Sorry all--had no internet connection the past couple of days, but I'm back and catching up on things tonight.
Re: Valhalla Generals or LoTR Generals
One part of me says, "yeah LoTR is so awesome it deserves its own generals" but really, we're talking about a discontinued product here (Heroscape) and if we want these cards to see play beyond a dozen or so people on this planet of 7 billion people, we've got be as accessible to Heroscape players as possible. Unless Hasbro re-issues Heroscape we can expect a decline in population of players in the future--there are still lots of us, but we need all we can get.
That means we need point costs fully compatible with Valhalla-scape; playtesting, theoryscaping, and rules compatibility with Valhalla-scape; and yes, probably following Valkyrie generals. Although not ideal thematically, I can stomach it and any sort of loose explanation as to why they're following them is fine. We're talking about a back story that already encompasses a huge diversity of characters. To say we're *that* special that we *must* have our own general...eh. Don't forget there are gameplay advantages to using existing generals.
Why not make an independent game?
Primarily the reason mentioned above(because that's the only way we can reasonably expect our cards to get used). That and if we invest the time to make it compatible, it is (comparatively) easy to later use those cards as a solid base for an independent system. Therefore those who want an independent game can still have it. Just reissue cards re-themed, tweaked, and re-costed. If we start with an independent system, you cannot just "tweak" such cards to mesh into Valhalla-scape. There are too many interactions with existing units that wouldn't have been considered in the original design. I would vote against this card re-issuance being an official part of this project, at least at this point.
ERB?
I've ignored caps' mentions of a possible ERB up to this point, both because my name was involved and because I was unconvinced that we needed it, but I have come around to his thinking. Yes, I think we would benefit from a small subset of members whom we trust to steer the project. Their decisions should be followed, but should only be made after consultation with the membership as a whole. And they have an interest in keep the members happy because if they don't there soon won't be any members.
I'll leave some time for discussion pre-motion discussion, but
on Wednesday, I intend to move for the creation of an ERB:- composed of 3 members who would then be voted into those positions.
- I will propose that the ERB have the authority to basically do whatever they heck they please barring overwhelming member disapproval (obviously gotta firm up this wording before the proposal).
- I will further propose that if the motion passes, a vote for ERB members immediately follows over the course of the following 48 hours and there be a suspension of the normal voting rules to allow the ERB election.
- During the 48-hour election "season," members may cast a vote for up to 3 people (in a single post). At the end of the 48 hours votes will be tallied and the top 3 vote-getters will be appointed to the ERB.
- In the case of there not being only 3 clear top vote-getters (e.g., a tie for third place, or 4-way tie for first place), there will be a 24-hour re-voting with only the top vote-getters eligible to be voted for in the re-vote (i.e., the top 3 vote-getters and those tied with the 3rd highest vote-getter). If that fails to satisfactorily identify only 3 top vote-getters, keep repeating this step of eliminating the bottom vote-getters and doing 24-hour re-votes until 3 ERB members are identified.
So you've got until Wednesday to convince me the ERB is a bad idea or come up with proposed modifications we should include in the proposal in the previous paragraph. After that, I'll put it up to the vote if there isn't anything else in the voting thread barring it from being proposed.