The Pre-SoV Workshop

[Sir Heroscape]

Interesting. So OM1 you move out Clayton and up to 3 other Lawmen. OM2 could be Clayton again for positioning purposes OR a different Lawmwen to increase Shootout potential. OM3 will get you 3 attacks from lawmen (Clayton, X OM lawmen and the OM2 lawmen) or 4 attacks if you only had OM1 on Clayton. I like this.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

Those are really stupid reasons. As long as you've proven that the figure can end its move adjacent to Clayton and do so if tragedy doesn't befall them in the mean time, that shouldn't create a paradox in a game with little plastic men.

It doesn't matter how stupid the reasons are. We are constantly hammering new powers into a game with a loose ruleset. If we are serious about tournament-worthiness, we have to ensure personal interpretation is not a factor.

In Editing we have tried to put together new wording, but it very quickly becomes unwieldy. It's not that it's impossible to spell it out all clearly, but it takes up a lot of card space without really saying much. The Kozuke wording has specific meaning, and it's mercifully short.

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

That said, if following in the footsteps of folly allows the card to move forward and be evaluated on its merits instead of a dumb semantic argument, so be it. Alternatively, add "if possible" to the end of the sentence for something that actually makes sense.

"If possible" doesn't have the same effect. Then you could move a Lawman even if it couldn't end its turn near Clayton simply because it wasn't possible to do so.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

Kozuke Samurai must be able to move adjacent to an opponents figure in order to use Charging assault.

Couldn't they take a LEA and die after moving from space 6 to 7...

Yes, that can happen. Which is one of the reasons that wording is terrible.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

I'd defer to current conventions on "may not move" as well, though I feel like that would actually open up even more issues (but apparently I'm not as well versed). On the other hand, James can Whip something in the middle of a Shootout that way.

Right on the last part. "Can only attack" messes up the turn structure, which is one of the core things in the Heroscape ruleset that it really can't handle changes to. There are too many things dependent on turn structure, like "after moving, before attacking" effects. "Can only attack" is unclear if there are "start of turn," "before moving," "after moving and before attacking," "end of turn," etc phases. "May not move" keeps the turn intact, it just prevents normal movement and any movement powers, not unlike Cyberclaw.

[Scytale]

SHERIFF'S POSSE
After revealing an Order Marker on this card and moving Clayton Pierce, you may move any number of Unique Lawman Heroes you control up to 5 spaces. While moving with Sheriff's Posse, a figure may not move onto a space that is farther away from Clayton Pierce than its current space. Any figure moved with Sheriff's Posse must have at least one unrevealed Order Marker on its Army Card.

Rules about moving closer to or away from a figure have not been used so far, by the ODs or VC, for good reasons. In this example, if a unit remains 5 as-the-crow-flies spaces away from Clayton as it moves, but moves behind a ruins, is that legal? It's closer by one measurement, but the figure is now more movement spaces away from Clayton.

[Astroking112]

I personally would've preferred for the Kozuke to just use "must end their turn adjacent to an enemy figure" and include a R&C saying that dying doesn't retroactively end their movement, since most of the people I know have misinterpreted the official ruling.

That said, the official designers chose that wording and VC has set a precedent of reusing it. I don't think that it's a big deal to just use the "must be able to" wording that we've always used, especially since it doesn't impact the design at all here.

Originally Posted by superfrog

I think Shootout should include some reference to Clayton Pierce. Perhaps clear sight?

This sounds like it would get much more noticeable in games involving the castle set. It's a bit of a theme break to have Clayton leading a shootout from the other side of a massive stone wall, or from three floors up in a castle. Keeping any activated Lawmen within clear sight of Clayton sounds like a good thematic change to me.

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by Scytale

Rules about moving closer to or away from a figure have not been used so far, by the ODs or VC, for good reasons. In this example, if a unit remains 5 as-the-crow-flies spaces away from Clayton as it moves, but moves behind a ruins, is that legal? It's closer by one measurement, but the figure is now more movement spaces away from Clayton.

As I said, that was just a spitball, but I think it's a workable concept. Mohicans have a precedent for counting the minimum number of spaces between figures (without regard for clear sight or movement).

Perhaps the wording would have to be expanded, and that probably makes it a bad candidate for this card (which is wordy enough as is).

------------------------------------------------

Back to the design, though: I like this version quite a lot! It's unique and thematic. I'd be interested to play it.

[Leaf_It]

Originally Posted by Scytale

I understand your point better, but I still can't agree. It's trivial to make a power that is unbalanced regardless of cost.

BEST POWER
At the start of the game, you immediately win.

It's obviously absurd, but my point extends beyond simple absurdity. You can say that the above power will cost 1,000,000 points, but it's still broken in a 1,000,000 point game. Heroscape is too variable to be determined solely by pricing units, because there is no bound to possibilities. Look at how Taelord goes from terrible in a 400-point game to amazing in a 2000-point game. And that's just talking 1v1 on a simple map. That's why pricing calculators are only useful as a guideline, and why playtesting in many environments is important.

A power where you instantly win does indeed break my reasoning. It also falls into the boring, and pointless category. I suppose I would need to add a "within reason" caveat.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Heh heh. I wrote an entire post reviewing the old example power Aldin used to give, "roll a d20 and on a 10+ you win," but then I scratched it and rewrote it as above, to make it more conciliatory. But my point was precisely the same as Scy's, with pretty much the same power.

I believe Scy is correct, as is normally the case. Unless I was correct that Leaf It is using the word "balance" to mean only in relation to cost, which doesn't seem right to me, because powers (and customs) can be balanced in other ways, as well.

My point was so simple that I didn't think too much about it. Try to think of a power that would be really interesting, maybe a bit complicated, or where you roll 12 attack dice. You might think, "wow, this is really overpowered." But it's not over powered so long as it is priced accordingly. The problems posed by powers that instantly end the game hadn't crossed my mind, and my reasoning falls to pieces when they are used. In a game where you're goal is to win, a power to instantly win, would have an infinite price point value.

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

Hi all! The Lawman project has been chuggign along and we have a new versioon of Clayton to look at, hopefully incorporating some feedback from the last version. Let us know what you think.

Spoiler Alert!

I really like this version as well. I'm a little disappointed that it won't work with Deadeye, or the common hero that the C3V is developing for the lawmen, but it still looks good.

I would probably add an "after moving" line to Shootout, unless you don't want them to move when they activate shootout, in which case you should add an "instead of moving" line, which would make sense since the other lawmen can't move either.

I actually don't think that line of sight is thematically necessary to shootout. In real life when a shootout happens, you could have people hiding all over the place waiting for the first shot to be fired. As soon as they hear it, regardless of whether they can see who started it or not, they're going to start shooting too. If a limit is something needs to be put in place, I would do it by number of spaces away from the lawmen starting the shootout, no line of sight required.

[Pumpkin_King]

Making it work with Dan would require it to work with Snipers, which I think is a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm glad people are responding well to this version!

[Sir Heroscape]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

I'm glad people are responding well to this version!

Indeed. I love what you're doing here. X2

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by Scytale

doesn't matter how stupid the reasons are. We are constantly hammering new powers into a game with a loose ruleset. If we are serious about tournament-worthiness, we have to ensure personal interpretation is not a factor.

In Editing we have tried to put together new wording, but it very quickly becomes unwieldy. It's not that it's impossible to spell it out all clearly, but it takes up a lot of card space without really saying much. The Kozuke wording has specific meaning, and it's mercifully short.

It doesn't have specific meaning, though. So many people think, rightfully so, that you just have to be able to engage a figure but you don't actually have to do it. Because that's what the card says. If they just said "must be able to engage", there would be no confusion, though that wouldn't negate the need for an FAQ to clarify what happens in the case of dieing to an LEA. It has the same "problems", but it doesn't confuse first-time (or even fifth-time) readers.

"If possible" doesn't have the same effect. Then you could move a Lawman even if it couldn't end its turn near Clayton simply because it wasn't possible to do so.

You're right, it's not enough on its own, but what you're saying is exactly how people misinterpret the Kozuke wording. However...

Originally Posted by Scytale

Yes, that can happen. Which is one of the reasons that wording is terrible.

...the most accurate wording would actually be both. "Any Lawman moving with Posse must be able to end its move within 3 clear sight spaces of Clayton and must do so if possible." It breaks the official precedent (), but it eliminates any confusion. It even prevents a black hole from opening up in the middle of your board if you divide by zero die to an LEA. "Be able to" on its own creates confusion in its attempt to address corner cases, which is never a good way to write a power. "Be able to" and "must do so if possible" solves it all.

Originally Posted by Scytale

Right on the last part. "Can only attack" messes up the turn structure, which is one of the core things in the Heroscape ruleset that it really can't handle changes to. There are too many things dependent on turn structure, like "after moving, before attacking" effects. "Can only attack" is unclear if there are "start of turn," "before moving," "after moving and before attacking," "end of turn," etc phases. "May not move" keeps the turn intact, it just prevents normal movement and any movement powers, not unlike Cyberclaw.

"Can only attack" only arguably leaves the door open for "Before/after taking a turn" powers since they don't technically exist during the turn. "May not move" leaves so many doors wide open for literally anything else during a turn. If you ask me, I'd think leaving as few doors open as possible would be ideal. It's your funeral.

Originally Posted by Astroking112

This sounds like it would get much more noticeable in games involving the castle set. It's a bit of a theme break to have Clayton leading a shootout from the other side of a massive stone wall, or from three floors up in a castle. Keeping any activated Lawmen within clear sight of Clayton sounds like a good thematic change to me.

Last time Clayton was in here there seemed to be support for less-restricted powers. But I wouldn't find it objectionable if it was a problem in playtesting otherwise.

Originally Posted by superfrog

Back to the design, though: I like this version quite a lot! It's unique and thematic. I'd be interested to play it.

That's exactly what we're aiming for.

Originally Posted by Leaf_It

I really like this version as well. I'm a little disappointed that it won't work with Deadeye, or the common hero that the C3V is developing for the lawmen, but it still looks good.

I would probably add an "after moving" line to Shootout, unless you don't want them to move when they activate shootout, in which case you should add an "instead of moving" line, which would make sense since the other lawmen can't move either.

I actually don't think that line of sight is thematically necessary to shootout. In real life when a shootout happens, you could have people hiding all over the place waiting for the first shot to be fired. As soon as they hear it, regardless of whether they can see who started it or not, they're going to start shooting too. If a limit is something needs to be put in place, I would do it by number of spaces away from the lawmen starting the shootout, no line of sight required.

Believe me, I'd like Dan to be part of this, too. But his powers become unbalanced faster than others when added to any kind of turn efficiency. Adding Snipers also makes the synergy web a little more difficult to control and weakens the theme a little, too.

As far as the after/instead of moving, your last point is actually why we want to allow movement for the figure starting the Shootout: sometimes you gotta find a better shot, or some cover, so it makes sense not to just stand still the whole time.

Somewhere there was mention of creating a loop with "taking a turn" replacing "instead of attacking". That's a simple fix with, "Instead of attacking, that Lawman may end its turn and start a Shootout."

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

I'm glad people are responding well to this version!

Discussions about wording aside, the actual meat of the unit is the best we've made. The interaction between the powers works well and I've had a lot of fun testing him so far.

[Sir Heroscape]

After some good (and candid) feedback, I've slightly adjusted Xundar and the Fiend from the Shadow Faction submission. I like their new changes and just wanted to get a broader scope of feedback on these versions before moving forward.

Changes:
- Xundar's SA is now att3 but can increase to 4 if there are other Shadow's engaged. This is a way to keep it from being too powerful at base 4 but also provides a thematic element because it's as if he's using the Shadow's themselves to help cast his spell and transform the unit into his own.
- Fiend Special Ability redone. I was a bit at a loss as to the direction of the Fiend special and this is a version based off of an idea from Superfrog that I really liked. It's thematic and still allows the Fiend to be a shock trooper by flying in and dealing auto-wounds AND still getting an attack. And just like the other Shadows, he gets buffed by other shadows nearby.