Public Design Workshop

[Arkham]

This is fun.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Viegon

I am very much against the Marvel/DC restriction, for a two main reasons:
1) I personally find it less thematic, not more thematic. If Superman found himself in the Marvel universe (which has probably happened in comics), he'd totally end up on the Avengers; and on the flip side, if Thor was to show up in the DC universe, he'd join the JLA. However, I can't imagine Red Skull becoming an Avenger or Joker joining the JLA.

Plenty of villains have joined the JL and the Avengers in the past. Joker and Batman have teamed up before (not in the Justice League, but still). It's not unimaginable just because you can't imagine it.

Nor is Superman being on the Avengers unimaginable (though I should note that he has encountered the Avengers in the comics, yet has not joined them, unlike, for instance, Lex Luthor, who has joined the Justice League).

What neither is, is particularly thematic. In addition, neither accomplishes the stated goal of adding JL synergies, which is to encourage you to play thematic JL characters together.

What a restriction does is not to narrow the field so much that you can only play thematic armies together, but to narrow it enough so that thematic armies represent a statistically more significant portion of the possibilities. Taking out half the total options (100% of which are unthematic) is an accomplishment, IMO, and one worthwhile. Then the synergies themselves can do some of the remaining work, and what you're left with is imperfect (as are all synergies) but something that does about as good of a job as accomplishing the stated goal of encouraging thematic builds as our best synergies do now.

Originally Posted by Viegon

2) It would change the balance of three existing units; we'd have to rebalance all three of them.

In my original tests of Captain America, Wasp, and Ms. Marvel, I used thematic builds almost exclusively if not exclusively. I absolutely disagree with this point. The "Marvel" and "DC" limitations are extremely wide as far as limitations go. There's no way that I believe that any of those three figures' worth is based on the ability to play with characters from other universes.

Originally Posted by Viegon

For me, the point of the JLA faction and the Avengers faction is not to force you into tight thematic builds like most synergy groups, but to allow you to play the teams in all their various comic incarnations in a cohesive army build

Then you and Sock have distinctly different goals, as established in my last post. That's fine, but a goal should be agreed upon in order for everyone to move forward on the same page. I personally lean more towards what Sock stated his goal was. That approach worked really well for the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. I don't see why it couldn't here.

Originally Posted by Viegon

(and I don't care what anyone else says, but in my opinion, the current JLAers do not work as a cohesive army build). And as a side benefit, it allows players to create wacky and bizarre builds if they want to. The Avengers faction we have does this wonderfully, and in my opinion, the current direction for the JLA faction will also capture this perfectly.

My .

Can you show me how a limit as wide as Marvel only or DC only would prevent wacky and bizarre builds? It wouldn't, it'd just narrow them in a way that pointed a thematic arrow. It's the best of both worlds, IMO. But, then, I do care what everyone else says, so feel free to offer me a different perspective.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

This is fun.

Heh. Nothing like getting 'ol Bats all riled up, huh? lol Just like the good old days.

[TrollBrute]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Here's a good idea, let's have this discussion by insulting each other's ideas. No? Then how about we not?

I'll apologize for my use of "lazy." I do still think it is an easy, half-measure, rather than an innovative change.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

But it's different. And that's scary. I mean, why else call me lazy and hamfisted for proposing something we've never done before?

If you want to take my criticism of your suggestion as a personal attack, go right ahead. But that's on you, not me.

Here's the the thing, Xavier and Mr Fantastic were created that way from the beginning to encourage highly thematic builds. Making major changes to a years-old unit by specifically calling out the unit's publisher instead of an actual aspect of the character is entirely different.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Bullocks. If you reevaluate Enchantress, do you have to retest all figures without Super Strength? Now that you're reevaluating Jocasta, do you have to retest all figures that ever benefited from her? Why hold up their wide open synergy to that level of scrutiny when you haven't with other, much more significant changes in the past. This argument is invalid and if you consider it objectively and honestly, you'll see that.

The major difference here is that we've been avoiding those units for testing for exactly that reason. Cap and Ms Marvel have not had that same restriction and both offer a lot of synergy to units that otherwise would have none, making them easy choices for playtesting. You yourself have suggested using Ms Marvel for tests on numerous occasions. She's been around for two years and and has been used for dozens of tests, offering synergy and value to those units.

[Arkham]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Heh. Nothing like getting 'ol Bats all riled up, huh? lol Just like the good old days.

Nah, it was just nice seeing people as vocally passionate about something as I am for a change.

[johnny139]

So, clearly I've objected to the JLA Marker approach. I think it's only fair that I outline what I would like to see (and like to NOT see) with a possible JLA Faction.

I would LIKE to see...

- A new approach to synergy. C3G has a history of dynamic and interesting synergy molds for important comic teams. I think that Avengers Markers were a revelation - I think that any concepts for the Justice League, perhaps the most important team in comic book history, should be equally wow-worthy.
- A "team of individuals." The core difference, in my mind, between the Avengers and the JLA is that the Avengers are heroes and misfits that form a team that's more than the sum of its parts. The JLA is like a team of Greek gods - each one can stand alone as a world-class hero. Any synergy should reflect the fact that most of its members function as standalone heroes.

I would NOT LIKE to see...

- Too narrow a focus. This is something heavily discussed in the early days but thankfully has been averted; I don't want powers that simply allow you to play an army that consists of Justice League members. The end result of should be an army that plays like the Justice League, regardless of the individual pieces - something I think was very successful with the Avengers.

...I expected to have more than three bullet points.

I think the the JLA Marker designs are very successful in their stated goal of allowing you to play our current Justice League member designs together, but I think that's thinking, paradoxically, too small (in that we're trying to tag two or three synergy-granting units onto a bunch of non-synergistic designs) and too big (we're trying to corral a LOT of random designs!). There's the major issue that we already have a Superman and a Batamn - two of each, in fact - and we can't start from the ground up as we did with Captain America.

Can we imagine a Superman 3.0 that exists as a Justice League linchpin? I think that's fertile ground to start from. What makes the Justice League unique? What makes its members different from other teams? How is that represented on the game board? From there, determine how the Justice League should play. What current JLA units is this compatible with? How can we facilitate this style of play? From there, powers should emerge.

If, at the end of it all, a Marker approach is the most sensible one, then Markers there shall be. But I'm not yet convinced they are.

I have a lot more ideas and things to say on the subject but am fried. I'm certain I'll have more opportunities, though.

[TrollBrute]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

I say this not because I can't take some setbacks, feel the need to be over dramatic, or that I'm "shocked" by this decision, but because this is clearly a sign of my future. I bust my ass playtesting and contributing around here, and doing everything I can to climb that ladder... And for what? To have something so clearly polarizing with so much effort, interest, and desire to be shot down in a "narrow vote". If it's so narrow, why not let the community decide(this is for the community, right?): If it wins, hash it out in the design phase(scared of a little work?); If it loses, you are only proven right. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. There's only so many hoops one feels up for jumping through.

Consider that my much earlier than desired retirement from C3G playtesting and design.

Good luck everyone!

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way and I hate to see you go, but this is the way C3G works. This doesn't have to be a permanent "no", just a temporary setback. It would be the same thing if a Hero had proposed the idea. The majority is not currently in favor, we would have hit this snag and we would be hashing out alternatives or trying to sway each others opinions, which you could easily be trying to do in the Public Design Post.

I will say that if working out disagreements within a group is not something you're up for, then designing in C3G is not for you. Heated debates are a constant part of of the Inner and Outer Sanctums. That's just going to happen anytime you put a bunch of people together who are highly passionate about a project like this.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by TrollBrute

I'll apologize for my use of "lazy." I do still think it is an easy, half-measure, rather than an innovative change.

Apology accepted (I think? You seem to waffle on whether you really want to issue it during your post. Whatever, though, not important enough to dwell on).

It's a "half" measure the same way that Professor X and Mister Fantastic's synergy limitations are. It gets halfway to narrowing things to completely thematic builds. It cuts away some of the unthematic builds while still leaving things open to some wacky ones. It's a best of both worlds solution. It just accomplishes its measuring in a new way. That new way can't be that easy either, or it wouldn't take this much work to argue for! And it's certainly innovative, or it would've been done before.

Originally Posted by TrollBrute

Here's the the thing, Xavier and Mr Fantastic were created that way from the beginning to encourage highly thematic builds. Making major changes to a years-old unit by specifically calling out the unit's publisher instead of an actual aspect of the character is entirely different.

Maybe we should just do it for DC and Justice League, then? That seems to answer the majority of your arguments. I think the parallels would be nice, but if it's that much of a dealbreak to make what I consider an ultimately small change to three figures, then let's just focus on doing it with the Justice League. It still prevents Avenger and Justice League overlap (win, in my book), and it still helps narrow the Justice League synergies in a way that points towards thematic builds (win, in my book).

Originally Posted by TrollBrute

The major difference here is that we've been avoiding those units for testing for exactly that reason.

Sure, now that you've decided to make the changes. Many of those had been out for years and years previously, though. No different than this situation. And I'm sure you'd avoid testing with these guys if you did make the change.

Originally Posted by TrollBrute

Cap and Ms Marvel have not had that same restriction and both offer a lot of synergy to units that otherwise would have none, making them easy choices for playtesting. You yourself have suggested using Ms Marvel for tests on numerous occasions. She's been around for two years and and has been used for dozens of tests, offering synergy and value to those units.

Sure, so have tons of figures, including many on the reevaluation list. You don't see the need to change every figure in existence when you reevaluate other things.

I get it, though, the situation mentioned above is not ideal. In a way you wish you could adjust every other figure in the game that was tested with, say, Bizarro, every time you adjust a Bizarro. And you only don't because it's not realistic. So why unnecessarily create another such situation for dubious thematic reasons. I get this perspective (though I don't place enough value on the uber competitive nature of gameplay to share it).

But my adjusted, compromised proposal, is let's forget about changing the Avengers. They are what they are and it's best to leave them be. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. But that's no reason this wouldn't be a really nifty and helpful idea for the Justice League.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

I'm not a cat

I smell a title

[Smithy Winfred]

So this had me thinking - What if, instead of just handing out the markers at the start of the game, make it a process in which the figure who gets the marker has to do something special (maybe inflict a number of wounds in one turn, block a number of attacks in one turn, etc) in order to earn their place in the Justice League. Certain figures (Batman, Supes, MM, Wonder Woman) would start with, and boost, figures with JL markers, but maybe MM has the JL recruitment power (or each has a different way to give out a marker). That would not only create an interesting and unique method of dispensing markers, but also help avoid using the markers just to include more cheerleaders in your team, but to rather improve your units through the trial of combat. Not to mention, it fits in nicely with the theme of the Justice League, which consists of members who induct new members in after they have proven themselves to be true heroes.

Just brainstorming, really, but I thought a new idea couldn't hurt.

For example:

Justice League Recruitment
Start the game with one JL marker on this card. At the end of the round, you may choose one unique hero you control that inflicted at least 4 wounds on enemy figures, and place a JL marker on that figures card. _______________________________ (ex. All figures with a JL marker on their card add one to their d20 rolls for each other figure with a JL marker on their card within 4 clear sight spaces)

The blank can be used as a generic bonus. I figure that power would be MM's, Batman might have a defense oriented one. Maybe Wonder Woman can have a "destroy X figures in one round" making each of them have ideal proteges for use in the faction.

This post was supposed to end two paragraphs ago

[Yodaking]

Bats, thanks for taking such an active role in this discussion. Even as a retired hero your voice still carries a lot of weight around here. I'm not sure how much more any of the Sidekicks and Allies can contribute at this point. Looking for a compromise is exactly what has been going in the public design thread. The JLA synergy concept has under gone tweaks and revisions several times in response to the desires and concerns of anyone who spoke up. The design was nominated because we thought we finally had everyone on board with a unified vision for the JLA going forward. The veto has really sucked the energy out of the room for me.

[dok]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Bullocks. If you reevaluate Enchantress, do you have to retest all figures without Super Strength? Now that you're reevaluating Jocasta, do you have to retest all figures that ever benefited from her? Why hold up their wide open synergy to that level of scrutiny when you haven't with other, much more significant changes in the past. This argument is invalid and if you consider it objectively and honestly, you'll see that.

Broadly speaking I agree with you, but Enchantress is arguably an exception where she would throw certain designs in testing. I'm not sure if many big double/triple attackers without Super Strength were released between Enchantress and the recent "don't test with Enchantress" dictate. The only one I can find who saw meaningful Enchantress testing is Fantomex, but he turned out fine.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Then you and Sock have distinctly different goals, as established in my last post. That's fine, but a goal should be agreed upon in order for everyone to move forward on the same page. I personally lean more towards what Sock stated his goal was. That approach worked really well for the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. I don't see why it couldn't here.

I fought that fight for a little, but if you really want to make it a tight synergy group of only JLA heroes, then the only real option is to create a whole set of new heroes. I don't think that's the best approach.

Absent that, I think Viegon basically sums it up well. The JLA grouping, in some rough form similar to what Sock has laid out, would be a strong team that would work well using the thematic figures but could also sport some random additions. Is that OK? I think so.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Can you show me how a limit as wide as Marvel only or DC only would prevent wacky and bizarre builds? It wouldn't, it'd just narrow them in a way that pointed a thematic arrow.

I guess it's all how you look at it. To me, the walls between the publishing houses have been dragged down in C3G-land. It actually feels pretty thematic to me to have Wonder Woman decide to work with the Avengers. It makes more sense than her working with Mongul, that's for sure.