Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by dok

But I mainly want to point out that this is pretty purely an aesthetic preference. If you don't want two different powers on two different cards to have the same name, or two different powers on two different cards to use markers with the same name, that's fine, but there's no rules corner case whatsoever that is created by having a power share the name of another power.

Oh, I fully agree. I don't have a rules reason for not wanting markers to share names. As I said, there's even an elegance to it. It's just a personal preference that we avoid it. This is why I would have preferred that we let the issue go to VC to decide. But since we're voting in a finalist sense, my (currently unswayed but could be) vote is Nay.

[Dad_Scaper]

There is no decent reason to give two markers, or two powers, the same name. Particularly when it can be easily avoided.

Shaking My Head.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

There is no decent reason to give two markers, or two powers, the same name. Particularly when it can be easily avoided.

Shaking My Head.

"It's the best name for the power" is not a decent reason?

Do you regard Charos's power being called "Counter Strike" a mistake and a black eye for the original design team?

[Ixe]

I definitely see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate that stance. As a point of curiosity, can some one at least address my wound marker argument? It is a little frustrating when I try to have a discussion with someone but it's like we're having two different conversations (then again, I feel like that's like most debates that you see ).

[Dad_Scaper]

I've said all I care to say about it in this thread. It is not my place to debate Ixe's fine custom here.

I should say, as I've said to him about a different custom of his, that Ixe clearly puts a lot of thought into his customs, and they always seem to me to have a fine polish to them. I thank him for sharing his custom creations with the Heroscapers community.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Ixe

I definitely see where you guys are coming from and I appreciate that stance. As a point of curiosity, can some one at least address my wound marker argument? It is a little frustrating when I try to have a discussion with someone but it's like we're having two different conversations (then again, I feel like that's like most debates that you see ).

I have never considered wound markers and other markers to be similar. While they are both called "markers," they are governed by distinctly different rules. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't consider anything related to wound markers to hold precedent for any other type of marker.

[Kinseth]

It is normally not my place to weigh-in on these issues...

I think something in this instance is perfectly acceptable to be decided on by the VC team after the fact. I think the name fits the theme of the power nicely. But I can see both sides of the fence here, and think it is something that should be decided on by the VC ultimately. What happens if several judges turn this down, only to see C3V in the future put forth a new custom that re-uses the same name of a marker that produces a different result?

These are standards that I think VC needs to set, and not the submitter.

[Ixe]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

It is normally not my place to weigh-in on these issues...

I think something in this instance is perfectly acceptable to be decided on by the VC team after the fact. I think the name fits the theme of the power nicely. But I can see both sides of the fence here, and think it is something that should be decided on by the VC ultimately. What happens if several judges turn this down, only to see C3V in the future put forth a new custom that re-uses the same name of a marker that produces a different result?

These are standards that I think VC needs to set, and not the submitter.

It is an interesting point. Were this to be put forward by a C3V unit, I think there is a good chance that there would be a debate among the larger group internally.

Since it is being done through SoV, following the format, it's more like I'm forcing the vote with the submission while the judges are the first line of voting, potentially denying it to everyone else. If it somehow bypasses the judges, I suppose it could be decided by the group as a whole through Unified Fanscape Review. Procedures can make for strange situations, I suppose.

(While it would be strange, I wouldn't take it personally if this were voted down and the decision on how to approach markers was later reversed).

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Having every 'powered by the souls of their enemies' card have an increasingly obscure synonym for 'Soul' seems like a bad idea long term, and there is already precedence for two different powers using the same marker name.

@Soundwarp SG-1 , can you clarify what precedent you were referring to here?

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies

@Soundwarp SG-1 , can you clarify what precedent you were referring to here?

Sorry, I should have gotten here sooner. I've had a 40 hour work weekend/Columbus day, never really had time to post much.

I was talking about Morsbane and the Negation Glyph. It's not really a great comparison since the markers do the same-thing once they get to the other card, but the powers are still different. Different die roll, different range, no destroy chance on the glyph, etc.

For me, it's enough of a precedent. The powers have the same theme, so they have the same marker name. I think that works for Demonblade and these guys as well, the markers both represent the same theme (Souls as a resource) and have a mechanical connection (they are gained the same-way), so they should have the same name, even if they are used for different things (two different things on the same card in the case of the Knights).

I tend to look at all designs not just for what they bring to the table, but for what designs they'll enable or inhibit in the future. Both of the cards using 'Soul' markers doesn't limit anything, and even could be used as a springboard for some sort of 'Soul Power' faction in the future (or not, it also doesn't force any kind of connection). However, forcing them to have different names does put limits on future designs. I'm mostly thinking 10 years from now, do we want to have the 5th 'Soul Power' card stuck with 'Ghosty-Leftover-Bits Markers'?

[Ixe]

Alright, I think we can all agree that the name of the markers being the same with different powers is not an issue with how it functions within the game. The rules for how to treat markers are covered by the individual card and there are no corner cases. The problem then seems to revolve around aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

I was talking about Morsbane and the Negation Glyph. It's not really a great comparison since the markers do the same-thing once they get to the other card, but the powers are still different. Different die roll, different range, no destroy chance on the glyph, etc.

As Soundwarp has pointed out, this aesthetic convention seems to be pretty flexible with respect to markers. Different powers with different mechanics can at the very least share the same markers, albeit with a similar result.

In addition, we have seen that a powers with the same name can also function differently (as with Charos and the Samurai). For good measure, we can also note that the same power can also bear a different name (as with Raelin SotM and Master Win Chiu Woo).

Semantically, I think this contention would have to be categorized under "theme" given that it does not lead to rules conflicts covered under "playability." If the criteria of theme is on whether or not it fits within the Heroscape universe, I think there is at the very least a compelling argument that shared names for different powers and abilities is something that can and does exist in canonical Heroscape.

Originally Posted by Scytale

I have never considered wound markers and other markers to be similar. While they are both called "markers," they are governed by distinctly different rules. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't consider anything related to wound markers to hold precedent for any other type of marker.

I think you may be being a bit naive in this case. From a game mechanics perspective, all markers (order, wound, and miscellaneous) are tokens that go on cards to represent the current game state. These markers are covered by rules in what they do, how they are placed, and how they are removed. Order and wound markers only bear the distinction in that they have external rules associated with them while the rules pertaining to the miscellaneous markers are covered by the individual cards (and glyph) that use them.

For instance, if we imagine a hypothetical power that removes all "markers" from a unit, it would remove all wound, order, and whatever other marker happened to be on the card at the time. It would bear no distinction among any of these as they are all considered to be markers on the card from a rules perspective.

Therefore, following this reasoning, we can see that some cards apply additional rules to how markers are treated on their card. Be it wound, order, or some miscellaneous type, the card is well able to dictate and adjust the rules of any particular marker on its card, even though other cards may treat this same marker differently.

Well, that is pretty much the extent of my reasoning and something for others to consider. Forgive me if I tend to get wordy and rehash the same points. I often get passionate over these matters and press until I feel that I'm properly understood (or I have been convinced the other way).

[Dad_Scaper]

"Aesthetics." Not "ascetics." *chuckle* No ascetics in here, Ixe. We like our toys too much.