Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   C3G Library (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=167)
-   -   The Book of C3G Destructible Object Rules (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=55039)

Lazy Orang October 17th, 2018 04:25 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin (Post 2230262)
I've been mulling it over and I'm kind of mixed. On the one hand, I don't think he was optimally playing the car. On the other hand, 'difficult to play optimally' isn't exactly a feature.

I do feel like some of his complaints are a little contradictory, though, and sort of cancel each other out. It's a bit unfair to say that it's inconvenient to use and also that you have to babysit the thing to keep the opponent from stealing it - why do they want it and why do you want to protect it, if it's such a pain?

I do think a small point drop might not be a bad idea. I'd really like another test from an Ally to get more perspective from someone who wasn't part of the development here.

One of the least thematic and most frustrating aspects (from having played them without the drafting options) is how poorly it works with bonding - figures can't be within X spaces or clear sight of other figures for bonding, which makes a lot of synergy bloody frustrating. Is there a potential work-around here?

Scapemage October 17th, 2018 04:30 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
I agree. The comments are concerning but I'd like to see more plays from people who don't have the insider context as to why we're making the changes.

Yodaking October 17th, 2018 04:35 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Well, since you are paying to draft the car can't we say only your figures have the keys needed to drive it? That would eliminate the 'babysitting to prevent your opponent from running you over with your own car' issue.

Scapemage October 17th, 2018 04:44 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodaking (Post 2230274)
Well, since you are paying to draft the car can't we say only your figures have the keys needed to drive it? That would eliminate the 'babysitting to prevent your opponent from running you over with your own car' issue.

I don't think I realized we didn't have this rule. In fairness when we have figures who place glyphs on the board, they are fair game for all, but they don't cost points. In this situation the gameplay experienced is soured by creating a new point of contention on the map.

Lazy Orang October 17th, 2018 04:49 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodaking (Post 2230274)
Well, since you are paying to draft the car can't we say only your figures have the keys needed to drive it? That would eliminate the 'babysitting to prevent your opponent from running you over with your own car' issue.

It also eliminates a large part of the fun of having them around and the ability to place them on the map as terrain you can interact with. I'd rather drop their cost than do this.

Scapemage October 17th, 2018 04:56 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang (Post 2230285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodaking (Post 2230274)
Well, since you are paying to draft the car can't we say only your figures have the keys needed to drive it? That would eliminate the 'babysitting to prevent your opponent from running you over with your own car' issue.

It also eliminates a large part of the fun of having them around and the ability to place them on the map as terrain you can interact with. I'd rather drop their cost than do this.

They can be separate things, I think. If I pay the point cost for a VDO, I bring it with my army and it's mine to use, but I can always just throw some VDOs into a map for fun. In this instance they wouldn't be player locked since nobody would be paying points for them.

Lazy Orang October 17th, 2018 05:02 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scapemage (Post 2230288)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang (Post 2230285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodaking (Post 2230274)
Well, since you are paying to draft the car can't we say only your figures have the keys needed to drive it? That would eliminate the 'babysitting to prevent your opponent from running you over with your own car' issue.

It also eliminates a large part of the fun of having them around and the ability to place them on the map as terrain you can interact with. I'd rather drop their cost than do this.

They can be separate things, I think. If I pay the point cost for a VDO, I bring it with my army and it's mine to use, but I can always just throw some VDOs into a map for fun. In this instance they wouldn't be player locked since nobody would be paying points for them.

I still think the ability to commandeer someone's car is just too fun and evocative to ditch. :shrug:

Tornado October 17th, 2018 05:11 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
You could make it so it starts as only for one army but add in a Hotwire power to allow a chance for another team to steal it.

Yodaking October 17th, 2018 05:24 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scapemage (Post 2230288)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang (Post 2230285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodaking (Post 2230274)
Well, since you are paying to draft the car can't we say only your figures have the keys needed to drive it? That would eliminate the 'babysitting to prevent your opponent from running you over with your own car' issue.

It also eliminates a large part of the fun of having them around and the ability to place them on the map as terrain you can interact with. I'd rather drop their cost than do this.

They can be separate things, I think. If I pay the point cost for a VDO, I bring it with my army and it's mine to use, but I can always just throw some VDOs into a map for fun. In this instance they wouldn't be player locked since nobody would be paying points for them.


Yup, you draft it and it's yours for the game. When no one drafts it, it's still up for grabs by either team. Right now we are just talking about a Sports Car, but since the plan is to introduce combat vehicles like helicopters and tanks for certain people to draft and use, then I'll never draft one of those figures if my opponent can easily just use my helicopter or tank against my own units.

IAmBatman October 17th, 2018 08:22 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
I know that if/when I do a Batmobile there'll be restrictions in the powers to protect it from being stolen. I do think that restricting use by the other team could open up interesting design areas for hot-wiring powers.

But, honestly, I think the key is that if you're going to bring a vehicle to play, plan to use it. The sports car is never going to be worth its value for transportation. Not on any but the hugest maps. The only reason to bring it is to spam hit and run, which means keeping a driver in the car.

quozl October 17th, 2018 09:02 PM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
I think it's sad that nobody has thrown the car yet in any of the playtests.

IAmBatman October 18th, 2018 08:17 AM

Re: Draftable Vehicles Discussion Thread (Public Testing)
 
Yeah, I could see that. I was more focused on using it as a vehicle.

I wonder if we couldn't find a middle ground on the control issue and create a power like this:

ANTI-THEFT SYSTEM
If this Sports Car is in your Army and there are no Wound Markers on this card, another Player's figure may not enter or occupy this Sports Car.

So basically you only get in if you break in?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.