The Book of Jamie Madrox

[IAmBatman]

Looks cool! We probably want the "no additional turns" language on the X-Factor power, right?

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Looks cool! We probably want the "no additional turns" language on the X-Factor power, right?

Actually, now that I'm looking over his army-building possibilities, I'm realizing that I might have deliberately left that out originally so that he could pair well with Siryn. Kind of a bummer to shut that down.

[Karat]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Actually, now that I'm looking over his army-building possibilities, I'm realizing that I might have deliberately left that out originally so that he could pair well with Siryn. Kind of a bummer to shut that down.

Maybe test it that way and if it proves too strong we can always shut it down later.

[Xael Raymand]

Based on the wording for Dupes 17. Would I be able to roll for Dupes 17 and Dupes 10 if this Multiple Man would receive a wound?

[Karat]

Originally Posted by Xael Raymand

Based on the wording for Dupes 17. Would I be able to roll for Dupes 17 and Dupes 10 if this Multiple Man would receive a wound?

No, because they would occur at the same time so you must choose between them.

Probably should add a "this" to the Common Multiple Man to clarify that though. ..could do the same kind of an update for Multiplicity if we don't want that interaction. Then we could do both updates at once, if that's what we want.

[Ronin]

If we're ruling that he can be activated by Multiplicity, then he'd also be protected by Dupes 17, yeah.

We could embrace that and just give him a power that boosts your rolls for Dupes when he's the one under attack. Might still require an update to the Common Multiple Man to make the wording of Dupes more cleanly handle a figure with more than 1 Life being targeted.

[Xael Raymand]

I like the idea of him just having the more powerful Dupes ability. I think just adding the word “this” makes sense for both cards.

[Ronin]

Okay, slightly fuller catch-up.

Originally Posted by johnny139

If the intent is that he can take a turn with Multiplicity, you're probably better off putting OMs on the common card. A 20% chance of failure, but a 40% chance of getting a bonus move on top, and a 40% chance of getting extra dupe turns.

That's of course not taking into account the OM flexibility, just assuming you're taking turns with Madrox alone.

Yeah, agreed with that. Honestly, I don't really have an "intent" here because I think it has more to do with the wording on the Common Multiple Man?

Obviously we need a ruling, and my interpretation of the Common Multiple Man is that you could activate him with Multiplicity. But that's not really important to me here.

If we wanted to just completely clean up the interaction without needing to update the Common Madrox, I'd be fine reworking Multiple Choice into something like:

MADROX PRIME
You may draft Multiple Man into an army with one or more Common Jamie Madrox figures. You cannot use any special power on another Multiple Man card to move, attack with, or roll the 20-sided die for this Multiple Man, or place him back on the battlefield after he is destroyed.

Not as elegant as him just being neatly excluded, but we've got the space, it keeps everything nice and clear, and it saves us an update.

Cool to see some Investigator synergy open up. It's kind of funny, actually, that the faction includes the BPRD, X-Factor Investigations, and in the future, various Gotham-type detectives... a weird bunch to throw together, but also kind of fitting? Very Heroscape! Though in retrospect I might have made the BPRD guys into Operatives, since they lean closer to secret agents than private eye types...

Design-wise he's pretty simple, no notes. Might give him a different personality, just to differentiate him a bit? And I might try to make it consistent between "Jamie Madrox figure" and "Multiple Man figure" in the text, different powers are using different ones... though I understand we're kind of shackled by the common version there.

Yeah, I'm mostly using "Multiple Man" but I feel like I gotta go "Jamie Madrox" when I'm breaking the Uniqueness rules. I'll try to streamline around "Multiple Man" except for that one sentence, though.

I get wanting to go for a different personality, but honestly I feel like Conflicted works pretty well for him? Been a while since I read the book at this point, so I don't have an immediate alternate idea.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Looks cool! We probably want the "no additional turns" language on the X-Factor power, right?

Yeah, we might as well.

Originally Posted by Xael Raymand

I like the idea of him just having the more powerful Dupes ability. I think just adding the word “this” makes sense for both cards.

I think "this" is a little weird on a Common card to me, but maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Thoughts on the approach I outlined above where we just make it explicit on Madrox's card instead of updating the Commons, though?

[tcglkn]

Ready for Multiple Man (Common) to see more play! Always loved that design. Would love to do the card here when the time comes.

[Karat]

I kinda like the idea of just upping the dupes roll with a special power and am ultimately fine with Multiplicity working on this desgin.

I do not however like the clunkiness of using a power to exclude him, but I could live with that.

[MrNobody]

My only worry with Multiplicity working on him is that it’ll overpower X-Factor Accompaniment when you want to activate Unique Madrox. But I’m not even sure that’s an issue.

If he just has a power that boosts the Multiplicity roll, would that work if all the common Madroxes are dead?

[tcglkn]

This guy definitely wants the full Dupes power so he can bring back commons even if they all die.