The Book of C3G Destructible Object Rules

[IAmBatman]

Yep. And since these rules are more or less meant to work for enclosed structures as well, there is plenty of likelihood of additions for things a figure can stand on.

#5 was the easy to answer question, though. I'm going to try to review the rules and bumble my way through 1-4 tonight.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

1) Moving into vehicles. This is something I’ve never got. Maybe I’m missing something, but why not make them similar to the already-existing concept of glyphs; you enter a vehicle by moving onto a space that vehicle already occupies, and your move ends there. This would also make people entering vehicles take LEAs, which is something I’m for.

How do you move onto an occupied space?

How is that better than ending movement on an adjacent space allowing you to enter the vehicle?

We don't mention whether or not a figure takes leaving engagement attacks when entering the vehicle - just that they don't take them from figures occupying the vehicles. This could all probably be spelled out more clearly and succinctly, though. The fact that figures outside the vehicle and figures inside the vehicle are never engaged probably makes the LEA language that's there currently unnecessary.

Originally Posted by MrNobody

2) Specific entry/exit points. Again, it’s just complication where I don’t feel it’s totally needed. Plus, removing this will make it a lot easier for people not using the exact mini listed.

This isn't something necessary or that will be necessary for most vehicles. It's more to open up potential design space for hypothetical massive vehicles like a space ship, where just entering from any old space would seem unthematic. Most vehicles simply won't have these spaces specified.

But some enclosed structures, like the Small House, or the Port-a-Potty might, as might some large vehicles. Even something like an 18-Wheeler would be odd to enter from the side of the trailer.

Originally Posted by MrNobody

3) Exiting a vehicle you control vs. one you don’t take place on different parts of your turn? That’s the way I’m reading it at least. Exiting a vehicle you control happens after moving, but exiting an opponent-controlled vehicle takes place instead of movement? Honestly just not a huge fan of the whole exiting section, but I don’t have any immediate suggestions for changes.

I won't argue that the rules could probably be written better/more succinctly, but both happen instead of moving normally on your turn. It's just that if you're in the vehicle, you can move the vehicle before exiting. We could potentially slow that down and just make it so you have to give up your whole move just to exit, but that would diminish the value of the vehicles.

Originally Posted by MrNobody

4) Destroying vehicles; who exactly gets the excess wounds? So a car has 2 people in it, and 1 person on top. The car had 1 life left and took 4 wounds, making an excess of 3 wounds. So do all 3 of those figures receive 3 wounds each or is it 1 wound per figure? I honestly just liked the old unblockable attack die system better.

I believe it's all the figures take three wounds. Should be written more clearly - open to new language. I believe this was a @Tornado idea for balancing the VDOs as a pod-hideout, so he can comment more on it.

[Tornado]

You got it right Bats. That can be adjusted as needed.

Not sure if I agree with 3. You can now.attack after moving from inside the car which is huge. Hard to say until we.try this stuff out.

I know it looks like a lot but I think it will all play pretty smoothly once you try it.out or at least that is the goal.

[MrNobody]

For standing on DOs, I've kind of been in the same place where I've just made up rules on the fly. But if we're moving towards DOs as a draftable and balanced part of the game experience, should now be the time to work on standardizing that as well? I'm just thinking an aerial view of the "mini" showing spots a figure could stand on linked in the books would be plenty. (Assuming there are still people around who have them)

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

How do you move onto an occupied space?

How is that better than ending movement on an adjacent space allowing you to enter the vehicle?

We don't mention whether or not a figure takes leaving engagement attacks when entering the vehicle - just that they don't take them from figures occupying the vehicles. This could all probably be spelled out more clearly and succinctly, though. The fact that figures outside the vehicle and figures inside the vehicle are never engaged probably makes the LEA language that's there currently unnecessary.

"A figure may enter a vehicle by moving onto a space that vehicle currently occupies. A figure may only onto that space and enter the vehicle if all conditions for entering that vehicle are met. After entering the vehicle, that figure's movement immediately ends."

I dunno, that wording is probably crap, but you get my point. The current system just seems at odds with how you move onto pretty much everything else in the game. You don't activate a glyph by ending your move adjacent to it, then doing an extra thing to actually get onto it. You just move onto it, and there you go. Same with moving onto terrain and destructible objects. I feel that rooting the "moving into stuff" process in the same mechanics as the "moving onto stuff" process will make it a lot more intuitive than having an extra thing you have to do.

I just misread the line about LEAs. That's entirely my bad.

This isn't something necessary or that will be necessary for most vehicles. It's more to open up potential design space for hypothetical massive vehicles like a space ship, where just entering from any old space would seem unthematic. Most vehicles simply won't have these spaces specified.

But some enclosed structures, like the Small House, or the Port-a-Potty might, as might some large vehicles. Even something like an 18-Wheeler would be odd to enter from the side of the trailer.

That makes sense I suppose. I can see the argument for something big like a space ship or the 18-Wheeler. I'd still push for simplicity on something like a porta-potty though. I will mention that my system of entering a vehicle would allow for more streamlining here. Just designate a side of a hex as the "door" and allow figures to only enter a vehicle by crossing over that side of the hex. I can make a diagram if that sounds like nonsense.

I won't argue that the rules could probably be written better/more succinctly, but both happen instead of moving normally on your turn. It's just that if you're in the vehicle, you can move the vehicle before exiting. We could potentially slow that down and just make it so you have to give up your whole move just to exit, but that would diminish the value of the vehicles.

Could it just be written so both occur after your movement? You can't move a vehicle you can't control (I think) so it would be the same effect, right?

Originally Posted by Tornado

I know it looks like a lot but I think it will all play pretty smoothly once you try it.out or at least that is the goal.

I think you're vastly underestimating my stupidity.

But all joking aside, that's really where a lot of my concerns come from. I'm not a smart guy, and I like games I can understand. Like I said, I'm drawn to Heroscape over other games because of the simplicity. It's something the original designers of the game seemed to really strive for. I like that I don't have to crack open a rulebook for 90% of the games I play. I've always had to have the rules beside me for vehicles and I probably always will, but I'd like to minimize how many times I have to look at them. Like I get we'll probably never get them down to the simple perfection of the SI or Spell rules, just cause there's a lot more going on. But it would be cool to get as much of it as possible to click in the way those 2 rulesets do. You pretty much never need to look at those PDFs because the rules have this "duh" factor to them. That's where I'm coming from.

If the rest of C3G disagrees with my ideas, I can see why and I wouldn't be upset about it or anything. I'll still try my best to chip in and help no matter what, cause I want my Tardis.

[Yodaking]

On the porta-potty, we ran into the issue where a row of them would create a LOS barrier they you couldn't shoot through, but you could just walk through that same wall. In real life a porta-potty only has one door, you don't enter on one side of a row of the and exit on the other side. If you want to do that you'll have to cut or blow a hole in it, which requires an attack.

[A3n]

Originally Posted by Yodaking

On the porta-potty, we ran into the issue where a row of them would create a LOS barrier they you couldn't shoot through, but you could just walk through that same wall. In real life a porta-potty only has one door, you don't enter on one side of a row of the and exit on the other side. If you want to do that you'll have to cut or blow a hole in it, which requires an attack.

Or if you are a few old guys planning to rob a bank you cut the back out of it ahead of time & make sure you have a change of clothes to hide your escape.

~A3n, Going in Style

[IAmBatman]

MrNobody I'm completely fine with your taking a crack at some simplified/clearer wording based on your suggestions. I definitely am in hopes that the final version of this has better pictures/art to go with it to improve the understanding of the rules, but that's out of my purview. I've taken the wording about as far as I can at this point.

Really, though, the biggest thing we're trying to nail down right now is the mechanics, followed by perfecting the wording (in Final Editing, probably).

I'd be fine with doing that change to the movement. I'd love to see you take a crack at writing it out. I find when writing rules I often get too caught up chasing corner cases and over-explain to the detriment of clear flow.

[johnny139]

I think it makes sense to at least try the more complex version, see what plays intuitively, see what makes you go back to double check the rules a bunch, and chart a course from there. Everyone being a bit rusty might work in our favor.

[IAmBatman]

For sure. I'm all about T-Spinny spearheading that when he gets back from his trip. I know Ronin and I are both poised to jump on tests after him.

The biggest thing to figure out is if this version is fun! The last version failed that test.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

For sure. I'm all about T-Spinny spearheading that when he gets back from his trip. I know Ronin and I are both poised to jump on tests after him.

The biggest thing to figure out is if this version is fun! The last version failed that test.

Originally Posted by johnny139

I think it makes sense to at least try the more complex version, see what plays intuitively, see what makes you go back to double check the rules a bunch, and chart a course from there. Everyone being a bit rusty might work in our favor.

to both of these.

I think the first run at this that got black-flagged on the last lap taught us that there's a lot going on here and we're not necessarily gonna nail it in one take. Might take a few more iterative improvements on the ruleset.

Definitely appreciate the ideas for simplifying, Nobody! Don't ever feel like you're being disrespectful by talking about what parts of a design do and don't work for you.

[Lord Pyre]

I have a question that is probably answered somewhere but I can't find it. Why do you have to reveal an OM to move a vehicle? I was looking over Lady Blackhawk, and she's an adventurer but doesn't work with Mr. Fantastic while driving a car. Considering driving basically replaces your turn, it doesn't seem overpowered to not require an OM to drive it.

I've actually never played with the car, and it looks pretty fun.

[Tornado]

Good question. I actually did not play it that way.