The Book of Battlement

[Griffin]

The Book of Battlement

C3G MARVEL FANTASTIC FOUR MASTER SET
FANTASTIC FORCES UNITE!

http://c3ggames.com/C3G/released/cards_DO/jpg/C3G-DO_Battlement.jpg

Card PDF (http://c3ggames.com/C3G/released/cards_DO/pdf/C3G-DO_Battlement.pdf)

The destructible object used for this unit is a Herocape terrain piece from the Fortress of the Archkyrie Expansion set.

_________________________________________________________________

Object Bio - Used to give cover to any who stands next to one while atop of a building or castle, battlements can also be used as a weapon by throwing or hurtling them at a nearby enemy.
_________________________________________________________________


-Type of Destructible Object-
Destructible Object: A Destructible Object can be targeted, destroyed, and removed from play the same way a figure is. See HERE (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=32232) for additional C3G Destructible Object rules.-Rulings and Clarifications-
When a Battlement Destructible Object is moved by the Optional Rules of Throwing or Knockback, it is laid on its side, because those Optional Rules are extensions of the Super Strength special power.
To learn about being adjacent to a Battlement, go here: PDF (http://c3games.com/C3G/released/rules/C3G-Rules_BattlementAdjacency.pdf)
A Battlement occupies the space that it is attached to, and even if that space is occupied by one or more Battlements, that space is considered to be empty for the purpose of other figures, glyphs, destructible objects, and obstacles being able to occupy it at the same time as the Battlement(s).________________________________________________________ _________


-Strategy, Tactics and Tips-
N/A-Heroscapers Community Contributions-
Initial Playtest: Griffin (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1194575&postcount=20)
Second Playtest IAmBatman (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1206617&postcount=124)
Third Playtest: Hahma (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1245971&postcount=8)

[A3n]

Are we saying here that battlements can be thrown??

[IAmBatman]

Yes - they're small, so they can be thrown.

[A3n]

Yes - they're small, so they can be thrown.

That's really the question I was asking I suppose. Because they have a size they are going to be throwable. But there is nothing in the optional rules about breaking parts of the battlefield off to be able to throw them & there is nothing in the text for these that says that either. :shrug:

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

You're right, that'd have to be discussed somewhere for sure. In addition, I'd want to change their size to medium or something else, as non-super strength figures shouldn't be ripping battlements off walls.

[Griffin]

Medium height coming up.

I updated the Throwing Section in the rules on how to "remove" DOs.

Thanks again.

[Griffin]

Could someone please take a pic of a battlement connected to some terrain, preferably a castle wall?

[SirGalahad]

It might be appropriate to remove the Heroclix reference from the OP. :lol:

[IAmBatman]

Fixed!

[Hahma]

Could someone please take a pic of a battlement connected to some terrain, preferably a castle wall?


I'll see what I can do.

[Griffin]

Could someone please take a pic of a battlement connected to some terrain, preferably a castle wall?


I'll see what I can do.
Thanks Hambone. :D

[Hahma]

These are the best I can do. Had to do them in the basement as it's cloudy and rainy today and I won't have a chance to take any more for awhile.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/hahma/C3G%20Deathstroke%20mini/Battlement001.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/hahma/C3G%20Deathstroke%20mini/Battlement002.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/hahma/C3G%20Deathstroke%20mini/Battlement004.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/hahma/C3G%20Deathstroke%20mini/Battlement005.jpg

[IAmBatman]

The clarity on those looks top notch from where I'm sitting! :-) Nice work, Hahma!
Hey, any way we could change the title of the power from Debris to Deadly Debris?

[Hahma]

The clarity on those looks top notch from where I'm sitting! :-) Nice work, Hahma!
Hey, any way we could change the title of the power from Debris to Deadly Debris?


Thanks and I agree with Deadly Debris since an auto-wound is going to be pretty deadly to a lot of units, either squads or heroes with 1 life left. :D

[Griffin]

Deadly Debris it is. :D

[A3n]

I'm still a little concerned that anybody is able to rip these battlements off the castle & throw them. It makes sence for the supers to do it, but commissioner Gordon??

I would really be fine if battlements can't be thrown. But that won't solve any future issues that may be similar, like trees & such.

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

Sweet. What phase is this in? Didn't you do an initial playtest a long time ago, Griff?

[IAmBatman]

Here's the link to the playtest I did for the Skrull Warriors, where I also tested the Battlements:

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1206617&postcount=124

[Griffin]

I propose we move to final editing phase.

[IAmBatman]

I'm still a little concerned that anybody is able to rip these battlements off the castle & throw them. It makes sence for the supers to do it, but commissioner Gordon??

I would really be fine if battlements can't be thrown. But that won't solve any future issues that may be similar, like trees & such.

Cheers

I think I missed this comment at the time. Only figures with Super Strength can throw DOs. So Gordon, for instance, would not be able to. Not sure if this was answered elsewhere or not yet.
Oh, and yea.

[Hahma]

I'm still a little concerned that anybody is able to rip these battlements off the castle & throw them. It makes sence for the supers to do it, but commissioner Gordon??

I would really be fine if battlements can't be thrown. But that won't solve any future issues that may be similar, like trees & such.

Cheers

I think I missed this comment at the time. Only figures with Super Strength can throw DOs. So Gordon, for instance, would not be able to. Not sure if this was answered elsewhere or not yet.
Oh, and yea.

Well then the rules need to be changed to reflect that only figures with Super Strength can throw DO's because the way it is currently written, figures without SS can throw small DO's (like Battlements) up to 3 spaces.


THROWING DESTRUCTIBLE OBJECTS
- Small Destructible Objects may be thrown up to 5 spaces by figures with Super Strength and up to 3 spaces by figures without Super Strength.
- Medium Destructible Objects may be thrown up to 4 spaces by figures with Super Strength.
- Large Destructible Objects may be thrown up to 3 spaces by figures with Super Strength.
- Figures without Super Strength may not throw Medium or Large Destructible Objects.

[IAmBatman]

Ah, OK, yeah. I think that it should only be Super Strength figures throwing period. There are just no objects that fit in the "small" category that I do think non super strong figures should throw and plenty I think they shouldn't.

[Hahma]

Probably better that way. :D

[Spidey'tilIDie]

Ah, OK, yeah. I think that it should only be Super Strength figures throwing period. There are just no objects that fit in the "small" category that I do think non super strong figures should throw and plenty I think they shouldn't.
Captain America. Manhole Covers.

[A3n]

Ah, OK, yeah. I think that it should only be Super Strength figures throwing period. There are just no objects that fit in the "small" category that I do think non super strong figures should throw and plenty I think they shouldn't.
Captain America. Manhole Covers.

I too was just thinking about Captain America. Hmmm.

[Hahma]

Ah, OK, yeah. I think that it should only be Super Strength figures throwing period. There are just no objects that fit in the "small" category that I do think non super strong figures should throw and plenty I think they shouldn't.
Captain America. Manhole Covers.

I too was just thinking about Captain America. Hmmm.


Well Cap's shield is 12lbs and especially made to be able to be thrown. Manhole Covers are over 100lbs and not made to be thrown. I personally will admit that I can't throw a 100lb hunk of steel very far, maybe 5 feet. Sure Cap is a lot stronger than any of us, but Commish Gordon, Alfred or a bunch of others aren't.

[Hahma]

Here's (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1207896&postcount=75) a link to playtest that involved the Battlement DO.

[Griffin]

No one voted no, so this passes, and I will update the front page with adjacency rules as was requested by Hahma on Thursday.

[IAmBatman]

We're gonna need a card as well. I presume that, for DO's, we're going to forgo comic art sides?

[Griffin]

We're gonna need a card as well. I presume that, for DO's, we're going to forgo comic art sides?
I believe so.

[IAmBatman]

Makes sense - pretty much how we're approaching glyphs - just the one side.

[Hahma]

From Griff in the Throwing DO's thread.

I am 100% against laying these down. When you do that, you change the height of the thing, and that alone creates a lot of new headaches. But this conversation really belongs in the battlement thread.What other headaches besides the change of height?

I guess one of them could be that they'd become an obstacle that you couldn't pass through unless you had a power that allowed that, or you count it as the height of a hex. But then that would get crazy with figures stopping on it for height advantage.

It would allow for more opportunities to throw it as there are more spaces adjacent to it laying down for figures to be able to throw it from instead of only 2 spaces for throwing a vertical battlement (one space on each side of the battlement).

It would allow for more places to throw the battlement, not requiring an attachable hex.

For vertical placement though, debris should only be able to affect two figures max as the only ones adjacent to that battlement would be the ones occupying the space on either side of it.

They would never be able to be thrown onto Warehouse roof.

I guess if they have to be vertical only that's fine, not exactly what I had envisioned and a little more blah, but whatever we need to do to create as few headaches as possible for these. If we ever do Trees as DO's, then it would stand to reason to have to place them vertically, so if we have to set a precedent here then it is what it is. :shrug:

[A3n]

I'm totally with Hahma here. If you are against them being laid down, then in my opinion we should remove the size & height altogether & not have them throwable.

In the meantime here's the card to look at:

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac111/Amas73/Private/C3G/C3G-DO_Battlement.jpg

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

I like that card! :-)
I'm interested in these being throwable regardless of how they need to be placed.

[Hahma]

I like that card! :-)
I'm interested in these being throwable regardless of how they need to be placed.


I agree that the card looks great!

Yeah, I guess that's what I was kind of saying, though less clear.:( I meant that if they must remain vertical after throwing, then so be it if it means less headaches and whatever with size changing. I thought the other way might be neat in being able to lay them down, but if that complicated it too much then I can sacrifice theme/utility for easy mechanics. That said, if we're going to do that, then a thrown battlement damage and debris power should only affect 2 figures max, one on either hex that the battlement is between.

If these battlements have to be attached after they are thrown, then I don't think that anyone should object in the future to pine trees being throwable if they are placed on an empty space in the vertical position.

[IAmBatman]

I definitely want to do that with trees.
I think once Griff starts to put together the visual tutorials to go with these DO's, this stuff will be a lot easier to follow.

[Hahma]

I definitely want to do that with trees.
I think once Griff starts to put together the visual tutorials to go with these DO's, this stuff will be a lot easier to follow.

Yeah, I guess it would have been easier to have the tutorials and means of how it's going to work before testing so we knew what we are testing, as some of us have different ideas of how things can work vs. how they need to work for simplicity. :D

[IAmBatman]

Yep, I'm pretty much holding off on any work with DO's at this point until Griff can assemble those to make sure I understand how they're supposed to be played before I make any attempts.

[Hahma]

Well he had mentioned to me last week about wanting to get some more opinions on them from us testing them, so that's why I did that test and threw in the Glyphs as well since they could used testing as well. :D

[Griffin]

Vertical Battlements is something that I want as well guys, but I realize that you cannot have both Vertical and Horizontal Battlements all together.

If you have a height of 3 for the standing battlement, then figures that are clearly not engaged to one laying on its side, could be if the virtual height says they are.

You can stand on a horizontal battlement which is great, but you cannot stand on a vertical battlement.

Horizontal battlements have placement problems in tight spaces, where Vertical battlements have placement problems of a different kind.

Horizontal battlements lay on a space like a figure, so engagement rules would be identical to the figure engagement rules, where as the Vertical battlements stand between spaces, so their engagement rules are different by natural design, and have to have their own set of rules as to what is adjacent to them.

You would need even more ruling clarifications about the transition of battlements when they are either errected or leveled, like when you can decide their standing and when you cannot.

etc, etc, etc, there are more issues I am sure.



I put together a crappy looking FAQ PDF with pics to show the rules of adjacency to battlements, and I will upload that now and post it in a few minutes. :up:

[Griffin]

PDF (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=2744)up on the front page.

[IAmBatman]

Vertical Battlements is something that I want as well guys, but I realize that you cannot have both Vertical and Horizontal Battlements all together.

If you have a height of 3 for the standing battlement, then figures that are clearly not engaged to one laying on its side, could be if the virtual height says they are.

You can stand on a horizontal battlement which is great, but you cannot stand on a vertical battlement.

Horizontal battlements have placement problems in tight spaces, where Vertical battlements have placement problems of a different kind.

Horizontal battlements lay on a space like a figure, so engagement rules would be identical to the figure engagement rules, where as the Vertical battlements stand between spaces, so their engagement rules are different by natural design, and have to have their own set of rules as to what is adjacent to them.

You would need even more ruling clarifications about the transition of battlements when they are either errected or leveled, like when you can decide their standing and when you cannot.

etc, etc, etc, there are more issues I am sure.



I put together a crappy looking FAQ PDF with pics to show the rules of adjacency to battlements, and I will upload that now and post it in a few minutes. :up:

Griff, I'm kind of lost reading this, dude ... are you in favor of:

a) Vertical Battlements (i.e. how they work on maps now)
b) Horizontal Battlements
c) Both

I assume it's A, but some of your sentences there make this really confusing and seem to contradict my assumption.

[IAmBatman]

Nice PDF, by the way! I think if we can make another explaining how thrown Battlements can be placed, we'll be all set here.

[A3n]

Well I am still against them having to be attached after being thrown. It means they can only be throw to certain spaces & if the battlefield around the castle is flat they can't be thrown down at attackers. It doesn't make sense to me. So I suppose I won't vote against it if you all want it that way, but for me I guess if I decide to play them as DOs I'll make a separate card without the size & height.

Cheers

[Griffin]

Well I am still against them having to be attached after being thrown. It means they can only be throw to certain spaces & if the battlefield around the castle is flat they can't be thrown down at attackers. It doesn't make sense to me. So I suppose I won't vote against it if you all want it that way, but for me I guess if I decide to play them as DOs I'll make a separate card without the size & height.

Cheers
Without that size and height, you can't throw them or interact with them with Magneto and Jean.

Bats, I am good with the idea of having horizontal Battlements as well, but only as a separate DO. They would be placed on the battlefield on their side, and would stay that way for the entire game. You could stand on them and interact with them with our rules and special powers. That would be cool, but not when you force their design to be intertwined with the vertical battlements.

[IAmBatman]

Thanks for the clarification. I can get on board with that type of thinking, I believe.
One thing I worry about, though, is there much value right now in throwing a battlement, other than to reposition it for destruction?
I mean, lots of value for Magneto and Jean, who can, if they get the damage roll, auto wound all adjacent figures ...
Or for DOs that don't have any auto wounding powers, is there a reason enough to throw them? I mean, would you want to throw a Manhole Cover to roll a 1 die attack and give your enemy figure an easy to pick up defense bonus the next turn?
I talked to Hahma about this on the phone the other day, so I was kind of hoping to start a discussion about it. This is probably the wrong thread for it, though, actually ... :oops:

[A3n]

Well for battlements I totally agree with you. But for a man hole cover I think that it works fine especially now you can throw them before moving. Because the figure has to occupy the man hole to get the defense from it you throw it at the figure then move on top of it & attack them. Yeah baby :twisted:

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

Hmm ... good point!
For Battlements, I wonder if it's not possible for us to create a horizontal Battlement card now as well (Battlement Ruin) and make it possible to, under the throwing rules, to swap out the vertical battlement for the horizontal battlement (Battlement Ruin) as part of the throwing process?

[SirGalahad]

Having both cards available and interchangeable would seem to be the simplest solution to satisfy the problem. Allows for the flexibility in throwing that most people want. Maybe to revert a horizontal one back to vertical, it can't be thrown, but placed vertically adjacent to the figure (Imagine Supes picking one up and slamming it upright into the ground).

[Hahma]

Theorically, someone with printing skill could have one side of the card for a Vertical Battlement and the other side for the Horizontal Battlement. I'd have to have two cards, but it would work fine for me.

They should be the same size but different height.

Moving over a horizontal battlement would be easier than going over a vertical one.

One thing I wondered about with the horizontal Battlement and this pertains to Manhole Covers, the Warehouse D.O. and the Lift D.O. too. If someone is standing on a Destructible Object and someone attacks that D.O., that figure standing on the D.O. would be considered adjacent to that D.O. even though they are on top of it, right? So if the D.O. is attacked by an area of affect attack, the figure standing on top of it would be affected and have to roll defense, and that DO would also have to roll for defense when the figure on top of it is attacked by an area of effect attack, right? If the Warehouse is targeted for an area of effect attack, then wouldn't all figures adjacent to the Warehouse also have to defend against that attack?

[Griffin]

Theorically, someone with printing skill could have one side of the card for a Vertical Battlement and the other side for the Horizontal Battlement. I'd have to have two cards, but it would work fine for me.

They should be the same size but different height.

Moving over a horizontal battlement would be easier than going over a vertical one.

One thing I wondered about with the horizontal Battlement and this pertains to Manhole Covers, the Warehouse D.O. and the Lift D.O. too. If someone is standing on a Destructible Object and someone attacks that D.O., that figure standing on the D.O. would be considered adjacent to that D.O. even though they are on top of it, right? So if the D.O. is attacked by an area of affect attack, the figure standing on top of it would be affected and have to roll defense, and that DO would also have to roll for defense when the figure on top of it is attacked by an area of effect attack, right? If the Warehouse is targeted for an area of effect attack, then wouldn't all figures adjacent to the Warehouse also have to defend against that attack?If your figure's base is above the height of another figure or DO, you are NOT adjacent.

[Griffin]

Hmm ... good point!
For Battlements, I wonder if it's not possible for us to create a horizontal Battlement card now as well (Battlement Ruin) and make it possible to, under the throwing rules, to swap out the vertical battlement for the horizontal battlement (Battlement Ruin) as part of the throwing process?
I am not sure NOW is the best time for that. I don't want to give our allies too much to handle all at once. Perhaps we should release the Vertical Battlement along with the Horizontal Battlement latter and not include it in this Master Set.

[Hahma]

Theorically, someone with printing skill could have one side of the card for a Vertical Battlement and the other side for the Horizontal Battlement. I'd have to have two cards, but it would work fine for me.

They should be the same size but different height.

Moving over a horizontal battlement would be easier than going over a vertical one.

One thing I wondered about with the horizontal Battlement and this pertains to Manhole Covers, the Warehouse D.O. and the Lift D.O. too. If someone is standing on a Destructible Object and someone attacks that D.O., that figure standing on the D.O. would be considered adjacent to that D.O. even though they are on top of it, right? So if the D.O. is attacked by an area of affect attack, the figure standing on top of it would be affected and have to roll defense, and that DO would also have to roll for defense when the figure on top of it is attacked by an area of effect attack, right? If the Warehouse is targeted for an area of effect attack, then wouldn't all figures adjacent to the Warehouse also have to defend against that attack?If your figure's base is above the height of another figure or DO, you are NOT adjacent.

Well yeah, but if you are standing on top of something that can be attacked/targeted, that seems weird that they wouldn't be affected. Like if two figures in the same army are on top of the Warehouse and an opponent's figure attacks part of the Warehouse wall that protrudes above the figure, the targeted parts of the Warehouse would be higher than the figures.

[IAmBatman]

Hmm ... good point!
For Battlements, I wonder if it's not possible for us to create a horizontal Battlement card now as well (Battlement Ruin) and make it possible to, under the throwing rules, to swap out the vertical battlement for the horizontal battlement (Battlement Ruin) as part of the throwing process?
I am not sure NOW is the best time for that. I don't want to give our allies too much to handle all at once. Perhaps we should release the Vertical Battlement along with the Horizontal Battlement latter and not include it in this Master Set.

I could get on board with that. I did like having a DO other than the Wall that used official terrain, though. Would people be OK with swapping in something like a destructible Evergreen Tree instead? (Using the trees from RttFF).

[A3n]

I'd be fine with doing a DO of the RttFF trees but how do we overcome the different heights?

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

Different cards for each? It might make sense to do them with multiple lives as well given how large they are, so you'd want to print multiple cards in that case anyway.

[Hahma]

I can get on board with this idea. You know how I've been wanting to throw some trees. :D

[Griffin]

OK, the clarification has been added to the Book as was requested, and the power text has been altered. Art Team, please update the card. Thank you. :)

[A3n]

OK, the clarification has been added to the Book as was requested, and the power text has been altered. Art Team, please update the card. Thank you. :)
Done.

[Griffin]

Wow that was fast. Thanks A3nus.

I think we are going to need two more playtests here.

[IAmBatman]

Is this something we can farm out to the Allies? I'm not even sure how soon I'll be able to get back to MODOK's initial ...

[Griffin]

One army test with the Warehouse isn't too burdensome though, and I would rather keep all DO stuff secret if we can up until it is time for the release.

If I need to, I will do the other test here, unless someone here either has a problem with that or if they want to test it.

[IAmBatman]

I can try to work it on to the battlefield during a MODOK test some time this week.

[Griffin]

I will playtest this soon

[IAmBatman]

Oops, actually, no - my playtest was for the auto wound battlement, not this one. We still need a playtest for this write-up.
The plus side is that a playtest for this and the other battlement can be done simultaneously.
It's my #1 playtest priority when I get back, but if someone wants to do it before then, I won't mind. :-)

[Hahma]

Here's the test for the Battlement, Ruined Battlement, Throwing DO's and Zoom's Army Test 1.


Army Test 1/ Does it pass? Pass
Played on Ruins of Pine Tree Marsh map with 4 Battlement DO’s and 2 Ruined Battlement DO’s in play.

Zoom (250) Absorbing Man (260) Grundy (290) Green Goblin (230) and Spidey (160) for 1190 points

Vs.

Martian Manhunter (300) Wonder Woman (300) Flash (250) Black Canary (190) and Green Arrow (150) for 1190 points.

R1 Grundy moves toward hill with 2 Battlements. Martian Manhunter moves toward Grundy and Directives Black Canary and Green Arrow 4 spaces each toward hill in opposite corner from Grundy, also with 2 Battlements. Grundy moves but can’t reach Battlement yet to throw. MM moves to top of hill Grundy is climbing and attacks with height but misses and then throws a Battlement at Grundy but no damage to either Grundy or Battlement (which is now a Ruined Battlement). MM Directives BC, GA, WW and Flash 4 spaces each. Green Goblin moves adjacent to a Ruined Battlement and attacks normal Battlement adjacent to Martian Manhunter and destroys it (if for nothing else than to keep MM from throwing it) and then GG throws Ruined Battlement at Flash but whiffs attack roll. Wonder Woman moves and Lassos Green Goblin to a lower space and pounds him for 3 wounds.

R2- WW wins initiative and kills GG with a 4/2 attack with height. Absorbing Man moves and attacks WW with Ball and Chain but misses. MM moves and attacks with height vs. Absorbing Man but misses with a 2/3 attack, he then Dispatches BC, WW, GA and Flash 4 spaces each. Absorbing Man moves to height and picks up Ruined Battlement and throws it at BC and GA but whiffs the attack roll. MM moves adjacent to Absorbing Man and misses with a 2/2 attack and he couldn’t Directive anyone. Grundy abandons the hill to get closer to the action that has moved to middle and opposite corner of map.

R3 – MM was hoping to win initiative in order to get away from Absorbing Man, but AM won it and Power Absorbed MM’s 6 defense to boost his attack up to 8 and then clobbered MM with a 5/1 attack for 4 wounds to the Martian. MM can now fly away to height and is out of ranged attack range so he throws a Ruined Battlement at AM for no wound, but the Ruined Battlement takes a wound and is destroyed, thus Debris puts a wound on Absorbing Man and knocks an Absorb Marker off to reduce his attack to 7. Directive allows Green Arrow to move to height. Grundy moves and attacks Flash but he Evades. WW moves to top of hill with MM on is and BC+GA on lower tier, then she Lassos Absorbing Man below her for a 4/4 attack as he stands tall against her. Zoom moves adjacent to WW, AM, BC and GA to release Lasso bond on AM and then attacks Black Canary for 3 wounds with a 4/1 attack. Martian Manhunter attacks with height vs. AM but misses with a 2/2 attack and Directs WW away so she can Lasso again next round.

R4 – Grundy spoils WW’s plan and moves adjacent to her and lays a 5/0 attack on her for 5 wounds. WW can’t Lasso anyone now, so she attacks Grundy for 2 wounds. Absorbing Man moves up to top of Hill to get adjacent to MM and kills him with a monstrous 6/3 attack with 7 attack dice. MM dead, no turn. Zoom goes back and forth from engagement with BC to try to put last wound on her with Negative Speed Force attack, but because of move eating elevation, he only gets 2 attacks and misses both. Flash moves adjacent to Absorbing man and puts a wound (2) on him with FF attack to remove another marker (4).

R5- Grundy kills WW with a 2/1 attack. WW dead no turn. Absorbing Man attacks (6) vs. Green Arrow but misses with a 1/1 attack. Flash misses 4 attacks vs. AM. Zoom misses a couple NSF attacks vs. BC (he should have attacked normally as his 5 attack might have gotten through to put last wound on her, but he had hoped to do so on first attack and then get an attack vs. Green Arrow). Flash puts another wound (3) on AM and takes another Absorb Marker off (3).

R6- The tide is starting to turn for the JL’ers. BC wins initiative and risks hurting GA when she lets lose with a 4 skull Canary Cry attack that put 1 wound on Zoom, 1 wound on GA (sorry babe) and 3 final wounds on Absorbing Man. Nice!. Absorbing Man is dead, no turn. Flash then moves to where AM was and has height for a normal attack vs. Zoom and kills him with a 4/0 attack (4 skulls for the attack roll and 4 skulls for the defense roll). Absorbing Man dead, no turn. Flash moves to put 1 wound (3) on Grundy. Zoom is dead, no turn.

R7- Grundy attacks Flash but he Evades. Green Arrow Skill Shot kills Grundy. BOM 10, Spidey moves and kills BC with his Web attack. Flash moves and misses normal attack vs. Spidey. BOM 14, Spidey leaves engagement to Swing up adjacent to Green Arrow and puts a wound on him. Flash moves and attacks Spidey but misses with a 1/3 attack.

R8- Flash attacks Spidey but he Senses it for a miss. BOM 5, Spidey misses Green Arrow. Flash misses Spidey with a 1/1 attack. BOM 2, Spidey kills Green Arrow. Flash lays down a 3 skull attack, but Spidey Senses it for a miss. BOM 11, Spidey misses Flash.

R9- Flash misses as Spidey Senses and misses. BOM 9, Spidey puts 1 wound on Flash. Flash hits Spidey back for 1 wound. BOM 6, Spidey misses Flash. Flash misses Spidey b/c of SS. BOM 15, Spidey misses Flash b/c of Evade.

R10- BOM 3, Spidey misses Flash. Flash puts a wound (2) on Spidey. BOM 8, Spidey misses Flash. Flash misses Spidey with a 4 skull attack b/c of SS. BOM 11, Spidey misses Flash. Flash misses Spidey.

R11- Flash misses Spidey b/c of SS. BOM 15, Spidey misses Flash b/c of Evade. Flash kills Spidey with a 4/0 attack after Spidey just missed SS with a roll of 10.

Flash wins with 1 wound on T3R11.

Zoom did okay. He used his speed to move far enough from SZ to break up Lasso on AM. He put 3 wounds on Black Canary but was sucker punched by Flash with a 4 skull attack in which Zoom also rolled 4 skulls, but too bad that doesn’t help him, so he died.

Fun game with some massive attack rolls vs. bad defense rolls. But there were some big defense rolls later that save people’s bacon.

DO’s were subtle and fun. Sometimes you can just happen to use them when not planning on it beforehand as circumstances sometimes offer the option to throw them. 1 attack die is subtle enough that it’s kind of hard to hurt someone even if you roll a skull, but if you can throw it to a higher space, then at least you can get 2 dice to attack with. Once the Battlement is thrown, it lands as a Ruined Battlement, so then if it misses the defense roll against itself, then that’s where the wounding can really be fun.

Overall fun game and it felt I still like Zoom at 250 as he just ran into some bad non-Evade luck at the wrong time. Same thing would have happened to Flash.

[IAmBatman]

Great job on all of this, Hahma. :-)

[Griffin]

We need a PDF.

[A3n]

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

Cheers

Cool. Updated.

[A3n]

Please remove the links from my quote in your post :).

Cheers

[A3n]

Just a question:
What space is the battlement supposed to be counted as part of? I believe it is part of the space it's attached to, but I wanted to be sure for when attacking it from range where to count to.

So like a figure is standing on a space that is adjacent to a space that has a battlement attached on the opposite side, is this still counted as adjacent?

Cheers

[Hahma]

Good question A3n. I may be wrong...again:)...but I kind of see the Battlement as being part of two spaces. I guess when throwing it, in tests I naturally felt that a figure had to be on the space on either side of the battlement to throw it. If a figure was on a space adjacent to the one that the battlement was attached to, but on a space that wasn't split by the battlement, it didn't seem natural to be able to be able to pick up a battlement that was attached to the opposite side of the hex a figure I control was adjacent to. I guess for a thrower like JG or Mags, you'd need to know how many spaces to count for range, or even if you were just attacking the battlement. Hmmm...I guess for range, I could see counting either space that the battlement split. For attacking it with a melee, I'd say that the figure would have to be on either space that the battlement splits.

I could be way off base here though. :confused:

[Griffin]

Just a question:
What space is the battlement supposed to be counted as part of? I believe it is part of the space it's attached to, but I wanted to be sure for when attacking it from range where to count to.

So like a figure is standing on a space that is adjacent to a space that has a battlement attached on the opposite side, is this still counted as adjacent?

Cheers
I had put a lot of work into this a while back mate.


-Rulings and Clarifications-
When a Battlement Destructible Object is moved by the Optional Rules of Throwing or Knockback, it is laid on its side, because those Optional Rules are extensions of the Super Strength special power.
To learn about being adjacent to a Battlement, go here: PDF (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=2744)

[A3n]

done

[quozl]

My daughter wants this battlement to have the Debris power just like the Ruined Battlement. What was the reason you decided not to include it here?

[davidlhsl]

My daughter wants this battlement to have the Debris power just like the Ruined Battlement. What was the reason you decided not to include it here?

This (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1352455&postcount=500) will give you a demonstration of the devastating effect debris can have with a cluster of ruined battlements.

You have control when setting up a map whether you want to create this "time bomb." If you did this with regular battlements, maps with connecting battlements (which are a lot) would be completely deadly and unplayable.

I think this effect could be carried forward for barrels of toxic waste or gasoline, or crates of dynamite.

[quozl]

Well, her other idea was to have a destroyed battlement become a ruined battlement. That would give a "waiting period" for figures to get out of the area.

[davidlhsl]

Well, her other idea was to have a destroyed battlement become a ruined battlement. That would give a "waiting period" for figures to get out of the area.

That is a great idea. Perhaps the person who destroys it can place it as a ruined battlement on an empty space up to 2 spaces away. Purely a house rule, but a very fun one.

[IAmBatman]

Or you could just throw Battlements that you want to become Ruined Battlements ... :-P

[quozl]

Or you could just throw Battlements that you want to become Ruined Battlements ... :-P

Yeah, but what about all those figures without superstrength?

[IAmBatman]

Or you could just throw Battlements that you want to become Ruined Battlements ... :-P

Yeah, but what about all those figures without superstrength?

They're too weak to tear battlements off the wall. :-P

[quozl]

Or you could just throw Battlements that you want to become Ruined Battlements ... :-P

Yeah, but what about all those figures without superstrength?

They're too weak to tear battlements off the wall. :-P

But not too weak to destroy them! (and turn them into ruined battlements using my daughter's house rule)

[IAmBatman]

How would you handle their placement, though? If you ruin a battlement that's attached to a castle wall, where's it go?

[quozl]

David's suggestion of the destroying player placing it is a good one. I'd probably rule it like placing an equipment glyph after wounding the figure carrying the glyph.

[davidlhsl]

Can't you just see Punisher doing this? He fires his Assault Rifle at a battlement above, knocking it below next to an opponent's figure (reason I didn't use the word adjacent), then using his other shots to try to blow up the ruined battlement.

:rofl:

[quozl]

Yep, sounds awesome and my daughter is excited about it. We'll be testing it soon!

[Griffin]

What happens when there is no place to put the battlement? Also, who decides where it goes when there are several options to place it?

I don't know, this sounds like a fun house rule, but certainly a house rule.

[quozl]

Same thing as when there's no place to put the equipment glyph. (Actually, what does happen then?)

And the player controlling the figure who destroyed it chooses the placement. Seems like it should work just like equipment glyphs.

[Griffin]

Same thing as when there's no place to put the equipment glyph. (Actually, what does happen then?)

And the player controlling the figure who destroyed it chooses the placement. Seems like it should work just like equipment glyphs.
Equipement glyphs aren't destroyed, so they would stay right where they are in the hands of the figure, or if the figure is destroyed, it would land on the space the figure was on. That mechanic for E-glyphs came from an official Marvel Scenario.

[quozl]

Um, I meant the rules for placing a ruined battlement after destroying a normal battlement would be just like the ones for placing an equipment glyph after the figure carrying the glyph is wounded.

[Hahma]

PDF in OP isn't working. Says, "not found"

[Good Pig]

Works fine for me.

[Hahma]

Works fine for me.

Sorry GP, I should have specified, the FAQ PDF that Griff steered me to regarding which space a battlement occupies for targeting etc. purposes. :D

[Griffin]

Hahma was talking about this:

-Rulings and Clarifications-
When a Battlement Destructible Object is moved by the Optional Rules of Throwing or Knockback, it is laid on its side, because those Optional Rules are extensions of the Super Strength special power.
To learn about being adjacent to a Battlement, go here: PDF (http://c3games.com/C3G/released/rules/C3G-Rules_BattlementAdjacency.pdf)
And I fixed it. The link was all messed up.

[Hahma]

Thanks Griff. :)

But the question I was really having was with Mysterio switching places with a figure. I can't recall if it was within X spaces away or not, but the question was basically which space does the battlement occupy for purposes of targeting or for choosing to replace a figure with, such as Mysterio. Another example would be Green Goblin's Pumpkin Bombs and which space would he have to fly over to use them on a battlement. For purpose of that example, a figure is on one side of the battlement, but he couldn't fly over that figure without landing next to it and also being affected. So if he flew over the space on the other side of the battlement without putting himself at risk, could he do that? I guess what it comes down to is for choosing a "figure" where it is a battlement in this case, could you count either space (inside and outside) as the space that the "figure" (battlement) occupies?

[Griffin]

I see. Well the only answer I could attempt to give currently is: battlements don't occupy spaces, they occupy the "locations" between spaces. So if it is adjacent to an area affect, it could take splash damage, but powers that target or affect figures "on spaces" wouldn't work on these guys.

[DEATHWALKER 1970]

If one really had to choose a space for the battlement, I would go with the hex it´s attached to.

[Griffin]

For now though, there isn't a rule or ruling that specifies that erect battlements are on any space. We are discussing possibilities in the sanctum though. :)

[DEATHWALKER 1970]

Cool!

And also... Mysterio, eh!? Looks like the Sinister Six are slowly coming together...

[johnny139]

The Book of Battlement

C3G MARVEL FANTASTIC FOUR MASTER SET
FANTASTIC FORCES UNITE!

http://c3games.com/C3G/released/cards_DO/jpg/C3G-DO_Battlement.jpg
Card PDF (http://c3games.com/C3G/released/cards_DO/pdf/C3G-DO_Battlement.pdf)

The destructible object used for this unit is a Herocape terrain piece from the Fortress of the Archkyrie Expansion set.

_________________________________________________________________

Object Bio - Used to give cover to any who stands next to one while atop of a building or castle, battlements can also be used as a weapon by throwing or hurtling them at a nearby enemy.
_________________________________________________________________

-Type of Destructible Object-
Destructible Object: A Destructible Object can be targeted, destroyed, and removed from play the same way a figure is. See HERE (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=32232) for additional C3G Destructible Object rules.

-Rulings and Clarifications-
When a Battlement Destructible Object is moved by the Optional Rules of Throwing or Knockback, it is laid on its side, because those Optional Rules are extensions of the Super Strength special power.
To learn about being adjacent to a Battlement, go here: PDF (http://c3games.com/C3G/released/rules/C3G-Rules_BattlementAdjacency.pdf)
_________________________________________________________________

-Strategy, Tactics and Tips-
N/A

-Heroscapers Community Contributions-
Initial Playtest: Griffin (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1194575&postcount=20)
Second Playtest IAmBatman (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1206617&postcount=124)
Third Playtest: Hahma (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1245971&postcount=8)

[Griffin]

Updated.

[SirGalahad]

Card PDF link not working.