Battle Cat

[toyhandle]

I was suggesting adding this to the types of cover:
OPEN COVER
Occupants of this Motorcycle are considered adjacent to any figures adjacent to this Motorcycle but are not considered engaged.

[IAmBatman]

Hmm, need to mull that one over. That is fairly clean in 2.0 rules since you can attack any adjacent figures.

[fret_gurglo]

How would you feel about a slight change to protective strike to make it more reusable?

From:
PROTECTIVE STRIKE 13
If an enemy engages Battle Cat while an ally is on this card, you may roll a d20. On a 13+, that enemy takes 1 wound.

To:
PROTECTIVE STRIKE 13
If an enemy engages Battle Cat while he is adjacent to an ally, you may roll a d20. On a 13+, that enemy takes 1 wound.

[IAmBatman]

I'm down with that. Keeps it usable when He-Man dismounts to attack as well.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by toyhandle

I was suggesting adding this to the types of cover:
OPEN COVER
Occupants of this Motorcycle are considered adjacent to any figures adjacent to this Motorcycle but are not considered engaged.

Hmm, so the thing is, the way the rules are written, can't really add a type like that without doing a fair bit of revision. Do we think this type of cover is going to be common enough that we're up for that?

Current text in the rulebook:

Many DOs that can be occupied also offer cover. Cover types include
full cover and partial cover. If a DO does not mention cover, it has no
cover. The type of cover determines which figures will have clear sight
on figures inside the DO and if figures inside the DO can be attacked or
attack figures outside the DO.

Full Cover
Figures occupying the interior of a full cover DO are never in clear sight
of enemy figures outside that DO, never have clear sight on enemy
figures outside that DO and cannot attack or be attacked by figures
outside that DO. However, figures occupying the interior of a full cover
DO and their allies have clear sight on each other if that DO and the
ally do.

Partial Cover
Figures occupying the interior of a partial cover DO can attack and be
attacked by figures outside that DO. Figures occupying the interior of
a partial cover DO are in obstructed clear sight of any enemy figure
outside of that DO that has clear sight on that DO. Figures occupying the
interior of a partial cover DO have obstructed clear sight on any enemy
figure in clear sight of that DO. Finally, figures occupying the interior of
a partial cover DO and their allies have clear sight on each other if that
DO and the ally do.

No Cover
Figures occupying the interior of a no cover DO have clear sight on
any figure in clear sight of that DO and are in clear sight of any figure
outside of that DO that has clear sight on that DO.

I could just basically bake the text of Open Cover into the wording for Battle Cat if I want. Though I think I might prefer the gameplay of his riding Battle Cat into battle but then needing to get down to actually fight. I don't think the current theme is *wrong* just that it could be interpreted either way. So I'm leaning towards keeping it as is and seeing how it feels.

[toyhandle]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Hmm, so the thing is, the way the rules are written, can't really add a type like that without doing a fair bit of revision. Do we think this type of cover is going to be common enough that we're up for that?

That's up to you guys. We know it could be used for Panthor, Mantisaur, possibly Stridor, definitely most motorcycles we want to do. Taun Tauns, Dewbacks, Rancors, etc.

On a related note, there was also the question of the use of "Mount." I like it, basically means Organic/Semi-Organic vehicle.
It would be cool if Mounts followed VDO rules. Seems like you should be able to start with He-Man on Battle Cat w/o requiring an activation, move with BC instead of He-Man, etc.
Not sure if keywords could be used that way, but maybe we could create a natural extension of VDO rules for Mounts.

So, lot of rules editing I'm suggesting, but would make writing powers for Mounts a lot easier, and make them play in a way that feels right.

Battle Cat being He-Man's sidekick, would make sense for the first power to read something like:

CHAMPION'S MOUNT
If the figure on Battle Cat's card is an Honorable Champion, after a Normal Attack Action with that figure, you may make an Attack Action with Battle Cat.

And Open Cover would allow for that.

[IAmBatman]

Well the way to use keywords for special things so far is One Shots. I don't think built in turn bonding with Battle Cat is really needed since he'll get activations out of the eventual Masters of the Universe story card. I don't want to build too much turn efficiency in with these guys given what I have planned there.

Rather than pushing for a rulebook overhaul, I think I'd like to try out what I have and see how workable it is, so I'm proposing initial playtesing

[Tornado]

Yea

[Karat]

Yea for testing.

Edit because it's not 100% what clear what it means here. It could be interpreted as the space Cringer occupies so I think it's best to spell it out here.

CHAMPION’S MOUNT
Before a move action with Battle Cat, if there are no figures on this card, you may choose an adjacent ally and place it hereon this card. The placed figure is considered to occupy Battle Cat as if he were a partial cover destructible object and, if that figure is an Honorable Champion, Battle Cat has +1 Attack and Defense.

For pasteability.

CHAMPION’S MOUNT
Before a move action with Battle Cat, if there are no figures on this card, you may choose an adjacent ally and place it on this card. The placed figure is considered to occupy Battle Cat as if he were a partial cover destructible object and, if that figure is an Honorable Champion, Battle Cat has +1 Attack and Defense.

As for as the "Open Cover" thing that seems like the "No Cover" things we already have defined except that it doesn't allow adjacency.

[IAmBatman]

Maybe we should just adjust No Cover to act like Open Cover and allow adjacency?

[Karat]

Makes sense to me and would be a much cleaner adjustment.

[IAmBatman]

Seems like I need to take that one to the Decider and hear from @fret_gurglo about whatever he wants to convince me to do with Protective Strike here.