwipe (Trainer)
minimoose38 (Trainer)
kaiyu0707 (Trainer)
Chardar (Junior Trainer)
DrAwsm (Junior Trainer)
Xn F M (Junior Trainer)
Creationist (Junior Trainer)
Sup3rS0n1c (Junior Trainer)
Kroz (Junior Trainer)
jwindjackal (Ally)
Carakki (Ally)
Vilsara (Ally)
Takanuva (Ally)
tcglkn (Ally)
MegaSilver (Ally)
White Noise (Ally)
flameslayer93 (Ally)
caltemus (Ally)
Vydar is the man (Ally)
DeathDoom (Ally)

Final Draft for Master Set:
Wulfhunter667: Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Bulbasaur, Ivysaur
mac122: Pikachu, Kangaskhan, Pidgeotto
Xn F M: Pidgey
Warlord Alpha: Magnemite, Dratini, Dragonair
fiddlerjones: Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise
NightSwipe: Sandshrew, Sandslash, Jynx
minimoose38: Abra, Mankey, Primeape
White Knight: Scyther, Lapras, Kadabra
Chardar: Paras
DrAwsm: Parasect
kaiyu0707: MIA
Group Effort: Gastly, Haunter, Onix, Venasaur

Order of Operations as suggested by Fiddlerjones
1. General Pokescape Rules - rules that will be used in all Pokescape campaigns
-Evolution (current topic)
-W/R/I
-Trainers
-Glyphs

2. Possible Scenario Ideas
-One-on-One Arena Battle
-Kanto Campaign, Video Game Style
-Rival Battle
-Trainer Tournament

3. Rules Used Only in Certain Scenarios
-Switching Out
-Catching Pokemon
-In-battle Evolution

[wulfhunter667]

For those of you who are interested, this is the type of thing we are looking to do. Mind you, this is just a mock-up, but you'll get the idea...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/PIKACHU.jpg

[fiddlerjones]

I like the idea of Pokemon Heroscape a lot, but I felt like the other thread was trying to make it a bit too complicated for its own good. The idea is to translate the feel of Pokemon, not the mechanics.

That said, the mock-up looks great. My only suggestion would be that instead of putting symbols on the card, maybe put the element on the card where the race typically goes. That does limit pokemon with more than one race, however, so it's kind of a toss-up.

[Uchiha Blood]

As an old Pokemon fan, having an understanding of the game, and my experience in Heroscape customs, I propose the following ability for normal evolution.

Evolve
When <unit> destroys a figure, place a red and white Evolution marker on this Army Card. If <unit> has three Evolution markers on its card, you may remove <unit> from the board and place <evolved unit> on the space previously occupied by <unit>.

For example, Charmander would have to have a higher point value because he has the potential to become a Charizard by the end game. If you don't draft Charizard, some of the points go to waste. It would be like drafting Iskra without the Rechets.

[Carakki]

I like the idea of Pokemon Heroscape a lot, but I felt like the other thread was trying to make it a bit too complicated for its own good. The idea is to translate the feel of Pokemon, not the mechanics.
I second this. At certain times, Pokemon has struck me as unrealistic simply due to things like flying Pokemon being defeated by something that can't jump two feet into the air, so Heroscape should give it a chance to

That said, I'd like very much to stake my claim in this project. My contributions include creativity, extensive knowledge of Heroscape lingo (for abilities), and enough experience with Pokemon to not be completely lost. I also may be able to design a new card for Pokemon, so we're not stuck with Classic Heroscape cards or Marvel cards, and can be useful in playtesting with other Pokemon fans.

[wulfhunter667]

Since interest in this is definately there, I suggest first things first. Let's get a good group together and start hammering out the rules we will follow (see above) and figure out where to go from there. One thing at a time guys. You have to walk before you run.

[Xn F M]

Since interest in this is definately there, I suggest first things first. Let's get a good group together and start hammering out the rules we will follow (see above) and figure out where to go from there. One thing at a time guys. You have to walk before you run.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Right now we should be working out the over-all rules we're going to be working under (technical stuff like voting rules, and how we pick who's up for design). Then we'll move on to things like design rules (whether or not to include trainers, the type cart, STAB, and the overall compatability level). Then we move on to actual design?

[wulfhunter667]

Since interest in this is definately there, I suggest first things first. Let's get a good group together and start hammering out the rules we will follow (see above) and figure out where to go from there. One thing at a time guys. You have to walk before you run.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Right now we should be working out the over-all rules we're going to be working under (technical stuff like voting rules, and how we pick who's up for design). Then we'll move on to things like design rules (whether or not to include trainers, the type cart, STAB, and the overall compatability level). Then we move on to actual design?
That is 100% correct. And to that end, please, read the first post carefully and tell me what you think, what you like, what you think needs to be changed and anything you think should be added.
Bear in mind, with 8 members now, everything, and I do mean everything will now be put to a vote. Agreed?

[Sup3rS0n1c]

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Right now we should be working out the over-all rules we're going to be working under (technical stuff like voting rules, and how we pick who's up for design). Then we'll move on to things like design rules (whether or not to include trainers, the type cart, STAB, and the overall compatability level). Then we move on to actual design?
I agree. Though I don't think STAB shouldn't be included, it would be too complicated.

I definitely want in on this. I'm not sure how much playtesting I can do, but I can make stats/abilities and cards if everyone wants. ^_^

Also, I don't think we should create altogether seperate threads for the units; we don't have an entire sub-forum to clog up ^_~ but we should definitely keep links to card discussions/playtests and an appendix on the OP.

[Xn F M]

I beleive the plan at the moment is to create a second diplay thread for all the cards/rules once we have them. That would also be where we would include any FAQs, and "book of" type info.

Edit: I do have a pretty good way to include STAB, without any math what-so-ever. But I'll leave that till we get there ;)

[Sup3rS0n1c]

I beleive the plan at the moment is to create a second diplay thread for all the cards/rules once we have them. That would also be where we would include any FAQs, and "book of" type info.
Ok, each post as a Book in a single thread seems fine ^_^

I can take care of that if you guys want, because I can notice my card-making skills are rather humbled by what wulfhunter did. :P

[wulfhunter667]

I beleive the plan at the moment is to create a second diplay thread for all the cards/rules once we have them. That would also be where we would include any FAQs, and "book of" type info.

Edit: I do have a pretty good way to include STAB, without any math what-so-ever. But I'll leave that till we get there ;)
That's correct. There will be a PP Display thread AFTER we have something to display. The Books of___ will be located there, the cards themselves and everything indexed and referenced on the first page. But we'll leave that til we get there. ;)

Let's save the card creation part til after we have the guidlines set up please.

[Takanuva]

I'd like to join.(This is the 3rd thime I've said this, I'm beginning to feel like you don't like me:))

[Xn F M]

I'd like to join.(This is the 3rd thime I've said this, I'm beginning to feel like you don't like me:))

Did you send a PM to Wulf?

btw: I probably won't be able to post my thoughts on our processes until sometime tomorow. I've used all my breaks at work already and I'm not getting home until late-ish tonight.

[wulfhunter667]

I'd like to join.(This is the 3rd thime I've said this, I'm beginning to feel like you don't like me:))

Did you send a PM to Wulf?

btw: I probably won't be able to post my thoughts on our processes until sometime tomorow. I've used all my breaks at work already and I'm not getting home until late-ish tonight.
I got him. All good. Post tonight anyway. I'm usually up late.

[NightSwipe]

Okay, Wulfhunter, I just sent you a PM asking to be let in. I am quite glad someone has the time/energy to start up this thread again, I thought it was going to crash and burn.

[fiddlerjones]

Well if we're going to start with guidelines, I've got some suggestions. The biggest problem I saw with the last thread was that people were too concerned with translating each pokemon in exacting detail from the games. I'd rather have a HS mini that feels like I'm using a Pikachu (for example) but still plays smoothly than worry with a lot of complicated new rules intended to mimic the video game. Things like switching out and evolution may need to fall by the wayside, though there may be a way to work with that.

First, a proposed guideline:

-All special attacks/abilities should, when possible, use the names of moves in the video games (e.g. Thunder Wave, Psychic, Water Gun). General traits like Flying or Aquatic are acceptable.

Second, a suggestion:

-One of the big draws of Pokemon is the complex interaction between the different elements. One of the big draws of Heroscape is the simplicity and common-sense nature of gameplay. Obviously, these don't really mesh. Let's not go overboard on the resistance/weakness thing. It's ok if not every fire attack is stronger against a grass pokemon, for example.

Finally, an idea:

-Regarding Trainers: This one is inspired by the Stronghold cards from the Legend of the Five Rings CCG. The idea here is that each player starts the game with a Trainer card that represents him/her and gives some kind of bonus. So for example:

Blaine

Fire Affinity: Reduce the
cost of Fire-type
Pokemon in your army
by 5 points.

Ash Ketchum

"I Choose You": Once per
turn, instead of revealing
an order marker, you may
reveal the "X" marker instead
and take a turn with the
corresponding unit.

Just a few things to get us started off...

[wulfhunter667]

Not exactly what I was going for since we still need group rules, but let's roll with it...
Well if we're going to start with guidelines, I've got some suggestions. The biggest problem I saw with the last thread was that people were too concerned with translating each pokemon in exacting detail from the games. I'd rather have a HS mini that feels like I'm using a Pikachu (for example) but still plays smoothly than worry with a lot of complicated new rules intended to mimic the video game. Things like switching out and evolution may need to fall by the wayside, though there may be a way to work with that.

First, a proposed guideline:

-All special attacks/abilities should, when possible, use the names of moves in the video games (e.g. Thunder Wave, Psychic, Water Gun). General traits like Flying or Aquatic are acceptable.
I agree 100%. Thematic Pokemon power names are a necessity, however, they need to be worded as closely to Heroscape wording as possible, ie, the Pokemon power "Counter" should read exactly like "Counter Strike," etc.
Second, a suggestion:

-One of the big draws of Pokemon is the complex interaction between the different elements. One of the big draws of Heroscape is the simplicity and common-sense nature of gameplay. Obviously, these don't really mesh. Let's not go overboard on the resistance/weakness thing. It's ok if not every fire attack is stronger against a grass pokemon, for example.
That I'm not so sure on, but I have an idea about that I will share tomorrow when I'm not to frickin tired.
Finally, an idea:

-Regarding Trainers: This one is inspired by the Stronghold cards from the Legend of the Five Rings CCG. The idea here is that each player starts the game with a Trainer card that represents him/her and gives some kind of bonus. So for example:

Blaine

Fire Affinity: Reduce the
cost of Fire-type
Pokemon in your army
by 5 points.

Ash Ketchum

"I Choose You": Once per
turn, instead of revealing
an order marker, you may
reveal the "X" marker instead
and take a turn with the
corresponding unit.

Just a few things to get us started off...
I like that also, but I think we might need to actually make cards for Trainers as well. Again, another idea for tomorrow.

These are some excellent ideas. I have a few of my own to share, and I encourage all of you to share as well. I would like to see the rules we will follow, the guidelines for card creation and the general card format discussion finished by next Friday. If we can do that, it will be a great start.
More tomorrow.

[Xn F M]

Alright so as far as voting goes I would think a simple 2/3 or 3/4 majority would be a good amount to pass a unit from one stage to the next.

Basing our playtest requirements off of the C3G's (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1476), I think we can fairly safely cut the heavy hitter test down to three or four units, eliminate the squad test, and possibly even change the two army tests to be generic (I hadn't noticed before but it's interesting that they don't require testing against a mixed army like knights/4th which seems odd).

For playtest results themselves I think we should require some amount of game description in the posts so that the individuals who can't/don't playtest a given unit can get an idea of how it performs.

For design order I think we should follow the order in which people are listed in the first post allowing people to pass (moving on to the next member) if for some reason they don't have the ability to take their turn when it comes up. If we do incorporate this rule, I would change the rule requiring one design every two months to drop members after two consecutive passes.

As a question to the other members, how do we want to handle the induction of new members after we've finished our initial "rush?" I'd be in favor of just stealing the C3G's method of nominating people that help out and puting it to a vote (either 2/3 or 3/4) by the existing members.

I don't really have much more to say as far as administrative matters go (at least not that I can think of) when we move onto design guidelines I'm sure I'll end up writing a novel, but we're not quite there yet.

Edit: apparently we are touching on design matters now so I'll say a little and write more tomorrow.

On trainers: I like the idea but I think they should be kept out of the "classic compatible" standard rules (though we could put together some Coliseum scenarios that use trainers and mimic the feel of trainer vs. trainer battles more). But really before we get into anything that deep we have to decide whether or not we're designing to be compatible with classic scape, or if we're using the scape engine to create a stand alone game.

Personally I'm inclined to design to be fully compatible with classic scape but to give the option of full pokescape (once we have some units out, basically this would be where we introduce the coliseum rules and probably trainers as well).

Designing with classic scape heavily in mind does present some issues though. We would have to downplay type interactions, unless we wanted to issue errata for classic scape and require a number of reference sheets. If we limit ourselves to the big interactions (ground/flying, ghost/normal, or possibly even re-work the type charts so that each type is only strong against one other) we might be able to retain that metagame.

We really need to have an answer to the bold question before we can go anywhere on any kind of design issues. I'm sure I'll have more to say tomorow.

[fiddlerjones]

I too am in favor of designing to be fully compatible with classic Heroscape, though I agree it makes type interactions tough. There's no reason we can't have the Trainers I suggested as an optional rule, too, so long as the pokemon themselves are fully compatible. 2/3 seems like a good number for a voting majority, and I agree with capping membership soon, and inducting new members based on their contribution.

Once we figure out procedure for voting and creating cards, there are some points we'll need to discuss before we get into making cards. These include (but are not limited to):

-Evolution: Yes or No (and How)?
-Trainers?
-Types and Type Interaction
-Status Effects?
-Standardized Miniatures? (The Pokemon Trading Figure Game holds some possibilities here)
-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)

But that's all for after we establish our procedures.

[mac122]

Well, we do need to finalize the group rules before we get too far into design details....but since everyone else is sharing, I'll jump in too.

IMO, the cards we create should be fully compatible with classic scape. I want to be able to have Obi-Wan and Pikachu take on Venom and Venoc Vipers (or whatever combination).

Basing it on the video games is fine as long as we don't dismiss attacks and abilities taken from the card game out of hand - espcially when we get to the point of creating glyphs. There are a lot of trainer cards like Potion, Full Heal, Gust of Wind,etc that could be really fun when translated to glyphs.

Evolution. This seemed to be a real divider in the last thread. My proposal would be to first create cards for the different stages. Let's have Charmander, Charmeleon, and Charizard created that will work with Scape, then, again, down the road we can work on optional rules covering Evolution, Stadium cards, etc.

Trainers. Again, seemed to be a divider in the original thread. Some wanted trainers as playable cards and some wanted trainers to be more of an unseen general. We can do both - not at the same time - but we can do both. Once we have a dozen or so Pokemon, IMO, we should make playable cards for some of the iconic Trainers - Ash, Misty, Brock, etc. All trainer bonding and synergies would be on these cards instead of the individual Pokemon. I picture their abilities being more of boosts to whatever Pokemon are in their army - maybe even a "Catch 'em All" kind of ability ala Mindshackle. Then down that same road again, when we start working on optional rules, we can create those generals.

When we get into the design phase, we need to not let ourselves get carried away and try to jam every known ability that Blastoise or Bulbasaur has used. We don't need that. We need to pick 1-3 abilities or special attacks that capture the flavor of that Pokemon. Trainers, in either form, or glyphs can add extra attacks to our little monsters.

Types are another issue we will have to hash out. I think we need to have the Type on our cards. I don't picture us having a lot of "Squirtle rolls 1 additional attack die against Fire Type Pokemon" but having the type on there will be beneficial when working on the Pokemon specific optional rules.

from Xn F M: '''we have to decide whether or not we're designing to be compatible with classic scape, or if we're using the scape engine to create a stand alone game...
I really don't see it as having to be one or the other. If we create cards that are compatible with Classic Scape they will be usable in any custom rule set we create.

Man, I get wordy when I don't get enough sleep. To sum up, IMO, let's not limit Project Pokemon. We can make cards that any Scaper could use and a set of game mechanics only for the Pokefreaks (I may be a rusty Pokefreak, but I'm still a Pokefreak).

[Carakki]

Well, if we're throwing around ideas...

On Trainers: I think the best way to incorporate Trainers would be as Kato Katsuro-style general-type figures (yes, actual figures) that offer bonuses and Order Marker flexibility to Pokemon (perhaps particular types of Pokemon). This would allow us to capture the personality/affinity of each Trainer and still remain inside the Heroscape system.

On evolution: This one's a toughie, but I have a few ideas. One, we could use an ability like Bloodlust to have a Pokemon move off the field when it destroys a certain number of figures (experience; they even have Experience Markers for us already) and be replaced with their evolved form, as stated in the ability. (Perhaps a glyph could also induce early evolution.) Another idea would be to place an evolution chain at the bottom of the card (where the Super Strength symbol goes on Marvel cards, or the Flying symbol on C3G cards). This method would work the same as the first one, but it would save a lot of space on the card and allow for more abilities. Yet a third option (that seems quite practical) is to leave out evolution altogether - how often does one see a Pokemon evolve mid-battle? Certainly never in the games, though I think it might have happened a few times in the old TV show. One way or another, evolution's going to take some hammering out.

On types/type interaction: I think the best way to deal with this (should we choose to include it at all) would be to simplify, replacing the 4x damage/2x damage/.5x damage/0x damage system with a simple 'roll extra defense against this type' or 'add one to your attack value when attacking this type.' As for how to determine type, there are a few ways I've come up with. One is to place type, as well as what it's strong against, down with the Super Strength symbol. This could work very well, creating a quick-reference system of identifying type. Another idea (though I don't know how many diehards will resent Pikachu not being listed as a Mouse) is to place type where Class is currently located on the card, and have and ability on the card (similar to Negative Element) that stated what type of Pokemon is affected by type interaction. However, this once again brings up the issue of space, so its success depends on the complexity/number of abilities on each Pokemon.

That's all of my major ideas for now, save one. I have experience/skill with creating custom cards, and I've got a cool idea for Pokemon cards that frees us from the constraints of Classic- or Marvel-style cards. I was thinking of coloring the cards based on the Pokemon's type - for example, Blaziken would have red as the primary color (fire being his primary type) and brown as the secondary (as fighting is his secondary type). This would create an intuitive method of determining type for players already experienced in the strengths/weaknesses of different types, and would give each Pokemon the unique feel its type gives it.

That's all for now. I hope my ideas are useful.

[NightSwipe]

I think I will wait to share my views until after this thread gets a bit more organized. Pass! ;)

[Vilsara]

I agree with Xn's comments, mostly because taking inspiration from C3G is probably the safest and most organized route we can take.

I'd also like to throw in my opinions on fiddlerjones's questions.


-Evolution: Yes or No (and How)?

I vote no for a few reasons. One, Pokemon do not tend to evolve mid battle, as previously stated by Carraki. Two, it's my personal view that we shouldn't make cards for EVERY Pokemon in existence- whenever possible, I'd prefer to keep the cards to fully evolved, legendaries, etc. And finally (and most importantly), evolution is too complicated of a mechanic to transfer to HS- given that Pokemon all evolve in different ways, it would simply clutter the card with extra abilities and calculations for counting draft points of evolutionary lines.

-Trainers?

I have no real opinion on this, as I haven't seen a full, affirmatively-voted rough draft of how a trainer would work. If it's optional, then I vote yes, though, as added rules for a "coliseum" type of game (as Xn F M offered) would be very fun.

-Types and Type Interaction

A sympathetic "maybe" here. Heroscape's play mechanics have bonuses given on a card-to-card basis- powers like Isamu's Dishonorable attack, for example. There ARE some species-wide bonuses- "When attacking (species), X receives one addition attack"- such in the case of the Quasatch Hunters' Techno Hatred. That may be a potential base for typing; however, it would be adding another ability to the card which could be used for other, more creative abilities.

-Status Effects?

The last thread used a series of "markers" to represent status effects, with rules assigned to each of them. This saved space on the card when attacks had secondary effects, too- as long as we focus on narrowing the old list down (it was quite large), then a reference sheet for statuses, along with markers, would make them easy to implement.

-Standardized Miniatures? (The Pokemon Trading Figure Game holds some possibilities here)

I vote that this will be based on each individual group member's effort to find/make appropriate miniatures. After all, for the people who're just here to make interesting customs, there's no need to add an extra step searching for the site with the most variety, etc.

-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)

I voted "generals" in the old thread, to much negative reaction from the group. I assume that consensus is staying with the new thread ;) However, the type-template (one color of card per dominant type) looked very nice when I saw the Pikachu, so I vote we find the guy who made those cards and keep them.

But that's all for after we establish our procedures.

As well, I have one extra question to add to the survey: What will be the criteria for what Pokemon we do?

[Carakki]

Two, it's my personal view that we shouldn't make cards for EVERY Pokemon in existence- whenever possible, I'd prefer to keep the cards to fully evolved, legendaries, etc.
This occurred to me as well. C3G does not pump out every superhero made (although they may eventually), and similarly, I think that making all of the Pokemon would simply clog the game.

Speaking of C3G, I also like their idea of doing 'releases.' We could do ours in waves, Pokemon not being superpowered (except for the legendaries). For example:

P4H Wave 1: Kanto Exploration

Beginner's Luck

Venosaur
Blastoise
Charizard
Pikachu
Ditto
Eeveelution

Eevee
Jolteon
Flareon
Vaporeon
Espion
UmbreonSo on and so forth. Perhaps a pack of Trainers could be included in each wave.

This brings me to another point of contention: squads. I know Pokemon are meant to be individual, like animals with more personality, but the concept of Heroscape without squads is not appealing.

[BiggaBullfrog]

I guess I'll throw in my thoughts on the ideas being thrown around.

Overall Design Progress rules: I agree with what Xn F M proposed as far as a 3/4 majority, having design pass down the line of members, nominating/voting in new members, and mostly everything else he said except for taking squads out of playtesting. As squads are a big part of Classic 'Scape, I think we need to include them in the tests, especially if we want to make a certain Pokemon good/bad against squads.

Compatible with Classic or Stand Alone: I think we should go compatible with Classic 'scape, at least for right now. If we want special rules, that can come later, but first we need some Pokemon that work with Classic to start from, IMO. I also think if we do have special rules that they only apply to certain Pokemon specific campaigns/scenarios.

Evolution: I'm against trying to throw in a mid-game evolution mechanic, just to keep the game simple. If we really want to add it in, I don't think it would be hard to come up with a campaign of sorts where the Pokemon evolve between battles. Otherwise, it'll probably get messy.

Trainers: I like both the actual figure and unseen general ideas here, though I think I prefer the actual figure. Then you can have the Kurrok/Kato idea going on with clear sight/with X amount of spaces limitations going on. We want flexibility with Pokemon, but not complete free will IMO. Having figures also opens up the possibility abilities Pokemon can have that work with trainers (guard Pokemon that get a bonus when near their trainer, etc.)

Types: I think if we include type interaction, it should be limited to Special Powers/Attacks, mainly Special Attacks. It wouldn't be too hard to say "if Charizard uses Flamethrower Special Attack against a Grass or Ice Pokemon, roll two extra attack die." Normal attacks, though, should be kept type advantage free. After all, these are the basic attacks that probably won't do a whole lot of extra damage anyway (Scratch, Tackle, maybe Ember or Water Gun for basic ranged attacks). For the Normal/Ghost issue, we could give the Ghosts an ability against normal attacks, or maybe just attacks from normal pokemon, and for Ground/Flying, we could copy the Earth Elemental and limit it to a Ground type Special Attack not affecting figures with Flying.

Status Effects: I agree with what Vilsara said with using markers with associated rules, but limiting to only the prominent effects (think the original games, with just poison, burn, paralyze, sleep, freeze, confuse; and some of those could probably be used simply as removing OM's; none of some of the less important ones, like attraction).

Card Templates: I liked the templates used in the first thread, with the type replacing the General, although throwing in Carakki's idea of dual-colors for dual-typed Pokemon is a good one too. I'm against assigning Pokemon a General, as they really only do what their Trainers tell them too. Speaking of that, if we use figures for trainers, I could easily see them having generals.

Squads?: Yes squads are important for Heroscape, and yes Pokemon are typically used individually in the games. However, with Heroscape, I could easily see some Pokemon functioning as squads, especially since their bios talk about them working in packs (Houndour, a group of Rattata/Raticate, Zubat/Golbat, and a lot Bug Pokemon such as Beedrill). For certain Pokemon, I don't see putting them in squads as being an issue.

Hope that helped in some way.

[Carakki]

Squads?: Yes squads are important for Heroscape, and yes Pokemon are typically used individually in the games. However, with Heroscape, I could easily see some Pokemon functioning as squads, especially since their bios talk about them working in packs (Houndour, a group of Rattata/Raticate, Zubat/Golbat, and a lot Bug Pokemon such as Beedrill). For certain Pokemon, I don't see putting them in squads as being an issue.
Differentiating squads based on the Pokemon is a good idea. Unown would be another good squad, maybe a four-figure squad (they're usually found in masses, right?).

Obviously legendaries would be unique heroes, and I could see rarer Pokemon as common/uncommon heroes (depending on their rarity). Starter Pokemon would also do well as uniques.

Also, any thoughts on unique squads? Is there an elite corps of Pokemon anywhere? Food for thought.

[Xn F M]

Overall Design Progress rules: I agree with what Xn F M proposed as far as a 3/4 majority, having design pass down the line of members, nominating/voting in new members, and mostly everything else he said except for taking squads out of playtesting. As squads are a big part of Classic 'Scape, I think we need to include them in the tests, especially if we want to make a certain Pokemon good/bad against squads.

I didn't mean to not test them against squads, I just don't think the squad test is really necessary. When you get on to the army tests you'll inevitably be testing them against squads but in a role appropriate for the pokemon. I would expect at least 9/10 pokemon to get absolutely murdalated by an equal force of squaddies so why bother with a specific test for that?

And as far as which pokemon we cover goes I'm not in favor of only doing the final evolutions/legendaries. Aside from the obvious examples of Vigoroth/Slacking and Polywrath/Polywhirl where the mid-level forms are just as good as the final form, when you're using a point system there's a definite place for lower powered figures. I see absolutely no reason not to include full evolutionary chains, especially for better / more popular pokemon. I would have no problem with leaving out things like Magicarp/Feebass, the cocoons, and other generally useless pokemon (I do have an idea of Unown though . . .).

Evolution: pokemon don't evolve mid battle, they do it afterwards. I don't see much more of a reason not to include evolution rules than that (unless we do a specific pokescape variant, even then it still probably wouldn't happen in game.)

Squads: I don't like the idea of squads of pokemon. As far as I know there are only really two pokemon that it would be appropriate to give one life to, Unown and Shedinja, beyond that I see most pokemon as uncommon heroes, with the exception of the legendaries and specific pokemon (if we go that route). I would not be opposed to releasing "pack/swarm" cards at some point in the future that allow you to activate multiple pokemon on a single OM.

As well, I have one extra question to add to the survey: What will be the criteria for what Pokemon we do?

Assuming we keep the "first 150*" criteria from the OP, I had just assumed we'd pick the pokemon we want to do as we go. Though that actually seems like a bad way to do things now that I think about it. Assuming we don't decide only to use the final evolutions, I think we should go through the list one (or twice) only doing first stage pokemon (allowing free picking) and then open thins up a bit from there. I like the idea of starting with baby steps; baby steps for baby pokemon.

* I say first 150 as opposed first 151 because I really don't see Mew as being all that doable, as she has no specific moveset. Mew is defined by being able to learn any TM which makes it difficult to boil her down to a card.

[Carakki]

Evolution: pokemon don't evolve mid battle, they do it afterwards. I don't see much more of a reason not to include evolution rules than that (unless we do a specific pokescape variant, even then it still probably wouldn't happen in game.)
Personally, I think that's reason enough. Except in a campaign/dungeon crawl situation, when would it ever be useful to evolve your Pokemon after a battle?

Squads: I don't like the idea of squads of pokemon. As far as I know there are only really two pokemon that it would be appropriate to give one life to, Unown and Shedinja, beyond that I see most pokemon as uncommon heroes, with the exception of the legendaries and specific pokemon (if we go that route). I would not be opposed to releasing "pack/swarm" cards at some point in the future that allow you to activate multiple pokemon on a single OM.
This, I think, has to do with the transfer to the Heroscape system. For example, Rattata and Raticate are basically just really big rats. Why should they receive more than one life, when the metal-plated Souborg Deathreavers are stuck with one?

Some Pokemon, such as legendaries or particularly iconic ones such as starter Pokemon, may warrant Uncommon or Unique status, but the common Pokemon is just that - Common.

[wulfhunter667]

Wow. You guys have been busy. I am very please that all of you show the strong desire to do this the right way and put serious effort into this.
That being said, here are my opinions on what has been said so far...
Membership
We have a good solid base to start with. As of Sunday evening, applications will be closed for a while and we will accept new members in the future based on thread participation and current member suggestion only.
Member Status
This is important. There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you fell like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who comes in after Monday and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
Voting
With the number of folks we have now, I think that 5 votes will do, as opposed to 3. We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.
If everyone agrees to this and no one has any problems with it or has more to offer, I will add it to the rules section and we will vote on it tomorrow.
Design
-Classic Heroscape: Compatible or no?
This is a tricky one, but I think the answer here need to be yes. Compatiblity with HS is vital to getting other's interested in what we are doing here. It also allows for players to draft 2nd and 3rd stage Pokemon with out having to draft lower-powered Pokemon first. That doesn't mean I don't want a second, seperate rulesset for Pokescape, but I'll go into that later.
-Evolution: Yes or No (and How)?
Evolving during a game is out. Cartoon not withstanding, Pokemon do not evolve during combat. I think we need to use a variation of the rules found in the new D&D MS to handle evolution. In a Pokescape Campaign setting, when you move from one scenario to the next, you gain a specific number of additional points to add to your army to account for evolution and newly captured Pokemon. In addition, you may trade in 1st and 2nd stage Pokemon and apply that point cost to drafting the next stage of that Pokemon only. I really think this will work in a Pokescape game.
-Trainers?
I think the best idea I've seen so far is to create iconic trainers as cards and then other trainers seperately. Here's a wild idea for you. After drafting your army for Pokescape, if you did not draft a Trainer card, shuffle the deck of Trainer Effects cards and draw one. You have the benefits of that Trainer Effects card for that game and may trade it in at the end of the game for a new Trainer Effects card. Maybe have one card for each specific type of Pokemon, with iconic names like Bug Catcher, Hiker and Blackbelt, each having a game specific effect on Bug, Rock and Fighting types respectively. Just a thought.
-Types and Type Interaction
Types and Type Interaction is as iconic as the Pokemon themselves, but I think we need to be very careful here. I envision the bottom of each card having a Pokedex "power" listed on it giving the type interactions FOR POKESCAPE ONLY. That means having the text read something like...
This Pikachu is strong against attack a, b and c type Pokemon, weak against attack d, e and f type Pokemon, and takes no damage from attacks from g type Pokemon.
In this manner, we get to keep the type interaction without effecting classic HS playability. Again, just a thought.
-Status Effects?
Status Effects are a must also, but again, have to be very carefully worded. Instead of markers, maybe we could use a variation of the system the CCG uses, where, if a Pokemon has a Status effect on it, you turn the card to represent it. If no one like that idea, or wants to hear more, I guess we'll stay with markers, but I kinda want to stay away from too many markers on a card to avoid confusion, and lets be honest here, if an 8-year-old can remember what a card turned to the right means in CCG, he can remember what a card turned to the right here means.
-Standardized Miniatures? (The Pokemon Trading Figure Game holds some possibilities here)
That's going to be tough. I don't know of any kind of Pokemon miniatures that would even come close to being in scale with HS. I like the idea of using the Pokemon Miniature Game minis, but that will eventually get expensive, There are even some older miniatures that came out in Pokemon first hit that could be usable, but again are the wrong scale and I'm sure be now are hard to come by. With that in mind, we should think about making foldable paper minis for the people who cannot afford to throw tons of money at this. It's fairly cheap, and although not the prettiest sight in the world, would serve as a usable proxy for the figures.
-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)
I want the more artistically inclined members of the group to start working on this as soon as possible. Using type for the color scheme is an excellent idea, but why not take that a little bit further. There was another thread that had a Pokemon card that is BEAUTIFUL. It is here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=626297&postcount=1). Use that for ideas for the template creation, with the type color schemes.
-Squads
I'm not so sure about this one, but if the majority wants them, I'll go along with it.
-What will be the criteria for what Pokemon we do?
Well, if you made it this far, I think your ready for the big one.
I want to see us product a Pokescape Master Set, complete with rules, cards, glyphs and campaign scenarios. If you have read all of this post, we'll see the direction I am moving in - classic compatibility with a Pokemon-flavoured Master set. Then, after the master set, wave after wave of Pokemon until we complete the first 151, plus Trainer cards, etc. You wanted to know, there it is. I even have a list of Pokemon I think we should tackle first to best represent the most types of Pokemon and have classic compatible figures to use right off the bat. I'll post the list later if that's the direction we take.

Those are my ideas. I have many, many more to share, but they'll come later.
Comments please.

[Xn F M]

Squads: I don't like the idea of squads of pokemon. As far as I know there are only really two pokemon that it would be appropriate to give one life to, Unown and Shedinja, beyond that I see most pokemon as uncommon heroes, with the exception of the legendaries and specific pokemon (if we go that route). I would not be opposed to releasing "pack/swarm" cards at some point in the future that allow you to activate multiple pokemon on a single OM.

This, I think, has to do with the transfer to the Heroscape system. For example, Rattata and Raticate are basically just really big rats. Why should they receive more than one life, when the metal-plated Souborg Deathreavers are stuck with one?

Some Pokemon, such as legendaries or particularly iconic ones such as starter Pokemon, may warrant Uncommon or Unique status, but the common Pokemon is just that - Common.

That's a mater of level though. at level 50 ratatta has 90-137 health (without EVs) and at 100 it has 170-264. I can see an argument for one health there, but if it's a Ratatta worth bringing into battle it would have at least two health (though some cheap, common hero Rattata might be nice). I don't think any of the first stage starter pokemon should have fewer than two health.

[wulfhunter667]

Squads: I don't like the idea of squads of pokemon. As far as I know there are only really two pokemon that it would be appropriate to give one life to, Unown and Shedinja, beyond that I see most pokemon as uncommon heroes, with the exception of the legendaries and specific pokemon (if we go that route). I would not be opposed to releasing "pack/swarm" cards at some point in the future that allow you to activate multiple pokemon on a single OM.

This, I think, has to do with the transfer to the Heroscape system. For example, Rattata and Raticate are basically just really big rats. Why should they receive more than one life, when the metal-plated Souborg Deathreavers are stuck with one?

Some Pokemon, such as legendaries or particularly iconic ones such as starter Pokemon, may warrant Uncommon or Unique status, but the common Pokemon is just that - Common.

That's a mater of level though. at level 50 ratatta has 90-137 health (without EVs) and at 100 it has 170-264. I can see an argument for one health there, but if it's a Ratatta worth bringing into battle it would have at least two health (though some cheap, common hero Rattata might be nice). I don't think any of the first stage starter pokemon should have fewer than two health.
This discussion is best left until after we have the rules, guidelines and direction we're going in set. Save it til we start working on those cards fellas.

[Xn F M]

Member Status
This is important. There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you fell like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who comes in after Monday and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.

I like it :thumbsup:

Voting
With the number of folks we have now, I think that 5 votes will do, as opposed to 3. We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.

That sounds like it would be enough votes for me (though i would have to count the number of memebers atm) my major concern is for cards passing that the majority of members don't feel are ready so at the minimum we should require 51% yeses.

Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.
If everyone agrees to this and no one has any problems with it or has more to offer, I will add it to the rules section and we will vote on it tomorrow.

I don't have a problem with the trainer/jr trainer statuses, but how would we determine design order from that?

-Types and Type Interaction
Types and Type Interaction is as iconic as the Pokemon themselves, but I think we need to be very careful here. I envision the bottom of each card having a Pokedex "power" listed on it giving the type interactions FOR POKESCAPE ONLY. That means having the text read something like...
This Pikachu is strong against attack a, b and c type Pokemon, weak against attack d, e and f type Pokemon, and takes no damage from attacks from g type Pokemon.
In this manner, we get to keep the type interaction without effecting classic HS playability. Again, just a thought.

I don't think that listing strengths would work as many pokemon have multiple types. However if we were to list type weaknesses and immunities at the bottom of the card and give descriptors to special attacks I think that we'd have a clean way to handle the type chart.

-Status Effects?
Status Effects are a must also, but again, have to be very carefully worded. Instead of markers, maybe we could use a variation of the system the CCG uses, where, if a Pokemon has a Status effect on it, you turn the card to represent it. If no one like that idea, or wants to hear more, I guess we'll stay with markers, but I kinda want to stay away from too many markers on a card to avoid confusion, and lets be honest here, if an 8-year-old can remember what a card turned to the right means in CCG, he can remember what a card turned to the right here means.

I agree that we should keep status ailments. Paralysis, Freezing, Burning, Sleep, and confusion are important parts of the game. I do think though that we should scaperize them to try and keep things simple.

-Standardized Miniatures?.

I'm against standardized minis. Let people use whatever toys/minis they can find at the appropriate scale. Very few pokemon will have areas that aren't hitzones, so poses would be mostly irreelvant. I do like the idea of making paper-fold stand ins though.

-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)
I want the more artistically inclined members of the group to start working on this as soon as possible. Using type for the color scheme is an excellent idea, but why not take that a little bit further. There was another thread that had a Pokemon card that is BEAUTIFUL. It is here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=626297&postcount=1). Use that for ideas for the template creation, with the type color schemes.

Personally, I really like this format:

http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac149/mac12264/macs%20heroscape%20customs/abraproposal.jpg

I'd like to make a motion that we not add anything new to the table for a while, right now we have about eight or nine major design/administrative issues to hammer out and I'm afraid we're going to get bogged down in details before we actually do anything.

[mac122]

-Standardized Card Template? (and someone to design it)
I want the more artistically inclined members of the group to start working on this as soon as possible. Using type for the color scheme is an excellent idea, but why not take that a little bit further. There was another thread that had a Pokemon card that is BEAUTIFUL. It is here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=626297&postcount=1). Use that for ideas for the template creation, with the type color schemes.

Personally, I really like this format:

http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac149/mac12264/macs%20heroscape%20customs/abraproposal.jpg

I'd like to make a motion that we not add anything new to the table for a while, right now we have about eight or nine major design/administrative issues to hammer out and I'm afraid we're going to get bogged down in details before we actually do anything.
Thanks, Xn! Though I have to admit that I was blown away by the one Wulfhunter found.

I second Xn F M's motion. Let's hammer out the details - cover the main issues one at a time, vote and move on to the next.

I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm about this project. Let's keep it up!

[minimoose38]

For card templates, I still have the 9 type templates I presented to the old Pokemon thread. Someone can pull those or I can repost them later. Those with the Pokemon font on them that the Abra card has would look really cool I think.

[wulfhunter667]

For card templates, I still have the 9 type templates I presented to the old Pokemon thread. Someone can pull those or I can repost them later. Those with the Pokemon font on them that the Abra card has would look really cool I think.
Go ahead and repost here. I am not so sure about the Pokemon font though. Although interesting, it doesn't really add anything to the card. Plus, the MS and D&D versions maintained the normal font, so, let's stick with that.

[fiddlerjones]

For card templates, I still have the 9 type templates I presented to the old Pokemon thread. Someone can pull those or I can repost them later. Those with the Pokemon font on them that the Abra card has would look really cool I think.
Go ahead and repost here. I am not so sure about the Pokemon font though. Although interesting, it doesn't really add anything to the card. Plus, the MS and D&D versions maintained the normal font, so, let's stick with that.

I love the Abra card template as a way to designate type, but I'm also in favor of sticking with the original Heroscape font rather than the Pokemon one. It's more legible and easier to work with.

Wulfhunter, you seem to be sort of our de facto leader here, so would you be willing to draft a preliminary list of guidelines that we can all vote on? We should get that out of the way so we can move on to our design guidelines, then to actual card creation! Exciting stuff.

[chief]

Once you get guidelines hammered out ill join in making the cards ;)

[wulfhunter667]

For card templates, I still have the 9 type templates I presented to the old Pokemon thread. Someone can pull those or I can repost them later. Those with the Pokemon font on them that the Abra card has would look really cool I think.
Go ahead and repost here. I am not so sure about the Pokemon font though. Although interesting, it doesn't really add anything to the card. Plus, the MS and D&D versions maintained the normal font, so, let's stick with that.

I love the Abra card template as a way to designate type, but I'm also in favor of sticking with the original Heroscape font rather than the Pokemon one. It's more legible and easier to work with.

Wulfhunter, you seem to be sort of our de facto leader here, so would you be willing to draft a preliminary list of guidelines that we can all vote on? We should get that out of the way so we can move on to our design guidelines, then to actual card creation! Exciting stuff.
The preliminary version of the rules and guidelines is listed on the first page. I added the stuff I posted earlier today since no one seems to have a problem with it.
So, I need the following things. I need everyone on the list to determine their status, Trainer, Junior Trainer or Ally. I need everyone to post any last minute comments, suggestions, revisions and whatnot about the rules/guidelines posted on the front page. Finally, starting tomorrow evening, we need to vote it into place.
PLEASE WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW EVENING TO VOTE.
It is vital here to allow absolutely everyone to look at, comment on and suggest anything further. If the vote passes, we move on to hashing out the Design Phase and Card Creation.
Please read the first post carefully. It's almost last call for comments. ;)

[Vilsara]

I'll be a Junior trainer- can't be trusted to post DAILY, but I'm going to try to help as much as possible.

Under the "Designing cards" tab, we might have to edit the process of making evolutionary lines (not doing Charizard before Charmander) once we reach a group decision of whether we're including pre-evolutions or not (especially since there seems to be a "no-evolution" mindset here, which partially derails the idea of NFE Pokemon).

Otherwise, the rules look good, and I hope another edit of the first post- with guidelines for the design- will be coming soon.

[Xn F M]

Designing Cards
Each member of the core group will be responsible for creating an least one card about every 2 monthes or so, starting with the first R/B/Y 151 Pokemon. In keeping with the best interest of the project, no card may be made for an evolved form of Pokemon until the base Pokemon has been created, ie, don't try to make Charizard without making Charmander and Charmeleon first, in that order.
Voting
On any matter that has nothing to do with a card in creation or playtesting, only the Group Moderator may call for a vote. Only Trainers may call for a vote in the Design Phase. All members may call for a vote in the Playtest Phase.
When a card receives 5 votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 5 votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding , Book Of and Release.
We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.

Playtesting Cards
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. C3G has set the standard for playtesting, so, use the format they use when playtesting found here...
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=990730#post990730
The Pokemon needs to have a minimum of 3 successful playtests before moving to the finalization phase.

So are we still only going to have one card in the design phase, and one card in playtesting at a time? It looks like that language was lost and I don't know if that was on purpose or not. If we are keeping the 1 card rule, I would add a rule stating that two cards are allowed to be in development and playtesting if one of them has failed playtesting and is being redesigned.

[Warlord Alpha]

I love the Abra card template as a way to designate type, but I'm also in favor of sticking with the original Heroscape font rather than the Pokemon one. It's more legible and easier to work with.


I agree. That font on the Abra card does not belong there at all.

[Xn F M]

I love the Abra card template as a way to designate type, but I'm also in favor of sticking with the original Heroscape font rather than the Pokemon one. It's more legible and easier to work with.


I agree. That font on the Abra card does not belong there at all.

The font is what I really like about it though and it's why I suggested that template actually. If we want to go with a more standard template I'd say we should go with a two-tone template based on the pokemon's types.

Also I would support putting an asterisk on the first 151 rule till we hammer out whether or not we're going to be doing different evolution levels next week. *hopefully*

[BiggaBullfrog]

I'll sign myself up for a Trainer status, provided we aren't docked for not posting when we're unable to because of being out of town, taking a vacation, etc. Knowing me, though, I might end up posting on those days as well.

When a card receives 5 votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 5 votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding ,
Kind of nit-picky, but you might want to specify 5 positive votes for the card to move on. Also, I think that since we currently have fourteen members, we should increase the number of votes required to at least seven, unless some of us decide to go with the ally status. If we're all voting, though, I think we need at least 50%, if not more for a majority.

[wulfhunter667]

I'll sign myself up for a Trainer status, provided we aren't docked for not posting when we're unable to because of being out of town, taking a vacation, etc. Knowing me, though, I might end up posting on those days as well.

When a card receives 5 votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 5 votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding ,
Kind of nit-picky, but you might want to specify 5 positive votes for the card to move on. Also, I think that since we currently have fourteen members, we should increase the number of votes required to at least seven, unless some of us decide to go with the ally status. If we're all voting, though, I think we need at least 50%, if not more for a majority.
For this moment, the text is fine. 5 votes is more of a placeholder than a set number. But I will add your Status and change to a more "positive" wording.
Also, we all understand that life happens. If you are not going to be on for a bit because of whatever, just tell us, and we won't hold it against you.

[fiddlerjones]

I agree with upping the positive vote count. I'd also be ok with having multiple cards in playtesting at once. However, we should specify that only one pokemon is to be playtested at a time - test reports containing more than one in-testing card should be considered invalid.

I like the "release" idea as well. It'll be easier to get the first 151 (or less) if we break them into manageable chunks.

Put me down as Trainer for now.

[mac122]

I can live without the Pokemon font. Found it when I was doing that mock-up and wanted to try it out. As far as what borders and such, I would suggest that any interested Trainers and Jr. Trainers that have a card design proposal present it and we can bring them to a vote.

[Warlord Alpha]

Pretty big post, so i put it in spoilers.


Since by all appearances the Pokescape thread is defunct, this thread is now the primary thread for the creation and design of Pokemon cards for the Heroscape game.

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of decent quality, usable HS Pokemon cards. We are not aiming for perfection here, but they should be usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.

Sounds good.


Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is the core group, and specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.


I definitely agree that we should only ever have one card in design and one in playtesting at any one time.


Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.


I'll be a Trainer I guess.


Designing Cards
Each member of the core group will be responsible for creating an least one card about every 2 monthes or so, starting with the first R/B/Y 151 Pokemon. In keeping with the best interest of the project, no card may be made for an evolved form of Pokemon until the base Pokemon has been created, ie, don't try to make Charizard without making Charmander and Charmeleon first, in that order.


This whole paragraph seems arbitrary. Like, the "two months or so" is a totally random value. What if there are 10 members, that means that each card has to be completed (as in, designed AND playtested) in two days. And why are we going to complete all original 151 first? Especially when a lot of people here want to focus only on fully evolved forms and skip a lot of the lower forms.


Voting
On any matter that has nothing to do with a card in creation or playtesting, only the Group Moderator may call for a vote. Only Trainers may call for a vote in the Design Phase. All members may call for a vote in the Playtest Phase.
When a card receives 5 positive votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 5 positive votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding , Book Of and Release.


First, the "5 positive votes in the design phase" is a totally random value. What if there are 40 members? 5 people is nothing. This needs to be a percentage, like 60% or something.


We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.


Why is this part even in the Voting section, it doesn't really have much to do with that at all.


Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.


Why do we have to have turns to design? What if you just want to playtest and contribute ideas but don't/can't design? Is that less valuable than someone who is going into photoshop and making cards?


Playtesting Cards
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. C3G has set the standard for playtesting, so, use the format they use when playtesting found here...
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=990730#post990730
The Pokemon needs to have a minimum of 3 successful playtests before moving to the finalization phase.


Thanks for linking to those, there is a lot of good stuff in that post. However, what does "3 successful playtests" even mean?

Also, this part of the post is poorly formatted. Replace all of that with this:


Playtesting Cards
C3G has set the standard for playtesting, so try to follow their guidelines (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=990730#post990730) when playtesting.



Finalizing Cards
All cards must receive final comments, critques and error checks before being ready for release.


This seems totally unnecessary. If a card passes design and playtesting, I don't think this is necessary. I guarantee this step would just end up getting skipped, there is no reason for it to exist.


Book Of ______
It is the duty of any and all core group members to create a Book Of for released Pokemon cards.


Definitely not. I don't think the moderators/admins would appreciate us spamming the Custom Units forum with threads for individual cards that only a very small portion of the community will actually use or care about. This is just unnecessary.

A display thread is probably the best option. Like, just like the BoV display thread, except ours would be open to comments and stuff.

______________________________________

I have two major issues with the post as a whole.

1. Formatting. Put some spaces in between the various sections. Right now it looks incredibly unprofessional and is almost difficult to read.

2. Organization. I feel like there needs to be a section for the procedure. Like:

1. A unit is proposed (ex. TrainerA suggests that we work on a Bellsprout card)
2. If less than # of members find issue with this in a XX-hour period, that will be the new card.
3. brainstorm
4. mock-up of card
5. revise
6. vote for preliminary playtesting
....etc.

A list like that would make everything MUCH easier.

[mac122]

Sorry for the double post, I just wanted this to be a seperate thought.

Voting guidelines (proposal)
Once a vote is called for:
-Members have 24 hours to cast their vote.
-Votes should be by open ballot. Each member should "quote" the post with the proposal and vote yes or no.
-A minimum of 10 members must cast ballots for any vote to be official.
-Simple majority carries the vote.
-A 70% majority of voting members must agree to any changes to previously agreed upon proposals.

Simple majority protects progress. Here's my scenario: a vote is called on a proposal. The voting window opens and 10 members get their votes in. The other 4 were inexplicably detained, National Security issues or something. 7 members vote yes, 3 vote no. If we require 8 positive votes, we're stuck. If we require a simple majority, the measure passes handily and we can move on.

As far as the other numbers, 24 hour voting window, 70% to overturn a previous decision, those are just suggestions and I am completely open to changes in those.

[NightSwipe]

Alright, I've had some time to mull it over, so here are my views on everything:

Evolution:

No, not unless we are going to do some incredibly extensive campaign that would take a player through Kanto/Hoenn/Johto/Fiore/Almia/Sinnoh league.

Trainers:

Maybe. I like the idea of what someone said about having certain trainers give certain ablilities (Bug Catcher-Bug bonus, Hiker-Rock bonus, Black Belt- Fighting Bonus). (Sorry I cannot give proper credit to whoever came up with the idea, I'm kind of in a rush. :oops:)

Voting:

Seems good to me.

Designing/Playtesting Cards:

Also seems good.


Not sure if I missed anything, but I think that about covers it...

Oh, and by the way, I would like to be a Trainer.

--NightSwipe--

[Warlord Alpha]

Evolution:

...

Trainers:

...


Oh, that's right. About these. In my opinion, we should pretend that neither of them exist for right now. It is too much to worry about. Once we perfect our methods for making cards and such, then we can start to worry about stuff like this. But for right now, it just doesn't make sense to even bother with these.

[Creationist]

I can be a trainer. And so far the guidelines look good. Definitely count me in.

[Carakki]

Let's go through things one at a time.

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of decent quality, usable HS Pokemon cards. We are not aiming for perfection here, but they should be usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
My only problem with this section is its de-emphasis on high quality. Let's make something awesome, shall we?

Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is the core group, and specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
It seems that a little too much priority is being given to the 'creator' of each individual card here. I'd rather have a unified look and feel to our Pokescape, and the amount of power given to an individual 'designer' is something I think would upset that end.

Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
I can most definitely be signed on as a Trainer - I already spend at least an hour on this website daily, not something that's likely to change.

Designing Cards
Each member of the core group will be responsible for creating an least one card about every 2 months or so, starting with the first R/B/Y 151 Pokemon. In keeping with the best interest of the project, no card may be made for an evolved form of Pokemon until the base Pokemon has been created, ie, don't try to make Charizard without making Charmander and Charmeleon first, in that order.
Couple of issues with this bit: one, we again come to the issue of individual design (see note re: Rules of Project Pokemon). Two, this dips into evolution, which is still an undecided topic, and as such placing a rule concerning it in our overarching law seems to undermine the group creation concept.

Voting
On any matter that has nothing to do with a card in creation or playtesting, only the Group Moderator may call for a vote. Only Trainers may call for a vote in the Design Phase. All members may call for a vote in the Playtest Phase.
When a card receives 5 positive votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 5 positive votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding , Book Of and Release.
We are all working toward the same goal here, and I think, once we have this all hammered out and know what direction we're headed, it will be easy to get there. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Just any 5 positive votes? I can see that for the Playtest Phase, where playtesters are hard to come by, but a majority (3/4 or 2/3) vote seems more appropriate while the card is still being designed. Also, as previously stated, the last paragraph of this section doesn't really belong in our 'constitution' of sorts, but rather as a general message.

Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers separated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.
Once again we come to the issue of individual design. We are a democracy, not a monarchy passing from person to person. If 'designing' refers to actually rendering the card; anyone can do that so long as it's in the pre-approved format for ALL cards and includes the previously agreed-upon abilities, etc. If 'designing' refers to inventing abilities and stats, then I have some serious issues with this section.

Playtesting Cards
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. C3G has set the standard for playtesting, so, use the format they use when playtesting found here...
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=990730#post990730
The Pokemon needs to have a minimum of 3 successful playtests before moving to the finalization phase.
I'm fine with using C3G's method, but this is contradictory to the requirement of 5 successful playtests in the Voting section.

Finalizing Cards
All cards must receive final comments, critiques and error checks before being ready for release.
Book Of ______
It is the duty of any and all core group members to create a Book Of for released Pokemon cards.
As previously stated, a Book for each Pokemon created is impractical, as it would just clog up the customs forum and irk the administrators (as well as other users).


Final notes: As stated somewhere above, this document as a whole could use some cleaning up (grammar, organization, tone) to make it more official.

[chief]

I will set my status as junior trainer, is it possible to bump it up in the future though when im more available?

[Sup3rS0n1c]

Put me down as Trainer, I can be trusted to vote in most occasions (unless, like today, my schedule is extremely busy :P). I can also help with any technical stuff, i.e. card making and book setting-ups (for lack of a better word).

I have probably missed a few things. I'll read up tommorow morning.

Quick note, however; Due to spring break, I won't be here from tomorrow afternoon until sometime Wednesday. I'll be back and posting by then, though.

[wulfhunter667]

Thanks for all the great commentary.
Now, the hard part... I realize that the rules and guidelines kinda suck right now and they look amateurish at best. There is a simple reason for that. They are a work in progress. Not one inch of text is set in stone yet. They will be by just as soon as possible.
Now, the easy part... All of the text will be cleaned up and more professional by the time we're done here. Try to think of the design, playtest and finalization parts as a placeholder for now, until we get to those sections.
Insofar as the Books Of, the idea here is to have a single Pokescape Display thread with all of the cards and Books of listed and linked there, not 151 individual posts. That's just insane.
And yes, there will be opportunities for Junior Trainers to advance.
Try to remember guys, this is a work in progress. Butat least we are making headway and that's a good thing.

[Warlord Alpha]

Insofar as the Books Of, the idea here is to have a single Pokescape Display thread with all of the cards and Books of listed and linked there, not 151 individual posts. That's just insane.

Even that is a little bit overboard. Don't think of it as Books Of. Get that whole thing out of your head. This is going to be nothing like the Books. The whole concept of "every single unit gets a thread" is so integral to the Books of Heroscape that it just doesn't make sense to associate our (eventual) display thread with the (idea of the) Books. Really

What it needs to be is a thread where the whole first page is reserved by somebody so that it can be organized and then all of the cards are just on display there, with any clarifications listed below. Literally, that is all it needs to be. Just a list of cards in 3 or 4 posts. Really it should be almost exactly like the BoV one - the only difference is that there would be several cards per post and people would be able to post there.

[fiddlerjones]

I agree with the above post. All we need is a post with the following: Approved cards, cards in playtesting, cards submitted in design. Maybe later down the road we put a link to the optional Pokemon-specific rules. The Books Of seem a little overboard.

[mac122]

by CarikkiDesigning Cards
Each member of the core group will be responsible for creating an least one card about every 2 months or so, starting with the first R/B/Y 151 Pokemon. In keeping with the best interest of the project, no card may be made for an evolved form of Pokemon until the base Pokemon has been created, ie, don't try to make Charizard without making Charmander and Charmeleon first, in that order.

Couple of issues with this bit: one, we again come to the issue of individual design (see note re: Rules of Project Pokemon). Two, this dips into evolution, which is still an undecided topic, and as such placing a rule concerning it in our overarching law seems to undermine the group creation concept.
First, I don't think this means the emphasis will be on the individual designer. My understanding is, in turn, each Trainer will pick a Pokemon to do the initial design work - stats & abilities. These will be presented to the group for one or more rounds of discussion and revisions. Then playtesting and, if needed, tweaks to reach the final set of stats. Each custom will truly become a group design. The Trainer just gets the fun of coming up with the first draft. We should have one Trainer do all the artwork and card production to assure a uniform appearance.
Also, Evolution doesn't really come into play, only the different stages of evolved Pokemon. I'd like to have some lower point lower stage Pokemon to play with. If we only go for the fully evolved pokemon as some have suggested, we would never have Pikachu, Squirtle, Bulbasaur, and Charmader roaming around. To me, it makes sense to start with the lower forms and work up. This way you are building up instead of trying to reverse engineer down to a lower level. I also think each Trainer should get to do the initial design work on each of the stages as their next turn comes around (if you create Charmander, you get to do Charmeleon the next time and then Charizard your turn after that.) OK, OK, we can skip Magikarp and go straight to Gyrados.
Having each stage of the Pokemon with cards will also make it possible to do campaigns later on. Imagine having your trainer go into the wild to catch a Pokemon and then raise them through campaigns. It would be like playing the Gameboy games (ok, showing my age) in miniatures.

[wulfhunter667]

First, the "5 positive votes in the design phase" is a totally random value. What if there are 40 members? 5 people is nothing. This needs to be a percentage, like 60% or something.

Currently there are 14 members in this group, all of whom have votes. Not all of them are always going to use those votes. We can change it to 50% or currently 7, and I would be find with that. The value might go up later.
Why do we have to have turns to design? What if you just want to playtest and contribute ideas but don't/can't design? Is that less valuable than someone who is going into photoshop and making cards?

If that's the case, then you should be a Junior Trainer. Trainers are expected to make cards, plain and simple. If you don't feel you have the ability and experience to do this just yet, Take Junior Trainer status for now and work your way up.
See the bottom of this post for further commentary on this.

Thanks for linking to those, there is a lot of good stuff in that post. However, what does "3 successful playtests" even mean?

Also, this part of the post is poorly formatted. Replace all of that with this:


Playtesting Cards
C3G has set the standard for playtesting, so try to follow their guidelines (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=990730#post990730) when playtesting.



This seems totally unnecessary. If a card passes design and playtesting, I don't think this is necessary. I guarantee this step would just end up getting skipped, there is no reason for it to exist.

We'll fix the design and playtest sections next.

Definitely not. I don't think the moderators/admins would appreciate us spamming the Custom Units forum with threads for individual cards that only a very small portion of the community will actually use or care about. This is just unnecessary.

A display thread is probably the best option. Like, just like the BoV display thread, except ours would be open to comments and stuff.

Again, one display thread for all cards and Books Of.

I have two major issues with the post as a whole.

1. Formatting. Put some spaces in between the various sections. Right now it looks incredibly unprofessional and is almost difficult to read.

2. Organization. I feel like there needs to be a section for the procedure. Like:

1. A unit is proposed (ex. TrainerA suggests that we work on a Bellsprout card)
2. If less than # of members find issue with this in a XX-hour period, that will be the new card.
3. brainstorm
4. mock-up of card
5. revise
6. vote for preliminary playtesting
....etc.

A list like that would make everything MUCH easier.

These are excellent ideas for the design process and I'll probably reference them when we get to the design discussion.

The main thing I want of all you to remember is that this is a community effort. I didn't want to just throw some stuff together and throw it out there, that just does not seem to work. Also, I am not an uber Pokemon or Heroscape geek. I cannot recite all 151 Pokemon in order from start to finish not more than I can quote the attack stats for all of the Wave 4 figures. I like Pokemon. I like Heroscape. I want to merge the two. It's that simple. And having help from like-minded people helps, hence, this thread. We will have the rules for the thread done by middle of week, we will start carding Pokemon by next weekend and we will have a Master Set's worth or more of cards by year's end. We have the drive and desire, now let's get this thing done. :D

[mac122]

Hey everybody (including me), let's hold off on commenting on everything about the guidelines at once. To quote just about every character from Star Wars, "I have a bad feeling about this." We (including me) are trying to discuss everything at once, then others are trying to respond to sections 2 and 5 of your post, while I'm trying to respond to sections 3 and 4 from somebody else's post. Let's let Wulfhunter edit the guidelines and present them one section at a time for discussion, tweaking and a vote.

If you haven't let Wulfhunter know if you want to be a Trainer or Junior Trainer, please do so.

[Warlord Alpha]

First, the "5 positive votes in the design phase" is a totally random value. What if there are 40 members? 5 people is nothing. This needs to be a percentage, like 60% or something.

Currently there are 14 members in this group, all of whom have votes. Not all of them are always going to use those votes. We can change it to 50% or currently 7, and I would be find with that. The value might go up later.


Yeah, the issue with using a set value is that every time somebody decides to join on you have to go back and edit everything. Much easier to use a percentage. For now just use placeholder numbers though, like "##%" or something.

Why do we have to have turns to design? What if you just want to playtest and contribute ideas but don't/can't design? Is that less valuable than someone who is going into photoshop and making cards?

If that's the case, then you should be a Junior Trainer. Trainers are expected to make cards, plain and simple. If you don't feel you have the ability and experience to do this just yet, Take Junior Trainer status for now and work your way up.[/quote]

Nah, I look forward to designing cards. If the only difference between a Junior Trainer and a regular Trainer is that a regular Trainer created the FIRST DRAFT (can we please make that more clear in the OP?) of a card, then what I said doesn't matter.


See the bottom of this post for further commentary on this.

Thanks for linking to those, there is a lot of good stuff in that post. However, what does "3 successful playtests" even mean?

Also, this part of the post is poorly formatted. Replace all of that with this:


Playtesting Cards
C3G has set the standard for playtesting, so try to follow their guidelines (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=990730#post990730) when playtesting.




This seems totally unnecessary. If a card passes design and playtesting, I don't think this is necessary. I guarantee this step would just end up getting skipped, there is no reason for it to exist.

We'll fix the design and playtest sections next.


Definitely not. I don't think the moderators/admins would appreciate us spamming the Custom Units forum with threads for individual cards that only a very small portion of the community will actually use or care about. This is just unnecessary.

A display thread is probably the best option. Like, just like the BoV display thread, except ours would be open to comments and stuff.

Again, one display thread for all cards and Books Of.


No. Stop calling it the "Books of." It is confusing and inaccurate. You are calling it something that it isn't anything like.


We will have the rules for the thread done by middle of week, we will start carding Pokemon by next weekend and we will have a Master Set's worth or more of cards by year's end. We have the drive and desire, now let's get this thing done. :D

Heh, it's always good to set goals, but let's not be too crazy. Like you said before, small steps. The guidelines and procedure and such don't have to be done for Wednesday. They just should be done as soon as possible.

[wulfhunter667]

Changed to 50%, as a placeholder for now.
The clarification of Trainer and Junior Trainer was not for you specifically, WA, it was a general statement. Anyone listed in the first post now may choose Trainer or Junior Trainer. It is up to the individual to decide their level of participation. You know what you can do, I do not, that's why you may choose.
So we are clear here, a Book Of is not a new thread about one individual figure/card. A Book Of is a single post. Therefore, all cards and Books Of can reside in a single Project Pokescape Display Thread to be created after the first card is completed.
Finally, at the rate we are going, I see no reason why we cannot have the last of these rules for the thread hammered out by mid-week. I'm a "glass-half-full" kinda guy. ;)

BTW, WA, I like that you are trying your absolute best to keep me on my toes. Please, call me out on anything you feel needs addressing. That goes doublely for the rest of you. Like I said, I am NOT trying to be a Pokedictator, I just want to make Pokemon Cards for Heroscape. :D

[wulfhunter667]

Ok, I tweaked the goals, rules and member stsatus sections on the first page. Those are the sections we will be voting on today. I need any further comments on that section today by this evening so we can vote and move on to the design voting and design order section.
Last chance for comments.

[Creationist]

I don't entirely agree with the designing of cards. While I believe designing the 1st gen first is a good idea, the fact that we are supposed to make pre-evos before a final evolution doesn't sit right. Also, it appears we have quite a big group of regular trainers. With that many, we could probably finish a card in a month.

[mac122]

Ok, I tweaked the goals, rules and member stsatus sections on the first page. Those are the sections we will be voting on today. I need any further comments on that section today by this evening so we can vote and move on to the design voting and design order section.
Last chance for comments.
The guidelines sound good. The only thing I would add is a voting window time period and perhaps a minimum voter participation for a vote to be official.

[Gold-dust-hydra]

As an old Pokemon fan, having an understanding of the game, and my experience in Heroscape customs, I propose the following ability for normal evolution.

Evolve
When <unit> destroys a figure, place a red and white Evolution marker on this Army Card. If <unit> has three Evolution markers on its card, you may remove <unit> from the board and place <evolved unit> on the space previously occupied by <unit>.

For example, Charmander would have to have a higher point value because he has the potential to become a Charizard by the end game. If you don't draft Charizard, some of the points go to waste. It would be like drafting Iskra without the Rechets.

Wait a minute. Does that mean you'd have to pay MORE points to draft charizard? The Rechets make you pay for them and Iskra. I think charizard and charmeleon should both have a point cost of 0, but not be able to be used without a charmander to evolve. Think about it, in the pokemon world you don't have to go out and catch a charizard for your charmander to evolve into, do you? In an ideal world, we would have a single figure that could transform into its evolved forms; but that's technologically impossible.

I too am an old pokemon fan. I used to have all the games, collect the cards, and watch the show. It was a fun thing, and I would love to incorporate it into heroscape. I have thought about it in the past, but pokemon heroscape never seemed doable. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

[wulfhunter667]

I don't entirely agree with the designing of cards. While I believe designing the 1st gen first is a good idea, the fact that we are supposed to make pre-evos before a final evolution doesn't sit right. Also, it appears we have quite a big group of regular trainers. With that many, we could probably finish a card in a month.
Ok, I tweaked the goals, rules and member stsatus sections on the first page. Those are the sections we will be voting on today. I need any further comments on that section today by this evening so we can vote and move on to the design voting and design order section.
Last chance for comments.
The guidelines sound good. The only thing I would add is a voting window time period and perhaps a minimum voter participation for a vote to be official.
Again, the only thing we are voting on today is for the top most section. Design and voting discussions start tonight after we vote.

[wulfhunter667]

As an old Pokemon fan, having an understanding of the game, and my experience in Heroscape customs, I propose the following ability for normal evolution.

Evolve
When <unit> destroys a figure, place a red and white Evolution marker on this Army Card. If <unit> has three Evolution markers on its card, you may remove <unit> from the board and place <evolved unit> on the space previously occupied by <unit>.

For example, Charmander would have to have a higher point value because he has the potential to become a Charizard by the end game. If you don't draft Charizard, some of the points go to waste. It would be like drafting Iskra without the Rechets.

Wait a minute. Does that mean you'd have to pay MORE points to draft charizard? The Rechets make you pay for them and Iskra. I think charizard and charmeleon should both have a point cost of 0, but not be able to be used without a charmander to evolve. Think about it, in the pokemon world you don't have to go out and catch a charizard for your charmander to evolve into, do you? In an ideal world, we would have a single figure that could transform into its evolved forms; but that's technologically impossible.

I too am an old pokemon fan. I used to have all the games, collect the cards, and watch the show. It was a fun thing, and I would love to incorporate it into heroscape. I have thought about it in the past, but pokemon heroscape never seemed doable. I'd love to be proved wrong though.
We haven't gotten that far yet. We are still working on hammering out the rules we will follow for now, but rest assured, we will get to that. Just keep checking back.

[mac122]

Again, the only thing we are voting on today is for the top most section. Design and voting discussions start tonight after we vote.
My bad.

by wulfhunter667
Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
This sounds good.
Yes.

[Takanuva]

My computer had a virus, and I just got it fixed so I haven;t been on in a while. I think I should be a Junior Trainer, because even though I am normally on 'most every day, I'm sometimes really busy and won't be able to devout my full attention to this. I'll still be commenting, playtesting, and keeping up to date.

[Warlord Alpha]

by wulfhunter667
Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.

In number 1 you say Heroscape Pokemon but in number 3 you say Pokemon Heroscape. Which is it? (I prefer Heroscape Pokemon, BTW. It is pokemon inside of heroscape, not heroscape inside of pokemon)


Here is a revised version. It is more consistent in both information and style.



Goals for the Project Pokemon (i wonder if this should be PokeScape?)

1. To make, refine, and post high-quality Pokemon-themed cards usable with the official Heroscape game.
2. To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. Any and all available references to the Pokemon in question will be used to recreate that Pokemon's feel and abilities within Heroscape.
3. To maintain a core group of Heroscapers community members that will make final decisions regarding the cards.
4. To allow any and all members of the Heroscapers community to provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.

[wulfhunter667]

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card. However, it is the core group that has the finalvote on whether the card captures the theme of Pokemon with the mechanics of Heroscape.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
We are all working toward the same goal here. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
Yes.

[Creationist]

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card. However, it is the core group that has the finalvote on whether the card captures the theme of Pokemon with the mechanics of Heroscape.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
We are all working toward the same goal here. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
Yes.

[mac122]

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card. However, it is the core group that has the finalvote on whether the card captures the theme of Pokemon with the mechanics of Heroscape.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
We are all working toward the same goal here. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
Yes.

Looks like we need to explain to some members (mac122, I'm talking to you) what the top section is. :oops:

[Warlord Alpha]

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.

See my post on the previous page for my thoughts regarding this section.


Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.

No objections to content, but I am not going to lie - the formatting and grammar here is just bad. Here is a revised version (better grammar and mechanics, more clear and easy to read, well formatted):



Member Status and Levels of Participation

There will be three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation and finalization of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the thread. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread.

Currently, members decide their own level of participation. If you feel that you can fulfill the responsibilities associated with being a Trainer, you are encouraged to do so. If you know that you want to help but may not be able to participate as often as a Trainer would, consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone is willing to provide commentary and assistance but cannot guarantee consistent or full participation is considered an Ally.


I'll get to the middle section in a minute.

[fiddlerjones]

[quote=wulfhunter667;1059186]Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card. However, it is the core group that has the finalvote on whether the card captures the theme of Pokemon with the mechanics of Heroscape.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
We are all working toward the same goal here. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.

Aye.

[wulfhunter667]

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.

See my post on the previous page for my thoughts regarding this section.


Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.

No objections to content, but I am not going to lie - the formatting and grammar here is just bad. Here is a revised version (better grammar and mechanics, more clear and easy to read, well formatted):



Member Status and Levels of Participation

There will be three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation and finalization of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the thread. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread.

Currently, members decide their own level of participation. If you feel that you can fulfill the responsibilities associated with being a Trainer, you are encouraged to do so. If you know that you want to help but may not be able to participate as often as a Trainer would, consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone is willing to provide commentary and assistance but cannot guarantee consistent or full participation is considered an Ally.


I'll get to the middle section in a minute.
I have no problem with the proposed revisions of grammar and format, but the question at hand is are you ok with the rule as is?

[Warlord Alpha]

Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card. However, it is the core group that has the finalvote on whether the card captures the theme of Pokemon with the mechanics of Heroscape.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
We are all working toward the same goal here. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.


Once again, no objections to content, but the way that this information is presented is absolutely unacceptable.




Rules of Project Pokemon (PokeScape?)

- The core group of members (Trainers and Junior Trainers) has the final say on what is approved and rejected. Anyone may make suggestions, but only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote "Yes" or "No". This applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.

- In order to unify and focus the group (and subsequently ensure a higher-quality product), only one card will be in the development phase at a time and one card will be in the playtesting phase at a time.

- As cards are finalized, new cards will be submitted. New cards may only be submitted by core group members.

- A new card will be drafted by one core group member and then submitted to the rest of the group to be revised and prepared for playtesting. The original designer of the card dictates what is and what is not appropriate for the card.

- The core group as a whole has the final vote on whether the card accurately captures the theme of Pokemon within the mechanics of Heroscape as best as possible. This vote is necessary for a card to move on to playtesting.

- The most important rule to remember is to please keep things polite. We are all working toward the same goal. Although we will not always agree with one another, all we ask if that you be polite about the way you express your opinions. If you cannot express your opinion nicely simply do not comment. If you find fault with another person's conduct, PM another core group member or myself.

[Warlord Alpha]

Member Status and Levels of Participation

There are three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation, revision, and playtesting of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the project. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project.

Currently, members decide their own level of participation. If you feel that you can fulfill the responsibilities associated with being a Trainer, you are encouraged to do so. If you know that you want to help but may not be able to participate as often as a Trainer would, consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who is willing to provide commentary and assistance but cannot guarantee consistent or full participation is considered an Ally.

I have no problem with the proposed revisions of grammar and format, but the question at hand is are you ok with the rule as is?

The only thing I do not like is that I feel that Trainers should carry slightly more influence than Junior Trainers. Currently, Junior Trainers vote on the same things but have less responsibilities. I think that a fair way to go about it is maybe Trainers are the only ones who can vote to finalize a card and edit the rules/process/etc.

[wulfhunter667]

Member Status and Levels of Participation

There are three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation, revision, and playtesting of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the project. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project.

Currently, members decide their own level of participation. If you feel that you can fulfill the responsibilities associated with being a Trainer, you are encouraged to do so. If you know that you want to help but may not be able to participate as often as a Trainer would, consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who is willing to provide commentary and assistance but cannot guarantee consistent or full participation is considered an Ally.

I have no problem with the proposed revisions of grammar and format, but the question at hand is are you ok with the rule as is?

The only thing I do not like is that I feel that Trainers should carry slightly more influence than Junior Trainers. Currently, Junior Trainers vote on the same things but have less responsibilities. I think that a fair way to go about it is maybe Trainers are the only ones who can vote to finalize a card and edit the rules/process/etc.
The ability to create the first draft of cards is the influence you are talking about. Jr. Trainers can vote and comment, but cannot create. I think is fair enough.

[BiggaBullfrog]

Goals for the Project Pokemon
1)The making, refining, and posting of high quality, Heroscape Pokemon cards usable with any official Heroscape game.
2)To capture the feel of the Pokemon video games in a Heroscape environment. That means using any and all available references to the Pokemon in question to create as close to accurate a Pokemon in a Heroscape game.
3)To have any and all members of the Heroscapers.com community provide comments, suggestions and general assistance to the creation of Pokemon Heroscape cards.
4)To maintain a core group of Heroscapers.com community members as a basis for the deciding factors of these cards.
Rules of Project Pokemon
The rules are pretty simple. The core group has the final say on what is and what is not Project Pokemon approved. Anyone may make a suggestion, but it is up you, the core group, to vote yes or no. That applies to everything from rules changes to card creation.
Do to space limitations, only one card will be in development at a time, and one card in playtesting at a time. However, if in time we appear to be able to handle it, that may change to two and two in the future. As cards begin to get finalized, new cards can be submitted, and the "Book Of" for the finalized card should be written. New cards may only be submitted by core group members, but anyone is welcome to comment and make suggestions for a card. It is specifically the card designer who has final say on what is and what is not appropriate for their card. However, it is the core group that has the finalvote on whether the card captures the theme of Pokemon with the mechanics of Heroscape.
The most important rule to remember is that this is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Please try to remember that when posting. The core group of Project Pokemon are not the Overmasters Of Pokemon Heroscape Law, but a group of like-minded community members who want to mix two games they love into one. Please just keep things polite.
We are all working toward the same goal here. Bear in mind, you will not agree with everything someone says all the time. I know that, you know that. Just be polite about it though. If you don't like an idea and you cannot express it nicely, either PM the person directly or don't comment at all.
Member Status
There will be 3 Member Statuses - Trainer, Junior Trainer and Ally. Trainers are the folks who are 100% participation all the time. It will be your job to create new Pokemon, comment on other cards, create the actual card, and promote the best interests of the thread. Junior Trainers and Allies are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the thread. Only Trainers and Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread. Currently, the members on the list on the first page need to decide their own Status. If you feel like you can be 100% about this, posting daily, keeping up with other's comments and providing excellent suggestions and recommendations, then consider yourself a Trainer. If you know that you want to help, but may not be able to respond and reply daily, then consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who to join and is willing to provide commentary, or does not want to be a full member will be an Ally.
Yes.

[Warlord Alpha]

Member Status and Levels of Participation

There are three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation, revision, and playtesting of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the project. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project.

Currently, members decide their own level of participation. If you feel that you can fulfill the responsibilities associated with being a Trainer, you are encouraged to do so. If you know that you want to help but may not be able to participate as often as a Trainer would, consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who is willing to provide commentary and assistance but cannot guarantee consistent or full participation is considered an Ally.

I have no problem with the proposed revisions of grammar and format, but the question at hand is are you ok with the rule as is?

The only thing I do not like is that I feel that Trainers should carry slightly more influence than Junior Trainers. Currently, Junior Trainers vote on the same things but have less responsibilities. I think that a fair way to go about it is maybe Trainers are the only ones who can vote to finalize a card and edit the rules/process/etc.
The ability to create the first draft of cards is the influence you are talking about. Jr. Trainers can vote and comment, but cannot create. I think is fair enough.

Fine. Assuming my revised versions are used, Yes.

[wulfhunter667]

Member Status and Levels of Participation

There are three levels of member participation - Trainer, Junior Trainer, and Ally.

Trainers - Trainers consistently participate in the creation, revision, and playtesting of cards. They create the first drafts of cards, comment on other cards, and promote the best interests of the project. They have the most responsibility, but also vote on any and all matters.

Junior Trainers - Junior Trainers are expected to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project. Junior Trainers may vote on a matter in the thread.

Allies - Allies are encouraged to comment on cards and promote the best interests of the project.

Currently, members decide their own level of participation. If you feel that you can fulfill the responsibilities associated with being a Trainer, you are encouraged to do so. If you know that you want to help but may not be able to participate as often as a Trainer would, consider yourself a Junior Trainer. Anyone who is willing to provide commentary and assistance but cannot guarantee consistent or full participation is considered an Ally.

I have no problem with the proposed revisions of grammar and format, but the question at hand is are you ok with the rule as is?

The only thing I do not like is that I feel that Trainers should carry slightly more influence than Junior Trainers. Currently, Junior Trainers vote on the same things but have less responsibilities. I think that a fair way to go about it is maybe Trainers are the only ones who can vote to finalize a card and edit the rules/process/etc.
The ability to create the first draft of cards is the influence you are talking about. Jr. Trainers can vote and comment, but cannot create. I think is fair enough.

Fine. Assuming my revised versions are used, Yes.
Considering your revisions are just a cleaning and revision of the text I have already, I'm good with that.
BTW, updated first page, just for you WA. ;)
And we need one more vote to move forward.

[Gold-dust-hydra]

Ok, this is ridiculous! What are we even DOING on this thread? What's the point? I feel like I'm listening to a bureaucratic debate. It seems to me you are all missing the point.

[Vilsara]

Ok, this is ridiculous! What are we even DOING on this thread? What's the point? I feel like I'm listening to a bureaucratic debate. It seems to me you are all missing the point.

We're (they're) clearing up the administrative and design problems to make this thread and the the process more organized and easier to handle in the long run.

What we're DOING in this thread is making custom Heroscape cards based off of Pokemon. If we just blindly charged in (like we did with the old thread), we would crumble without getting anything done (like the old thread). Organizing like this may seem pointless now, but will pay off in the end.

EDIT: I vote yes on Warlord Alpha's revised rules. I believe Junior Trainers can vote on this.

[Warlord Alpha]

Ok, this is ridiculous! What are we even DOING on this thread? What's the point? I feel like I'm listening to a bureaucratic debate. It seems to me you are all missing the point.

What Vilsara said, but in analogy form:

Try building a house without a foundation, see how long it lasts.

[wulfhunter667]

Ok, this is ridiculous! What are we even DOING on this thread? What's the point? I feel like I'm listening to a bureaucratic debate. It seems to me you are all missing the point.

We're (they're) clearing up the administrative and design problems to make this thread and the the process more organized and easier to handle in the long run.

What we're DOING in this thread is making custom Heroscape cards based off of Pokemon. If we just blindly charged in (like we did with the old thread), we would crumble without getting anything done (like the old thread). Organizing like this may seem pointless now, but will pay off in the end.

EDIT: I vote yes on Warlord Alpha's revised rules. I believe Junior Trainers can vote on this.
Ok, this is ridiculous! What are we even DOING on this thread? What's the point? I feel like I'm listening to a bureaucratic debate. It seems to me you are all missing the point.

What Vilsara said, but in analogy form:

Try building a house without a foundation, see how long it lasts.
Indeed. The first part of the rules is set. Now for the hard part... Design, voting and design order.
Comments start now.

[Vilsara]

(Starts commenting) Just a quick opinion:

Design/Design Order: I say that we (or probably you, Wolfhunter) nominate a member to run through the first draft of the card. For start, we can do the first 151 (I have no current opinion on how we handle evolutionary lines). That nominated member will then draft statistics and abilities before posting here. The other Trainers, Junior Trainers, and Allies will then comment on tweaks and suggestions for making the card as good as possible.

I think that any suggestions that are logical can be made, even if it rewrites the whole dynamic of the card. Perhaps a maximum number of suggestions per member could be in effect?

Towards the end, the nominated member will make a list of all suggestions for a card, and the other members will quote said post and vote yes or no for each suggestion. Each majority vote will cause that suggestion to become and actual change on the final, pre-playtested card.

Voting can be a simple majority vote, perhaps 2/3, I don't believe the 3/4 will be effective for our project given the current amount of members we have.

-Vilsara

[Carakki]

Sheesh. You leave the thread for twelve hours, they post three pages' worth of comments on you.

Design: Is this referring to the card design or the characteristics of individual Pokemon? I have opinions on both.

Design Order: See above.

Voting: I think a 2/3 rule can be applied to most anything we vote on.

[wulfhunter667]

Sheesh. You leave the thread for twelve hours, they post three pages' worth of comments on you.

Design: Is this referring to the card design or the characteristics of individual Pokemon? I have opinions on both.
Both.

[minimoose38]

For Design Order I say we start with the final evolutions of the three starters. From there we should move onto a final evolution from each type besides grass,fire and water. After that we can move on to under evolved forms for squads or lesser heroes as filler units would then be more necessary.
An example of what I am proposing would be this:
1. Venusaur
2. Blastoise
3. Charizard
4. Raichu
5. Machamp
6. Alakazam
7. Golem
8. Pidgeot/Fearow
9. Wigglytuff/Clefable/Raticate/Ditto, etc.
10. Gengar
11. Dragonite
12. Dugtrio/Sandslash, etc.
13. Arbok/Weezing/Muk, etc.
14. Parasect/Butterfree/Beedrill/Pinsir, etc.
15. Jynx/Lapras/Cloyster/Dewgong

The order of the types and which Pokemon will be made to represent each type can be voted on.

[wulfhunter667]

One of the major parts of the Pokemon series is evolution. Pokemon evolve. That is the way of things. However, in a game like Heroscape, there really isn't room for something like evolution because of the way the game is played.
Now, I have seen an idea for markers to be added during game play, and I have to tell you, that just won't work. The reasoning behind this is simple. You cannot add points to your army mid-game, and that is effectively what you would be doing if you allow evolution during a game. Going from having a 90 point stage 1 to a 150 point stage 2 and a 300 point stage 3 is just not fair to the other player. No more than it would be fair to draft the stage 3 and have to start with the stage 1. None of these things would work in a normal game.
In a campaign type game, you can add points to consecutive game sessions to increase your army, and trade in stage 1 for stage 2. In this way, you evole Pokemon and the remaining points go toward newly captured Pokemon. You knock out two portions of the game in one stone.
I think evolution can be addressed, handled and maintained in a campaign setting, which is why I think we should produce a Pokescape Master Set.
We start with 18 Pokemon spanning a variety of different types. I know the thinking here is to start with the big guns, Charizard, the Legendary Birds, Mewtwo, but I am telling you, that is just not the way to go. I have a list I have put together that represents almost all of the types from the first 151. Some are stand alone, others are first and second stage. No starter Pokemon, no heavy hitters. We save those for later Waves.
The list as it is right now is:
Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Scyther, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Electrabuzz, Magmar, Abra, Kadabra, Bellsprout, Weepingbell, Koffing, Weezing, Staryu, Diglett, Digtrio
There are also talk of having iconic Trainers carded. For that I have Ash, Misty, Jesse and James.
So, here's how I see this going down. You pick a Trainer and an army of Pokemon for 200 points. You battle through the game. At the end of the game, winners get 100 points to add to their army, losers get 50 points to add to their army. In between games, you may draft new Pokemon, and trade in stage 1 Pokemon to get stage 2 Pokemon. Pretty simple.
Now, we could just make Pokemon cards that have nothing to do with the game, all the heavy hitters and the iconic ones to boot, but then, what would the purpose of this thread really be then? I know you all want to pump out Charizard, Mewtwo, and every other heavy hitter in sight, but come on. Save the power cards for later.
If we're going to work toward something, let's make it something big.

[mac122]

I agree with wulfhunter. We should start with the early forms first: Pidgey, Mankey, Abra (to use his example list). These set the baseline. Then we build up from the baseline. We ensure that the final stage ends up at the right level. If we start at the top and work back, we will end up with some of the basics being too weak. I don't want to end up with basic Pokemon that Magikarp could stand up to. You don't start building a house with the roof. Let's take care of the basics before we try for the complex.

I think I could have used the word basic a couple more times. Thesaurus anyone?

[fiddlerjones]

Here's my thoughts on design and design order:

I'm inclined to agree that mid-game evolution won't work. I'm also a huge proponent of trainers as cards (and not figures), but let's focus on the Pokemon first before we worry about optional rules.

About saving the heavy hitters until later, I couldn't agree more. However, let's start at the logical place: the starters. Charmander, Squirtle, Bulbasaur, Pidgey, Rattata, Pikachu, Weedle, Caterpie, etc. Going in roughly the order of the Game Boy game seems logical.

Design order seems fine. Just go down the list and each trainer makes up the rough draft of the card. We should get someone to whip up type-colored templates so we have a standard to work from. Doing the pokemon in "sets," which someone mentioned earlier, sounds like a good idea to me. We come up with a list of what will be in the first "set," then each Trainer in turn chooses one from the list until we've done them all.

Just my several cents.

[wulfhunter667]

So we're clear here, the only reason I don't want to go with the starter Pokemon is that they don't represent a good baseline for different types and whatnot, hence the list I have. That way, after the "Master Set" is complete, we can put all the starters, with each stage, in the the first Wave. That makes sense to me. We could fill that wave out with a few other single stage Pokemon and maybe some two stage Pokemon as well.
The type-colored templates are a must, I agree. Will the more artistically inclined members please start that up, if you haven't already.
As far as design order, I would like to add an addendum to that. If someone passes, for one reason or another, if they are willing and able to submit a card before we go through the rotation, then it will not be held against them. Therefore, if mac122 misses his draft after mine, but makes a card before we come back around to me, then we don't count that as a pass. I think that sounds fair.

[Warlord Alpha]

Design: I say we get one person (me?) to just come up with a concept and stats, present it to the group, and then everything done from there is group-based.

Design Order: Pokemon like the starters definitely should have their stage 1 and stage 2 forms. Those Pokemon are just as iconic as the fully evolved forms, even more so in some cases. However, with Pokemon like Golem and Pidgeot/Fearow we don't really need to have their stage 1 and 2 forms. I mean, if we end up needing a stage 1 rock type pokemon, geodude is an attractive choice, and if we need a stage 2 flying type then pidgeotto might be a good choice, but we don't need all 6 of those Pokemon. The reasons are three-fold:

1. Overlapping within the evolutionary line. Pidgeotto and Pidgeot would do basically the exact same things - the only difference is that Pidgeot would have slightly higher stats. It is the heroscape equivalent of "do you want the 150 pt. charos with 7 life, 1r, 5m, 3atk and 4def, or the 210 pt charos with 9life, 1r, 5m, 5atk and 5def?" If we want a lower point version of roughly the same thing, why not chose a flying type from a different evolutionary line so that there can be SOME variety at least.

2. Overlapping between types. Onix would fill roughly the same roll as Graveler and they would be about the same power, meaning they do the same thing at the same cost. Why would we ever need two of the same thing with a different name? I mean, sure, there might be some slight theme differences, but at the end of the day they are both mid-cost ground type pokemon that will have high defense and slow move.

3. Manpower. We can only create so many cards so fast. Let's not waste time making something that is basically the same thing as last week but for less points.

To illustrate all of this, take a look at Rise of the Valkyrie. A lot of people cite that what got them so into Heroscape was the blend of genres. Well, imagine if the designers decided that they were going to get all of the Samurai and Soulborgs done before they got anything else done. So, they just threw Samurai and Soulborgs into the box. Now, sure, a game about Samurai fighting Robots does sound pretty cool, but it is far less cool than Samurai fighting Robots fighting Aliens fighting Dinosaurs fighting Snakes fighting Soldiers fighting Dragons fighting Elves. Sure, we can just make pidgey, pidgeotto, and pidgeot, three extremely similar flying types, all at once, but then where is the variety? "It's coming." When is it coming? Once we get through the 3 extremely similar geodude, graveler, golem? If we do just pidgey, and just golem, and then we do four other very different pokemon, we end up with units that fill the same roles and adhere to the same themes, but there are many more themes in there right from the start.

Sure, if we end up needing a low-cost ground pokemon later on we can always turn to Geodude or whatever, but for right now it just makes no sense to make all 3 of them. Filling out all of those evolutionary lines would take forever and would take away from other really cool pokemon that deserve our attention.

Let's get a good blend of Pokemon that fill a variety of roles before we start doing Pokemon from the same evolutionary lines.*

Also, I think that we should start with the most powerful Pokemon first. Like, Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise should be first on our list. It would give us an idea of how powerful our "filler" Pokemon need to be.

Voting: Depends on the issue at hand. To move onto the playtesting phase, something like 60% is sufficient. To finalize a card, 75 or 80% is good.

[Warlord Alpha]

Also, about the card templates, can we please save them as a .psd this time around? That format is an industry standard, it works in any (useful) image editing program (photoshop, gimp, etc.). If we are going to make a good template, it should have everything easily editable on individual layers, all in a file format that everybody, not just gimp or photoshop users, can use.

[wulfhunter667]

The biggest problem I have with what you said there WA is that that is the mentality of the last thread. Make the heavy hitters and forget the rest. What I am suggesting is making a fully seperate game that is 100% compatible with the official game. There are going to be folks who WANT to evolve their Pokemon, and since you just don't do that in this type of game, give them a seperate game to do it in.
I've said this multiple times, but I'll repeat it again. I think we should have a campaign set-up where the players play each game and add points on follow-up games to "evolove" their Pokemon. That way, we have the "evolving" theme, yet keep the Pokemon 100% official HS compatible for player who don't want that as an option. That way you get the best of both worlds and everybody's happy.
And realistically, with enough time and effort on everyone's part, there is no reason we cannot have 10 good cards anyone would want to use completed by end of summer.

[mac122]

My comments in italic blue

Design: I say we get one person (me?) to just come up with a concept and stats, present it to the group, and then everything done from there is group-based.

With all due respect, I could not agree with you less. I joined this group, and I'm pretty sure others did as well, to design cards. This isn't Warlord Alpha's Pokemon (or mac122's, for that matter) approved by the members of Project Pokemon. If we limit the initial design phase to a single Trainer, we will miss out on the creativity of others. I've seen this kind of interaction in the Star Wars custom thread. They share the initial design duties. With great regularity, one of the members will come up with an ability or attack that no one else in the group would have thought of. I don't want to miss out on that here. And yes, they have also had final cards that looked nothing like the initial draft except for the character.

Design Order: Pokemon like the starters definitely should have their stage 1 and stage 2 forms. Those Pokemon are just as iconic as the fully evolved forms, even more so in some cases. However, with Pokemon like Golem and Pidgeot/Fearow we don't really need to have their stage 1 and 2 forms. I mean, if we end up needing a stage 1 rock type pokemon, geodude is an attractive choice, and if we need a stage 2 flying type then pidgeotto might be a good choice, but we don't need all 6 of those Pokemon. The reasons are three-fold:

1. Overlapping within the evolutionary line. Pidgeotto and Pidgeot would do basically the exact same things - the only difference is that Pidgeot would have slightly higher stats. It is the heroscape equivalent of "do you want the 150 pt. charos with 7 life, 1r, 5m, 3atk and 4def, or the 210 pt charos with 9life, 1r, 5m, 5atk and 5def?" If we want a lower point version of roughly the same thing, why not chose a flying type from a different evolutionary line so that there can be SOME variety at least.

2. Overlapping between types. Onix would fill roughly the same roll as Graveler and they would be about the same power, meaning they do the same thing at the same cost. Why would we ever need two of the same thing with a different name? I mean, sure, there might be some slight theme differences, but at the end of the day they are both mid-cost ground type pokemon that will have high defense and slow move.

3. Manpower. We can only create so many cards so fast. Let's not waste time making something that is basically the same thing as last week but for less points.

To illustrate all of this, take a look at Rise of the Valkyrie. A lot of people cite that what got them so into Heroscape was the blend of genres. Well, imagine if the designers decided that they were going to get all of the Samurai and Soulborgs done before they got anything else done. So, they just threw Samurai and Soulborgs into the box. Now, sure, a game about Samurai fighting Robots does sound pretty cool, but it is far less cool than Samurai fighting Robots fighting Aliens fighting Dinosaurs fighting Snakes fighting Soldiers fighting Dragons fighting Elves. Sure, we can just make pidgey, pidgeotto, and pidgeot, three extremely similar flying types, all at once, but then where is the variety? "It's coming." When is it coming? Once we get through the 3 extremely similar geodude, graveler, golem? If we do just pidgey, and just golem, and then we do four other very different pokemon, we end up with units that fill the same roles and adhere to the same themes, but there are many more themes in there right from the start.

Sure, if we end up needing a low-cost ground pokemon later on we can always turn to Geodude or whatever, but for right now it just makes no sense to make all 3 of them. Filling out all of those evolutionary lines would take forever and would take away from other really cool pokemon that deserve our attention.

Let's get a good blend of Pokemon that fill a variety of roles before we start doing Pokemon from the same evolutionary lines.*

Here's the rub. A good number of those involved want to work evolution into this project at some point. The suggestions for campaigns sound intriguing. If we don't have the early forms, we'll never be able to make that work.

Also, I think that we should start with the most powerful Pokemon first. Like, Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise should be first on our list. It would give us an idea of how powerful our "filler" Pokemon need to be.

I've stated my opinion on this previously. Won't bore you all again.

Voting: Depends on the issue at hand. To move onto the playtesting phase, something like 60% is sufficient. To finalize a card, 75 or 80% is good.

I have no problem with higher percentages as long as any vote is at least by simple majority (51% or higher).

[Warlord Alpha]

The biggest problem I have with what you said there WA is that that is the mentality of the last thread. Make the heavy hitters and forget the rest.

That wasn't the mentality of the last thread at all. As a matter of fact, a fully evolved pokemon was never even considered back on that thread. The only two that really got considered were Pikachu and Abra.

What I am suggesting is making a fully seperate game that is 100% compatible with the official game. There are going to be folks who WANT to evolve their Pokemon, and since you just don't do that in this type of game, give them a seperate game to do it in. I've said this multiple times, but I'll repeat it again. I think we should have a campaign set-up where the players play each game and add points on follow-up games to "evolove" their Pokemon. That way, we have the "evolving" theme, yet keep the Pokemon 100% official HS compatible for player who don't want that as an option. That way you get the best of both worlds and everybody's happy.

Yeah, but here is the thing. That campaign needs figures. Let's say we make Geodude Graveler Golem. Now what? Our whole campain is my Geodude fighting against other Geodudes until it evolves, when it will fight more Geodudes and Gravelers?

Let's say we double our effort and make Geodude Graveler Golem and Pidgey Pidgeotto Pidgeot. Same exact problem as before. My pidgey fights that pidgey and that pidgey and that geodude and that geodude until it evolves and then my pidgeotto fights that geodude and the extremely similar graveler and it fights another pidgeotto and another geodude and another pidgey. How exciting.

Now lets say by the end of summer we have 12 cards (thats about 1 card every week and a half). You figure, 9 cards are the starters and their stage 2 and stage 3 forms. And then for other 3 cards we could do say Geodude, Pidgeotto, and Machamp. There are all kinds of Pokemon to fight in the campaign and 3 good evolutionary lines to choose from.

[wulfhunter667]

The biggest problem I have with what you said there WA is that that is the mentality of the last thread. Make the heavy hitters and forget the rest.

That wasn't the mentality of the last thread at all. As a matter of fact, a fully evolved pokemon was never even considered back on that thread. The only two that really got considered were Pikachu and Abra.

Should have clarified that statement. I was actually referring to Pokemon threads prior to the Pokescape thread. The only thing that thread seemed to do was talk with no clear direction. This thread needs direction, one set goal. I think the Master Set and Campaign are attainable goals everyone would want to see.
What I am suggesting is making a fully seperate game that is 100% compatible with the official game. There are going to be folks who WANT to evolve their Pokemon, and since you just don't do that in this type of game, give them a seperate game to do it in. I've said this multiple times, but I'll repeat it again. I think we should have a campaign set-up where the players play each game and add points on follow-up games to "evolove" their Pokemon. That way, we have the "evolving" theme, yet keep the Pokemon 100% official HS compatible for player who don't want that as an option. That way you get the best of both worlds and everybody's happy.

Yeah, but here is the thing. That campaign needs figures. Let's say we make Geodude Graveler Golem. Now what? Our whole campain is my Geodude fighting against other Geodudes until it evolves, when it will fight more Geodudes and Gravelers?

Let's say we double our effort and make Geodude Graveler Golem and Pidgey Pidgeotto Pidgeot. Same exact problem as before. My pidgey fights that pidgey and that pidgey and that geodude and that geodude until it evolves and then my pidgeotto fights that geodude and the extremely similar graveler and it fights another pidgeotto and another geodude and another pidgey. How exciting.

Now lets say by the end of summer we have 12 cards (thats about 1 card every week and a half). You figure, 9 cards are the starters and their stage 2 and stage 3 forms. And then for other 3 cards we could do say Geodude, Pidgeotto, and Machamp. There are all kinds of Pokemon to fight in the campaign and 3 good evolutionary lines to choose from.
Reread the post from the previous page. This is the condensed version...

We start with 18 Pokemon spanning a variety of different types. I know the thinking here is to start with the big guns, Charizard, the Legendary Birds, Mewtwo, but I am telling you, that is just not the way to go. I have a list I have put together that represents almost all of the types from the first 151. Some are stand alone, others are first and second stage. No starter Pokemon, no heavy hitters. We save those for later Waves.
The list as it is right now is:
Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Scyther, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Electrabuzz, Magmar, Abra, Kadabra, Bellsprout, Weepingbell, Koffing, Weezing, Staryu, Diglett, Digtrio
There are also talk of having iconic Trainers carded. For that I have Ash, Misty, Jesse and James.
So, here's how I see this going down. You pick a Trainer and an army of Pokemon for 200 points. You battle through the game. At the end of the game, winners get 100 points to add to their army, losers get 50 points to add to their army. In between games, you may draft new Pokemon, and trade in stage 1 Pokemon to get stage 2 Pokemon. Pretty simple.
In that alone you have 13 different Pokemon (stage 1 and stage 2 Pokemon counted as one) to chose from. By Wave 1, there should at least another 7 or 8 (all three starters plus some fills with multi-stage and single Pokemon), and so forth and so on.
What I am saying here is, let's not going into this process willy-nilly just trying to pump out Pokemon cards everyone wants immediately. You have to walk before you run, remember?

[Warlord Alpha]

Reread the post from the previous page. This is the condensed version...

We start with 18 Pokemon spanning a variety of different types. I know the thinking here is to start with the big guns, Charizard, the Legendary Birds, Mewtwo, but I am telling you, that is just not the way to go. I have a list I have put together that represents almost all of the types from the first 151. Some are stand alone, others are first and second stage. No starter Pokemon, no heavy hitters. We save those for later Waves.
The list as it is right now is:
Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Scyther, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Electrabuzz, Magmar, Abra, Kadabra, Bellsprout, Weepingbell, Koffing, Weezing, Staryu, Diglett, Digtrio
There are also talk of having iconic Trainers carded. For that I have Ash, Misty, Jesse and James.
So, here's how I see this going down. You pick a Trainer and an army of Pokemon for 200 points. You battle through the game. At the end of the game, winners get 100 points to add to their army, losers get 50 points to add to their army. In between games, you may draft new Pokemon, and trade in stage 1 Pokemon to get stage 2 Pokemon. Pretty simple.
In that alone you have 13 different Pokemon (stage 1 and stage 2 Pokemon counted as one) to chose from. By Wave 1, there should at least another 7 or 8 (all three starters plus some fills with multi-stage and single Pokemon), and so forth and so on.
What I am saying here is, let's not going into this process willy-nilly just trying to pump out Pokemon cards everyone wants immediately. You have to walk before you run, remember?

All right. Let me edit that list a little bit, then.

Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Scyther, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Electrabuzz, Magmar, Abra, Kadabra, Bellsprout, Weepingbell, Koffing, Weezing, Staryu, Diglett, Digtrio

Scyther, Bellsprout, and Weepingbell are all pretty similar. They could be replaced with Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venasaur.

Pikachu and Electabuzz are both electric types, only one of them is necessary for a the master set. Pikachu is probably better just because of how recognizable it is.

Staryu could be replaced by Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise.

Magmar could be replaced by Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard.

The list grew by 3 pokemon, but still:


Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venasaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio

You have 3 awesome evolutionary lines and a bunch of variety in the other Pokemon. I guess that the stage 3 starters could even be left out of the master set, but the first two stages of the starters definitely need to be in there. Think about it - Kanto master set has the 3 starters and some unique pokemon, Johto master set has the 3 starters and some unique pokemon, etc.

[wulfhunter667]

Reread the post from the previous page. This is the condensed version...

We start with 18 Pokemon spanning a variety of different types. I know the thinking here is to start with the big guns, Charizard, the Legendary Birds, Mewtwo, but I am telling you, that is just not the way to go. I have a list I have put together that represents almost all of the types from the first 151. Some are stand alone, others are first and second stage. No starter Pokemon, no heavy hitters. We save those for later Waves.
The list as it is right now is:
Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Scyther, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Electrabuzz, Magmar, Abra, Kadabra, Bellsprout, Weepingbell, Koffing, Weezing, Staryu, Diglett, Digtrio
There are also talk of having iconic Trainers carded. For that I have Ash, Misty, Jesse and James.
So, here's how I see this going down. You pick a Trainer and an army of Pokemon for 200 points. You battle through the game. At the end of the game, winners get 100 points to add to their army, losers get 50 points to add to their army. In between games, you may draft new Pokemon, and trade in stage 1 Pokemon to get stage 2 Pokemon. Pretty simple.
In that alone you have 13 different Pokemon (stage 1 and stage 2 Pokemon counted as one) to chose from. By Wave 1, there should at least another 7 or 8 (all three starters plus some fills with multi-stage and single Pokemon), and so forth and so on.
What I am saying here is, let's not going into this process willy-nilly just trying to pump out Pokemon cards everyone wants immediately. You have to walk before you run, remember?

All right. Let me edit that list a little bit, then.

Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Scyther, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Electrabuzz, Magmar, Abra, Kadabra, Bellsprout, Weepingbell, Koffing, Weezing, Staryu, Diglett, Digtrio

Scyther, Bellsprout, and Weepingbell are all pretty similar. They could be replaced with Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venasaur.

Pikachu and Electabuzz are both electric types, only one of them is necessary for a the master set. Pikachu is probably better just because of how recognizable it is.

Staryu could be replaced by Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise.

Magmar could be replaced by Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard.

The list grew by 3 pokemon, but still:


Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venasaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio

You have 3 awesome evolutionary lines and a bunch of variety in the other Pokemon. I guess that the stage 3 starters could even be left out of the master set, but the first two stages of the starters definitely need to be in there. Think about it - Kanto master set has the 3 starters and some unique pokemon, Johto master set has the 3 starters and some unique pokemon, etc.
I could live with the first two stages of the starters, but the final forms have to be later, no matter what.
That leaves Grass/Poison, Fire, Water, Normal/Flying, Rock/Ground, Electric, Psychic, Ground and Fighting represented in a Master set. Let's make it an even 20 and add a Bug or two into the mix, like either Scyther and Pinsir or Venonat/Venomoth or even Paras/Parasect to round the set out.

[Warlord Alpha]

[

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venasaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio

I could live with the first two stages of the starters, but the final forms have to be later, no matter what.
That leaves Grass/Poison, Fire, Water, Normal/Flying, Rock/Ground, Electric, Psychic, Ground and Fighting represented in a Master set. Let's make it an even 20 and add a Bug or two into the mix, like either Scyther and Pinsir or Venonat/Venomoth or even Paras/Parasect to round the set out.

Or we could do Ghastly/Haunter to give us a Ghost type.

[wulfhunter667]

Prefer a Bug type. Kinda wanna shy away from the Ghost types for now because they are immune to Normal and Fighting attacks.
Which brings me to the next thing up for discussion - Type Compatibility.
My vote for this is yes, but only for the Pokescape set. A line of text listed as "Pokedex" at the bottom listing the strengths, weaknesses and immunities of Pokemon vs. Pokemon only. It would have no effect on the official game, but would keep the Set thematic.
Thoughts?

[BiggaBullfrog]

I like the design order going down the line of Trainers, each picking one of the Pokemon from the list of the wave we're doing at the time.

I'm with mac as far as voting; I'm not concerned too much as long as it's a majority.
[

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venasaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Blastoise, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio

I could live with the first two stages of the starters, but the final forms have to be later, no matter what.
That leaves Grass/Poison, Fire, Water, Normal/Flying, Rock/Ground, Electric, Psychic, Ground and Fighting represented in a Master set. Let's make it an even 20 and add a Bug or two into the mix, like either Scyther and Pinsir or Venonat/Venomoth or even Paras/Parasect to round the set out.

Or we could do Ghastly/Haunter to give us a Ghost type.
I also think we should at least do the first two evolutions of the starter pokemon. After all, if it's the starter set, we should start where everything else Pokemon does, right?

However, I think we need at least one heavy hitter Pokemon in the first set, if only to get an idea of how it works. It probably wouldn't have to be a fully evolved Pokemon, a single-stage powerful Pokemon could work, or maybe something like Gyarados, where the first stage isn't all that necessary (well, I don't think we'd need a Magikarp right off).

[Warlord Alpha]

However, I think we need at least one heavy hitter Pokemon in the first set, if only to get an idea of how it works.

Not a bad point. How about we get rid of Abra and insert Alakazam?

Remember, here is our current list:

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio.

As Wulf suggested, 20 sounds good, so we add in Scyther or Pinsir and that leaves us room for one heavy hitter. Mewtwo? It certainly is both iconic and high-powered. It would make a good boss for the end of a campaign, considering it would probably end up around 250 points. (closest example in terms of stats is probably Tor-Kul-Na)

[mac122]

Last post of the evening for me - hey, don't cheer so loud.

If we do bug types, I would go for the Pinsir-Scyther combo. I think this would help satisfy those that want some strong Pokemon earlier rather than later.

Somewhere in the discussion ahead of this there was a comment something to the effect that two Pokemon of the same type would basically be the same thing and that a higher stage would just be a more powerful version (or something along those lines). There are enough abilities available in the world of Pokemon to make, say, 2 rock types of approximately the same power into completely different cards. Same thing with evolutions - Pidgey and Pidgeotto, for example can have different abilities. We've only got so much room on the cards anyway. We can't jam everything each Pokemon could do onto the card. Don't forget, even in the video games, as Pokemon learned new abilities, they eventually had to forget some to make room.

Good night, all!

[wulfhunter667]

Last post of the evening for me - hey, don't cheer so loud.

If we do bug types, I would go for the Pinsir-Scyther combo. I think this would help satisfy those that want some strong Pokemon earlier rather than later.

Somewhere in the discussion ahead of this there was a comment something to the effect that two Pokemon of the same type would basically be the same thing and that a higher stage would just be a more powerful version (or something along those lines). There are enough abilities available in the world of Pokemon to make, say, 2 rock types of approximately the same power into completely different cards. Same thing with evolutions - Pidgey and Pidgeotto, for example can have different abilities. We've only got so much room on the cards anyway. We can't jam everything each Pokemon could do onto the card. Don't forget, even in the video games, as Pokemon learned new abilities, they eventually had to forget some to make room.

Good night, all!
Again, the Pinsir/Scyther combo is the better way to go I think. Imagine Waves with 3 common Pokemon sets and a Hero set with final stage fill-outs, Legendary Pokemon and super heavy hitters like Mewtwo. That's my thinking here.

[Warlord Alpha]

Again, the Pinsir/Scyther combo is the better way to go I think.

That works I guess. Scyther is faster and hits hard but has pretty bad defense and life and Pinsir is slow and hits hard but has good defense and life.


Imagine Waves with 3 common Pokemon sets and a Hero set with final stage fill-outs, Legendary Pokemon and super heavy hitters like Mewtwo. That's my thinking here.

One of the sets needs to be legendaries and one of the sets needs to be like "Final Evolutions," seeing as we have like 6 unfinished chains of evolution currently.

[wulfhunter667]

First things first. The new list for the potential Pokemon Master Set...
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Pinsir, Scyther
We'll give every one time to catch up to the conversation and vote on it tomorrow night.

[fiddlerjones]

First things first. The new list for the potential Pokemon Master Set...
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Pinsir, Scyther
We'll give every one time to catch up to the conversation and vote on it tomorrow night.

I like what you guys have put out there so far regarding the "Master Set." Here are the goals I'm seeing for the first set.

1. Diversity of Type: We want to get one of each type that we can into this set to give everyone a variety of styles to use out of the gate.

2. Diversity of Power Level: We want options on a bell curve. Most of them falling in the middle but with a few 20-50 point options and one iconic "Heavy Hitter." I don't see a "Heavy Hitter" in your list that's a big enough name for the first set, but we can come up with one I'm sure.

3. Diversity between Evolutionary Levels: We don't have to give each Pokemon the attacks that were optimal for it to learn in the Game Boy game, just attacks that fit its flavor and type. To this end, Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur can all be very different pokemon depending on which abilities we give each one. I want to see some situations where Ivysaur is the right choice and others where it's Venusaur.

4. Evolutionary Teasers: We need several lower forms of some pokemon so that people will want to see what the evolved form is in future sets. We want to create anticipation here. I like where we are on this for the list you proposed, but we may want to cut one of the evolved forms and maybe consider adding a ghost type (see suggestion at the end of the post).

5. Pokemon-specific Campaign Rules and Type Interaction: We should work on this after we finish the pokemon for the Master Set. That way, we'll have a set of rules to work with in future sets.

Our progress is looking good so far. After the by-laws and procedure are squared away, I want to see a set of design standards and then we're off to the races.

A postscript regarding the ghost type: I understand that in the video games ghosts are immune to normal attacks. That does not have to be the case here. We can have a ghost special ability; something similar to Isamu's Vanishing ability that can prevent damage on a d20 roll.

[fiddlerjones]

Design: I say we get one person (me?) to just come up with a concept and stats, present it to the group, and then everything done from there is group-based.

Sorry for the double-post, but I felt like this needs to be addressed. My response depends on how you mean it. If you mean that we have Person A design Pikachu, then everyone comments on Pikachu, vote, playtest, then Person B designs Charmander and so on, then yes, I think that's the way to do it.

If, however, you mean that one person should design all the pokemon while the rest of us comment on it, then my answer is a resounding NO. I joined this thread to design Heroscape units, and I feel like that's why most other people joined too. I do look forward to seeing what you come up with on your turn, but we all need the chance to show what we've got.

[wulfhunter667]

Design: I say we get one person (me?) to just come up with a concept and stats, present it to the group, and then everything done from there is group-based.
I wasn't going to say anything, but the truth is, I'm going to come up with all of the cards and you guys can just comment on them and that's the way it's going to be.

See how bad that statement sucks. I have no intention of letting one person, not me, or anyone else for that matter, run this show. We are all in this together, and, although one person will come up with the first draft, the rest of us WILL have a say in the finished product. That is why this thread is a community-based project and not my personal thread.

BTW, those are some excellent ideas there Fiddler. And if everyone wants to throw a Ghost in there, we will. Let's let everyone have a chance to catch up to the conversation and go from there. But I still like Scyther for the bug. ;)

[Xn F M]

Dang guys, I wasn't expecting this kind of activity so soon. I'll just assume the rules have passed (as seems the case though no one came out and said it) and we're moving onto general design philosophy.

We do need to state what the rules are for designs that fail the playtest stage. That's unadressed in the current rule set and will cause problems when it does come up (does the pokemon fall back to the pool, does it (and it creator) fall back in line for design, etc.).

Also, votes should always be in red. Just so they stand out.

With those two exceptions I vote yes.

I like having a designated set of pokemon for our first "set" of designs. I do not like the idea of having "heavy hitter" final evolution pokemon in that set though. We have a number of things we need to get figured out before we figure out the the 150+ point final evolution pokemon. If our first "set" suffers for not having them, so be it. I personally think that starting with the 1st evolution guys (and their lower level special attacks) is they key to properly setting the levels of the higher level pokemon and their specials.

I have a couple ideas that would fall into this part of the discussion, though I'm not sure if we're really "there" yet. So I'll leave things here for now.

Edit: @ the current conversation, Ghosts are easy, Heroscape already has Normal and Fighting type attacks. Bugs are more interesting.

[wulfhunter667]

Yes, the basic rules passed, yes, we are moving onto the general design philosophy, no, we are not going to have a heavy hitter in the first set (I think), yes, post your ideas here now, and yes, Bugs Rock! :D

[Xn F M]

Alright, sorry I missed the vote, I was at my grandparent's most of the day. I did get online towards the end of the evening (here at least) it just took me a while to get here. -Lesson learned, it won't happen again.

Anyway, I've hinted at a few things in this thread and in PMs.

1) I like starting from the bottom. It makes more sense to me from a general standpoint and it would allow the high level and uber pokemon to naturally fit in with regular scape and the pokescape experience we're createing.

2) The type chart is a good idea. :gb: himself stated not too long ago that special attacks can be modified by abilities on cards. So if we accept that the attack value on a card represents its "Normal" attack (ie cut, slash, tackle whatever) we can apply that across all herocape. That would give Ghost types an interesting, thematic interaction with classic scape. Though I will freely admit the more powerful ghosts would cause problems. though it would allow us to modify special attacks based on pokemon type, and give even basic pokemon a role in classic scape (as special attackers if nothing else). --This really is two points rolled into one. But the way I see things they are inseparable.

Unless their specials had Ghost descriptor stating that they had no effect on units with no type descriptor or the Normal type descriptor.

3) If we include the type chart we shouldn't bother with x4 effective or x.25 effective abilities. Either you're weak and the attack gets +1A die or you're resistant and you get +1D. Period. That would slightly decrease the metagame aspect of a purely pokemon game, but it makes things easier and more Scapey.

4) Attacks worthy of "Special Attack" status should be standardized. Example: Ember on a non-fire pokemon might have 2A dice, on every non-fire pokemon it appears on.

5) STAB. Assuming that specials are standardized, STAB bonuses can easily be represented by adding extra dice to attacks/special attacks. Using the previous example, Charmander would have a 3A ember to represent his STAB. (And of course Normal type pokemon would have a higher base attack making them more playable.) [Note, we could give a special ability to a pokemon giving their normal attack a type descriptor]

6) Trainers. I don't like trainers in a classic-scape format. I think we should design two or three sets of pokemon and then have everyone do trainers for a pokemon-only style game. If we did do this we would have to take the trainers into account for every playtest we did. Because the trainters would imballance certain pokemon.

edit: gah, my #2 point reads horribly, fixing it

[fiddlerjones]

Post our ideas eh? Will do.

So I suppose we're on to design philosophy. Here I'll reiterate the guidelines I suggested earlier on for convenience's sake.

1. All Pokemon special attacks/abilities should have the name of an attack or ability from the video games. They do NOT have to have exactly the same function, but it would be nice if they captured the general feel of the attack. Exception: General traits like Flying, Aquatic, Vanishing (for ghosts), as well as stuff like "This unit rolls an additional attack die while standing on a water space," are acceptable.

2. Race is always "Pokemon," clearly.

3. Most Pokemon will be (un)common heroes. Fully evolved forms will likely be unique. A few might make sense as squads. This is up to the designer's discretion and will of course be subject to a vote before it enters playtesting.

4. Class: Here's a sticking point. Do we put type here? Or do we put the silly (but amusing) description the video games give? Depends on the card template we use.

5. Templates: Designing the template is key. Let's get someone on that.

6. Types: I know a lot of purists will hate this, but I suggest going with one type per pokemon. This will simplify the card templating and keep the optional Pokemon-specific rules from getting bogged down.

7. Optional Rules: Nice segue, eh? We need to come up with a general idea of how this will work so we can take it into consideration while designing. Really the only issue here is type interaction, as things like Trainers and Evolution can be worked out later.

8. Heavy Hitter?: I'm still in favor of putting one big pokemon in the Master Set. RotV wouldn't have been nearly so interesting without the big figures like Mimring. I vote Gyarados for this one. He's cool and Magikarp is unnecessary.

That's all I got for now.

[Xn F M]

3. Most Pokemon will be (un)common heroes. Fully evolved forms will likely be unique. A few might make sense as squads. This is up to the designer's discretion and will of course be subject to a vote before it enters playtesting.

Why shouldn't you have two Charizards if you have the points? Or better yet to Tangellas? All non-unique pokemon should be common/uncommon heroes. And only the weakest of the weak (ie Unown) should be common.

6. Types: I know a lot of purists will hate this, but I suggest going with one type per pokemon. This will simplify the card templating and keep the optional Pokemon-specific rules from getting bogged down.

Personally I like adding a like similar to this at the end bottom of each pokemon's abilities:

Fire and Fighting Type Attacks and Special Attacks of these types; Water, Ground, Flying, and Psychic roll one addition attack die against ~this~. ~This~ rols one additional defense die against; Fire, Grass, Ice, Bug, and Dark attacks.

All we have to do (assuming my proposal that normal attacks are "Normal" attacks) is add a type descriptor do special attacks (and give some pokemon an ability that gives the type descriptor to their normal attacks).

Edit: Being on the left-coast means I get the last word. ;)

[fiddlerjones]

Being a night-owl means I get the last word ;). I don't have a problem with putting symbols for strength and weakness on the bottom of the card, but I am against actually typing out an ability on the unit. Elemental keywords for special attacks, however, are fine by me.

Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Range 6. Attack 3. Fire. Etc...

But those keywords would have no impact on standard Heroscape. It's easier to ignore symbols on the bottom of the card than a printed ability.

[Creationist]

Designing Cards
Each member of the core group will be responsible for creating an least one card about every 2 monthes or so, starting with the first R/B/Y 151 Pokemon. In keeping with the best interest of the project, no card may be made for an evolved form of Pokemon until the base Pokemon has been created, ie, don't try to make Charizard without making Charmander and Charmeleon first, in that order.

Voting
On any matter that has nothing to do with a card in creation or playtesting, only the Group Moderator may call for a vote. Only Trainers may call for a vote in the Design Phase. All members may call for a vote in the Playtest Phase.
When a card receives 50% positive votes in the Design Phase, then the card moves on to Playtest Phase. If in playtesting, the card fails to meet the requirements necessary, then the card goes back to the design phase. If the card receives a minimum of 5 successful playtests and 50% positive votes, then the card goes to the Finalization Phase and is ready for the final carding , Book Of and Release.

Design Order
Design order will go right down the list after we have the Trainers and Junior Trainers seperated. If a Trainer misses 2 consecutive turns to design, he drops to Junior Trainer status and we promote a Junior Trainer to Trainer. This is not to show favoritism towards anyone, or punish anyone for the circumstances of there life, but rather to keep the thread going with people we can depend on to give 100% all of the time.

Like i said in an earlier post, I don't think we should have to make the earlier stages of an evolution line before the later stages. This is because we would mainly have a bunch of more filler type units before we got to the larger cost units.

I'm fine with the voting policy.

With the Design Order, do we have to present ideas in a card, or just in writing?

[wulfhunter667]

Here are my ideas for design, from the top of the card to the bottom.
Below the name, in the General slot, I think we should put a Region name, ie, Kanto, Johto, etc. This idea is twofold. It allows you to distinguish the Master Set and first few waves from the Second Master set and its waves. It also allows for more than one card to be made for Pokemon we really want to have more than one card for and that are considered common for the region. As an example, we have the Pidgey card from Kanto, then when we move on to the next set, we make a new Pidgey card from Johto, follow me?
In the left box, I think we are going to have to give these guys genders (I'll explain why in a minute) and place a symbol above the Race slot on the left box.
In the Race box, we should spell out the type, Grass, Bug, Normal/Flying, etc.
In the Hero box, we should designate the Pokemon's Hero status by rarity from the video game. Common Pokemon are obviously Common Heroes, Rare Pokemon are Uncommon Heroes. Legendary and Unique Pokemon are Unique Pokemon. There is a little leeway here too. I think the starter Pokemon should be Unique, for two reasons. One, you only get one to use the entire game, and two, I REALLY don't think it would be fair to field an army of Charizards. Let's leave the power gaming to the other threads.
In the Class box, we should put the Pokemon's species, ie, Pikachu is a Mouse Pokemon.
In the Personality box, we should try to find something in the Pokedex entries or volumes of text written on these guys to give them a Personality that actually matches them, not just pick one out of a hat. And if worse come to worse, we could always base Personality on the moves represented on the card.
In the Size box, the vast majority of Pokemon are going to be Tiny, and the number value is easy enough to determine, 1 size level for each foot the Pokemon is listed as having. The only problem I see is that Onix is listed as being 28 feet long. We could half that I guess. I dunno. We'll talk about that one later.
For moves/special powers, I suggest we use two iconic abilities, be they attacks or buffs. For instance, in the mock-up Pikachu card on the second post, I gave him Thundershock and Agility. But I also think there is room to have a third iconic move hidden in the stats. What I mean by that is that if the Pokemon has three iconic abilities and we cannot decide which ones to use, we can always drop one and bump a stat here or there to represent it.I think Pokemon abilities should have a place on there as well. Bulbasaur with Overgrow adds 1 attack dice with 3 wound markers on his army card, etc.
This is where the gender comes in. There are gender-specific move and abilities that only work against one or the other, or have different effects against one or the other. It's worth looking into.
Lastly, I would like to have type symbols at the bottom of the card. Two reasons for this also. First, I think it would give the card a Pokemon feel to it to have the type symbol visually displayed. Second, it allows for special powers like Flying and Slither, which everyone know that Flying and Water types respectively would automatically have, to not have to be written out. That does not mean each type gets a special power to go along with it, but instead allows for common sense things to not have to be spelled out, wasting space on the card.
That's it for now. More later.

[Carakki]

Ugh, this post is going to be so long. Is it possible to not carry the conversation into the wee hours of the a.m.?

First things first. The new list for the potential Pokemon Master Set...
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Pinsir, Scyther
We'll give every one time to catch up to the conversation and vote on it tomorrow night.
This sounds good, except it doesn't address the issue of squads. See below for more...

We do need to state what the rules are for designs that fail the playtest stage. That's unadressed in the current rule set and will cause problems when it does come up (does the pokemon fall back to the pool, does it (and it creator) fall back in line for design, etc.).

Also, votes should always be in red. Just so they stand out.

With those two exceptions I vote yes.

I like having a designated set of pokemon for our first "set" of designs. I do not like the idea of having "heavy hitter" final evolution pokemon in that set though. We have a number of things we need to get figured out before we figure out the the 150+ point final evolution pokemon. If our first "set" suffers for not having them, so be it. I personally think that starting with the 1st evolution guys (and their lower level special attacks) is they key to properly setting the levels of the higher level pokemon and their specials.

I have a couple ideas that would fall into this part of the discussion, though I'm not sure if we're really "there" yet. So I'll leave things here for now.

Edit: @ the current conversation, Ghosts are easy, Heroscape already has Normal and Fighting type attacks. Bugs are more interesting.
This has a lot of good stuff, especially the bit about votes in red.

Next one's long, so I'll break it down...

1) I like starting from the bottom. It makes more sense to me from a general standpoint and it would allow the high level and uber pokemon to naturally fit in with regular scape and the pokescape experience we're createing.
I'm fine with this as long as it's the rough bottom; I like the current Master Set that we have running (except for the squad thing, but I'm still getting to that).


2) The type chart is a good idea. :gb: himself stated not too long ago that special attacks can be modified by abilities on cards. So if we accept that the attack value on a card represents its "Normal" attack (ie cut, slash, tackle whatever) we can apply that across all Heroscape. That would give Ghost types an interesting, thematic interaction with classic scape. Though I will freely admit the more powerful ghosts would cause problems. though it would allow us to modify special attacks based on pokemon type, and give even basic pokemon a role in classic scape (as special attackers if nothing else). --This really is two points rolled into one. But the way I see things they are inseparable.

Unless their specials had Ghost descriptor stating that they had no effect on units with no type descriptor or the Normal type descriptor.

3) If we include the type chart we shouldn't bother with x4 effective or x.25 effective abilities. Either you're weak and the attack gets +1A die or you're resistant and you get +1D. Period. That would slightly decrease the metagame aspect of a purely pokemon game, but it makes things easier and more Scapey.
I'm still for something ON the card. It goes against the Heroscape grain to have the players memorize something like that.


4) Attacks worthy of "Special Attack" status should be standardized. Example: Ember on a non-fire pokemon might have 2A dice, on every non-fire pokemon it appears on.
The details of Special Attacks don't change from figure to figure in Classic 'Scape either, so this is kind of redundant.

5) STAB. Assuming that specials are standardized, STAB bonuses can easily be represented by adding extra dice to attacks/special attacks. Using the previous example, Charmander would have a 3A ember to represent his STAB. (And of course Normal type pokemon would have a higher base attack making them more playable.) [Note, we could give a special ability to a pokemon giving their normal attack a type descriptor]
Someone PLEASE tell me what this is.

6) Trainers. I don't like trainers in a classic-scape format. I think we should design two or three sets of pokemon and then have everyone do trainers for a pokemon-only style game. If we did do this we would have to take the trainers into account for every playtest we did. Because the trainters would imballance certain pokemon.
Ignoring the grammar issues, I strongly disagree with this. I am still for Trainers as figures like Kato Katsuro or Spartacus. Yeah, they'd complicate playtesting, but official playtesters had to do the same for these figures, and they'd make the game much cooler.

Finally, on to the next person...

3. Most Pokemon will be (un)common heroes. Fully evolved forms will likely be unique. A few might make sense as squads. This is up to the designer's discretion and will of course be subject to a vote before it enters playtesting.
This is another sticking point for me with me, as it utterly eliminates the idea of squads. Also, the only unique Pokemon out there are legendaries.

5. Templates: Designing the template is key. Let's get someone on that.
Present, ready and accounted for.

6. Types: I know a lot of purists will hate this, but I suggest going with one type per pokemon. This will simplify the card templating and keep the optional Pokemon-specific rules from getting bogged down.[/quote]
Give me some time for the template. I don't mind the extra effort.

8. Heavy Hitter?: I'm still in favor of putting one big pokemon in the Master Set. RotV wouldn't have been nearly so interesting without the big figures like Mimring. I vote Gyarados for this one. He's cool and Magikarp is unnecessary.
This sounds good.

'Nother (last) long one.

Below the name, in the General slot, I think we should put a Region name, ie, Kanto, Johto, etc. This idea is twofold. It allows you to distinguish the Master Set and first few waves from the Second Master set and its waves. It also allows for more than one card to be made for Pokemon we really want to have more than one card for and that are considered common for the region. As an example, we have the Pidgey card from Kanto, then when we move on to the next set, we make a new Pidgey card from Johto, follow me?
This is a really good idea, I think. Props from me for thinking it up.

In the Hero box, we should designate the Pokemon's Hero status by rarity from the video game. Common Pokemon are obviously Common Heroes, Rare Pokemon are Uncommon Heroes. Legendary and Unique Pokemon are Unique Pokemon. There is a little leeway here too. I think the starter Pokemon should be Unique, for two reasons. One, you only get one to use the entire game, and two, I REALLY don't think it would be fair to field an army of Charizards. Let's leave the power gaming to the other threads.
This sounds good. Remember, in the Pokemon world, Pokemon aren't really THAT rare.

However, this brings me to a point concerning squads and Trainers both. I would be quite content with all Pokemon as Heroes if we had Kurrock-style Trainers commanding them. This, I think, captures both the unique personalities of individual Pokemon and allows Trainers to fill the role they typically do in the games.

In the Size box, the vast majority of Pokemon are going to be Tiny, and the number value is easy enough to determine, 1 size level for each foot the Pokemon is listed as having. The only problem I see is that Onix is listed as being 28 feet long. We could half that I guess. I dunno. We'll talk about that one later.
This sounds good.

This is where the gender comes in. There are gender-specific move and abilities that only work against one or the other, or have different effects against one or the other. It's worth looking into.
I think gender-related moves are something we can leave out. I certainly didn't know about them until now. The only Pokemon I can think of gender significantly is Nidoran/Nidorina, but that shouldn't be too hard to hammer out.

Lastly, I would like to have type symbols at the bottom of the card. Two reasons for this also. First, I think it would give the card a Pokemon feel to it to have the type symbol visually displayed. Second, it allows for special powers like Flying and Slither, which everyone know that Flying and Water types respectively would automatically have, to not have to be written out. That does not mean each type gets a special power to go along with it, but instead allows for common sense things to not have to be spelled out, wasting space on the card.
I'm on it.

Whew. Carakki out (for now).

[Chardar]

I'm not a part of this project, but this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061498&postcount=167)intriqued me.

This makes me think that you should do it in sets like the C3G originally did. That gives the common goal feeling that Velene was talkng about and should also spur interest in the project. That would also give you something to show on the front page every so often.

[Carakki]

I'm not a part of this project, but this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061498&postcount=167)intriqued me.

This makes me think that you should do it in sets like the C3G originally did. That gives the common goal feeling that Velene was talking about and should also spur interest in the project. That would also give you something to show on the front page every so often.
I second this. As I mentioned in my post above, I left the thread for about 12 hours and there were three more pages of stuff to wade through. I can't imagine what some people that haven't seen the page since they joined must be thinking. Any chance of us fixing that? Trainer status indicates that the titleholder should be online every day, not every hour.

Just my two cents on the above.

[Xn F M]

In the Hero box, we should designate the Pokemon's Hero status by rarity from the video game. Common Pokemon are obviously Common Heroes, Rare Pokemon are Uncommon Heroes. Legendary and Unique Pokemon are Unique Pokemon. There is a little leeway here too. I think the starter Pokemon should be Unique, for two reasons. One, you only get one to use the entire game, and two, I REALLY don't think it would be fair to field an army of Charizards. Let's leave the power gaming to the other threads.

I don't like the idea of the common pokemon being Common heroes. IMO most pokemon would have at least two health (though I wouldn't have a problem with some of the weaker guys having one health and being common).

5) STAB. Assuming that specials are standardized, STAB bonuses can easily be represented by adding extra dice to attacks/special attacks. Using the previous example, Charmander would have a 3A ember to represent his STAB. (And of course Normal type pokemon would have a higher base attack making them more playable.) [Note, we could give a special ability to a pokemon giving their normal attack a type descriptor]

Someone PLEASE tell me what this is.

STAB, stands for Same Type Attack Bonus. When a pokemon uses an attack that matches one of it's types it gets a 50% bonus on its attack power.

Regarding weaknesses and such, I thought I had stated that it would be listed on the card in that post, I did mention it earlier though:

Personally I like adding a like similar to this at the end bottom of each pokemon's abilities:


Fire and Fighting Type Attacks and Special Attacks of these types; Water, Ground, Flying, and Psychic roll one addition attack die against ~this~. ~This~ rols one additional defense die against; Fire, Grass, Ice, Bug, and Dark attacks.

All we have to do (assuming my proposal that normal attacks are "Normal" attacks) is add a type descriptor do special attacks (and give some pokemon an ability that gives the type descriptor to their normal attacks).

[Xn F M]

Double post, I know I'm a jerk. ;)

I'm not a part of this project, but this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061498&postcount=167)intriqued me.

This makes me think that you should do it in sets like the C3G originally did. That gives the common goal feeling that Velene was talking about and should also spur interest in the project. That would also give you something to show on the front page every so often.
I second this. As I mentioned in my post above, I left the thread for about 12 hours and there were three more pages of stuff to wade through. I can't imagine what some people that haven't seen the page since they joined must be thinking. Any chance of us fixing that? Trainer status indicates that the titleholder should be online every day, not every hour.

Just my two cents on the above.

Honestly, I think this problem will start to go away on it's own once we get into design. Once that starts we'll have a natural limiting factor on what's going on in the thread. We just happen to have alot going on right now because we're getting things sorted out. (And btw, I didn't get on till about 9:00pm yesterday and I had over five pages to wade through before I got caught up, it was crazy).

[fiddlerjones]

I agree that this problem will fix itself as we get into design.

But for now, it looks like we're really getting somewhere. I knew design standards would be tougher to get everyone to agree on than administrative stuff, but we're all being pretty flexible and supportive, which I like.

Here's my take on stuff that's been said so far:

1. Location Under Name: Excellent idea. This gives us leeway for squads as well, as in Kanto we can make a Pidgey, then in Johto a more different Pidgey or even Pidgey flock.

2. Common/Uncommon/Unique: I'm thinking very few (if any) pokemon should be common heroes. We want them all to be at least 2 health, able to activate glyphs, etc. I also agree that legendaries and starting pokemon should be unique, but not much else.

3. Type Interaction: on card vs. chart: I'm for having a simple chart here where each type has a strength and a weakness. Strength adds one automatic shield when defending and weakness adds an automatic skull when being attacked, for example. Here's why I say chart. We want these figures to be compatible with standard Heroscape first and compatible with optional rules second. Putting an ability on the card with no bearing on the standard game would be bad form, but symbols are easy to ignore.

4. Type symbols on bottom of card: Good idea, works for me. If we put strength/weakness on the bottom, it would obviate the need for a chart. We could just have a rule in pokemon-specific scape that says you get a bonus against your strength and your weakness gets a bonus against you.

5. Moves: I disagree with only using iconic moves for the pokemon. Yes, for the more recognizable stuff, go for it (I like the Pikachu with Thundershock and Agility), but using more obscure moves is what gives us the leeway to make different evolutionary forms of the same pokemon feel different. Don't feel constrained to use only the optimum moves from the video game.

6. STAB: Unnecessary. A pokemon's moves will be set on its card, so STAB will be abstracted into the attack as written. A Charmander with Ember doesn't get an extra bonus to the attack. That bonus is already taken into consideration when assigning a strength to the attack in the first place.

7. Gender: Of course we'll put it on cards like Nidoran Male/Female, but I don't think it needs to be on every card. Gender-specific moves are something we'll probably need to cut for simplicity's sake.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this thing get off the ground.
Once we approve the design standards, we'll need to vote on the list of pokemon for the Master Set. Exciting stuff.

[Xn F M]

1. Location Under Name: Excellent idea. This gives us leeway for squads as well, as in Kanto we can make a Pidgey, then in Johto a more different Pidgey or even Pidgey flock.

I don't think that regions are neccesary. What rule/design convention is stopping us from making two different cards with the same name? Just look at Drake and Raerae.

2. Common/Uncommon/Unique: I'm thinking very few (if any) pokemon should be common heroes. We want them all to be at least 2 health, able to activate glyphs, etc. I also agree that legendaries and starting pokemon should be unique, but not much else.

Personally, I think that only unique pokemon (legendaries and things like Ash's xxx, should we decide to do them) should be unique. True you only get one starter per game, but they're still breedable and there's always trainers running around with them (sometimes in multiples).

[mac122]

At work, don't have time to do all the "quotes"
Card template - first, let's open this up to anyone in the group who has an idea on design, look at all submissions and vote
Strength/Weakness - since we will have our own template we're not locked into symbols at the bottom of the text area. Looking at a classic Scape card, the Move-Range-Attack-Defense boxes can be reduced in size allowing for something like this:
:cheer:+1A
:zombie:-1D
Of course, replacing the cheerleader and zombie with actual types. These can be ignored for use in Classic Scape but available for our Pokemon-specific rules and campaigns.
Gender - As long as it is not written out in the abilities on the card, it could be on there. Written out on the card means incompatibility with classic. Put the symbol on select Pokemon so the info is there for the future. Certain Trainer Cards/Figures could give bonuses based on Gender. Though, does this mean we're going to have both genders of every Pokemon that has gender? Let's see, I'll be about 87 when we catch 'em all:D
All stages of Pokemon - "Star Trek" reference alert! If we don't do the evolutionary chain of our Pokemon we'll be violating the Prime Poke-Directive: Gotta Catch 'Em All!
STAB - Thanks for the explanation. But is this necessary? Wouldn't the majority of abilities on the cards be of the same type as the Pokemon? Let's just write Charmander's Ember to reflect that a fire type is using a fire type attack. If we put Ember on Magikarp, first, we should all be locked up, second, Magikarp's Ember would not be as powerful.
Common/Uncommon/Unique - Save Unique for the true one-of-a-kind Pokemon like Lugia, Suicine, Zapdos, etc (I think there were only one of each of those, right). Eventually, we might want to explore making "Ash's Pikachu" or "Brock's Onyx" - don't know if we ever would, but these would be Uniques. Other than that, I think it will depend on the specific Pokemon we're working on. Ratata, eh, probably Common. Pikachu, probably Uncommon, IMO.
Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.
Master Sets and Waves - Yes! This helps us set goals and reach milestones. It's so much easier to stay involved and focused when you have clear a clear picture of where you are going.

Edit:
Regions - I don't have an issue with putting Kanto or Johto on the cards, but I don't know how much excitement there would be for "OK, we're in Johto now, let's make another Pidgey!" Where it would make sense, is the suggestion that the Johto Pidgey could actually be a flock or squad. We'd have our evolvable Pidgey and a squad. Yeah, evolvable is not a real word.

[wulfhunter667]

Ok, doing this a little bass-ackward, but here goes...
I agree that this problem will fix itself as we get into design.
But for now, it looks like we're really getting somewhere. I knew design standards would be tougher to get everyone to agree on than administrative stuff, but we're all being pretty flexible and supportive, which I like.
It will work itself out. Have faith that we are going to do the right thing here for everyone involved, and if something needs to be changed later, then we'll bring it up, vote on it, and change it if necessary.
3. Type Interaction: on card vs. chart: I'm for having a simple chart here where each type has a strength and a weakness. Strength adds one automatic shield when defending and weakness adds an automatic skull when being attacked, for example. Here's why I say chart. We want these figures to be compatible with standard Heroscape first and compatible with optional rules second. Putting an ability on the card with no bearing on the standard game would be bad form, but symbols are easy to ignore.
4. Type symbols on bottom of card: Good idea, works for me. If we put strength/weakness on the bottom, it would obviate the need for a chart. We could just have a rule in pokemon-specific scape that says you get a bonus against your strength and your weakness gets a bonus against you.
I don't thing a type chart at the bottom of the card is going to work. That's just to much to try to put on a card. Symbols, yes, which, btw, I have already and will post later on today. I am still in favor of having a single entry at the bottom of the card dealing with Pokemon-specific info, "...strong against x, y, z type Pokemon...," but we'll work that out as well.
5. Moves: I disagree with only using iconic moves for the pokemon. Yes, for the more recognizable stuff, go for it (I like the Pikachu with Thundershock and Agility), but using more obscure moves is what gives us the leeway to make different evolutionary forms of the same pokemon feel different. Don't feel constrained to use only the optimum moves from the video game.
I disagree with you there, and agree at the same time. The first set needs to have iconic powers, IMHO. Let later sets and "reissued" Pokemon have variations. Do you remember the feeling of dread you had when you found out the SOTM was going to have Sgt. and Raelin again, but then saw they were completely different and better cards? Same thing.
6. STAB: Unnecessary. A pokemon's moves will be set on its card, so STAB will be abstracted into the attack as written. A Charmander with Ember doesn't get an extra bonus to the attack. That bonus is already taken into consideration when assigning a strength to the attack in the first place.
You're right. STAB is unnecessary. For those of you who do not know what STAB is...

Same-type attack bonus, commonly abbreviated as STAB, is a 50% boost to the power of an attack when the attack is the same type as one of the types of the Pokémon using the attack. This results in a 50% increase in damage.
Example of attack bonus
A Blastoise using Surf increases the power of the move by 50%, from 95 to 142, since both Blastoise and Surf are Water-type. However, a Blastoise using Ice Beam does not receive an increase in special attack power of the move, since Blastoise is not an Ice-type Pokémon.
A Lapras, on the other hand, would receive the same-type attack bonus when using either Surf or Ice Beam, since Lapras is both Water-type and Ice-type.

7. Gender: Of course we'll put it on cards like Nidoran Male/Female, but I don't think it needs to be on every card. Gender-specific moves are something we'll probably need to cut for simplicity's sake.
I think is going to be necessary in later sets because of the gender-specific powers that exist. Therefore, have gender now and prevent hassle later.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this thing get off the ground.
Once we approve the design standards, we'll need to vote on the list of pokemon for the Master Set. Exciting stuff.
And I agree, this is exciting stuff. I am glad things are moving full-steam ahead. :)
1. Location Under Name: Excellent idea. This gives us leeway for squads as well, as in Kanto we can make a Pidgey, then in Johto a more different Pidgey or even Pidgey flock.
I don't think that regions are neccesary. What rule/design convention is stopping us from making two different cards with the same name? Just look at Drake and Raerae.
You just made my arguement for me. Drake and Raelin do have seperate cards, different sculpts and different powers, but at the same time have the same powers as well, just... updated. Adding regions also help differentiate sets from one another, so I say they need to be there.
2. Common/Uncommon/Unique: I'm thinking very few (if any) pokemon should be common heroes. We want them all to be at least 2 health, able to activate glyphs, etc. I also agree that legendaries and starting pokemon should be unique, but not much else.
Personally, I think that only unique pokemon (legendaries and things like Ash's xxx, should we decide to do them) should be unique. True you only get one starter per game, but they're still breedable and there's always trainers running around with them (sometimes in multiples).
First, on the common Pokemon issue, I think that we have to have Common Pokemon. Pidgey, Rattata, Caterpie, Weedle, Tentacool and Magikarp are all over the place in the game, and I don't see them having more than 1 Life. And I know some of you are pushing for squads, but I just cannot see that. Pokemon battles are one-on-one, not multiple-on-one. I think squads would cheapen the feel of Pokescape, and I don't want to see that happen. Lastly, reread the glyph section of any rulebook and you see that Common figures can activate glyphs, provided that the glyph allows for it.
Second, I disagree that certain Pokemon should not be unique. Again, I point you to the Charizard example. While it would be great to have a whole army of Charizards go pummel your enemy into fiery dust, I think that too would cheapen the feel of what we are trying to do here. The Legendary Pokemon no doubt have to be Unique, but I strong feel that there are going to be other final stage Pokemon that are going to have to be Unique as well. We'll get to that later in the actual designing of cards, but that's my :2cents: on it.

Finally, thank you all for being so vocal and active on this. I am beyond pleased with the progress so far and could be happier with the level of participation. Let's get these last few things hammered out and start making cards. :D

[wulfhunter667]

Strength/Weakness - since we will have our own template we're not locked into symbols at the bottom of the text area. Looking at a classic Scape card, the Move-Range-Attack-Defense boxes can be reduced in size allowing for something like this:
:cheer:+1A
:zombie:-1D
Of course, replacing the cheerleader and zombie with actual types. These can be ignored for use in Classic Scape but available for our Pokemon-specific rules and campaigns.
There's only two things I see wrong with this.
1) We can't get the zombie to move on the printed card. :razz:
2) More seriously, if you have one weakness and one strength, you miss half of the purpose behind type compatibility. A single entry at the bottom of the card referencing Pokescape-specific types should serve perfectly fine.
Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.
After we set the final Master Set Pokemon list later tonight, we'll talk about playable trainers and an idea I have for Trainer "glyphs." We'll get there, rest assured. ;)

[wulfhunter667]

Also, I referenced symbols a couple of times in the last two posts. I found this excellent graphic to represent the various type symbols based on the CCG.


http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/340/6/9/Pokemon_Type_Symbols_by_falke2009.png

What do you guys think of using these symbols as the standard?

[Xn F M]

STAB - Thanks for the explanation. But is this necessary? Wouldn't the majority of abilities on the cards be of the same type as the Pokemon? Let's just write Charmander's Ember to reflect that a fire type is using a fire type attack. If we put Ember on Magikarp, first, we should all be locked up, second, Magikarp's Ember would not be as powerful.

Yes and no. I can think of two good examples off-hand.

1) Dragonair/Dragonite often have Thunderbolt. Compared to say Ampharos (an electric pokemon of roughly comparable power) the dragon's Thunderbolt should/would not do as much damage as the Ampharos's. Hitmonchan and Nidoking/Queen also often have off-type attacks.

2) Most normal attacks and certain other attacks (like Bite/Crunch) are often on pokemon that do have a corresponding type. Sometimes these attacks (like Bite especially) are "signature" attacks.

If we were to include STAB it would be in the background and not explicitly spelled out on the cards. Assuming that a figure's normal attack value would represent a Normal type attack, it would also help to make Normal type pokemon more playable in a field that's sure to be dominated by special attackers.

[Carakki]

Thanks, Xn. I knew the effect, I just didn't know the name.

Card template - first, let's open this up to anyone in the group who has an idea on design, look at all submissions and vote.
I like this idea. I'm working on different deigns.

Common/Uncommon/Unique - Save Unique for the true one-of-a-kind Pokemon like Lugia, Suicine, Zapdos, etc (I think there were only one of each of those, right). Eventually, we might want to explore making "Ash's Pikachu" or "Brock's Onyx" - don't know if we ever would, but these would be Uniques. Other than that, I think it will depend on the specific Pokemon we're working on. Ratata, eh, probably Common. Pikachu, probably Uncommon, IMO.
This sounds good, too. I'm sorry to all those with lvl.100 Ratattas out there, but (as I've said) the common Ratatta is just that - Common.

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.
Yes, yes, yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Master Sets and Waves - Yes! This helps us set goals and reach milestones. It's so much easier to stay involved and focused when you have clear a clear picture of where you are going.
Agreed.

[fiddlerjones]

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.

I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

I'm getting off on a tangent, as this isn't what's currently being voted on, but I just don't feel like trainers as figures makes sense.

[wulfhunter667]

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.

I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

I'm getting off on a tangent, as this isn't what's currently being voted on, but I just don't feel like trainers as figures makes sense.
Not really a tangent, is part of what we are workingon, just not being voted on today.
As far as trainers go, I mentioned an idea for "gylph" trainers. What we could do is have "unseen" draftable trainers that you have to draft, have special abilities, but no figures represented on the battlefield. They would have to be Pokescape-specific though. This idea would not work in classic HS. But then, who's going to want to have a non-combat trainer on the battlefield with classic HS figures anyway?

[Xn F M]

Also, I referenced symbols a couple of times in the last two posts. I found this excellent graphic to represent the various type symbols based on the CCG.


http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/340/6/9/Pokemon_Type_Symbols_by_falke2009.png

What do you guys think of using these symbols as the standard?


While those sybols look great, I think plain text would be easier to understand. Simply stating

Normal and Flying type: attacks and special attacks of xxx, yyy, and zzz types roll one additional attack die against ~this~. ~This~ rolls one additional defense die against aaa, bbb, and ccc type attacks.

It's clean, and it takes the work of knowing/referencing the type chart away from the players. I think we can spare two sentences and a title line on each card.

What we could do is have "unseen" draftable trainers that you have to draft, have special abilities, but no figures represented on the battlefield. They would have to be Pokescape-specific though

If we do trainers this is how I want to do them

[Carakki]

Also, I referenced symbols a couple of times in the last two posts. I found this excellent graphic to represent the various type symbols based on the CCG.


http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/340/6/9/Pokemon_Type_Symbols_by_falke2009.png

What do you guys think of using these symbols as the standard?
Those are cool, if a bit newfangled. I'm fine with using them.

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.

I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

I'm getting off on a tangent, as this isn't what's currently being voted on, but I just don't feel like trainers as figures makes sense.
This seems to have to do with the 'scape' in 'Pokescape.' In Pokemon games, Pokemon battle for sport - hence, Trainers have nothing to do with it. In Valhalla, the battle is a war, with real fighting - not scores and win/loss records. Hence, Trainers are actually on the battlefield, commanding their trained Pokemon. When a Trainer goes down, then the Pokemon don't become mindless - in terms of gameplay, they're still Heroes (unique, common, or uncommon) that can have Order Markers placed on them - you just lose the flexibility and support provided by the Trainer.

[mac122]

Strength/Weakness - since we will have our own template we're not locked into symbols at the bottom of the text area. Looking at a classic Scape card, the Move-Range-Attack-Defense boxes can be reduced in size allowing for something like this:
:cheer:+1A
:zombie:-1D
Of course, replacing the cheerleader and zombie with actual types. These can be ignored for use in Classic Scape but available for our Pokemon-specific rules and campaigns.
There's only two things I see wrong with this.
1) We can't get the zombie to move on the printed card. :razz: It's simple, just use a lenticular images. I'm sure that wouldn't cost too much!:D
2) More seriously, if you have one weakness and one strength, you miss half of the purpose behind type compatibility. A single entry at the bottom of the card referencing Pokescape-specific types should serve perfectly fine.
I don't think it would have to be limited to 2. I'd like to see an example of your single entry - when we get to that point. The broader point, though is that we shouldn't be completely bound to the style of classic Scape Cards.
Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.
After we set the final Master Set Pokemon list later tonight, we'll talk about playable trainers and an idea I have for Trainer "glyphs." We'll get there, rest assured. ;)
That's why I said eventually. We've got bigger fish to fry first.

The symbols are fine with me.

Fiddler
I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.
I'll go along with whatever the majority votes on this.
I'll admit, this is greatly influenced by the cartoon show, where trainers were regularly in danger from the actions of Pokemon. Yes, we're basing this mostly on the video games, but I don't see anything wrong with using other Pokemon franchises to add some flavor.
To me, it adds another layer of strategy and tactics if the Trainers are on the field, especially when mixing with classic. Unseen Trainers in Classic Scape will be an awful lot like equipment cards used on some customs, which personally, I'm not too fond of.
The Pokemon wouldn't become mindless if the trainer is knocked out, they would just lose the boost the trainer provides.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.
Annoying especially when it works for your 6-year old playing against you.:roll: But, again it's strategy and tactics. Don't want to be Mindshackled, do everything you can to keep Ne-Gok-Sa away. Don't want your Pokemon caught, try to knock out the trainer before he has a chance to throw a Pokeball.

[Xn F M]

Strength/Weakness - since we will have our own template we're not locked into symbols at the bottom of the text area. Looking at a classic Scape card, the Move-Range-Attack-Defense boxes can be reduced in size allowing for something like this:
:cheer:+1A
:zombie:-1D
Of course, replacing the cheerleader and zombie with actual types. These can be ignored for use in Classic Scape but available for our Pokemon-specific rules and campaigns.
There's only two things I see wrong with this.
1) We can't get the zombie to move on the printed card. :razz: It's simple, just use a lenticular images. I'm sure that wouldn't cost too much!:D
2) More seriously, if you have one weakness and one strength, you miss half of the purpose behind type compatibility. A single entry at the bottom of the card referencing Pokescape-specific types should serve perfectly fine.
I don't think it would have to be limited to 2. I'd like to see an example of your single entry - when we get to that point. The broader point, though is that we shouldn't be completely bound to the style of classic Scape Cards.
Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.
After we set the final Master Set Pokemon list later tonight, we'll talk about playable trainers and an idea I have for Trainer "glyphs." We'll get there, rest assured. ;)
That's why I said eventually. We've got bigger fish Magicarp to fry first.

Fixed. ;)

[minimoose38]

I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.

As for what should be included in master sets, I think that besides the starters lines we should keep the rest to things that only have 2 forms in its evolutionary line. Having the 1st and 2nd stages but not the 3rd forms of the evolutionary line seems really lame to me. Having Abra and Kadabra for example in the 'master set' and Alakazam in a later set, for "anticipation" seems lame to me. While that does seem like something Wizards of the Coast would do if they were actually producing this, it seems to be completely unnecessary for us to do. I think anytime a Pokemon is 'released' by us all of its forms (at least that ones in the current generation we are working on) should come with it. This would mean switching Pidgey/Pidgeotto for probably Spearow/Fearow, in the master set, and then Abra/Kadabra for maybe Drowzee/Hypno.

Also, is the goal of this project to make a card for every single Pokemon? Or just chosen 'highlights' representing each generation? Making 493 customs or even 151 seems like an exhaustive undertaking and I fear at some point interest would dwindle or cards would start looking too similar.

[fiddlerjones]

One thing we haven't addressed but I think we need to:

When it comes to designing and playtesting cards, we should have a set deadline for each. Like, say when it's your turn to design, you need to have your design in by the following Sunday. Then, voting lasts until the next Sunday or until it gets >50% (or whatever) of the vote. Do a similar thing for playtesting. WE need a little bit of structure here or down the road we'll end up with procrastination and dwindling interest.

[mac122]

One thing we haven't addressed but I think we need to:

When it comes to designing and playtesting cards, we should have a set deadline for each. Like, say when it's your turn to design, you need to have your design in by the following Sunday. Then, voting lasts until the next Sunday or until it gets >50% (or whatever) of the vote. Do a similar thing for playtesting. WE need a little bit of structure here or down the road we'll end up with procrastination and dwindling interest.

There definitely will be a framework for the process. It needs to be flexible enough to allow for extra discussion and revisions for some of the more complex cards we'll be creating. For most cards, I think your week time frame should be sufficient to get the rough draft out to the group and have time to discuss and revise. Playtesting, for me at least, will be the trickier part to get done in a week's time. I'm usually monitoring the threads while I'm doing something else. Getting time to actually play Scape has been the real trick lately.:(

[wulfhunter667]

This seems to have to do with the 'scape' in 'Pokescape.' In Pokemon games, Pokemon battle for sport - hence, Trainers have nothing to do with it. In Valhalla, the battle is a war, with real fighting - not scores and win/loss records. Hence, Trainers are actually on the battlefield, commanding their trained Pokemon. When a Trainer goes down, then the Pokemon don't become mindless - in terms of gameplay, they're still Heroes (unique, common, or uncommon) that can have Order Markers placed on them - you just lose the flexibility and support provided by the Trainer.
This is why I would like to see both types of trainers, figures with cards and the 'glyph' type I mentioned before. The difference? Figure with card trainers should be the iconic trainers, your Ash, Misty, Jesse and James. The "glyph" type trainers would be more generic, your Bug Catchers, Blackbelts and Fishermen. The "glyph" type ovbiously have to be Pokescape-specific, the figures with cards do not.

Annoying especially when it works for your 6-year old playing against you. But, again it's strategy and tactics. Don't want to be Mindshackled, do everything you can to keep Ne-Gok-Sa away. Don't want your Pokemon caught, try to knock out the trainer before he has a chance to throw a Pokeball.
I am COMPLETELY against anything even close to this. You cannot steal other trainer's Pokemon in the gae, you should not be able to steal them in Pokescape. That's not to say we shouldn't have scenarios where you face an army of Pokemon without a trainer. In fact, in the idea I have for the first campaign, there is a "trainer vs. trainer" scenario followed by a "trainer vs wild Pokemon" scenario, and then so on and so forth Perhaps the winner in the "trainer vs. trainer" game gets to be the trainer in the "trainer vs. wild Pokemon" game, you know?
I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.
The current thinking on this is having both types represented on the card coloring. The general concensus so far also includes the symbols at the bottom as well. Overkill, I know, but visually, I think it will add the the feel and flavour of Pokescape as a whole.
As for what should be included in master sets, I think that besides the starters lines we should keep the rest to things that only have 2 forms in its evolutionary line. Having the 1st and 2nd stages but not the 3rd forms of the evolutionary line seems really lame to me. Having Abra and Kadabra for example in the 'master set' and Alakazam in a later set, for "anticipation" seems lame to me. While that does seem like something Wizards of the Coast would do if they were actually producing this, it seems to be completely unnecessary for us to do. I think anytime a Pokemon is 'released' by us all of its forms (at least that ones in the current generation we are working on) should come with it. This would mean switching Pidgey/Pidgeotto for probably Spearow/Fearow, in the master set, and then Abra/Kadabra for maybe Drowzee/Hypno.
I have to disagree with you here. I specifically did this for that very reason. Yes, I realize it is a WOTC trick, and a dirty one at that, but consider for a moment that we are planning to have them all get carded eventually anyway and I think it would be better to have something to look forward to in future waves.
Also, is the goal of this project to make a card for every single Pokemon? Or just chosen 'highlights' representing each generation? Making 493 customs or even 151 seems like an exhaustive undertaking and I fear at some point interest would dwindle or cards would start looking too similar.
I have the drive and determination to complete all 493 cards, plus Trainer cards, glyphs, rulesset and scenarios. That is what it means to be a Trainer here. It's what seperates the men from the boys. That is also the reason for breaking the Pokemon created into sets and waves. After each set or wave gets completed, there will be some downtime before the next one starts to unwind a bit and hash out what's next. I am not afraid of the task ahead of us, and I don't want you to be either. Just remember, right now, there are 13 other guys out there ready willing and able to lend a hand, a suggestion and a helpful comment to anything and everything we do. I am inspired by this and it can be done.
One thing we haven't addressed but I think we need to:
When it comes to designing and playtesting cards, we should have a set deadline for each. Like, say when it's your turn to design, you need to have your design in by the following Sunday. Then, voting lasts until the next Sunday or until it gets >50% (or whatever) of the vote. Do a similar thing for playtesting. WE need a little bit of structure here or down the road we'll end up with procrastination and dwindling interest.
I completely agree with this. There needs to be a timeframe for the completion and playtesting of cards. One week apiece sounds good to me.
Insofar as playtesting is concerned, it can be done in a week. That does not mean it will pass, just that it can be done in a week. Even if you have to Soloscape to get it done, you just get it done and move on. I am not opposed to taking a night out of my week to sit down and Soloscape if need be, and I hope the rest of you will be willing and able to as well.
This project will end up being whatever you put into it. Try to remember that when 493 Pokemon or one week to playtest seems daunting. It can be done, you just have to have faith. ;)

[mac122]

Annoying especially when it works for your 6-year old playing against you. But, again it's strategy and tactics. Don't want to be Mindshackled, do everything you can to keep Ne-Gok-Sa away. Don't want your Pokemon caught, try to knock out the trainer before he has a chance to throw a Pokeball.
I am COMPLETELY against anything even close to this. You cannot steal other trainer's Pokemon in the gae, you should not be able to steal them in Pokescape. That's not to say we shouldn't have scenarios where you face an army of Pokemon without a trainer. In fact, in the idea I have for the first campaign, there is a "trainer vs. trainer" scenario followed by a "trainer vs wild Pokemon" scenario, and then so on and so forth Perhaps the winner in the "trainer vs. trainer" game gets to be the trainer in the "trainer vs. wild Pokemon" game, you know?

OK. No offense intended. Just suggesting Scape abilities that can be used in Pokemon.

Video games only then for inspiration? No TV show references? No Team Rocket stealing Pokemon? Just want to be clear.

[Xn F M]

I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.

The current thinking on this is having both types represented on the card coloring. The general concensus so far also includes the symbols at the bottom as well. Overkill, I know, but visually, I think it will add the the feel and flavour of Pokescape as a whole.

I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel like we really need to have text on the cards stating a pokemon's weaknesses and resistances. If we go with symbols it would require looking things up and referencing materials not on the cards. While that's not a huge issue, when it comes to pokemon with multiple types and abilities that give them extra immunities (Ghastly/Haunter/Gengar or Bronzor/Bronzong) things get messy.

The symbols are nice and I'd really like to include them on the cards but without associated rules to help keep things simple.

[wulfhunter667]

Annoying especially when it works for your 6-year old playing against you. But, again it's strategy and tactics. Don't want to be Mindshackled, do everything you can to keep Ne-Gok-Sa away. Don't want your Pokemon caught, try to knock out the trainer before he has a chance to throw a Pokeball.
I am COMPLETELY against anything even close to this. You cannot steal other trainer's Pokemon in the gae, you should not be able to steal them in Pokescape. That's not to say we shouldn't have scenarios where you face an army of Pokemon without a trainer. In fact, in the idea I have for the first campaign, there is a "trainer vs. trainer" scenario followed by a "trainer vs wild Pokemon" scenario, and then so on and so forth Perhaps the winner in the "trainer vs. trainer" game gets to be the trainer in the "trainer vs. wild Pokemon" game, you know?

OK. No offense intended. Just suggesting Scape abilities that can be used in Pokemon.

Video games only then for inspiration? No TV show references? No Team Rocket stealing Pokemon? Just want to be clear.
Unless there is an overwhelming desire from the community to allow "stealing" other's Pokemon, then no. Don't misunderstand me here, I am all for using ANY Pokemon reference material (video game, anime series, CCG, etc.) that is available, but I don't think that stealing other's cards is fair. That's not to say I am opposed to having Pokemon with powers that allow them to take control of other Pokemon, but rather to say that I don't think other Trainers should have that ability.
I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.

The current thinking on this is having both types represented on the card coloring. The general concensus so far also includes the symbols at the bottom as well. Overkill, I know, but visually, I think it will add the the feel and flavour of Pokescape as a whole.

I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel like we really need to have text on the cards stating a pokemon's weaknesses and resistances. If we go with symbols it would require looking things up and referencing materials not on the cards. While that's not a huge issue, when it comes to pokemon with multiple types and abilities that give them extra immunities (Ghastly/Haunter/Gengar or Bronzor/Bronzong) things get messy.

The symbols are nice and I'd really like to include them on the cards but without associated rules to help keep things simple.
This should answer your question...

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/PIKACHU.jpg

This is the current incarnation of my Pikachu mock-up with all the ideas I presented here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061450&postcount=123). What do you guys like and dislike about it thus far?

BTW, I realize that "Kanto" is in white when it should be same as rest of text. Is a quirk of the program I use to make cards. Will fix it when it comes time for making cards.
Oh yeah, and I didn't add a Pokemon Ability yet, because there has been no yay or nay on it so far. If I were to add it it would look like...
STATIC
When this Pikachu is targeted for an attack by an adjacent figure, roll a 20-sided die. If you roll 14 or higher, that figure is Paralyzed. Paralyzed figures turn their cards one side to the right and must roll 10 or higher on a 20-sided die to act during their turn.
As a point of reference, Paralyzed would look like this...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/PIKACHUParalyzed.jpg

Sound interesting?

[fiddlerjones]

I still disagree with adding text stating strengths/weaknesses for two reasons:

1. It takes up space that can be used for more interesting abilities.

2. It's complicated to add a simple +/- 1 attack or something. Yes, it's an additional rule, but it is NOT text that must be ignored in standard Heroscape. I think the latter would be far more detrimental to the cards.


The problem I have with Trainer figures remains. I appreciate the "war" analogy of classic 'Scape, but Trainers seem to fit Poke-specific Heroscape anyway. The thing that breaks the analogy though, is that Trainers are normal people. They would logically be incredibly weak in-game. Even hardened paratroopers or well-trained soldiers only have 1 life. Why should some kid have more. In Heroscape, you take on the roll of a commander or general of some type. In Pokescape, you take on the roll of a Trainer. As such, I think Trainer cards make more sense than figures.

That's neither here nor there, though. The time will come to decide that.

[Warlord Alpha]

Pretty long post, put in spoilers for convenience.




Design: I say we get one person (me?) to just come up with a concept and stats, present it to the group, and then everything done from there is group-based.
I wasn't going to say anything, but the truth is, I'm going to come up with all of the cards and you guys can just comment on them and that's the way it's going to be.

See how bad that statement sucks. I have no intention of letting one person, not me, or anyone else for that matter, run this show. We are all in this together, and, although one person will come up with the first draft, the rest of us WILL have a say in the finished product. That is why this thread is a community-based project and not my personal thread.


Design: I say we get one person (me?) to just come up with a concept and stats, present it to the group, and then everything done from there is group-based.

Sorry for the double-post, but I felt like this needs to be addressed. My response depends on how you mean it. If you mean that we have Person A design Pikachu, then everyone comments on Pikachu, vote, playtest, then Person B designs Charmander and so on, then yes, I think that's the way to do it.


Yes, that. That idea has kind of grown on me. As Wulf sort of said before, it's like one person does the FIRST DRAFT of a card, just to provide a general direction for the card to move in, and then from there it is 100% group based.

__________________________________________________________



2) The type chart is a good idea. :gb: himself stated not too long ago that special attacks can be modified by abilities on cards. So if we accept that the attack value on a card represents its "Normal" attack (ie cut, slash, tackle whatever) we can apply that across all herocape. That would give Ghost types an interesting, thematic interaction with classic scape. Though I will freely admit the more powerful ghosts would cause problems. though it would allow us to modify special attacks based on pokemon type, and give even basic pokemon a role in classic scape (as special attackers if nothing else). --This really is two points rolled into one. But the way I see things they are inseparable.


Yeah, that is what I was thinking. The base attack value is like the "normal" attack like scratch or tackle, and then any powers are special attacks/abilities. A ghost type Pokemon's card could read "Ghost type: a ghost may only recieve wounds from a special attack or special ability."



3) If we include the type chart we shouldn't bother with x4 effective or x.25 effective abilities. Either you're weak and the attack gets +1A die or you're resistant and you get +1D. Period. That would slightly decrease the metagame aspect of a purely pokemon game, but it makes things easier and more Scapey.


Agreed 100%. x1/2 or x2 is a calculation easily done in one's head. While I can easily do x1/4 or x4, some people probably can't. It's just faster and easier to limit it to 1/2 and 2.


4) Attacks worthy of "Special Attack" status should be standardized. Example: Ember on a non-fire pokemon might have 2A dice, on every non-fire pokemon it appears on.


Nah, they should vary depending on the pokemon. Metagross' Psychic attack will do a lot less damage than Alakazam's Psychic attack. Why not reflect this difference in PokeScape?



6) Trainers. I don't like trainers in a classic-scape format. I think we should design two or three sets of pokemon and then have everyone do trainers for a pokemon-only style game. If we did do this we would have to take the trainers into account for every playtest we did. Because the trainters would imballance certain pokemon.


Trainers should be worried about later on. I would rather do trainers later and say "Ok, we are going to have to limit the idea of Trainers because they are breaking the game" rather than doing trainers now and saying "Ok, this Pokemon's abilities, while really cool and thematic, are breaking the way Trainers work, so we are going to have to change this Pokemon."

I say we pretend that the idea of Trainers doesn't even exist right now.

__________________________________________________________

3. Most Pokemon will be (un)common heroes. Fully evolved forms will likely be unique. A few might make sense as squads. This is up to the designer's discretion and will of course be subject to a vote before it enters playtesting.

Why shouldn't you have two Charizards if you have the points? Or better yet to Tangellas? All non-unique pokemon should be common/uncommon heroes. And only the weakest of the weak (ie Unown) should be common.

6. Types: I know a lot of purists will hate this, but I suggest going with one type per pokemon. This will simplify the card templating and keep the optional Pokemon-specific rules from getting bogged down.

Personally I like adding a like similar to this at the end bottom of each pokemon's abilities:

Fire and Fighting Type Attacks and Special Attacks of these types; Water, Ground, Flying, and Psychic roll one addition attack die against ~this~. ~This~ rols one additional defense die against; Fire, Grass, Ice, Bug, and Dark attacks.

All we have to do (assuming my proposal that normal attacks are "Normal" attacks) is add a type descriptor do special attacks (and give some pokemon an ability that gives the type descriptor to their normal attacks).


I say that starters and legendaries should be unique. That's it.

___________________________________________________________



Below the name, in the General slot, I think we should put a Region name, ie, Kanto, Johto, etc. This idea is twofold. It allows you to distinguish the Master Set and first few waves from the Second Master set and its waves. It also allows for more than one card to be made for Pokemon we really want to have more than one card for and that are considered common for the region. As an example, we have the Pidgey card from Kanto, then when we move on to the next set, we make a new Pidgey card from Johto, follow me?


Meh, I don't like the idea of making several of the same Pokemon. The only pokemon we could do that for are pokemon that are known for having a vary wide array of movesets, and even then I would be hesitant. Besides, what makes a Johto pidgey different from a Kanto pidgey? Does one learn better moves or something?

And I don't see why we need a region name on the card. All it would do is take up space. MAYBE we could put it at the bottom or on the side somewhere, but really it serves no purpose if we aren't going to do duplicates.



In the Race box, we should spell out the type, Grass, Bug, Normal/Flying, etc.


That could work.



In the Hero box, we should designate the Pokemon's Hero status by rarity from the video game. Common Pokemon are obviously Common Heroes, Rare Pokemon are Uncommon Heroes. Legendary and Unique Pokemon are Unique Pokemon. There is a little leeway here too. I think the starter Pokemon should be Unique, for two reasons. One, you only get one to use the entire game, and two, I REALLY don't think it would be fair to field an army of Charizards. Let's leave the power gaming to the other threads.


Yeah, this works. We'll probably only see either Uncommon Hero or Unique Hero, though.



In the Class box, we should put the Pokemon's species, ie, Pikachu is a Mouse Pokemon.


Maybe.



In the Personality box, we should try to find something in the Pokedex entries or volumes of text written on these guys to give them a Personality that actually matches them, not just pick one out of a hat. And if worse come to worse, we could always base Personality on the moves represented on the card.






In the Size box, the vast majority of Pokemon are going to be Tiny, and the number value is easy enough to determine, 1 size level for each foot the Pokemon is listed as having. The only problem I see is that Onix is listed as being 28 feet long. We could half that I guess. I dunno. We'll talk about that one later.


We can worry about this on a pokemon-by-pokemon basis. But this one definitely has to say size for game-mechanics reasons.



For moves/special powers, I suggest we use two iconic abilities, be they attacks or buffs. For instance, in the mock-up Pikachu card on the second post, I gave him Thundershock and Agility. But I also think there is room to have a third iconic move hidden in the stats. What I mean by that is that if the Pokemon has three iconic abilities and we cannot decide which ones to use, we can always drop one and bump a stat here or there to represent it.I think Pokemon abilities should have a place on there as well. Bulbasaur with Overgrow adds 1 attack dice with 3 wound markers on his army card, etc.


Or we could have three.


This is where the gender comes in. There are gender-specific move and abilities that only work against one or the other, or have different effects against one or the other. It's worth looking into.


No, it isn't It over complicates thing and is completely unnecessary. And what are we going to do? Make a male and female version of every single card? Is a female card going to be worth more if there is a larger amount of moves that disadvantage males?

It just doesn't make sense to include a detail like that. MAYBE one Pokemon out of 493 is commonly associated with moves like Attract, but that Pokemon can definitely learn other moves.



Lastly, I would like to have type symbols at the bottom of the card. Two reasons for this also. First, I think it would give the card a Pokemon feel to it to have the type symbol visually displayed. Second, it allows for special powers like Flying and Slither, which everyone know that Flying and Water types respectively would automatically have, to not have to be written out. That does not mean each type gets a special power to go along with it, but instead allows for common sense things to not have to be spelled out, wasting space on the card.


I agree 100% that type symbols should be displayed somewhere, but the issue is where do we put it on the card, and how do we display dual types? Do we do half of one symbol next to half of another symbol (very easy to photoshop, might look pretty cool), or do we do one whole symbol next to another? And do we put it where the general logo currently is, or do we put it at the bottom of the card, or somewhere else?




___________________________________________________________


I'm not a part of this project, but this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061498&postcount=167)intriqued me.

This makes me think that you should do it in sets like the C3G originally did. That gives the common goal feeling that Velene was talkng about and should also spur interest in the project. That would also give you something to show on the front page every so often.

Yeah, we definitely need to do like pre-planned releases, like how we plan to do like this Kanto Master Set.

[mac122]

I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.

The current thinking on this is having both types represented on the card coloring. The general concensus so far also includes the symbols at the bottom as well. Overkill, I know, but visually, I think it will add the the feel and flavour of Pokescape as a whole.

I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel like we really need to have text on the cards stating a pokemon's weaknesses and resistances. If we go with symbols it would require looking things up and referencing materials not on the cards. While that's not a huge issue, when it comes to pokemon with multiple types and abilities that give them extra immunities (Ghastly/Haunter/Gengar or Bronzor/Bronzong) things get messy.

The symbols are nice and I'd really like to include them on the cards but without associated rules to help keep things simple.
The big question I have is this: are we going to reference the symbols in special attacks and abilities? Hope not. If so, this will limit playability with classic scape. Imagine Squirtles Water Gun - Squirtle rolls 2 additional attack dice against figures with the Fire symbol (or against Fire Type Pokemon or against Fire type figures...how do you word this so it's not a waste of ink in classic?). I agree with Xn, there needs to be something on the card that spells out the weakness and strengths as they relate to normal attack and defense. I still think it could be something simple like the zombie and the cheerleader example I made earlier. Carve out some space on the template for a list

Against:
(symbol) +1 attack (or +1A)
(symbol) +1 defense (+1D)
(symbol) -2A

Plus, it's still Heroscape at the core. We don't have to represent every little facet and nuance of every Pokemon. KISS - Keep It Simple Superfriends

Edit:
On the issue of Trainers. First, I agree with Pokemon first, Trainers later. Down the road, when we get to the point where we want to introduce trainers, I still see no reason that we could not create both types, playable figs and unseen generals. Different campaigns and scenarios will lend themselves to having one style or another. The catching wild Pokemon at the beginning of a campaign, as Wulf suggested, will certainly require a figure to move around the map to catch critters to use later. Picture trainer vs. trainer matches with multiple players. Trainer wanders around, gets challenged and tosses a Pokeball to release a pokemon. Most pokemon in the video games didn't wander about, they travelled in the pokeballs carried by the trainer.
On the other hand, Coliseum and Gym matches wouldn't have the movement around territory component and wouldn't necessarily need a figure.

[Warlord Alpha]

In Heroscape, you take on the roll of a commander or general of some type. In Pokescape, you take on the roll of a Trainer. As such, I think Trainer cards make more sense than figures.


Well, is there a GENERAL consensus that Trainers would be unique to PokeScape and not usable with regular Heroscape/PokeScape mixed? Because if so, think about it. When have you EVER seen the Trainer get attacked? Sure, wild pokemon, maybe. But in like an arena battle or tournament and such, the trainer never, ever gets attacked.

So, if the trainer can't ever really be attacked, why bother making a figure for it? A trainer card would work just fine.

[wulfhunter667]

I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.

The current thinking on this is having both types represented on the card coloring. The general concensus so far also includes the symbols at the bottom as well. Overkill, I know, but visually, I think it will add the the feel and flavour of Pokescape as a whole.

I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here but I feel like we really need to have text on the cards stating a pokemon's weaknesses and resistances. If we go with symbols it would require looking things up and referencing materials not on the cards. While that's not a huge issue, when it comes to pokemon with multiple types and abilities that give them extra immunities (Ghastly/Haunter/Gengar or Bronzor/Bronzong) things get messy.

The symbols are nice and I'd really like to include them on the cards but without associated rules to help keep things simple.
The big question I have is this: are we going to reference the symbols in special attacks and abilities? Hope not. If so, this will limit playability with classic scape. Imagine Squirtles Water Gun - Squirtle rolls 2 additional attack dice against figures with the Fire symbol (or against Fire Type Pokemon or against Fire type figures...how do you word this so it's not a waste of ink in classic?). I agree with Xn, there needs to be something on the card that spells out the weakness and strengths as they relate to normal attack and defense. I still think it could be something simple like the zombie and the cheerleader example I made earlier. Carve out some space on the template for a list

Against:
(symbol) +1 attack (or +1A)
(symbol) +1 defense (+1D)
(symbol) -2A

Plus, it's still Heroscape at the core. We don't have to represent every little facet and nuance of every Pokemon. KISS - Keep It Simple Superfriends
This is the exact reason for the "Pokedex" entry at the bottom of the card. It keeps type compatibility on the card while making it Pokescape-specific, IMHO.
Oh, and BTW, "strong against" wil refer to +1 defense die, "weak against" will refer to +1 attack die, and "takes no damage from" is the form immune will take. With the "type Pokemon" portion of the line, I don't think it can be misinterpreted the meaning of it.

[wulfhunter667]

In Heroscape, you take on the roll of a commander or general of some type. In Pokescape, you take on the roll of a Trainer. As such, I think Trainer cards make more sense than figures.


Well, is there a GENERAL consensus that Trainers would be unique to PokeScape and not usable with regular Heroscape/PokeScape mixed? Because if so, think about it. When have you EVER seen the Trainer get attacked? Sure, wild pokemon, maybe. But in like an arena battle or tournament and such, the trainer never, ever gets attacked.

So, if the trainer can't ever really be attacked, why bother making a figure for it? A trainer card would work just fine.
We'll call for a vote on Trainers in game or Trainers as draftable glyphs AFTER the vote tonight on the Master Set.

[fiddlerjones]

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.

[Warlord Alpha]

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.

Congratulations sir, you win the internets for today. What you have here is pretty much perfect. And because we would be listing out what it is weak and strong against, dual types are easy.

[Xn F M]

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.

Congratulations sir, you win the internets for today. What you have here is pretty much perfect. And because we would be listing out what it is weak and strong against, dual types are easy.

Can I vote yes on that ;) (As long as we make sure that we explicitly state that weaknesses do modify special attacks.)

[wulfhunter667]

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.

Congratulations sir, you win the internets for today. What you have here is pretty much perfect. And because we would be listing out what it is weak and strong against, dual types are easy.

Can I vote yes on that ;) (As long as we make sure that we explicitly state that weaknesses do modify special attacks.)
The only concern I have here is that diehard HSers are going to nay say Special Attacks without proper wording (trust me on this;)). The above example should read...
Ember Special Attack
Range 6. Attack 3.
Figures with Fire Vulnerability roll 1 less defense dice, to a minimum of 1 defense die, when _____ attacks with his Ember Special Attack. This attack is Fire-based in nature.
Why the weirdish wording? Again, it is more HS-like and it allows for interaction with several "unofficial" figures. That way, we cover all bases, not just Pokescape.

[mac122]

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.
"Fire" under Ember Special Attack - symbol or spelled out? Symbol makes easy connection to symbols with Strong & Weak.

Earlier we talked about the normal attack stat on the Pokemon reflecting all-purpose type attacks like slash. If my Charmander attacks a bug that's weak to fire, will I get the +1 attack on my normal or just my Ember that has the fire symbol? Slash isn't a Fire type move. I don't think the bonus should apply. If it does, then do we need the type next to Range on the Specials?

Let me drone on with another example. Let's say our Pikachu ends up with Quick Attack Special Attack, which is not an electric attack. If Pikachu attacks a weak-to-electric water pokemon with Quick Attack, is there a bonus? IMO, there should not be.

Summing up:
Normal attacks should not have bonuses due to weakness/strength. Only Special Attacks with a type symbol should have bonuses.

[mac122]

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.

Congratulations sir, you win the internets for today. What you have here is pretty much perfect. And because we would be listing out what it is weak and strong against, dual types are easy.

Can I vote yes on that ;) (As long as we make sure that we explicitly state that weaknesses do modify special attacks.)
The only concern I have here is that diehard HSers are going to nay say Special Attacks without proper wording (trust me on this;)). The above example should read...
Ember Special Attack
Range 6. Attack 3.
Figures with Fire Vulnerability roll 1 less defense dice, to a minimum of 1 defense die, when _____ attacks with his Ember Special Attack. This attack is Fire-based in nature.
Why the weirdish wording? Again, it is more HS-like and it allows for interaction with several "unofficial" figures. That way, we cover all bases, not just Pokescape.
I don't think any of our specials should reference the type in the wording. I think it raises compatiblity issues. Let Ember be a 6-Range 3-Attack ability when used in classic Scape. Place the Fire symbol next to range. When playing pure Pokescape, the Fire symbol comes into play.


Are double posters as bad as double dippers?:confused:

[BiggaBullfrog]

Gee willikerz that's a long read. Anyway, my thoughts on what I can remember of what's been thrown around. (Thoughts put in spoilers for your mouse-clicking pleasure.)

I agree with the Pokedex entry. In Poke-scape, we just need a simple rule, as previously suggested:

If you're strong against an attack, +1 Def.
If you're weak against it, they get +1 Atk.

That's it.

At the bottom of the card, it says something like this:
(Symbols in parentheses)

Strong: (Ground), (Fire)
Weak: (Electric), (Water)

Then, each special attack has type keywords:
Example:

Ember
Special Attack
Fire. Range 6. Attack 3.
....

Simple, easy to remember, and not confusing when using Pokemon in classic Heroscape.I also like this. Keep it simple is what I think, and this accomplishes it. If we try to get any more complicated, I say we either make a chart, or don't have type advantages at all. No type advantage is easier, and charts would only be used by those who really want to get into a campaign. But, the above is my favorite idea so far.


Genders: I'm against. Too complicated, and a possible need for two kinds of every card. Some Pokemon will just have to move on without their gender-related abilities, which means it will be even more simple. Sounds good to me; infatuation hasn't really gotten me anywhere anyway ;)

Regions: I like them for determining waves, but I don't think we're really going to want to make multiples of Pokemon, unless they're unique Pokemon that belong to someone. Which brings me to...

Common Heroes: I don't see why we can't have common hero Pokemon. Some of them, no matter how high of a level, will always seem to have one life against another Pokemon of the same level. That's how it is, and it allows order marker flexibility for them. No one will want to use even one uncommon Rattata with two life and one defense; you might as well have just one life against most opponents. A one life, two defense Rattata with easy order marker management is more tempting, though.

Uniques: I don't see why we need to make the starters unique. Sure, you only get one of them in the beginning, but it can easily increase via trading and breeding. As for the army of Charizards, if they cost enough, who'll make an army of them? Unless they're overpowered, they should function just like a lot of the official Uncommons we've been getting have. Most people would only want to use one GIE or Feral Troll in their army, two in rare cases, simply because they cost so much and have their weaknesses that you need other units to cover. And if they're more powerful, they'll cost more points, but the point still stays. Who would draft two Jotuns in an army? Few people, because it'd cost too much, and they'd still fall quickly to many units. I can see us making Unique legendaries and Unique Pokemon belonging to a specific trainer, though.

Squads: I'll go with however the majority votes. I don't see anything against them, but I also don't really see anything that requires a Pokemon squad. I would like to see some kind of "horde movement" thing for some Pokemon, though. Just to keep things interesting. And to deny Trainer spamming of that idea, just make it require revealing an order marker on that Pokemon's card.

Trainers: I prefer them to being figures, just because I like the idea of seeing them running around with my Pokemon during battle. I'll go with however the majority votes, though.

That's all for now. If I missed anything I'll probably address it later.

EDIT: Also, wulfhunter, you've said we're voting on the first Master Set figures tonight. Will we have a special time to discuss just those before/during then, or are we just doing that now as well?

[Vilsara]

Sort of long post coming up (only made longer by this unneeded line)

Xn convinced me that using lower evolutions would help this project, so don't expect anymore complaining from me on that.

On the Common/Uncommon dispute, I believe that the majority of Pokemon that we'll do in the early stages will be Common. I also disagree with keeping squads out- a few people have commented that Pokemon battles are one-on-one battles, not armies, but that doesn't really roll in Heroscape, where even an army composed entirely of unique heroes is a lot of figures. Most squads will be Common, weaker Pokemon, in that case.

Starters should be uncommon- they are breedable, and there is more than one in existence per. Simple as that.

Also, I don't believe stressing over trainers will work is good for now- let's go over the general rules and start making cards before we worry about that.

I've finally conceded (in my own mind) that I like the typing rules- they're simple, and anyone with a fair knowledge of the typing in the game will be able to pick up on it pretty quickly- heck, even those without any clue of how the types interact could look at any chart, or just trust the DM :P


"Fire" under Ember Special Attack - symbol or spelled out? Symbol makes easy connection to symbols with Strong & Weak.

Earlier we talked about the normal attack stat on the Pokemon reflecting all-purpose type attacks like slash. If my Charmander attacks a bug that's weak to fire, will I get the +1 attack on my normal or just my Ember that has the fire symbol? Slash isn't a Fire type move. I don't think the bonus should apply. If it does, then do we need the type next to Range on the Specials?

Let me drone on with another example. Let's say our Pikachu ends up with Quick Attack Special Attack, which is not an electric attack. If Pikachu attacks a weak-to-electric water pokemon with Quick Attack, is there a bonus? IMO, there should not be.

Summing up:
Normal attacks should not have bonuses due to weakness/strength. Only Special Attacks with a type symbol should have bonuses.

Naturally. The symbol/wording (I vote symbol) would be specific per Special Attack. Naturally, Quick Attack wouldn't have an Electric symbol under it, so it would not be super effective against Waters and Flyings.

Speaking of Special Powers, I'd like to throw out an idea I offered in the old thread. I know it's not fully in keeping with the Pokescape theme, but it might help make Pokemon unique?

Instead of having every Special Power be an "attack," why not have one iconic SA per card and make the other (two) power(s) based on the Pokemon themselves? As in, use the biological and thematic aspects to make the powers too.

A simple example of this would be a Pidgey with Flying, which I would expect us to be doing; a less obvious one would be a Diglett/Onix with "Burrow" (similar to the Earth Elemental's Underground Movement) or Mewtwo with a power that gives it extra attack when adjacent to more than two opponent's figures etc. (though I don't know what's that's based off of- it's just an example). In the other thread, I used the example of a Kecleon with Vanish to represent his invisibility.

Comments or ideas?

[wulfhunter667]

Two very important things occur to me.
1) From the Master Game Guide of D&D, the most recent ruleset...
If your Army includes two or more of the same Common Army Card, you don't need to keep these figures seperate (that is, keep track of which figures belong to which card). For example, if you're using two cards' worth of Deepwyrm Drow figures, each order marker placed on either Army Card activates any three of them.
(BTW, I double-checked the SOTM & ROTV sets, that wording has not changed.)
THIS is the arguement for Common Pokemon and no squads rolled into one. Low cost Common Pokemon would be preferable in this situation I think, because fielding 3 Common Pokemon, Rattata for example, at 60 points would be better than a Squad of 3 for 50. You get the same stuff, sure, but it keeps the one-on-one aspect of the video game, yet works for classic Scape as well. That's just the way I see it.
2) A Special Attack with no text is not a Special Attack at all. The reason it is a Special Attack is because it has an additional game effect. Without that special game effect, it is just a normal attack and should be placed in the stat area.

[BiggaBullfrog]

2) A Special Attack with no text is not a Special Attack at all. The reason it is a Special Attack is because it has an additional game effect. Without that special game effect, it is just a normal attack and should be placed in the stat area.
There was nothing said about not including additional effects. All that was shown was a basic throwdown of how the types would work into it. By all means, Ember can still inflict a burn.

Ha! I knew I was forgetting something. So, for special conditions: I prefer setting markers on the cards to mark burn, poison, paralyze, etc. Turning cards will get too confusing, at least for me, because I tend to end up bumping cards and turning them and not fixing them. But that brings up a question: will only Unique Heroes be affected by conditions? Affecting commons and squads would be weird, as a lot of them would die from one poison wound. It's like the plague on steroids.

[wulfhunter667]

Sort of long post coming up (only made longer by this unneeded line)

Xn convinced me that using lower evolutions would help this project, so don't expect anymore complaining from me on that.

On the Common/Uncommon dispute, I believe that the majority of Pokemon that we'll do in the early stages will be Common. I also disagree with keeping squads out- a few people have commented that Pokemon battles are one-on-one battles, not armies, but that doesn't really roll in Heroscape, where even an army composed entirely of unique heroes is a lot of figures. Most squads will be Common, weaker Pokemon, in that case.

Starters should be uncommon- they are breedable, and there is more than one in existence per. Simple as that.

Also, I don't believe stressing over trainers will work is good for now- let's go over the general rules and start making cards before we worry about that.

I've finally conceded (in my own mind) that I like the typing rules- they're simple, and anyone with a fair knowledge of the typing in the game will be able to pick up on it pretty quickly- heck, even those without any clue of how the types interact could look at any chart, or just trust the DM :P


"Fire" under Ember Special Attack - symbol or spelled out? Symbol makes easy connection to symbols with Strong & Weak.

Earlier we talked about the normal attack stat on the Pokemon reflecting all-purpose type attacks like slash. If my Charmander attacks a bug that's weak to fire, will I get the +1 attack on my normal or just my Ember that has the fire symbol? Slash isn't a Fire type move. I don't think the bonus should apply. If it does, then do we need the type next to Range on the Specials?

Let me drone on with another example. Let's say our Pikachu ends up with Quick Attack Special Attack, which is not an electric attack. If Pikachu attacks a weak-to-electric water pokemon with Quick Attack, is there a bonus? IMO, there should not be.

Summing up:
Normal attacks should not have bonuses due to weakness/strength. Only Special Attacks with a type symbol should have bonuses.

Naturally. The symbol/wording (I vote symbol) would be specific per Special Attack. Naturally, Quick Attack wouldn't have an Electric symbol under it, so it would not be super effective against Waters and Flyings.

Speaking of Special Powers, I'd like to throw out an idea I offered in the old thread. I know it's not fully in keeping with the Pokescape theme, but it might help make Pokemon unique?

Instead of having every Special Power be an "attack," why not have one iconic SA per card and make the other (two) power(s) based on the Pokemon themselves? As in, use the biological and thematic aspects to make the powers too.

A simple example of this would be a Pidgey with Flying, which I would expect us to be doing; a less obvious one would be a Diglett/Onix with "Burrow" (similar to the Earth Elemental's Underground Movement) or Mewtwo with a power that gives it extra attack when adjacent to more than two opponent's figures etc. (though I don't know what's that's based off of- it's just an example). In the other thread, I used the example of a Kecleon with Vanish to represent his invisibility.

Comments or ideas?
If you look at the mock-up I have of Pikachu...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/PIKACHU.jpg

...you'll see that I have thought of that, and in Pokemon style, already. Agility is not an attack, adds to the flavour of the card and thematic all in one.
As for a second power, read this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061790&postcount=149) for my suggestions.

[wulfhunter667]

2) A Special Attack with no text is not a Special Attack at all. The reason it is a Special Attack is because it has an additional game effect. Without that special game effect, it is just a normal attack and should be placed in the stat area.
There was nothing said about not including additional effects. All that was shown was a basic throwdown of how the types would work into it. By all means, Ember can still inflict a burn.
You're right. And Ember is a bad choice for proving this point. However, Hydro Pump is not. Hydro Pump is a powerful water attack with NO special effect. Does that mean we should hide it in the stats as opposed to writing it out as a special attack?
Ha! I knew I was forgetting something. So, for special conditions: I prefer setting markers on the cards to mark burn, poison, paralyze, etc. Turning cards will get too confusing, at least for me, because I tend to end up bumping cards and turning them and not fixing them. But that brings up a question: will only Unique Heroes be affected by conditions? Affecting commons and squads would be weird, as a lot of them would die from one poison wound. It's like the plague on steroids.
And insofar as turning cards as opposed to markers, if an 8-year-old can remember to turn a card in Pokemon CCG, so can a grown man.

[Vilsara]

If you look at the mock-up I have of Pikachu...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/PIKACHU.jpg

...you'll see that I have thought of that, and in Pokemon style, already. Agility is not an attack, adds to the flavour of the card and thematic all in one.
As for a second power, read this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061790&postcount=149) for my suggestions.

I'm talking about powers that aren't based upon any move, not having "Powers" that aren't "Special Attacks." Drudging up my example from ten minutes ago where I mention a Kecleon with Vanish- "Vanish" is not a move that exists in the Pokemon universe, but adding it to the Kecleon card makes it more thematic while adding variety. Agility may not be a Special Attack on the card, but it's still a Pokemon move.

It seems that the general mindset around here is making Heroscape cards with Pokemon powers as the special abilities- I approve of that, but mixing in a bit of flavor through non-"move" powers will help the theme and compatability with Heroscape.

I'll apologize in advance if I start to clutter the thread with posts about this.

EDIT: To add to your comments about Hydro Pump's lack of secondary effect, remember that it would probably be a ranged attack. I think that, when determining what's a Special Attack and what the attack "hidden in the stats" is, remembering the Heroscape influence on the attacks' effects would be an asset.

[wulfhunter667]

If you look at the mock-up I have of Pikachu...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll92/wulfhunter667/Project%20Pokemon/PIKACHU.jpg

...you'll see that I have thought of that, and in Pokemon style, already. Agility is not an attack, adds to the flavour of the card and thematic all in one.
As for a second power, read this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1061790&postcount=149) for my suggestions.

I'm talking about powers that aren't based upon any move, not having "Powers" that aren't "Special Attacks." Drudging up my example from ten minutes ago where I mention a Kecleon with Vanish- "Vanish" is not a move that exists in the Pokemon universe, but adding it to the Kecleon card makes it more thematic while adding variety. Agility may not be a Special Attack on the card, but it's still a Pokemon move.

It seems that the general mindset around here is making Heroscape cards with Pokemon powers as the special abilities- I approve of that, but mixing in a bit of flavor through non-"move" powers will help the theme and compatability with Heroscape.

I'll apologize in advance if I start to clutter the thread with posts about this.
You're fine. Keep commenting.
Now, I agree with you, just in a different way. I think, so long as the first draft of the card has powers thematic to the Pokemon on the card, it really shouldn't matter if the powers are based on Pokemon powers or not. The only requirement here is to keep the Pokemon theme in a Heroscape setting.
EDIT: To add to your comments about Hydro Pump's lack of secondary effect, remember that it would probably be a ranged attack. I think that, when determining what's a Special Attack and what the attack "hidden in the stats" is, remembering the Heroscape influence on the attacks' effects would be an asset.
And I have thought of this. But ranged or not, with out a REASON to have text on it, Hydro Pump is just a normal ranged attack. Just because it's ranged does not make it a Special Attack.

[Vilsara]

You're fine. Keep commenting.
Now, I agree with you, just in a different way. I think, so long as the first draft of the card has powers thematic to the Pokemon on the card, it really shouldn't matter if the powers are based on Pokemon powers or not. The only requirement here is to keep the Pokemon theme in a Heroscape setting.

Well, it looks like I won't have to keep commenting, since you agree ;) And thankfully, I guess that was the general idea I was trying to get across, just worded in an odd way.

EDIT: To add to your comments about Hydro Pump's lack of secondary effect, remember that it would probably be a ranged attack. I think that, when determining what's a Special Attack and what the attack "hidden in the stats" is, remembering the Heroscape influence on the attacks' effects would be an asset.
And I have thought of this. But ranged or not, with out a REASON to have text on it, Hydro Pump is just a normal ranged attack.

A possible reason to have a Special Attack for Hydro Pump is it would not be the "basic" attack that most Pokemon would learn- even Blastoise, famous for using the move, would probably have a physical punching/ramming attack for his basic attack. Also, since the basic attack probably won't have an element affiliation (correct me if I'm wrong), a Blastoise with a Range 7 Attack 3 stat would not strike super-effectively against Fire Types. I see where you're coming from, though.

Maybe a guideline we could use would be that the basic attack on all Pokemon has to be a range 1 attack? Although I'm already disagreeing with this suggestion for a number of reasons.

[Creationist]

I haven't seen anyone mention this, so I will. Maybe for trainers we could choose a pre-existing non pokemon unique hero to be the trainer and mark it with a marker. That trainer gets the benefit of being able to take a turn with X amount of pokemon within X amount of spaces. Thoughts?

[BiggaBullfrog]

I haven't seen anyone mention this, so I will. Maybe for trainers we could choose a pre-existing non pokemon unique hero to be the trainer and mark it with a marker. That trainer gets the benefit of being able to take a turn with X amount of pokemon within X amount of spaces. Thoughts?
Not sure if I'm reading this right, but you mean like having Kaemon Awa be a trainer? That's actually a cool idea. We'd have to work in some kind of extra cost to compensate for the extra powers, and maybe limit it to humanoids (maybe, but seeing a Dragon be a trainer could be cool too). If worked out right, I think that could become my favorite idea on trainers so far.

[Creationist]

I haven't seen anyone mention this, so I will. Maybe for trainers we could choose a pre-existing non pokemon unique hero to be the trainer and mark it with a marker. That trainer gets the benefit of being able to take a turn with X amount of pokemon within X amount of spaces. Thoughts?
Not sure if I'm reading this right, but you mean like having Kaemon Awa be a trainer? That's actually a cool idea. We'd have to work in some kind of extra cost to compensate for the extra powers, and maybe limit it to humanoids (maybe, but seeing a Dragon be a trainer could be cool too). If worked out right, I think that could become my favorite idea on trainers so far.
Yes, that is what I mean. i could def see the Venoc Warlord sending out 3 Arboks to kill everyone.

[wulfhunter667]

Ok guys, time to vote. The matter at hand is the contents of the first Master Set for Pokescape. The list is:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther
The voting is simple. One vote per person and please vote in red. Voting continues until we have a majority of 50% or more in flavor of the matter at hand or 24 hours has elapsed. If, in 24 hours time, a majority of 50% is not acheived, the matter goes back into discussion for 24 hours and then is voted on again.
My vote is Yes.

[fiddlerjones]

I still don't like trainers as figures, but that's not the point of this post.

Type Interactions: The Pokedex idea is good in theory, but it's taking up space for abilities, a commodity that needs to be preserved at all costs. Someone earlier on suggested putting strength/weakness in the stat block, and I'm in favor of that idea.

Special Attacks: I see us teetering on the edge of a pitfall here. We're too concerned with making all the attacks behave like they do in the video games. In Heroscape, we have several dimensions not available in the games - namely terrain and movement. We can take advantage of this with special attacks. Here's an example (from a hypothetical Squirtle):

Water Gun
Special Attack
Water. Range 6. Attack 2.
If Squirtle is standing on a water space,
roll 2 additional attack dice for this attack.

Rock Slide could do more damage if the target is near some tiles of higher elevation. Seismic Toss could move the target several spaces away.

Status Effects: We should be very careful which ones we choose to use and which ones we cut. Poison/burn can be accomplished with the same general mechanism, just with different type keywords. Paralyze can be accomplished by removing order markers. You see where I'm going with this. Less is more.

[Vilsara]

Ok guys, time to vote. The matter at hand is the contents of the first Master Set for Pokescape. The list is:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther
The voting is simple. One vote per person and please vote in red. Voting continues until we have a majority of 50% or more in flavor of the matter at hand or 24 hours has elapsed. If, in 24 hours time, a majority of 50% is not acheived, the matter goes back into discussion for 24 hours and then is voted on again.
My vote is Yes.

I vote to add Haunter, Machop, and Machoke to the list for type variety and the theme of middle evolutions. Machoke may be too powerful for the first set, but Haunter wouldn't be.

Otherwise, regardless of whether my suggestions are in effect, I vote yes.

[Creationist]

YES

[Carakki]

In Heroscape, you take on the roll of a commander or general of some type. In Pokescape, you take on the roll of a Trainer. As such, I think Trainer cards make more sense than figures.


Well, is there a GENERAL consensus that Trainers would be unique to PokeScape and not usable with regular Heroscape/PokeScape mixed? Because if so, think about it. When have you EVER seen the Trainer get attacked? Sure, wild pokemon, maybe. But in like an arena battle or tournament and such, the trainer never, ever gets attacked.

So, if the trainer can't ever really be attacked, why bother making a figure for it? A trainer card would work just fine.
The problem is that Pokescape isn't (to my knowledge) set as an arena battle or a tournament.

This seems to be an issue. To sum up my questions, are we bringing Pokemon to Heroscape (Trainers and their Pokemon to fight in Valhalla, D&D-style) or Heroscape to Pokemon (Heroscape game engine applied to Pokemon, Marvel-Style)?

Ha! I knew I was forgetting something. So, for special conditions: I prefer setting markers on the cards to mark burn, poison, paralyze, etc. Turning cards will get too confusing, at least for me, because I tend to end up bumping cards and turning them and not fixing them. But that brings up a question: will only Unique Heroes be affected by conditions? Affecting commons and squads would be weird, as a lot of them would die from one poison wound. It's like the plague on steroids.
And insofar as turning cards as opposed to markers, if an 8-year-old can remember to turn a card in Pokemon CCG, so can a grown man.
Actually, I'm for status markers as opposed to turning the cards. Card-turning is a uniquely Pokemon CCG mechanic, and I don't see much reason to introduce it when a perfectly viable mechanism is already in place.

Ok guys, time to vote. The matter at hand is the contents of the first Master Set for Pokescape. The list is:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther
The voting is simple. One vote per person and please vote in red. Voting continues until we have a majority of 50% or more in flavor of the matter at hand or 24 hours has elapsed. If, in 24 hours time, a majority of 50% is not acheived, the matter goes back into discussion for 24 hours and then is voted on again.
My vote is Yes.
Sorry, but my vote is no. I think we're on the right track, but I personally would like to see at least one third evolved form.

Water Gun
Special Attack
Water. Range 6. Attack 2.
If Squirtle is standing on a water space,
roll 2 additional attack dice for this attack.

Rock Slide could do more damage if the target is near some tiles of higher elevation. Seismic Toss could move the target several spaces away.

Status Effects: We should be very careful which ones we choose to use and which ones we cut. Poison/burn can be accomplished with the same general mechanism, just with different type keywords. Paralyze can be accomplished by removing order markers. You see where I'm going with this. Less is more.
I like both of these.

That's my input for now.

[Warlord Alpha]

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther

Yes.

[fiddlerjones]

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther


Yes. That is all.

[Carakki]

Gah. Does anyone know where the Charizard card with the standard Pokeball color scheme is? I know it was somewhere in this thread. Can anyone help me out?

[wulfhunter667]

Gah. Does anyone know where the Charizard card with the standard Pokeball color scheme is? I know it was somewhere in this thread. Can anyone help me out?
Do you mean the ones found in this thread?
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=20296

[mac122]

Ok guys, time to vote. The matter at hand is the contents of the first Master Set for Pokescape. The list is:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther
Yes

[minimoose38]

I vote no to the current proposed master set.
I am reposting this because it was at the bottom of the page before and I don't think anyone saw it and I would like to see what you guys think of what it says.

As for what should be included in master sets, I think that besides the starters lines we should keep the rest to things that only have 2 forms in its evolutionary line. Having the 1st and 2nd stages but not the 3rd forms of the evolutionary line seems really lame to me. Having Abra and Kadabra for example in the 'master set' and Alakazam in a later set, for "anticipation" seems lame to me. While that does seem like something Wizards of the Coast would do if they were actually producing this, it seems to be completely unnecessary for us to do. I think anytime a Pokemon is 'released' by us all of its forms (at least that ones in the current generation we are working on) should come with it. This would mean switching Pidgey/Pidgeotto for probably Spearow/Fearow, in the master set, and then Abra/Kadabra for maybe Drowzee/Hypno. I also strongly think Sandshrew and Sandslash are better ground types to add than Diglett and Dugtrio. Similarly I like Grimer/Muk or Ekans/Arbok for poison types better than Koffing/Weezing but I would be alright leaving them if at least Diglett /Dugtrio were replaced.

Also, is the goal of this project to make a card for every single Pokemon? Or just chosen 'highlights' representing each generation? Making 493 customs or even 151 seems like an exhaustive undertaking and I fear at some point interest would dwindle or cards would start looking too similar.

[Warlord Alpha]

I vote no to the current proposed master set.
I am reposting this because it was at the bottom of the page before and I don't think anyone saw it and I would like to see what you guys think of what it says.

As for what should be included in master sets, I think that besides the starters lines we should keep the rest to things that only have 2 forms in its evolutionary line. Having the 1st and 2nd stages but not the 3rd forms of the evolutionary line seems really lame to me. Having Abra and Kadabra for example in the 'master set' and Alakazam in a later set, for "anticipation" seems lame to me. While that does seem like something Wizards of the Coast would do if they were actually producing this, it seems to be completely unnecessary for us to do. I think anytime a Pokemon is 'released' by us all of its forms (at least that ones in the current generation we are working on) should come with it. This would mean switching Pidgey/Pidgeotto for probably Spearow/Fearow, in the master set, and then Abra/Kadabra for maybe Drowzee/Hypno. I also strongly think Sandshrew and Sandslash are better ground types to add than Diglett and Dugtrio. Similarly I like Grimer/Muk or Ekans/Arbok for poison types better than Koffing/Weezing but I would be alright leaving them if at least Diglett /Dugtrio were replaced.

Well, we can't do spearow/fearow as those are Johto, but I have no problem with switching out diglett/dugtrio and koffing/weezing.

As for adding more 3rd stage pokemon, that does not matter to me at all. Like, either way is fine, because I know that when we are done with those 20 the very next ones we would do would be to finish off those evolutionary chains.


Also, is the goal of this project to make a card for every single Pokemon? Or just chosen 'highlights' representing each generation? Making 493 customs or even 151 seems like an exhaustive undertaking and I fear at some point interest would dwindle or cards would start looking too similar.

I agree. I personally don't think we will ever get 493 done, but we should strive to get a decent amount of the iconic ones from each region done.

[minimoose38]

For simple reference the changes from the current masterset proposal are as such:
Wulfhunter's proposal:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther, 20 total

to
My proposal:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venusaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Balstoise, Spearow, Fearow, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Raichu, Drowzee, Hypno, Koffing/Weezing (or Grimer/Muk or Ekans/Arbok)
Sandshrew, Sandslash, Scyther 23 total

We are selling these things. We don't need to "entice" people with the basic version so they will buy later packs for the evolved forms. The "sets" we are making should be self sustaining, without having to come back weeks later to make the evolved forms.

[minimoose38]

Well, we can't do spearow/fearow as those are Johto, but I have no problem with switching out diglett/dugtrio and koffing/weezing.



Spearow and Fearow are from Kanto not Johto.

[wulfhunter667]

For simple reference the changes from the current masterset proposal are as such:
Wulfhunter's proposal:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther, 20 total

to
My proposal:

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venusaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Balstoise, Spearow, Fearow, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Raichu, Drowzee, Hypno, Koffing/Weezing (or Grimer/Muk or Ekans/Arbok)
Sandshrew, Sandslash, Scyther
23 total

We are selling these things. We don't need to "entice" people with the basic version so they will buy later packs for the evolved forms. The "sets" we are making should be self sustaining, without having to come back weeks later to make the evolved forms.
I appreciate your zeal, but if you had a better list, you should have suggested it earlier. The list stands as is.
6 yes, 2 no.

[fiddlerjones]

minimoose, I saw your proposal, and while I respect your opinion, I disagree. My vote remains unchanged.

[Carakki]

Gah. Does anyone know where the Charizard card with the standard Pokeball color scheme is? I know it was somewhere in this thread. Can anyone help me out?
Do you mean the ones found in this thread?
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=20296
Those are the ones. Thanks.

[Warlord Alpha]

For simple reference the changes from the current masterset proposal are as such:
Wulfhunter's proposal:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther, 20 total

to
My proposal:

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venusaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Balstoise, Spearow, Fearow, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Raichu, Drowzee, Hypno, Koffing/Weezing (or Grimer/Muk or Ekans/Arbok)
Sandshrew, Sandslash, Scyther
23 total

We are selling these things. We don't need to "entice" people with the basic version so they will buy later packs for the evolved forms. The "sets" we are making should be self sustaining, without having to come back weeks later to make the evolved forms.
I appreciate your zeal, but if you had a better list, you should have suggested it earlier. The list stands as is.
6 yes, 2 no.

Some people can only be online so often, and to be fair we are moving really fast, it doesn't seem fair to say "oh, too late" when basically that entire list got "decided" in about a day. We should, ideally, have about 3 or 4 lists to choose from and then we vote for whichever one we like best.

[BiggaBullfrog]

I personally have no problem not including the final evolutions of each starter Pokemon. However, as I earlier mentioned, I really want to see a heavy hitter Pokemon in this first set. Not necessarily a legendary Pokemon, or even one of the most powerful fully evolved ones, like Alakazam or Gengar. However, I'd like something that would be in the higher point range, and worth the points. For example, Gyarados, Snorlax, Aerodactyl, maybe even a powerful Lapras. Otherwise, all the Pokemon in the set seem monotonous; different powers, maybe, but all just as powerful. Having a heavy hitter wouldn't only increase the draw of the wave as a whole, but would probably be a nice relief to us as the designers to have a somewhat different point scale to work with, no matter how temporarily. For this change, we could easily take out Gastly and include it in a ghost-themed wave, and keep the total at 20.

I want to vote yes for wulfhunter667's proposal, I really do, but I'm not quite satisfied with it, and if I voted yes, I wouldn't be using my power accordingly, so I'm going to vote NO.

[fiddlerjones]

Actually, you have a good point. My vote to the list would be yes if a heavy-hitter is included. I nominate Gyarados.

As for now, I'll change the vote to No.

EDIT: I should make it clearer. Apart from the lack of a heavy-hitter, I love the list as-is. I do NOT think we need the third evolutions of the included pokemon.

[jwindjackal]

um hello....I'm interseted in making pokemon, because i enjoy making stats for cards, and generally im pretty decent at it. Do I have to make figurines and stuff though? There is lots of posts in this thread and i needs some hep to figure out what's goin on

[BiggaBullfrog]

um hello....I'm interseted in making pokemon, because i enjoy making stats for cards, and generally im pretty decent at it. Do I have to make figurines and stuff though? There is lots of posts in this thread and i needs some hep to figure out what's goin on
The first post should have all you need to know about what's going on. Unfortunately, we've got a set team of designers right now, but you can be an "ally" and help out. If you want fine details, I'd suggest PMing wulfhunter667 to avoid random answers scattered along the discussion that's going on. Otherwise, feel free to voice your opinion, and if you're enough help, we may nominate you to be a "Junior Trainer/Trainer". As for now, welcome to the thread!

Right now, exactly, we're discussing which Pokemon to include in the Master Set. If you read the last page or two, you should get up to date pretty quickly.

[jwindjackal]

Okay, well my suggestion for the master set would be to add your big pointer, gyarados...but have a twist. After all, what trainer hasn't been through the hell of raising poor,useless, Magikarp in the hopes that after one battle it would evolve into the mighty gyarados. I believe that this would help get you your "pokemon" feel, as well as the fact that you'd have to strategize "heroscape" (yay) to keep your magikarp alize long enough to reap the reward with an all mighty gyarados.

Just a suggestion, hope it was a good one...

Edit: P.S. have you considered adding pokemon of different colors(like how in the games there is a one in a billion chance you could get a red gyarados, a brown bellsprout, etc.) I think it would be a cool idea, especially if you put them randomly in packages in place of the normal thing, it would be a cool haha i got the one you didnt kinda thing.

[fiddlerjones]

Edit: P.S. have you considered adding pokemon of different colors(like how in the games there is a one in a billion chance you could get a red gyarados, a brown bellsprout, etc.) I think it would be a cool idea, especially if you put them randomly in packages in place of the normal thing, it would be a cool haha i got the one you didnt kinda thing.

First off, welcome aboard!

I like the idea of the different-colored pokemon, but I think their use comes in opening up design space later on if we want to make a different version of Gyarados or Bellsprout, for example.

[minimoose38]

For simple reference the changes from the current masterset proposal are as such:
Wulfhunter's proposal:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther, 20 total

to
My proposal:

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Venusaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Charizard, Squirtle, Wartortle, Balstoise, Spearow, Fearow, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Raichu, Drowzee, Hypno, Koffing/Weezing (or Grimer/Muk or Ekans/Arbok)
Sandshrew, Sandslash, Scyther
23 total

We are selling these things. We don't need to "entice" people with the basic version so they will buy later packs for the evolved forms. The "sets" we are making should be self sustaining, without having to come back weeks later to make the evolved forms.
I appreciate your zeal, but if you had a better list, you should have suggested it earlier. The list stands as is.
6 yes, 2 no.

And I appreciate your zeal, but you kind of swooped in and took over an admittedly slow moving and inefficient process and have since been arbitrarily assigning deadlines and processes for what you think this project should be. I am not trying to start a fight here but your response to my proposal was kind of a slap to the face. It seems any suggestion that doesn't completely mesh up with what you have in mind does not even get considered. For being a newcomer to this project you seem awfully ready to take full advantage of your leadership position, which I think you got because no one else really cared to contest with you.

I was going to ask for you to tell me when this particular deadline was established by you. It wasn't in the first post,where any new coming member could come in read and know what is currently being discussed, but it was in one your post that was buried several pages back. I didn't see it when I posted that but I would not think it unfair to maybe wait a few more days for any more suggestion to come in and then add an actual poll to the full post. It would have been fine if everyone was content with your list but now that there is an opposition to your idea you are pretty much just saying "No, your idea is too late, mine is the only one you can vote on."

If the goal of this project is to make the highlights of each generation, I am sure everyone has certain favorites be included. Why did we not have everyone submit a list of which Pokemon should be included? The one day (that myself and I am sure others were not even aware of) to present alternatives to your suggestion is obviously not enough.

I know I am sounding like a little kid crying because his answer got shot down, but Wulfhunter you are really not giving people enough time to suggest and vote on ideas because what we are voting on and how long we have is not always very clear. I am sure there are others who would agree to this.

[Carakki]

I do agree that things are moving rather fast in terms of deadlines. We only voted on the general guidelines, what a day ago? Two? Now we've jumped right into voting on an official list in just one or two days. A list generated solely by the few people who have managed to keep up with the whirlwind of discussion in this thread. I like minimoose's idea of submission and voting. Is this a democracy or a self-absorbed bureaucracy?

[jwindjackal]

I do agree that things are moving rather fast in terms of deadlines. We only voted on the general guidelines, what a day ago? Two? Now we've jumped right into voting on an official list in just one or two days. A list generated solely by the few people who have managed to keep up with the whirlwind of discussion in this thread. I like minimoose's idea of submission and voting. Is this a democracy or a self-absorbed bureaucracy?
It seems as if this project is moving too fast, fast is good in terms of keeping people interested, but people are often unaware of what is happening until its too late. Furthermore it also seems as if votes are being held without general discussion beforehand. People will get frustrated and fall apart. Masterlord of this thread, i suggest that you be the one to start any polls and before hand make sure all of your members have had a reasonable chance to say there opinion. Just some food for thought....

[wulfhunter667]

You know, I was going to blast all of you, but no, I won't do that. It's childish and a little stupid. What I will say is, first, we do have a vote to finish. The final call will be tomorrow around 8 pm. I STRONGLY advise each of you to take the time to search back through this thread and start reading from this page (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=29851&page=8) from post #93 on. Reread the reasons we chose the Pokemon we chose. Then, if you still feel the list is not good enough, you may recast your vote.

Edit: 34 hours of discussion is more than enough time in my opinion to weigh in on the matter. But you be the judge.

[fiddlerjones]

From the sound of things, there are three major contenders for the official Master Set list.

1. minimoose's list
2. wulfhunter's list
3. wulfhunter's list + Gyarados (and maybe minus Gastly).

I'm personally of the opinion that we should cast our votes for either list 1, list 2, list 3, or none of the above, and choose the list that gets the most votes.

[minimoose38]

"Blast" us for what, Wulfhunter? Disagreeing with you? You did little to comment on anything that was just said except for "Nope, still not listening, my way goes." But you know what? I am looking back to where you pointed out. I havn't seen anything posted by you that suggests anything different from what I see the project as. A good example of what I am talking about is this:

I could live with the first two stages of the starters, but the final forms have to be later, no matter what.

In addition, others had suggested lists,such as Warlord Alpha, but their ideas were shot down as well. Surely his idea was in early enough to make it to the vote. Alas, it was no where to be found...

I still don't understand why we wouldn't just finish off the evolutionary line started in the master set. This is the main gripe I have with it as is. Everything else I suggested is purely preferential and if the general consensus is that Diglett and Dugtrio are generation defining characters I am fine with it. But leaving the final evolutions off seems to make no sense to me and no one, despite several protests to this fact, has made any attmept to explain the reason behind it.

A word that is being thrown around alot on this topic is "heavy hitter". What exactly do you guys think that a heavey hitter will be? A 220 point figure? I think we can all agree that three or more such figures in the same set would be a little ridiculous. But if the reason for keeping the third stagers out is because people predict thats how much they will cost then that is a weak reason.

Venusaur/Charizar?Blastoise are not considered to be extremely strong Pokemon. These are not the figures that will be the so called "heavy hitters'. Pokemon like Drogonite, Gyarados, Garchomp, Gengar, Scizor, Metagross, Tyranitar and most of the legendaries will be the Heavy Hitters. I could not see the final forms of the starters being over 140-150 points. They will be solid, useful and well rounded. Nothing more.
At this point my main objection is leaving out the final stages of those included in the master set. I will be happy to compromise on any other aspects of my lists. However I say we add the final forms to those pokemon that are in Wulfhunter's list or change them to lines that only have 2 forms in them.

These are my final thoughts on the matter for tonight and I am going to bed. Hopefully people will be ready to compromise and disscuss this a little more tomorrow.

[fiddlerjones]

The main point of contention I gleaned from your post was the following:

Why not go ahead and include final evolutions in the first Master Set:

The answer, I believe, is twofold:

1. "Sales:" Not that we'll be selling the custom figures we create, that's not what I mean. I mean "selling" them to ourselves and the Heroscape community at large. If we keep a little anticipation and don't put in the final forms yet, we all stay excited to see how they'll turn out down the road. This is going to be a long project requiring a lot of dedication, so building in incentives to stick with it will help us all stay motivated.

2. Design Refinement: Waiting on the final forms gives us a chance to get the hang of the design standards we cook up here. By the time we finally make Alakazam, we'll have seen at least 20 custom units already, voted on them, and tested them, so we'll be able to design them to be a better fit in the game overall.

Like I said earlier, though, I think we should all vote on your list, wulf's list, or wulf's list +Gyarados. If any list gets a majority (not plurality), we do it. If not, have a runoff. Anyone who wants to suggest another list should do so soon.

[wulfhunter667]

Truth is, I was a little upset for people were wanting to change the list midvote. And again, a day and half is more than enough time for everyone to weigh in, so far as I am concerned. We went over the reasons we not to have heavy hitters multiple times. Reread them again, I'm guessing you missed it the first time. And if you had reread them, you would see that, in fact, several suggestions were taken from the first time I posted the list to the final revision of the list. It is, in fact, not MY list at all. Is it a compliation list from several members. Therefore, be careful how and what you post before posting. That's why I didn't blast you. This is OUR thread first, my thread second, and the ONLY reason it's my thread is because I started it. I am now obligated to update the first post. That's extent of my "power" here. It was also suggested by someone else to have a thread moderator, which I accepted. I have limited "power" here at best. And I am the first to ask for comments and suggestions. Watch how and what you post before you post it. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say it.
Also, in order to add Gyrados, you have to have Magikarp. You can't just skip around because you don't like the first evolution of a Pokemon, IMHO.

[BiggaBullfrog]

I agree that this whole vote was kind of thrown together quickly. I wasn't aware that it was even taking place until this afternoon, and even then I wasn't aware if/when list proposals were being accepted, and when I asked, the question was probably lost in the whirl of comments and discussion, which was about a lot of different things. I think we should be accommodating enough to accept new and potentially better lists as they come up; unless, of course, that just gets too confusing, but we should have a way to allow modifications of lists.

As for now, I like what fiddlerjones said, with his three basic lists, though I think we can have a little leeway with them. For example, I'd like to cast my vote for wulf's list +Gyarados, but -Gastly. However, if we get into those little details now, we'll probably get confused, so instead I'd personally prefer it if we cancel our current vote until tomorrow evening, until which time we hammer out said details.

Edit: For wulf's point, we could easily throw in Magikarp as well, if everyone wanted to. I recall in the original thread several people had ideas for a simple, 5 point Magikarp, and I'd be fine with seeing them. That said, Magikarp really isn't necessary, IMO.

[mac122]

I agree that this whole vote was kind of thrown together quickly. I wasn't aware that it was even taking place until this afternoon, and even then I wasn't aware if/when list proposals were being accepted, and when I asked, the question was probably lost in the whirl of comments and discussion, which was about a lot of different things. I think we should be accommodating enough to accept new and potentially better lists as they come up; unless, of course, that just gets too confusing, but we should have a way to allow modifications of lists.

As for now, I like what fiddlerjones said, with his three basic lists, though I think we can have a little leeway with them. For example, I'd like to cast my vote for wulf's list +Gyarados, but -Gastly. However, if we get into those little details now, we'll probably get confused, so instead I'd personally prefer it if we cancel our current vote until tomorrow evening, until which time we hammer out said details.

Edit: For wulf's point, we could easily throw in Magikarp as well, if everyone wanted to. I recall in the original thread several people had ideas for a simple, 5 point Magikarp, and I'd be fine with seeing them. That said, Magikarp really isn't necessary, IMO.
I've joked about Gyrados being the only evolved Pokemon that we could skip the basic stage, but in reality, to keep to the format, we have to have the evolutionary chain. So, if there is to be a re-vote, the one option is not "wulf's list + Gyrados". It's "wulf's list + Magikarp + Gyrados".

OK. At 46, I'm pretty sure I'm the oldest one involved in this thread, and while I'm not saying I should have any special status because I'm old, I am probably the one closest to being a grandfather (which is really kinda depressing). So, everyone listen to Grandpa for a moment. Let's all take a deep breath. That's it. Hold it for a moment. Now, let it out s-l-o-w-l-y. People are getting riled up and that's a good thing. (Uh-oh, grandpa's lost it). No, I haven't you young whippersnappers. It's good that people are riled up because it shows how important this project is to everyone. But we've got to keep it in check. The tempers are flaring and if it continues, it's going to kill this project.

The last thread lost its way in a cacaphony of overlapping discussions. People lost interest and drifted away. In defense of Wulfhunter (not that he really needs me to defend him) the pace being set is an effort to avoid the pitfalls that killed the last thread. Is the pace too fast? On its own, no. But when we are all (and I include myself in this) throwing out ideas on everything from evolution to trainers to genders to status' to symbols to infinity, things will get lost. This afternoon, while trying to keep track of the discussion, at least twice while I was typing a response to someone's post, two or three other people had chimed in. It's mindnumbing to try to keep track of who suggested what about which...

IMO, it's in the best interest of the Project to slow down for a moment and allow a discussion of the list of Pokemon to be included in our Master Set and ONLY a discussion of the list of Pokemon - no sidebars, no while I'm posting about the list, let me tell you my thoughts on card design. Just discuss the list, then have the vote.

Listen to Grandpa for now. Later you can send me to the home.

Edit: Grandpa's 360 just developed the Red Ring of Death! AAAARGH!!!!!

[Xn F M]

IMO, it's in the best interest of the Project to slow down for a moment and allow a discussion of the list of Pokemon to be included in our Master Set and ONLY a discussion of the list of Pokemon - no sidebars, no while I'm posting about the list, let me tell you my thoughts on card design. Just discuss the list, then have the vote.

I agree completely here. We currently have so much going on that everything is being bogged down by everything else. I personally haven't spent much time discussing or even thinking about the specific pokemon we should start with because I've been concentrating on design philosophy things, which I thought we were going to be getting hammered out before we moved on to discussion of what we're actually going to be designing.

(I did read that we'd begin voting on the set of pokemon tonight, it just didn't register for me because I honestly haven't been paying too much attention to the pokemon list stuff. Though I do remember seeing a similar list to Minimoose's sometime over the last 24 hours. I'm pretty sure he posted it, though I'm not positive.)

[fiddlerjones]

Thanks, Gramps ;)

Really though, it's good advice. The fast pace was ok when approving administrative stuff, but now we're getting into design, which everyone is quite passionate about. The thread has gone careening out of control, so let's break it down. We need an agenda.

Here's what's currently left to vote on before we get into card design:

1. List of Pokemon in the first Master Set (current item)
-We're currently in discussion and voting on this topic.
-Let's have a set period where we accept list submissions, say, until 12:00am EDT on 4/14/2010. That's this coming midnight. If you submit a list, put Master Set List Submission in your post so we know it's your submission. One submission per member, please.
-If we get too many entries (more than about 4), we'll figure out a way to narrow down the list before we vote.
-At 12:00am EDT, 4/14, voting begins. No discussion of any topics during voting. Just state which list you vote for. This lasts until 12:00am on 4/15.
-At this point, either one list will have >50% of all Trainer and Jr. Trainer votes, or no list will. If one does, that's the official first Master Set. If not, we have a runoff between the two highest-scoring lists.

2. Type Interaction Rules
3. Standard Card Template: This one will take some time, as we need to allow the volunteer designers time to create the templates.
4. Trainers: This one can stay on the back-burner for awhile, as it's not necessary to incorporate it into the first Master Set.

I'm not trying to take over and say we MUST do things my way, but I think this is a good, orderly way to take care of everything. If anyone has a problem with this, speak now. If everyone agrees, let's do it!

I'm excited to see this much enthusiasm for the project. Can't wait til we get all this hammered out and get down to the real card design.

[Xn F M]

(Lots of good stuff.)

I like it :thumbsup:

[wulfhunter667]

Thanks, Gramps ;)

Really though, it's good advice. The fast pace was ok when approving administrative stuff, but now we're getting into design, which everyone is quite passionate about. The thread has gone careening out of control, so let's break it down. We need an agenda.

Here's what's currently left to vote on before we get into card design:

1. List of Pokemon in the first Master Set (current item)
-We're currently in discussion and voting on this topic.
-Let's have a set period where we accept list submissions, say, until 12:00am EDT on 4/14/2010. That's this coming midnight. If you submit a list, put Master Set List Submission in your post so we know it's your submission. One submission per member, please.
-If we get too many entries (more than about 4), we'll figure out a way to narrow down the list before we vote.
-At 12:00am EDT, 4/14, voting begins. No discussion of any topics during voting. Just state which list you vote for. This lasts until 12:00am on 4/15.
-At this point, either one list will have >50% of all Trainer and Jr. Trainer votes, or no list will. If one does, that's the official first Master Set. If not, we have a runoff between the two highest-scoring lists.

2. Type Interaction Rules
3. Standard Card Template: This one will take some time, as we need to allow the volunteer designers time to create the templates.
4. Trainers: This one can stay on the back-burner for awhile, as it's not necessary to incorporate it into the first Master Set.

I'm not trying to take over and say we MUST do things my way, but I think this is a good, orderly way to take care of everything. If anyone has a problem with this, speak now. If everyone agrees, let's do it!

I'm excited to see this much enthusiasm for the project. Can't wait til we get all this hammered out and get down to the real card design.
I agree with the order of discussion. I agree with stopping the vote and discussing the list. I do not agree with having multiple lists. The reason for this is simple. Say 4 lists are drawn up and say a minimum of 2 people vote on each different list. There would be no way to acheive a 50% majority. Therefore, I feel like the right think to do here is to throw the list we have currently back into discussion and work on it from there. The list currently is:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther
What we'll do is, we will discuss this list, any additions and alterations until Thursday at 8 pm. That is 2 1/2 days of discussion on this. If we cannot complete this list in that timeframe and come up with a 50% majority, then there is something very wrong.
When suggesting additions and alterations you should include:
1) The name of the Pokemon you want to add
2) Your reasoning behind why this addition would be favorable to this list
3) If it is an alteration, why your Pokemon is a better addition than the one listed
4) Once an addition or alteration has been suggested, it must be seconded and have two additional supporters, then, and only then, I will update the list
5) A maximum of 22 Pokemon will comprise the Master Set list
6) None of the additions or alterations may be stage 2 or stage 3 Pokemon without adding the stage 1 Pokemon
Some important things to remember:
1) The list was initially drafted by me, but altered by suggestions from other members.
2) The list is specifically designed to represent as many different types of Pokemon as possible.
3) The list does not have heavy hitters purposely for reasons we have already been over and over. The general consensus was to avoid heavy hitters until we have the basic process of card creation and several basic Pokemon down pat instead of rushing into creating the big guns.
I think this is a fair enough way to handle this. You guys have 2 1/2 days to fix the list and then we vote.
Comments?

[Warlord Alpha]

I agree with the order of discussion. I agree with stopping the vote and discussing the list. I do not agree with having multiple lists. The reason for this is simple. Say 4 lists are drawn up and say a minimum of 2 people vote on each different list. There would be no way to acheive a 50% majority. Therefore, I feel like the right think to do here is to throw the list we have currently back into discussion and work on it from there. The list currently is:
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther

I would say that we should vote on how we should vote on this, but that would probably slow the process to a crawl (or is that a good thing to slow this down a little bit?)

But it doesn't necessarily need a 50% majority. Why not just go with one that receives at least 2 votes more than any other? Still pretty clear that a majority of people like that once.

Remember that a "majority" is relative to whatever isn't the majority. For example, I'll make up a city, and in this city 30% of people are Republicans, 26% are Democrats, 20% are a Anarchists, 14% are Communists, and the last 10% refuse to vote for whatever reasons. Now, anyone would agree that Republican is the majority, but they don't have 50%. They don't have to. They just have to have more than any other group.


5) A maximum of 20 Pokemon will comprise the Master Set list


Is everyone fine with this number? We just kind of threw it out there but to be honest I am not even sure what people think of that. Does anyone want it to be more or less?


6) None of the additions or alterations may be stage 2 or stage 3 Pokemon without adding the stage 1 Pokemon


Once again, you seem to be imposing what you think on other people. You can say "I think that..." but you can't just say "none, period." Remember, we all have a say in every part of this.

And, just to be clear, I am not saying that I personally disagree with that point (the one I quoted just above), but someone else might.


3) The list does not have heavy hitters purposely for reasons we have already been over and over. The general consensus was to avoid heavy hitters until we have the basic process of card creation and several basic Pokemon down pat instead of rushing into creating the big guns.

All right, so we want to get a feel for the process before making a monstrosity. That's fine. But how long is "until we get a feel for it"? Is it 10 cards? 30 cards? 100 cards? 20 cards doesn't seem like it, but 20 cards is a lot. Hell, thats about the number of cards in RotV and SotM combined. I think that we will have gotten a feel for it by the time we are done with 10 or so cards. If you really feel uncomfortable with it, why not just leave the strongest Pokemon until last? That one can be the 20th card created (assuming we go with 20 cards).

[Carakki]

It's good to see we're getting our issues worked out. Thanks, Gramps.

Now, to the issue at hand:

# of cards: 20 is fine for me. Other sets had fewer for price reasons, but we can have more because a) we aren't including any terrain in our set, and b) we don't have to worry about cost. However, I don't think we should go OVER 20. 20's a good number.

No 2/3rd-stage evolutions before 1st-stage: Disagree. Gyrados, I think, is the perfect example. There's simply no point in clogging up the Master Set with Magikarp, which is pretty universally agreed to be the most useless Pokemon unless you want a Gyrados.

Heavy Hitters: I rather prefer to follow in the steps of the first (and, as widely agreed, best) Master Set by making the biggest/strongest/coolest Pokemon 140-160 points. I think the D&D Master Set does the same, as does SOTM (except for Tor-Kul-Na, that pesky thing). This is just an idea, though, and I'm pretty flexible on this.

[Xn F M]

5) A maximum of 20 Pokemon will comprise the Master Set list


Is everyone fine with this number? We just kind of threw it out there but to be honest I am not even sure what people think of that. Does anyone want it to be more or less?

I hadn't thought of this until you mentioned it, but we have 11 Trainers so if nobody skips two people will only get to do one design in the set. We should go up to 22 pokemon.

[Warlord Alpha]

Yeah, perhaps we should vote on a number before we actually get to the list, then? Technically it isn't necessary, but it might be helpful? Or it might waste time. What do you think?

[Xn F M]

Yeah, perhaps we should vote on a number before we actually get to the list, then? Technically it isn't necessary, but it might be helpful? Or it might waste time. What do you think?

Well, if we do go with 20 cards, it would change up wo goes first in the next design. Personally, I think we should let Minimoose and Creationist weigh in on this one as it affects them more than anyone else. (Well, them and NightSwipe who'll end up with the pokemon we colectively want do to the least.)

No 2/3rd-stage evolutions before 1st-stage: Disagree. Gyrados, I think, is the perfect example. There's simply no point in clogging up the Master Set with Magikarp, which is pretty universally agreed to be the most useless Pokemon unless you want a Gyrados.

Magikarp is doable, you would have to take some liberties with splash, but it could be done. I like the "no 2nd / 3rd stage" rule because it would help distribute some of the more interesting pokemon into the later stages of the design process for the set. If the evolved forms of pokemon were available from the begining they would likely be snatched up by the people at the top of the list and the people towards the bottom wouldn't get to work on them. I'm sure this is an unintended affect, but I think it's a nice way to distribute the "better" pokemon thoughout the course of a set design.

[mac122]

General comments on the list.
I'm fine with 20. I know it's sort of an arbitrary number, but would it really make a lot of difference if it was 16 or 24? Maybe it should be a multiple of 6, since trainers could only carry 6 at a time? Whatever. A number some where in the vicinity of 20 is fine.

As far as voting on the list...I can see good points about both ways. 1 list simpler and cleaner, but tough to get everyone in the discussion at one time to adjust it. Multiple lists give the option of one or another. The problem is if you get more than 2, you spread the votes out. Multiple lists, IMO, would require a runoff if no list got a majority vote the first time. The political analogy is good, but the 30% Republicans still wouldn't be in charge, the Democrats and the Communists would gang up on them.:D

The composition of the list is more important to me. Our Master Set is where we are cutting our teeth on the interactions of the different Pokemon Types concerning Strengths and Weaknesses. To that end, I think we should try to cover as many types as possible so that we can work through how each will affect the other in our custom cards during playtesting. The list of 20 Pokemon as presented by Wulf, includes at least 1 instance of every type with the exception of Dragon, Ice, and Steel. The predominant type included is Poison, with 5 - Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Gastly, Koffing, and Weezing. If we change the list, my recommendation would be to drop Koffing and Weezing since they are only Poison type and poison is represented in 3 other Pokemon. The tricky part is which Pokemon go on the list in their place?
Here's a suggestion, I'd like to hear some comments.
Lapras or Jynx - Ice and adds Water or Psychic, respectively
Magnemite - Steel and adds another Electric
This would give us a representative of every type, except Dragon, in our Master Set. Of these three, Lapras would bring the most complexity. I don't think Lapras can move on land, correct? If that's the case, we'd have to break the rules and let Lapras move on land have a Pokemon that will be of limited use.
Comments?

[mac122]

No 2/3rd-stage evolutions before 1st-stage: Disagree. Gyrados, I think, is the perfect example. There's simply no point in clogging up the Master Set with Magikarp, which is pretty universally agreed to be the most useless Pokemon unless you want a Gyrados.

Magikarp is doable, you would have to take some liberties with splash, but it could be done. I like the "no 2nd / 3rd stage" rule because it would help distribute some of the more interesting pokemon into the later stages of the design process for the set. If the evolved forms of pokemon were available from the begining they would likely be snatched up by the people at the top of the list and the people towards the bottom wouldn't get to work on them. I'm sure this is an unintended affect, but I think it's a nice way to distribute the "better" pokemon thoughout the course of a set design.
Would Magikarp clog up the Master Set? Eh, maybe. On it's own, there would be no reason for Magikarp. But the reward in some future campaign scenario is if you risk starting your game with the Krap, er, Karp, the reward will be great in Gyrados - and I think Gyrados will be one of the most powerful cards we make, yes? Think about it. You've started a multi-scenario campaign against another trainer with potential evolution between rounds. He sees Magikarp and laughs, "What a fool my opponent is to choose such a lowly creature!" Until he realizes that you're about to win this round and be able to evolve him. He spends OM's trying to get Magikarp instead of concentrating on your other Pokemon. Magikarp in the Master, eh, maybe not, but Magikarp-Gyrados in the next round, yeah.

And as far as the 3rd stage Pokemon. I think we should wait until we're finished with the Master. The next expansion, yes, let's start working on Blastoise, Charizard, Alakazam, etc.

Sorry for the double post, again. Man it's hard to get a response typed up when work keeps getting in the way.

[wulfhunter667]

Ok, what I'm seeing here is good. One topic, yay. :)
As a reminder, here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1062553&postcount=211) is the original Set List guidelines.
First, the suggestion to go with 22 Pokemon instead of 20 because of the number of Trainers we have is the most valid reason I have seen and I have changed the rules for this list accordingly.
Second, in the matter of first stage before second stage, remember two things:
1) In trying to keep this as close to the video game as possible, you have to have first stage Pokemon to get the second stage. Without sacrifice there can be no reward.
2) Just because Magikarp is crap in the video game doesn't mean we have to make our Magicarp crap.
In fact, for those of you concerned with whether or not you will end up with "crap" Pokemon or not, I will happily design Magikarp as my first choice. I assure you, when I'm done, you WILL want a Magikarp in your army. ;)
As for additions, the concensus seems to be to add Magikarp and Gyrados, so...

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.1
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados

I saw recommendations to switch Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash and Koffing/Weezing with two to-be-named Pokemon, with suggestions including Lapras, Jynx and Magnemite. I'm good with that. Also, since Gyrados is the new heavy hitter in the set, we could drop Onix.
Change Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash, yes or no?
Change Koffing/Weezing and/or Onix for two or three others, yes or no?

[fiddlerjones]

I saw recommendations to switch Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash and Koffing/Weezing with two to-be-named Pokemon, with suggestions including Lapras, Jynx and Magnemite. I'm good with that. Also, since Gyrados is the new heavy hitter in the set, we could drop Onix.
Change Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash, yes or no?
Change Koffing/Weezing and/or Onix for two or three others, yes or no?


I like what I see with the list as it is, though:


1. -Diglett/Dugtrio, +Sandshrew/Sandslash: I like this change.
2. -Koffing/Weezing, +one of the others: Also good.
3. -Onix: I like Onix a lot, and it's a chance for a double-based figure (alongside Gyarados) in the Master Set. It also has some design space that other rock types don't have in that you can give it Constrict or Bind or whatever it's called.

Good list so far though.

[mac122]

I saw recommendations to switch Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash and Koffing/Weezing with two to-be-named Pokemon, with suggestions including Lapras, Jynx and Magnemite. I'm good with that. Also, since Gyrados is the new heavy hitter in the set, we could drop Onix.
Change Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash, yes or no?
Change Koffing/Weezing and/or Onix for two or three others, yes or no?
Changing D/D for S/S = Ground for Ground. Doesn't matter to me. If S/S is more exciting to some right now, go for it.
Change K/W Yes as long as it gives us more coverage on types. Onix is our only Rock type on the list. If he goes, IMO, we need another Rock type.

[Xn F M]

s for additions, the concensus seems to be to add Magikarp and Gyrados, so...

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.1
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Diglett, Digtrio, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados

I saw recommendations to switch Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash and Koffing/Weezing with two to-be-named Pokemon, with suggestions including Lapras, Jynx and Magnemite. I'm good with that. Also, since Gyrados is the new heavy hitter in the set, we could drop Onix.
Change Diglett/Dugtrio with Sandshrew/Sandslash, yes or no?
Change Koffing/Weezing and/or Onix for two or three others, yes or no?

Onyx should stay, unless we want to bring in more rock-type pokemon.

I'm also all for switching out Koffing/Weezing, we have a glut of Poison type, plus they're boring. I'd say any two non-legendary single-evolution pokemon would be a good switch. So: Lapras, Jynx, Tangella, Kangaskahn, Pinsir, Mr Mime, Farfetch'd, Magmar, or Electabuz (I think that's all of them) would be my list of potential replacements. I think Jynx is a very strong choice as it would add an Ice type to the mix.

[fiddlerjones]

I second the inclusion of Jynx.

[minimoose38]

Alright I am back and would first like to apologize for my somewhat belligerent posts last night. I think the resulting discussion was worth it though. Thanks to those who moved the thread's discussion to where it is now. Here is a repost of my thoughts on the Master set list.

Number of cards: 20 seemed too few. 23 is what my list had but I could live with 22.

Evolved Forms Inclusion and Heavy Hitters: I think that at the very least Venusaur/Charizard/Blastoise should be included.
Here is why: It makes sense to keep all evolutions of a line in the same pack. If some think that we won't do them right because we have not settled into our creation process I suggest including them but saving them for last. Making all of the pre-evolved forms and then coming back for the third stagers and having them all in the master set is not much more different (in terms of how much experience we will have) than making all the pre-evolved forms, calling the master set complete, then starting the third stagers.

Like I said before the final forms of the starters are not considered to be competitive Pokemon. They will be solid and useful but not overpowering. I think a 120-140 point range for them would be appropriate. Pokemon that would be considered to be Heavy hitters would be a Pokemon like Gyarados or Dragonite. Those I could see being 150+ points. Having 3 units around 130 points in a masterset is not something unknown to Heroscape. RotV had several units around this point cost (Grimnak, Mimring, Drake) and SotM had three units far above this mark. If we want to save Pidgeot and Alakazam for a later release I can live for that but Venusaur/Charizard/Blastoise should be included.

My list would (ideally) be:
Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur, Squirtle/Wartortle/Blastoise, Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard, Mankey/Primeape, Pikachu/Raichu, Drowzee/Hypno, Spearow/Fearow, Scyther, Onix, Sandshrew/Sandslash, Koffing/Weezing. 23 cards.

However I would be willing to keep Pidgey/Pidgeotto, Abra/Kadabra and Pikachu without their evolved forms if the above suggestion is considered too much to ask. At this point, as long as the starters get their final forms in this masterset, I will be happy. If that means they are the final cards in it to be made that is also fine. If we are considering the Bulbasaur line to be an accurate representation of the Poison type, and wanted to get some Ice in there. I would suggest dropping Koffing/Weezing for either Seel/Dewgong or Shellder/Cloyster.

With this list in mind, yes the three starters would be the closest to being heavy hitters but they would not be anywhere near on par with those who would truly be considered to be Heavy Hitters.

[Xn F M]

I would suggest dropping Koffing/Weezing for either Seel/Dewgong or Shellder/Cloyster.

The thing is though, if we went with Shellder/Cloyster or Seel/Dewgong we'd have a glut of Water type pokemon.

If we were to do third evolutoin starters (I have no strong opinion either way), I'd go with something like this list:

Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur, Squirtle/Wartortle/Blastoise, Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard, Mankey/Primeape, Pikachu, Pidgey/Pidgeotto, Scyther, Onix, Sandshrew/Sandslash, Jynx, Ghastly, Magnemite, Kangaskahn

Every type except for Dark and Dragon is represented and it looks like the power levels should be fairly evenly distributed. Personally I'm ambivilent as far as S/S vs D/D goes. I like Sandshrew and Sandslash better, but Diglet and Dugtrio are just as good for our purposes. I do prefer Pidgey and Pidgeotto over Spearow and Fearow as they're far more iconic.

I've seen a couple people suggest that we add another rock pokemon to Wulfhunter's least to fill one of the slots being vacated by Koffing/Weezing. I really don't think there are any good options in Rock if we limit ourselves to the first 151. If we wanted to add another rock type, we would have to go with either Geodude or Ryhorn. If we were to include Geodude, the smart thing to do would be to ditch Onyx for Gravler and Ryhorn is just a boring pokemon better suited to filling out a "wave."

I'm really just throwing this out there, but how do we like the sound of Eevee taking a Koffing/Weezing slot?

[Warlord Alpha]

Every type except for Dark and Dragon is represented

Well, remember, Dark and Steel didn't even exist until G/S/C, so if we had a dark type I think there would be a problem. Magnemite getting part steel is fine, though.


I'm really just throwing this out there, but how do we like the sound of Eevee taking a Koffing/Weezing slot?

Nah, once we move on to Johto, we should do a whole "Eeveelution" pack with Eevee and 5 of its evolutions. The reason to wait is because Umbreon and Espeon didn't exist until G/S/C.

Waiting until Sinnoh would be way too long, though. Leafeon and Glaceon we can just do later.

[mac122]

You have so many evolutionary possibilities with Eevee. IMO, that could be a mini-expansion all its own. I'd prefer to wait on Eevee. But, if everyone else wants Eevee, it's no deal breaker for me.

Edit: Argh! Too slow. WA beat me to it.

[Warlord Alpha]

All right, I have a great idea about how to go about this.

First, let's take a look at all 151 Pokemon.


01: Bulbasaur

02: Ivysaur

03: Venusaur

04: Charmander

05: Charmeleon

06: Charizard

07: Squirtle

08: Wartortle

09: Blastoise

10: Caterpie

11: Metapod

12: Butterfree

13: Weedle

14: Kakuna

15: Beedrill

16: Pidgey

17: Pidgeotto

18: Pidgeot

19: Rattata

20: Raticate

21: Spearow

22: Fearow

23: Ekans

24: Arbok

25: Pikachu

26: Raichu

27: Sandshrew

28: Sandslash

29: Nidoran (f)

30: Nidorina

31: Nidoqueen

32: Nidoran (m)

33: Nidorino

34: Nidoking

35: Clefairy

36: Clefable

37: Vulpix

38: Ninetales

39: Jigglypuff

40: Wigglytuff

41: Zubat

42: Golbat

43: Oddish

44: Gloom

45: Vileplume

46: Paras

47: Parasect

48: Venonat

49: Venomoth

50: Diglett

51: Dugtrio

52: Meowth

53: Persian

54: Psyduck

55: Golduck

56: Mankey

57: Primeape

58: Growlith

59: Arcanine

60: Poliwag

61: Poliwhirl

62: Poliwrath

63: Abra

64: Kadabra

65: Alakazam

66: Machop

67: Machoke

68: Machamp

69: Bellsprout

70: Weepinbell

71: Victreebell

72: Tentacool

73: Tentacruel

74: Geodude

75: Graveler

76: Golem

77: Ponyta

78: Rapidash

79: Slowpoke

80: Slowbro

81: Magnemite

82: Magneton

83: Farfetch'd

84: Doduo

85: Dodrio

86: Seel

87: Dewgong

88: Grimer

89: Muk

90: Shellder

91: Cloyster

92: Gastly

93: Haunter

94: Gengar

95: Onix

96: Drowsee

97: Hypno

98: Krabby

99: Kingler

100: Voltorb

101: Electrode

102: Exeggute

103: Exeggutor

104: Cubone

105: Marowak

106: Hitmonlee

107: Hitmonchan

108: Lickitung

109: Koffing

110: Weezing

111: Rhyhorn

112: Rhydon

113: Chansey

114: Tangela

115: Kangaskhan

116: Horsea

117: Seadra

118: Goldeen

119: Seaking

120: Staryu

121: Starmie

122: Mr. Mime

123: Scyther

124: Jynx

125: Electabuzz

126: Magmar

127: Pinsir

128: Tauros

129: Magikarp

130: Gyarados

131: Lapras

132: Ditto

133: Eevee

134: Vaporeon

135: Jolteon

136: Flareon

137: Porygon

138: Omanyte

139: Omastar

140: Kabuto

141: Kabutops

142: Aerodactyl

143: Snorlax

144: Articuno

145: Zapdos

146: Moltres

147: Dratini

148: Dragonair

149: Dragonite

150: Mewtwo

151: Mew



But, as we have already said, 151 is way too much. Here is another list with only Pokemon that are being considered/have been mentioned:



01: Bulbasaur

02: Ivysaur

03: Venusaur

04: Charmander

05: Charmeleon

06: Charizard

07: Squirtle

08: Wartortle

09: Blastoise

16: Pidgey

17: Pidgeotto

18: Pidgeot

21: Spearow

22: Fearow

23: Ekans

24: Arbok

25: Pikachu

26: Raichu

27: Sandshrew

28: Sandslash

46: Paras

47: Parasect

48: Venonat

49: Venomoth

50: Diglett

51: Dugtrio

56: Mankey

57: Primeape

63: Abra

64: Kadabra

65: Alakazam

66: Machop

67: Machoke

68: Machamp

74: Geodude

75: Graveler

76: Golem

81: Magnemite

82: Magneton

86: Seel

87: Dewgong

88: Grimer

89: Muk

90: Shellder

91: Cloyster

92: Gastly

93: Haunter

94: Gengar

95: Onix

96: Drowsee

97: Hypno

109: Koffing

110: Weezing

115: Kangaskhan

122: Mr. Mime

123: Scyther

124: Jynx

125: Electabuzz

126: Magmar

127: Pinsir

128: Tauros

129: Magikarp

130: Gyarados

131: Lapras



That is still a pretty big list of Pokemon. To make things a little bit easier, I think we can all safely say that there are a couple pokemon that we are definitely 100% doing, so let me remove those and set them off to the side,

Pokemon we are definitely doing:

01: Bulbasaur

02: Ivysaur

04: Charmander

05: Charmeleon

07: Squirtle

08: Wartortle


and now here is what we have to choose from:

Pokemon still up for consideration
03: Venusaur

06: Charizard

09: Blastoise

16: Pidgey

17: Pidgeotto

18: Pidgeot

21: Spearow

22: Fearow

23: Ekans

24: Arbok

25: Pikachu

26: Raichu

27: Sandshrew

28: Sandslash

46: Paras

47: Parasect

48: Venonat

49: Venomoth

50: Diglett

51: Dugtrio

56: Mankey

57: Primeape

63: Abra

64: Kadabra

65: Alakazam

66: Machop

67: Machoke

68: Machamp

74: Geodude

75: Graveler

76: Golem

81: Magnemite

82: Magneton

86: Seel

87: Dewgong

88: Grimer

89: Muk

90: Shellder

91: Cloyster

92: Gastly

93: Haunter

94: Gengar

95: Onix

96: Drowsee

97: Hypno

109: Koffing

110: Weezing

115: Kangaskhan

122: Mr. Mime

123: Scyther

124: Jynx

125: Electabuzz

126: Magmar

127: Pinsir

128: Tauros

129: Magikarp

130: Gyarados

131: Lapras


So, that last spoiler is what we have to work with. At the very least, we will be working with 14 of them. (assuming we do 20, that is. If we do 22 that gives us 16 to work with)

So, now, let's just start eliminating things from that list of unselected Pokemon. Are there some that we will definitely not do? Are there any others that you guys feel should be considered?

[minimoose38]

Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur, Squirtle/Wartortle/Blastoise, Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard, Mankey/Primeape, Pikachu, Pidgey/Pidgeotto, Scyther, Onix, Sandshrew/Sandslash, Jynx, Ghastly, Magnemite, Kangaskahn



I would be happy with this list, though we only have a single psychic type. Kangaskhan is not extremely necessary because the birds are part normal anyways. I say we just leave out Ice for now and switch Jynx and Kangaskhan for Drowzee/Hypno or Abra/Kadabra.

[Xn F M]

You have so many evolutionary possibilities with Eevee.

That's why I liked the idea, we could randomly throw in a -eon pokemon into any "wave" if we did eevee by itself. Like I said though, it was just something that occurred to me that might be cool.

[Carakki]

Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur, Squirtle/Wartortle/Blastoise, Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard, Mankey/Primeape, Pikachu, Pidgey/Pidgeotto, Scyther, Onix, Sandshrew/Sandslash, Jynx, Ghastly, Magnemite, Kangaskahn
I like this list, except maybe for Kangaskahn. However, I can't come up with any particular alternative, so this list works for me.

[fiddlerjones]

I still don't like the idea of including all the third evolutions in the first set. Once we cut our teeth on this project and get a handle on how we're doing things, we'll do a better job with them. Plus, it gives us something to look forward to. I'm still for Wulf's list, including Gyarados and possibly substituting Jynx and another pokemon for Koffing/Weezing.

[mac122]

Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur, Squirtle/Wartortle/Blastoise, Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard, Mankey/Primeape, Pikachu, Pidgey/Pidgeotto, Scyther, Onix, Sandshrew/Sandslash, Jynx, Ghastly, Magnemite, Kangaskahn



I would be happy with this list, though we only have a single psychic type. Kangaskhan is not extremely necessary because the birds are part normal anyways. I say we just leave out Ice for now and switch Jynx and Kangaskhan for Drowzee/Hypno or Abra/Kadabra.
Just a personal preference that we include as many different types in the Master as possible. Since we're starting in Kanto, we can't do Dark, and we can really only add Steel since Magnemite/Magneton gained that type later on. If we can leave Ice in, I'd prefer it. Again, I'm pretty easy going on the list, so it's not a deal breaker. Whatever type(s) are left out, and Dark, we will have to make sure we account for them in Strengths and Weaknesses for the Pokemon we do.

As far as final stage evolutions, my prefence is still to wait until the next round. Here's why:
-Each of us will have designed 2 cards. We'll all be better and have a better sense of the direction.
-I'm not laying claim to any of them, but whatever member designs the first stage, should follow through with the other stages, IMO. This way, if I'm designing Squirtle, I know I've got Wartortle, and Blastoise. I can start working through how I picture them developing down the line. If we include them in the Master, it won't work that way - not enough design slots. (I know, designer only does first draft, but if you do it well, your vision will continue down the line)
-It will reduce the variety of our Master set.

Just my thoughts.

[mac122]

You have so many evolutionary possibilities with Eevee.

That's why I liked the idea, we could randomly throw in a -eon pokemon into any "wave" if we did eevee by itself. Like I said though, it was just something that occurred to me that might be cool.
I'm thinking when we get to Eevee's evolutions, it could be a stand alone expansion with some synergies and bonding built-in to the different forms.
Just a thought.

[wulfhunter667]

I am glad to see everyone participating in the discussion this time and I feel like we might be able to get somewhere. However, I have to insist that you please use the format provided here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1062553&postcount=211) for additions and alterations before the discussion breaks back down into a cacaophony of multiple lists. The current list is:

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.2
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados

Many of you have excellent ideas and we will address them in time, but without order there is only chaos. I don't want to drag this out any longer than you do, but if everyone starts posting THEIR lists and people pick up on it rather than work towards fixing what we have, this thread will turn into the last thread that got nowhere. Is that what you really want? I was under the impression that is not what you wanted.
Warlord Alpha has the right idea here (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1062835&postcount=228). Please use the list of mentioned Pokemon to make suggested alterations and which Pokemon to replace. One stage 1 or one stage 1 with stage 2 nominated Pokemon at a time, seconded, and supported by two additional members.
Thank you.

[Carakki]

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.2
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados
This works for me, except I'd rather leave out Koffing and Weezing. Bulbasaur and Ivysaur cover the Poison type, and I'd rather keep the list at an even 20.

[Warlord Alpha]

Like, seriously. We need to make a list of the pokemon that we are definitely going to include (already done I guess, see post 228) and we need to make a list of the pokemon we can potentially include from each type. From there, we just need to whittle each type down to one pokemon/evolutionary chain of pokemon

[Xn F M]

-I'm not laying claim to any of them, but whatever member designs the first stage, should follow through with the other stages, IMO. This way, if I'm designing Squirtle, I know I've got Wartortle, and Blastoise. I can start working through how I picture them developing down the line. If we include them in the Master, it won't work that way - not enough design slots. (I know, designer only does first draft, but if you do it well, your vision will continue down the line)

I don't think we should have to force people to work on an entire evolutionary chain if they don't want to (I'm almost sure you didn't mean quite that, but your post does read that way). Personally, I want to do Pidgey and Magicarp, but have no interest in doing Gyarados or the other Pidgey forms. I also think that having different people working on different evolutionary levels will help differentiate some of the pokemon that only get more powerful as they evolve.

I'd like to nominate Jynx and Magnemite to replace Weezing and Koffing on the official list.

With those two substitutions the list will have every type except dark and dragon represented, we won't have a glut of poison type pokemon, and the same relative power levels are maintained (Jynx being a second evolution pokemon).

Edit, @WA, while the list you posted is pretty handy I'm not sure if its neccesary at this point. There seems to be a lot of support for Jynx to replace Weezing so it's just a matter of finding something to replace Koffing. I think Magnemite is probably the best fit as it's roughly the same power level, it adds a type, and it adds a second Gyarados counter (which may be important to have).

[Carakki]

I'd like to nominate Jynx and Magnemite to replace Weezing and Koffing on the official list.

With those two substitutions the list will have every type except dark and dragon represented, we won't have a glut of poison type pokemon, and the same relative power levels are maintained (Jynx being a second evolution pokemon).
This sounds good to me.

[Vilsara]

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.2
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Koffing, Weezing, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados


I don't really like this one as much as some of the other ones stated- Jynx would be nice, as well as Kangaskhan (because otherwise, we don't really have a PURE Normal type in this set). The addition of Gyarados is nice, though, giving us at least one huge figure to work with. It opens the question of whether we really need Magikarp, however..

[minimoose38]

As far as final stage evolutions, my prefence is still to wait until the next round. Here's why:
-Each of us will have designed 2 cards. We'll all be better and have a better sense of the direction.
-I'm not laying claim to any of them, but whatever member designs the first stage, should follow through with the other stages, IMO. This way, if I'm designing Squirtle, I know I've got Wartortle, and Blastoise. I can start working through how I picture them developing down the line. If we include them in the Master, it won't work that way - not enough design slots. (I know, designer only does first draft, but if you do it well, your vision will continue down the line)
-It will reduce the variety of our Master set.

Just my thoughts.

Okay this is the first thing someone has said against, the third stagers that has made sense to me. I was not aware that that was how we would be presented drafts for revision. I thought everyone would work on each, one at a time. I guess I will end my crusade for third level evolutionary forms in the master set. As long as they are all covered in our next "wave", I will be fine with it.

Why isn't Raichu being included? Also, instead of Koffing/Weezing, why not leave them, and Scyther for later and include any of the various Bug/Poison types, such as Beedrill's line or Venonat/Venomoth?

[BiggaBullfrog]

I also agree with Xn's proposal.


I don't really like this one as much as some of the other ones stated- Jynx would be nice, as well as Kangaskhan (because otherwise, we don't really have a PURE Normal type in this set). The addition of Gyarados is nice, though, giving us at least one huge figure to work with. It opens the question of whether we really need Magikarp, however..
I didn't think we needed Magikarp either, but my opinions been swayed, if only for the sake of consistency. I'm also kind of interested in seeing the ideas everyone has for them.

I also would like the addition of Kangaskhan. Because Pidgey and co. are Normal/Flying, they don't have the weakness to Fighting Kangaskhan does.

[mac122]

-I'm not laying claim to any of them, but whatever member designs the first stage, should follow through with the other stages, IMO. This way, if I'm designing Squirtle, I know I've got Wartortle, and Blastoise. I can start working through how I picture them developing down the line. If we include them in the Master, it won't work that way - not enough design slots. (I know, designer only does first draft, but if you do it well, your vision will continue down the line)

I don't think we should have to force people to work on an entire evolutionary chain if they don't want to (I'm almost sure you didn't mean quite that, but your post does read that way). Personally, I want to do Pidgey and Magicarp, but have no interest in doing Gyarados or the other Pidgey forms. I also think that having different people working on different evolutionary levels will help differentiate some of the pokemon that only get more powerful as they evolve.

I'd like to nominate Jynx and Magnemite to replace Weezing and Koffing on the official list.

With those two substitutions the list will have every type except dark and dragon represented, we won't have a glut of poison type pokemon, and the same relative power levels are maintained (Jynx being a second evolution pokemon).

Edit, @WA, while the list you posted is pretty handy I'm not sure if its neccesary at this point. There seems to be a lot of support for Jynx to replace Weezing so it's just a matter of finding something to replace Koffing. I think Magnemite is probably the best fit as it's roughly the same power level, it adds a type, and it adds a second Gyarados counter (which may be important to have).
Yeah, I didn't mean it would force anyone to work a whole line. It was more of if I want to do Charizard or Venusaur, I should probably get to (want to) do the earlier stages.

I will second Xn's Jynx and Magnemite substituting for Weezing and Koffing.

Jynx is evolved? (scratches head) Baby Pokemon added later? I forgot that one.

[Warlord Alpha]

I'd like to nominate Jynx and Magnemite to replace Weezing and Koffing on the official list.

With those two substitutions the list will have every type except dark and dragon represented, we won't have a glut of poison type pokemon, and the same relative power levels are maintained (Jynx being a second evolution pokemon).

Why not Jynx and Pikachu?

[fiddlerjones]

I'd like to nominate Jynx and Magnemite to replace Weezing and Koffing on the official list.

With those two substitutions the list will have every type except dark and dragon represented, we won't have a glut of poison type pokemon, and the same relative power levels are maintained (Jynx being a second evolution pokemon).

Thirded (or fourth'd, or however many people have weighed in on this).

[wulfhunter667]

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.3
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Jynx, Magnemite, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados

I very much appreciate you guys following through will the nomination format. I think we might need to adopt that into the rules for future issues, waves, etc.
Please, take the time to reread the list above before making additional suggestions for alterations.
Also, it was suggested to replace Abra/Kababra with Drowee/Hypno. Any thoughts on this?

[Warlord Alpha]

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.3
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Jynx, Magnemite, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados


4 people is a majority? It seems a little bit premature to call that the new version.


Also, it was suggested to replace Abra/Kababra with Drowee/Hypno. Any thoughts on this?

No. Who even uses Drowsee or Hypno? Kadabra (and, eventually, Alakazam) are much more awesome Pokemon.

[Creationist]

I'm still fine with the set. By the way, I know this is a little bit early, but can I take Pidgeotto to design? I think I have a good idea for it.

[wulfhunter667]

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.3
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Jynx, Magnemite, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados

4 people is a majority? It seems a little bit premature to call that the new version.
Nominations do not require majority. IMHO, there has been enough suggestion for the change, and, though I did not actually post it, I am for the change as well. 5 votes might not be majority, but it should work for just changing the list and not voting on it, don't you agree?

Also, it was suggested to replace Abra/Kababra with Drowee/Hypno. Any thoughts on this?
No. Who even uses Drowsee or Hypno? Kadabra (and, eventually, Alakazam) are much more awesome Pokemon.
Again, a suggestion. Technically, this is not even a nomination... yet.

[Warlord Alpha]

Revised List of Master Set Pokemon v. 1.3
Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, Charmander, Charmeleon, Squirtle, Wartortle, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Onix, Mankey, Primeape, Pikachu, Abra, Kadabra, Jynx, Magnemite, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Gastly, Scyther, Magikarp, Gyrados

4 people is a majority? It seems a little bit premature to call that the new version.
Nominations do not require majority. IMHO, there has been enough suggestion for the change, and, though I did not actually post it, I am for the change as well. 5 votes might not be majority, but it should work for just changing the list and not voting on it, don't you agree?

Yeah, I personally don't object. It is always better to wait a little while, though. Remember, some people can't be online as often as others. They should have a say as well.



Also, it was suggested to replace Abra/Kababra with Drowee/Hypno. Any thoughts on this?
No. Who even uses Drowsee or Hypno? Kadabra (and, eventually, Alakazam) are much more awesome Pokemon.

Again, a suggestion. Technically, this is not even a nomination... yet.[/QUOTE]

True, but my point stands - Kadabra, and by extension Alakazam, is a more commonly thought of psychic type than Hypno.

Like, if someone comes up to you and says "list some Psychic type pokemon," I guarantee you would list Abra/Kadabra/Alakazam before Drowsee/Hypno.