Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

Misread the power.

I still don't like it. I think it would be better to word it as a special power on Agent Borricga's card:

When attacking with Agent Borrigca, if at least two agents you control are also within 6 spaces of Agent Borricga and the defending figure, you may add 2 to Agent Borricga's attack.

Or work off of that for the desired effect. I don't like granting a special attack to another card.

Micromachines
 

Actually, they're taking their own turn so it's not that case.

~Dysole, who thinks with a rewording the power could work

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

Yeah, I read the power very very wrong. I've posted a suggestion that could serve as a fix for the power.

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

The current Coordination power leaves me scratching my head because it's not obvious what's going on in the power. Combining normal attacks to a special attack is very awkward and the way the units are combining attacks is complicated, without the flat attack value that the Roman Archers have.

Perhaps something akin to the Zettian Guards, with a gradual gain in attack as more units attack the same figure, or a gradual defense reduction, etc.

You can get something similar to what you've proposed to work, but you're going to have to simplify the bonus instead of turning it into a special attack in the middle of the power.

"Agent Coordination Special Attack
Attack 2+Special. Range 7.
Roll 2 additional attack dice for each common agent you control within 7 clear sight spaces of [unit] and the targeted figure, to a maximum of +6."

Not that that's a great power, but there are multiple ways to do what you're trying to do.

Also the bonuses awarded to the Microcorp Agents are too direct. They gain bonding and a better attack potential with no real downsides, which is kind of off putting. There should be some finesse to executing the synergy between the two instead of just a blatant power boost. A limitation on when the agents can use the power, or not allowing them to move could make this into a dynamic unit instead of just something to rescue the Microcorp Agents.

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

Everything that happens for the first time is unprecedented.

I can imagine the pushback within Hasbro when Q9 was being designed. "What? You want to split up his attack dice across multiple attacks?? That's crazy. It's against precedent."

Same with the Werewolf Lord. Up to that point, no unit had ever changed the species and class of another unit. What if Corey and co. had submitted that design and WotC had said "Heresy! Change it! It seems customy!"?

Before the Zettian Infantry, no card had ever referred to "a special power that is not an attack." It was new, and weird, and "against precedent." But it worked, and nothing broke, and a new feature was added to the game.

Even Mimring ran totally against precedent right in the first master set.

We have units that can give other units extra movement, extra turns, defense bonuses, healing, different attributes, bigger attacks, extra attacks ... but a unit that gives another unit a special attack is customy and has crossed the line?

Why?

Seriously, I don't understand what the problem is, or why, in the grand pantheon of all the new ground that has been explored in the Age of D&D and then the Age of VC, there is suddenly a wall in the design space that cannot be crossed.

Please give me something to chew on besides resistance to unexplored ground. If there's some wording that leads to two different interpretations, or a scenario that's broken, or a negative impact on existing units, or whatever, I can work with that. But I can't really do anything with "this is new and we don't like it."

We can all list existing units and powers and sculpts that we just plain don't like. Plenty of VCs feel "customy" to me. Should they be disqualified? Is a first-impression feeling of "customy" enough to throw out an effect before we even look at the impact it has on the game and the new builds it might encourage?

That's not the same effect at all, of course. I'm guessing I don't need to tell you that you aren't wording it differently, you are writing an entirely new power. It has different incentives and disincentives for drafting and tactical play, changes the theme, and (IMO) is less fun. Counting things and adding +1s is not the goal of this mechanic.

Look guys, I get that you just plain don't like it. I really do. Message received. But is that enough to throw a new idea out the window before it has even had a chance to breathe? What is the standard?

Does anybody have anything to say about the mechanics, the effects on builds and tactics, the way it might add to or detract from gameplay, the pros and cons of the three sculpts? I'm very alert to the fact that the idea of one unit granting another unit a special attack is generating some pushback. If that's a dealbreaker, then this design is dead. There's no reason to rewrite it to do something else; that was its purpose. If that's not a dealbreaker, then are there any other aspects of the design worth discussing?

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

I should clarify, my problem isn't with precedent, my problem is the power does not work within Heroscape's rules very well by my judgment (if at all, @Scytale might have a better idea of how doable it is). Special attacks have a set range and attack, this has neither.

It also fails to handle the defenders height advantage (which is the reason the Archers have a same-level restriction), instead having the rather random seeming 'bonus die' bit instead. Though that's solvable if you crib the Yari's wording at least.

It's warping the game in a lot of weird ways, and all for little payoff. Quite a few people are not going to like it adding more synergy to previously synergy lite or lacking units. Personally, I don't much care for it as it's just a Hero killing option. One that I doubt I'd even use much (especially with the Microcorps if they can get Sighting). It's not adding anything appealing to me.

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the gameplay implications.

There are several limitations.

• The OM has to be on the hero, who has poor Defense. If she gets greased, you've lost a lot of moves and activations that round.
• The hero has to either not move or not attack, so it isn't full bonding.
• The hero has to have line of sight on every target the agents wish to attack. So this "bonding" turn is further limited by the fact that the agents have reduced target selection, even if they are not using the combined special attack.
• The bonding hero has only one attack of 3, and only if she doesn't move. This attack will be less likely to have height advantage compared to other units, because you'll sometimes be hiding in water to try to keep her alive. (This was intentional.) Even if she does risk taking height, she deliberately does not have Sighting (and the turns spent gaining that height were turns in which she could not attack).
• Because it is a special attack, the Microcorp Agents lose their height bonus. That's a big consequence, since they add +2 for height. (Again, intentional.) One attack of 6 is not always better than 3 attacks of 2 (4 with height), and very often will be less valuable than 3 attacks of 3 (5 with height).

Thus, it is (deliberately) one of the most nerfed bonding relationships in the game. An OM on the hero instead of on the squad really only gives you, in the base case, one additional attack of 3 (at the cost of standing still and thus lagging behind the squad's movement) and the possibility to combine 2 or 3 squad members' attacks, giving up both height and Sighting bonuses, at the cost of reduced target selection and the risk of the whole thing toppling under one good shot to Borrciga.

I did all of that specifically because I wanted a design where you do not simply dump your OMs on the hero every time. There are decisions to be made, and you'd better read the tactical situation correctly. I wanted to create a new mode of using the MCAs that's different but not necessarily stronger. They are giving up a lot for basically one good attack during the entire combined two-turn bonding event.

Do you still think it's nothing more than a "blatant power boost"? If so, I have missed my target.

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

I feel like a big part of the pushback is because the power is not done cleanly. If you want to do this new thing than push forward and do it, but refine it. I'd say to treat it as a Venoc Warlord type bonus that grants a special attack. Then it's up front and clear what's happening in the power.

"All common agents you control gain the following special attack while they are within clear sight of [unit]:"

Another hurdle is making it clear thematically why this agent's presence is giving the Microcorp the ability to do this. The power names have to be tight.

edit; Responding to last post, made while typing.

I see that there are drawbacks, but to a certain extent you can just have your custom sit back and let the microcorp reap the benefits of her being on the board, as long as they're in clear sight. This is why I feel like it's a straight up power boost.

Tossed Around
 

After a lot of thought, I've determined why the current wording does not sit well with me.

It is granting a relatively well defined ability (Special Attack) with a particular format to a group of units who did not have that ability. It would be similar to granting a group of units the ability to fly. (C3G has gotten around this by creating a Flying symbol which allows them to cut out all the text).

Were the ability on the Micros (or other common agents if they exist) it would read pretty close to identical to the Roman Archers with a +1 attack bonus.

Something with wording like

(Previous power wording.)During this turn, the agents have the following ability.

• COMBINED SHOT SPECIAL ATTACK
  Range 7. Attack 6.
  Three adjacent agents may combine their attacks and roll their attack dice as one attack. All agents must have a clear line of sight on the one target. The defending figure compares height to the lowest agent to determine any height advantage.

I'd have less of a problem with it (although this wording has its own set of issues). As is, it breaks way too much precedent in too many directions for me.

~Dysole, hoping that clarifies

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

I think that'd make more sense, plus it'd be less powerful since all 3 would have to do it and be adjacent. But I for one ain't certain that the Microcorp Agents/Gorillanators really even need such a boost to begin with (but that's just me).

~TAF

Re: The Pre-SoV Workshop
 

Can you help me understand the complication? You have 2 or 3 units that are members of the same squad who are adding together their printed Attack number. It's either 2+2 or it's 2+2+2; there are no other cases. The power specifically says "roll their normal attack dice together" in anticipation of the question. What other interpretation is possible? What would help to make that more clear?

Ooh, yes that is a big oversight. Thank you. Probably the simplest solution there is to scrap the +1 for the optional same level and simply make it mandatory as the Romans do. It doesn't have the same thematic necessity for the MCAs as it does for the the Archers, but I wouldn't want to bog this text down with the Yari patch.

New units can't fill in synergy gaps? I'm not following.

Yes, it does let the MCAs shift their focus from squads to heroes. But wouldn't your statement be an argument against any new unit with a single high attack per turn?

Are you proposing to list some kind of COMBINED SPECIAL ATTACK power on the hero that the hero doesn't actually have? That seems like more of a bending of precedent to me. An entire special power on a unit that is not used by that unit but mentally cut and posted onto another card seems actually more complicated to me.

Help me understand what you mean here. She is coordinating their fire, and calling in the shot. If AGENT COORDINATION doesn't mean she is COORDINATING what the AGENTS are doing, then I'm not sure what it would mean. (FWIW, I originally called it COORDINATED FIRE but I thought that was too generic a label for this effect. I didn't want to "steal" that power name from some other future unit that might create a new SP with that name that could be used on multiple cards.) I'm totally open to rewording ... I just want to understand why the current theme is not as obvious as I thought it was.

Honest question ... do you think she will be able to sit in the start zone and the opponent won't be able to place his figures to make it so that the Agents can't target anything? If that's a likely scenario, then I need to add a distance component.

That would be a good analogy if the rules for special attacks were printed on every card that had a special attack and I was leaving them off. But that's not happening here. All units with special attacks use the words "Special Attack" to invoke all of the rules. What is it you think is missing that I'm not copying over to the squad?

Seriously, I'm just not getting what ambiguities we are worried about here. It seems like a theoretical rather than an actual problem. I totally know what it means when normal attacks are combined into a special attack. It means it takes the place of my normal attacks, I don't get any outside bonuses such as height, I can now hit Drake from range, and so on.

Maybe the question I should ask is this: What is the wrong interpretation that we are worried that players would make? What is the "use case" for the text not being clear?

I will think about this, since two of you have suggested it. However, it seems very weird to me, and I would anticipate people getting confused and thinking that Agent Borrciga had a special attack that caused figures from another card to attack during her turn (which we all know is a Very Bad Thing).

Thanks everyone for taking the time to dig in deeper. I can tell this is frustrating for some of you (it is for me too), and I appreciate the effort.

Par Example
 

Well here's what we have.

Morgoloth's card grants those figures disengage but the card instead spells out what the power does instead of saying "They have disengage". Count Raymond has a similar ability. So spelling out the special power (or special attack) in this case is the precedent (likely because it means that you don't have to reference anything else to see what the ability is). There might be some particular reason why that might be the case but I think if you don't have a clearly defined Special Attack, then you do not follow the theme as presented by other cards granting figures abilities they did not previously have.

~Dysole, probably done here