Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

B, if a power on a card does not reference a VDO, then it can't be used while that figure occupies a vehicle.


Don't think figures should be using powers when Kang has them chilling out in another time or space waiting to be summoned as reinforcements either. That would be a pretty big theme break and I'm not sure where the idea you could do that came from.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I agree with your second part but the first one is back to my original concern. We are forcing a mechanic to maintain balance that's not even remotely thematic. Wolverine gets in a car and his healing factor no longer works?

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Japes, if you agree with the 2nd part (chilling with Kang) then we're not "forcing a mechanic" for VDOs. It's the same mechanic. Why wouldn't Wolverine heal while he's chilling with Kang?

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

When someone is in a VDO and that VDO gets riddled with bullets or smashed by the Hulk and blows up in a big fire ball, what happens to the driver? Is it an auto kill or do they somehow survive unscratched?

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

If a VDO is destroyed, you roll an unblockable attack die against everyone inside and they get placed on spaces the vehicle occupied.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

With Kang he's pulling them from another timeline so they don't technically exist until they are summoned. Therefore, Professor X shouldn't be able to give orders to Mutants while he's on Kang's card since he's not in this universe/timeline. However, thematically he should be able to give orders while sitting in a car.

That's the mechanic that's being forced. We are saying no powers while in the car. That's for purely mechanical purposes.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Which is part of the existing VDO rules that are already in place.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Professor X couldn't give orders in a vehicle unless we retconned his card to specifically allow it. No-one's going to be within 10 spaces of him while he's occupying a vehicle. Nick Fury or Reed might be a better example.

If you let figures use powers like that in a vehicle, then vehicles are no longer going to be balanced around driving around in them or using them as vehicles. They'll have to be balanced around sitting in place in them and using them as a protective barrier. Their costs will skyrocket and they won't be used for anything thematic. Every vehicle would become a defensive bunker.

(And that would be just as true if you took the alternate approach of letting some figures start with VDOs instead of making VDOs outright draftable)

Letting Professor X issue commands from a car might seem like the thematic thing to do. But it would result in deeply unthematic gameplay.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Not unthematic at all. Mechanically flawed yes. But thematically when Professor X is on the VDO's card, he is in the Car and figures outside the car can be within the 10 spaces of the car...which thematically is where Professor X is.

I fully realize that VDO's would become defensive bunkers which is why I brought it up. Because I don't want to have to draft a car every time I play because he was tested in a defensive bunker. So I understand the desire to make special powers not work when in a car as a mechanic. But I'm also saying it just doesn't make sense thematically.

I'm also not sure why Kang and the sort keep being brought up against my arguments. I AGREE that when a figure is on those type of cards that the default should be that the powers don't work. But this is a different thing all together. A figure getting in a car isn't teleported to an alternate dimension. Putting the figure on the VDO's card is strictly a mechanical process to note that the figure is in the car. But the intent is that the figure is still on the map just inside the vehicle.

either 1. I'm doing a craptastic job explaining my side, 2. everyone is only seeing what they want and are missing my point, 3. No one really cares what I think and they plan on doing this regardless, or 4. I'm confused entirely on what's being proposed.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Yeah, I don't like the idea of the VDO's just being used as a shield. The penalty for jumping into a car to avoid a Armor Piercing Rocket is pretty weak, one 50/50 chance for a single W is nothing. I'd change the VDO rules to make being inside a car that is destroyed a much more dangerous proposition if you want to discourage people from drafting them just to use it as shields or safe space. That's in addition to shutting down the use of special powers.

On the theme front, their just isn't going to be a clean theme justification either way since special powers cover so many different things. Yes, Wolverine shouldn't stop healing while driving a car, but I don't agree that Prof. X should be mentally sending out tactical commands in real time while driving. I know driving the same route home from work every day can make driving seem like a mindless task, but driving aggressively and/or defensively while participating in an active war zone does require some concentration & focus on potentially hazardous task. C3G VDO use isn't driving Miss Daisy, it's Fast & Furious.

If you are going to let someone multi-task by using a special power while driving, then their needs to be a potential for disaster component. Use a special power on your card and roll a die to see if you flip the car over and break your arm in the crash. That kind of stuff just overly complicates things though and asks the question of where do we stop. If Hulk punches the front of a vehicle, shouldn't that trigger the airbag and knock an OM off the card of the driver?

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Who's saying he's driving. Most VDO's have multiple passengers.

I agree there isn't a clean break anywhere. It's why I was questioning why we were doing this. If we are finding that it's not clean should we just say we tried and go back to the drawing board.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I think the question of "should characters be able to use special powers in cars?" is just another iteration of what characters can do versus what they should do, which comes up all the time when we're designing cards. If something is technically possible for a character, but it encourages weird gameplay or unthematic synergy, we don't normally go for it.

Mainly I'm surprised to see opposition to barring most special powers (ie everything but vehicle-centric powers like Lady Blackhawk's) from being used in vehicles because that was part of the rules as most of us understood them when this got under way. We talked about it, tested it and everything. :shrug:

The idea that special powers might be usable in vehicles after all is something that came up mid-stream here.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Japes, I get what you're saying. I apologize for bringing up Kang since it seems he's been brought up to you before.

Here's the situation: we need to make a ruling on figures being able to use powers (by default) while they're not on the battlefield. Are you willing to say they don't work sometimes (like when Kang has them) and do work sometimes (like in a VDO)?

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

First off, apology not needed. I just wanted it clear that I see the two issues as distinctly different. So to answer your first inquiry...
My opinion is that by default powers shouldn't work when a figure is not on the battlefield and we word the ones that should to say that specifically in the power. And yes I understand that technically that means when they are on cards. So I'd be in favor of ruling by default powers on cards not on the battlefield should be nullified (unless that power specifically states otherwise)

That is one distinct issue and my opinion on that issue.

Now in the other matter...

But in nearly all instances the thematic reasons a figure is on a card is either death or they are in another dimension/not in the immediate area. However for VDO thematically they are still in the immediate area, they are in whatever location the VDO is in. So if Mr. Fantastic is in the Fantasticar with the others were gathered around the car, thematically he should still get to roll for his leadership power and let the others take to the fight. But I agree this could causes serious competitive issues.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Thematically, I'm on board. However, making entering a VDO an exception to the default powers not working on the battlefield rule means we need to make changes to the VDO rules so they are not just portable shields. I am not opposed to changing the VDO rules but I would like to see the proposed changes.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

That really is a good point. So it looks like now we need to draft rules that specify which figure is driving vs. which figure is sitting shotgun vs which figure is sitting in the back seat when multiple figures are put on a VDO card. The driver can't use any powers but can move the car when activated, the guy sitting shotgun can't move the car but can use their Shotgun SA if they want to, but only on figures on the right side of the card and not the left, then the guy sitting in back can fire a APR out the back window at anyone behind the car, but not at figures in front of the car. Each VDO card should really have a diagram on it showing each available seat, then you place your figure in the open seat you want them to occupy. Each seat would then have a different set of rules governing what they can and can not do while in the VDO. Then when someone shoots at the card, it's be easier to determine who might get hit by a bullet if we know where each person is sitting and what part of the car (ie. occupied hex) was targeted with a machine gun. This could really be a game all onto itself, a C3G Demolition Derby spin off game. It'll make millions, millions I say.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I didn't mean to shut down the thread here, I was just being sarcastic. Feel free to completely ignore me on this topic as I have never used the VDO rules, just the vehicle cards as DOs, and it's starting too look like I'll just keep it that way.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I'm loving your sarcasm, YK, and I'd love to hear more from you about revising the VDO rules if you're willing. You make great points that nobody is going to use these rules if they're cumbersome at all. We need to keep things simple.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Yeah I got busy and never came back to this thread. Nothing against you or your post. I was going to say C3GKart for the game title.

I got the humor in the post.

This is making me want the Batmobile and Lawmaster to be figures and not VDOs. But who knows, maybe we figure it out.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Tornado's already said the Lawmaster should be a figure. Given how often the Batmobile is automated... I'm in favour of that being one too.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Yeah, waiting to see how it plays out for the Lawmaster but still leaning towards uncommon hero.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

What change do you want to see? What direction would you have this take going forward? Given that 'no special powers' was part of the understanding of the rules from the start here, did something change for you? Or had you just missed some of the prior discussions?

(Not trying to take you to task or anything, but I do want to clarify what you think needs to be figured out)

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Woo boy, ya'll gave me a lot to catch up on this one.

It seems like the poll was jumping the gun a bit and we have some stuff to figure out and hash out first. No worries and no reason to get too worked up (not saying any of you are, but my way of saying I think we should be able to salvage this still).

I think I snagged the wrong quote here, but this is in reference to settling the debate on whether special powers work when you're in play but not on the battlefield or not (btw, call that vote and update based on "in play" to help settle that! :-) ).

I agree completely that we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves in this thread because anything we decide on here is ultimately going to be dependent on that ruling.

Yeah, I'm not crazy about that. But I have some ideas to help figure out where to draw the line.

I think this is a hugely important point and I don't want it to be lost. I'd be in favor of something nasty like being in a car when it's destroyed equaling two auto wounds. I'm not drafting that to hide Mister Fantastic in at that point.

This whole process will involve changing the VDO rules in order to make VDOs draftable. This is a bigger change than anticipated, but not outside of the scope of this effort, so I think this makes sense and should be a given.

In addition to Yodaking's suggestion for increased penalty for being in a destroyed vehicle (which I think is hugely important as a balancing factor), I'd argue for one other scalpel use before we totally blow up any power uses inside of cars. I'd have to carefully study the overall impact of this idea, but I think it could help a lot with these concerns:

Order Markers represent intention in this game. A lot of the more powerful powers require you to reveal an Order Marker on a card to trigger them. Most factional hubs are tied to Order Marker reveals.

What if when you enter a vehicle, your Order Markers are transferred to that vehicle, and you only get them back when you leave the vehicle? Then we could alter the rules so that you couldn't get out of the vehicle the same turn you get into it, but that getting into or out of the vehicle would be instead of moving normally and moving/using the vehicle would require an Order Marker reveal on it?

We might have to make vehicles more strictly a part of your army to accomplish that, and not so easy to change hands, but I think that might be OK for balance as well.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

See this is the issue. I don't know what I'd want to see. Well I kind of do but I don't know if it works in any way. I'd like for this not to be a world full of manipulative rules lawyers so that people could just be reasonable and logical and know which powers should work in a car...but we all understand that's not the truth which is why we are here.

In a perfect world mr. Fantastic or professor X wouldn't lose their leadership ability in a car but also they shouldn't be able to hide in a car and not risk being hurt. I honestly don't have a solution which is why I'm frustrated as in my mind I'm feeling it's hopeless. I don't think it's hopeless bc together we've come up with some pretty cool stuff...I just feel that way now.

On your other part...I'm not sure when or why this stood out. I wasn't following along as well as I'd have liked early on but now that I don't feel obligated to read every post anymore I started paying more attention to things that I wanted to.


Also no worry Ronin. I know your not being like that. We all want to figure this out and you've put in a lot of work here.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

It sounds to me you want VDOs to be less reliable protection in exchange for figures to be able to use their powers while inside VDOs. What if we just made you roll a combat die when attacking a VDO? If you roll a skull, the figures inside are affected. If not, the VDO is affected.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

What about if the 'roll one unblockable attack die against each figure in the car when it's destroyed' happened whenever the car was wounded? Makes it slightly less effective protection (though Joker doesn't really care, sadly), and if a car is hit, it makes sense the people inside it might be hurt without it straight up blowing up.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Or lets go simple. If the vehicle takes any number of wounds, each occupant takes the same number of wounds. Riding in vehicles makes you faster and gives you powers but actually leaves you more exposed.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I slept on this and woke up concluding that the issue wasn't the powers but the protection. So all these ideas that have been posted overnight are interesting ideas that I think we could make work. After realizing that the Sports car had a defense of 6 I was leaning toward Bat's idea. But then I guess if you have two figures in a car DO Auto wounds become a major counter. Which I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Thoughts?



I know when my car took damage I received wounds ;)

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

If they're in a car they're a grouped target (easier to hit both) and they're less able (thematically, IMO) to actively defend themselves (dodging bullets, for instance, is tougher if you're wearing your seat belt and going 80 mph!).

I definitely think that the version I posted will shut down using the cars to "hide" OM hubs or obnoxious scissor figures like Joker (I) and Ozy.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I'd argue for two defense rolls. I make Attack roll on Bats' Sports Car. He rolls defense. If I damage the Sports Car, then his occupant(s) roll defense against the same attack. I'm with japes: when I was hit by a drunk driver, my car was totaled, but I was not. I definitely took damage though, but the seatbelt and airbag protected me.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

That brings in all of the powers that may or may not trigger on defensive rolls (i.e. a messy spiderweb of mechanics).

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

We could modify this a bit:

If you inflict any number of wounds on a VDO, roll that same number of unblockable attack dice against each occupant of that VDO.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I was going to suggest this. Seems most logical to me.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Really good solution, q!

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Yeah, I wouldn't want individual defense rolls due to the many powers that may trigger that are not thematically or mechanically clean. I'd just have the VDO roll defense and if it takes a wound but is not destroyed, roll an unblockable vs. every passenger for each wound the VDO takes. If the VDO is destroyed though, then each figure inside takes 1W for every 2 life on the VDO's card. So if the VDO took 2 wounds, but is not destroyed, you would roll 2 combat die vs. each figure in the VDO one at a time, passengers can then take anywhere from 0-2W's. If a VDO with 5 life is destroyed by any attack or power, then each figure inside the VDO at that moment takes 2 wounds. Something like a motorcycle might only have 2-3 life and thus the rider only takes 1W when it gets destroyed, but a tank might have 6 life and anyone caught inside when it gets destroyed then takes 3Ws. A VDO with a higher defense than your figure is still going to look like an attractive suit of armor if they don't have a defensive power, but once a VDO starts taking damage you might start thinking about bailing out before it gets destroyed.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I can get on board with that approach. Deterrent enough, Ronin?

(The unblockables for wounds I mean. Let’s not go crazy beyond that).

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

More deterrent than the current approach, but probably not enough by itself, no.

With the Sports Car (which I think is a good example because it's sort of as low-end as these things are gonna get, unless someone has a Segway VDO in mind), it's got 6 defense so a figure like Joker would still love to hang out in it. Sure, Joker might take some wounds when it gets attacked, but taking half the wounds (on average) that a 6-Defense car would take, is better than taking all the wounds a 3-Defense Joker would take.

I don't think it's a bad tweak, but I do think going that route would require also either:
-doing what dok suggested here, or
-rebalancing vehicles for lower Defense and higher Life (not sure that this would be enough by itself, but it would help)

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Hmm this is why I like going auto wounds over unblockables. Joker gets +3 defense, but that’s pretty much what the cost of the car is covering since the car’s own life and Joker’s can be hit simultaneously.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

That's why I like not using powers while in VDOs. No incentive to just sit there.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Yep. That's still my preference. I'm just trying to work out what the alternative is.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Do we need to poll some things out here to get a direction? I'd like to test this during one of my non-initial testing turns, but it seems pretty far off still! :-)

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Sorry I haven't been as keyed into this lately - been trying to keep some other threads moving forward. But I'm pretty sure I did try polling it out and that landed us here. japes and LO were the only ones pushing for special powers in vehicles as I recall, though.

Given that there was a generally pretty strong agreement that special powers shouldn't by default work for figures off the battlefield (Heroes voted that way 4-0-1), we'd have to make some special exception for figures in vehicles to be able to use special powers if we wanted that to happen.

Also, I linked the initial that I ran for the sports car in the OP here.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

So it looks like we move forward with special powers not working in VDO by default, since the figures are off the battlefield. Since that is what the VDO rules assume, we're good to go.

If you have any objections to the current rules, please say so now.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Cool. :up: Did we want to make any other tweaks to the VDO rules, such as increasing potential damage for passengers? Or is that change sufficient?

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

No objections.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I think we'll need more playtesting to make that determination.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

I've said my peace, it was acknowledged, deemed a non issue by the group so I'll move on.

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Initial Testing)
 

Your objection has been noted, japes. If there are a large number of objections, we should look into revising the rules. However, if it's just you and Yodaking, I think we should move forward.