The Book of Malekith

[Arkham]

I'm completely on board with the Illusionary Arts version, and I think most are in agreement to that. So I think going with flight instead of a teleport, and going in a more illusion/trick based power direction is the better, and more fun, option.

I like Viegon's idea, but I'd also like to keep brainstorming in case there's other options. That certainly is accomplishing what I had in mind however, in that he can manipulate his way around the battlefield using illusion, to avoid certain traps and risks.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

What if we replaced the teleport in favor of something like this, to add to his trickery/support?

MASTER OF ILLUSIONS
If there is an unrevealed Order Marker on this card, opponent's non-adjacent figures cannot use attacks or special powers that require clear sight against Malekith, and any adjacent friendly figure. Malekith, and any friendly figure within 4 clear sight spaces of Malekith, never take leaving engagement attacks.

Dear God, no. We are just now getting rid of OP Mastermind, and now you want to add this? With his other power this makes him insanely pod-friendly.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

Here's the proposed updated version of Illusionist Deception, retitled Illusionary Arts, requiring a reveal of the X order marker rather than a die roll:

ILLUSIONARY ARTS:
If Malekith or a friendly figure within 4 spaces of Malekith is targeted for an attack, you may reveal the "X" Order Marker on this card. Choose a figure other than the attacker within 8 clear sight spaces of Malekith, switch the figure targeted with the chosen figure, the attacking figure must then target and attack the chosen figure, if possible. Figures moved with this power, and any friendly figures within 4 spaces of Malekith, never take leaving engagement attacks.

I did 14 games with this version, with Malekith also down to 5 life and 4 defense, and he seemed really well balanced at about 270.

This statement means extremely little to me without a listing of what the armies he was playing in were. This power set is very, very dangerous when you start stacking certain powers, and if you weren't doing that you weren't really exploring what this design is capable of.

[Arkham]

Seeing as we're all business here, no pleasantries...

For one, it was just an idea of a direction to take, and I already said it might be too much and showed concern for pod play. I'm not blind to the potential issues certain powers can bring up, especially when it comes to the community that will do everything they can to abuse them just to win. Relax.

Secondly, as for your second response to the 14 games comment, look on the first page for the actual breakdowns of each game and what teams were being played against them. Please refrain from just discrediting what facts I gave you, when the rest of the information you desire is just a click away. I put them 3-4 posts down for a reason, in a nice and easily navigated post. For reference.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

. I'm not blind to the potential issues certain powers can bring up, especially when it comes to the community that will do everything they can to abuse them just to win. Relax.

Is it really necessary to insult an entire group of people just because you have a problem with dok's post?

Considering all 14 Illisonary Arts tests were with the exact same army, they don't really tell me much personally. Loki probably isn't his best pairing, even with the extra X.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

Seeing as we're all business here, no pleasantries...

I come in peace, AS. No need to get defensive.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

For one, it was just an idea of a direction to take, and I already said it might be too much and showed concern for pod play. I'm not blind to the potential issues certain powers can bring up, especially when it comes to the community that will do everything they can to abuse them just to win. Relax.

If you're "not blind" to those issues, then you probably shouldn't make blanket statements about it being balanced based on tests involving one test army.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

Secondly, as for your second response to the 14 games comment, look on the first page for the actual breakdowns of each game and what teams were being played against them. Please refrain from just discrediting what facts I gave you, when the rest of the information you desire is just a click away. I put them 3-4 posts down for a reason, in a nice and easily navigated post. For reference.

I know enough to check the first two posts, but I didn't know you put playtests in the third post; that's hardly standard. If you had linked them in the OP, or in the statement about the 14 playtests, I would have found them.

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Considering all 14 Illisonary Arts tests were with the exact same army, they don't really tell me much personally. Loki probably isn't his best pairing, even with the extra X.

It really depends. Loki is quite good against anything that attacks once per OM, particularly if it's not one guy moving up by himself. If you have autowounds, or lots of attacks, he loses his luster fast. Plus he does make you spend two OMs each round on Loki, unless you have Rogers or Manhattan or somesuch. Loki isn't terrible but he's far from the most efficient OM sink.

Gamora is even less of an obvious pairing. There's lots of things that seem better... Jocasta or Bizarro or Aaron Cash are obviously nasty but I tend to stay away from the re-eval stuff in testing. Angel + Angel, possibly with beat cops as well, is pretty mean and allows for a LOT of nasty tricks.

All that said, I tend to agree that using Loki to double the X is probably only going to be Malekith's best play outside of high point games where you can manage Malekith + Loki + [OM mover] + [Heavy Hitter]. At the 1000 point level I'd be inclined to try something like Malekith, Dracula, and Mister Mxyzptlk. If I played that against the 14 armies in those tests, I think I would win a pretty high percentage.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by dok

I come in peace, AS. No need to get defensive.

If you're "not blind" to those issues, then you probably shouldn't make blanket statements about it being balanced based on tests involving one test army.

He didn't make any blanket statements, and he didn't even use that power for those tests - in fact, I'll quote part of his post and bold the notable things he said:

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

What if we replaced the teleport in favor of something like this, to add to his trickery/support?

MASTER OF ILLUSIONS
If there is an unrevealed Order Marker on this card, opponent's non-adjacent figures cannot use attacks or special powers that require clear sight against Malekith, and any adjacent friendly figure. Malekith, and any friendly figure within 4 clear sight spaces of Malekith, never take leaving engagement attacks.

We could always drop the "and any friendly figure" part off the non-clear sight part, and limit it to just Malekith, if we feel it's too pod heavy.

The first bit clearly indicates that this is a very new idea, and the second extremely clearly indiactates that he is well aware this may be OP in pod builds. Furthermore, this guy is going to be significantly more expensive than Mastermind ever was - that said, I think it's probably best to make this purely work for Malekith, assuming you do go this way.

Originally Posted by dok

I come in peace, AS. No need to get defensive.

Actually, your post came across as extremely aggressive and condescending to me. Maybe that's not what you indended, but I can entirely understand why it rubbed AG the wrong way, escpecially since you seemed to ignore everything else he wrote in the post he put that power idea in.

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Is it really necessary to insult an entire group of people just because you have a problem with dok's post?

Yeah, I can certainly understand why you got irritated, AS, but that was a bit unnecessary (though I won't come down on you because it's easy to make a mistake like that, especially if irritated and/or stressed).

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Considering all 14 Illisonary Arts tests were with the exact same army, they don't really tell me much personally. Loki probably isn't his best pairing, even with the extra X.

They probably will tell you a fair bit, just not be conclusive. Honestly, I'm not really sure why you used the exact same army for each of those tests anyway - I'd have thought variety would have been useful. As for who'd work best with Malekith, I really have no idea.

[Arkham]

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Is it really necessary to insult an entire group of people just because you have a problem with dok's post?

Considering all 14 Illisonary Arts tests were with the exact same army, they don't really tell me much personally. Loki probably isn't his best pairing, even with the extra X.

How did I insult an entire group of people? Is it not true that the more competitive players, will do everything they can to abuse units, that give them the strategic advantage? Is that not the case? If so I am genuinely sorry for the remark, seriously no sarcasm. But I thought I was just making a pretty obvious statement that I'm not looking at just the casual aspect of play, I want to make something that is solid and won't be abused by even the most competitive of players. Which is why I stated in my initial post where I came up with the power idea, that it was just an idea, and that we could definitely drop the "and an adjacent friendly figure" etc. from the power because of potential pod play issues.

I don't see that as insulting on my end. Dok is notorious for doing what needs to be done to pull out a win, and he is very good at finding those synergies and combos that can be abused because they are broken. I want to avoid that being the case with this design. No insult intended.

Originally Posted by dok

I come in peace, AS. No need to get defensive.

That's not what tone I was receiving with your comments. Both comments were already addressed by myself earlier in the thread, but you didn't care to accept them. I showed concern for pod play, you didn't include it in your quote, and you chose to act like I am ignorant of such an issue and just want "cool powers" with no consequences.

And you can complain that I should include my playtests in every post I mention them, but IMO, that's just silly. I spent the time to do the playtests and be more prepared, I shouldn't have to repeat the code or link them everytime they are mentioned. To make a comment on them and completely disregard them as you did, in the manner you did, was quite insulting. You should look through the entire data available to accurately address it, IMO.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

How did I insult an entire group of people? Is it not true that the more competitive players, will do everything they can to abuse units, that give them the strategic advantage? Is that not the case? If so I am genuinely sorry for the remark, seriously no sarcasm. But I thought I was just making a pretty obvious statement that I'm not looking at just the casual aspect of play, I want to make something that is solid and won't be abused by even the most competitive of players. Which is why I stated in my initial post where I came up with the power idea, that it was just an idea, and that we could definitely drop the "and an adjacent friendly figure" etc. from the power because of potential pod play issues.

I don't see that as insulting on my end. Dok is notorious for doing what needs to be done to pull out a win, and he is very good at finding those synergies and combos that can be abused because they are broken. I want to avoid that being the case with this design. No insult intended.

FWIW none taken on this count; I figured this is what you meant.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

That's not what tone I was receiving with your comments. Both comments were already addressed by myself earlier in the thread, but you didn't care to accept them. I showed concern for pod play, you didn't include it in your quote, and you chose to act like I am ignorant of such an issue and just want "cool powers" with no consequences.

I never said you had no concern at all, but you floated it none the less. I chose to write forcefully that this seems like a big mistake to me. (FWIW it doesn't seem all that thematic either).

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

And you can complain that I should include my playtests in every post I mention them, but IMO, that's just silly.

No, just linking them in the OP, as is standard practice, would be fine. (You even have the initial playtest non-link in the OP, which leads one to believe that there's nothing to link to...)

If you would rather I don't post in this thread any more I won't.

[Karat]

Ok, let's all just calm down a bit here. There is absolutely no reason to just start throwing each other under the bus. That accomplishes nothing. Try taking a step back and putting yourselves in each other's shoes.

I agree that it is ridiculous to link or copy your special testing results in every post you make where you mention them, but they are however linked in the third post of the front page. Instead of going on the defensive like you so clearly are, simply refer them back to where you have them saved for ease of reference.

On the other hand, Dok is simply trying to point out potential flaws that could be exploited by the competitive community and thus make the design balanced and well-rounded as is everyone's desire. We are all on the same side here, don't estrange yourself from those who just want to help you make the best design possible.

The best advice I can give to you new LD's is this, if you feel yourself getting frustrated to the point where you can't step back and see the issue from all sides, take a break. Give it a night and come back to it in the morning or sometime the next day with fresh eyes and a clear head. I can't count how many times I have had to do this over the years that I have been a part of C3G, and quite honestly sometimes it was one of the only things that helped me figure out a solution that worked for the group as a whole. Often times an LD, myself included, gets caught up in their vision for a design and fight tooth and nail for that vision which is great, but it is also good to be able to step back and look at it from a different perspective from time to time.

You may find yourself at a fork in the road from time to time because of conflicting viewpoints. A great tool for LD's to use on a design that has conflicting views from the public is to use a poll to get a general consensus of where the group thinks we should be headed. This is a great way to keep a design moving and to overcome an impasse. I have used it countless times and it has saved me a lot of headaches and time.

Just remember that this is a hobby for everyone. We are all here to have fun with units made from beloved characters. The second the fun is gone, so too is the motivation, and without those there is no C3G. Every single fan of C3G and the fun they have with the units that we as a group provide is the lifeblood of C3G, without you we would falter and crumble and then all we would have is ink on paper and plastic toys. Without fun and community effort this project is nothing, and so I implore you to do your best to get along with those around you and to do your utmost to try and see what they are saying even if you do not agree with them. Foster friendship with them. Build a bigger and stronger community together.

If you can do this, I guarantee you that we will continue to put out quality units, in fact they will have more quality than before if we can but learn to step back and consider opposing viewpoints. Often times they do have merit and can lead us into an entirely different direction that is altogether better than where we were before. Just do your best to see the whole picture and not just a piece of it.

Sorry for the rant and slight , but this is important and I don't want to see anyone become estranged from the group.

If you feel frustrated with a design or anything else, feel free to message me and I will discuss it with you in private if you desire, my door is open.

[Arkham]

The issue I had with the comments made were not that they were opposite of mine or from a different viewpoint. It's that the comments made were in very condescending tone, or at least it came across as such, and didn't actually help anything if you take everything into account.

Essentially, they said:

1. This is a horrible direction to take, do you even know how much that could be abused in pod play?

2. Your results mean nothing to me, they are useless unless we get the actual details of the results.

The reason these didn't help at all, is I already addressed the potential pod play concern, and I even suggested we will likely drop the friendly figure inclusion, but I just wanted to throw the idea at it's very basic form out there. But I certainly already voiced that concern, alk that was needed was an agreement or disagreement, and a potential better solution. I didn't need my concerns re-iterated in a very condescending fashion as if I said "hey guys, this is a great idea! I see no issues with at all! Let's pass this right now!", when it was quite the opposite.

As for the 2nd part, we've already hashed that out, but instead of checking through the thread to get all the facts, he just completely discredited my results, in once again, with a tone that says "don't waste my time with this unless you've got more" when I indeed did have more, just 1 post passed the required 1st 2 posts.

So all things considered, the post didn't establish anything nor did it actually help anything other than to make me feel like my efforts and concerns were brushed off, ignored, and then stated stuff I already knew.

I value dok's opinion and input. But that particular post did nothing to help, and the tone used certainly didn't help. As you said, when things aren't fun anymore, due to attitudes or tones when talking to others on here, or the lack of appreciation for the effort someone puts in in whatever scenario, those can take the fun out of things real quick. I made my response the way I did, as defensive as you want to take it, because I don't want to set the standard for this process to be to pop in and trash the direction, ideas, and efforts of others without even taking into account all the info and statements given from the person being trashed.

At the end of the day, there was a better way to express his thoughts, without that condescending tone. You can say that the LD should be able to manage it or just take a step back and relax before responding, but I say if people were as respectful with their initial post, it wouldn't even be a factor in the first place. But I agree, sometimes I do just need to chill when it comes to how I take things, but I think we all suffer from that from time to time.

A simple "I agree, this wouldn't work for pod play. Let's just not include the friendly figure aspect as you showed concern for, as that would lead to several issues akin to Mastermind. Actually, I think this direction would be better suited [insert own idea], [insert reasoning]. What do you think?"

and

"I see you posted the results of the games, is there breakdowns somewhere that I am missing? What teams were played against, and who was on Malekith's team? If you can provide that we can have a better idea of things."

Both of those come off as respectful, while still getting the same point across. That's the bottom line. I generally(naturally some would debate this) am not disrespectful until I feel disrespected, and that all just takes the fun out of it for both sides at that point.

Regardless, I'm over it. It's been dealt with and addressed on both sides.

I'll put the playtests in the OP. I still like Viegon's idea, and find it thematic with illusion based powers. But if anyone has other suggestions for the 3rd power, please let them be heard.

[Lazy Orang]

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with what AG said - there was no need for that tone, especially not when it miscommunicated the facts of what was actually going on.

I'll see if any third power ideas come to me (don't know if they will, but I'll see. )

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

How did I insult an entire group of people? Is it not true that the more competitive players, will do everything they can to abuse units, that give them the strategic advantage? Is that not the case? If so I am genuinely sorry for the remark, seriously no sarcasm. But I thought I was just making a pretty obvious statement that I'm not looking at just the casual aspect of play, I want to make something that is solid and won't be abused by even the most competitive of players. Which is why I stated in my initial post where I came up with the power idea, that it was just an idea, and that we could definitely drop the "and an adjacent friendly figure" etc. from the power because of potential pod play issues.

I don't see that as insulting on my end. Dok is notorious for doing what needs to be done to pull out a win, and he is very good at finding those synergies and combos that can be abused because they are broken. I want to avoid that being the case with this design. No insult intended.

I just think you could have said 'especially when it comes to competitive play' or something. 'Abuse them just to win' makes it sound like all tournament players are a bunch of over-competitive jerks, and that's not the case.