GCF Design Discussion Thread - Parallax Play Test

[Tornado]

[chas]

When you are re-revising, it might be useful to highlight the most recent changes to a card. That would make it easier for others to give you meaningful comments.

[Grishnakh]

Originally Posted by chas

When you are re-revising, it might be useful to highlight the most recent changes to a card. That would make it easier for others to give you meaningful comments.

Makes perfect sense. In this case however pretty much the entire card was altered. I think the only thing that stayed the same from the first version was his phantom walk! Even his stats were altered to reflect the new wording on the first power.

I'm going to put out a test play version of him today or tomorrow. Just waiting to see if anyone else has any additional thoughts on his wording. I've got the mini ordered (he cost 55 cents). We plan on playing him as well. If we like him and he fits in with our other cards then he'll be officially added to our roster. My only fear at the moment is that he's too powerful.

This has been a new experience for us, doing a somewhat public design. We'll definitely do this again. We do have some cards that are much further along though. We might put them here just to get some feedback.

[Grishnakh]

We are moving The Question into the test play phase.

We really don't "play test" our customs, complete with forms to fill out, long discussions, etc. When we test play a card we are looking for two simple things: one, does the card work mechanically within the established Heroscape rules, and, two, was it really fun to play?

So, as a first trial, I'm asking if any of you want to give this card a try. If you do please answer the two "questions" that we mentioned above. Personally, we will be giving him a trial run over the weekend.

As a design note: I'm still not exactly sure we captured everything I wanted with this card. Conspiracy theories are kinda hard to model using the Heroscape (basically combat oriented) rules. I think we did a pretty good job on the detective side of his personality though. If some other idea comes up during play we'll consider it.

[Grishnakh]

So, what's the best way to word a power like this:

You may not place order markers on this card unless you control one of the following:
• Superperson 1
• Superperson 2
• Superperson 3

Or...

You must control at least one of the following to be able to place order markers on this card:
• Superperson 1
• Superperson 2
• Superperson 3

Is there an official card precedent I'm unaware of?

Or how about this?:
You must control Superperson 1, Superperson 2, or Superperson 3 to place order markers on this card.

This is all saying basically the same thing. Just having difficulty figuring out the best solution with this one.

[Grishnakh]

My son and I have discussed this a bit more and I think we'll go with number 1:

You may not place order markers on this card unless you control one of the following:
• Superperson 1
• Superperson 2
• Superperson 3

We'd welcome other suggestions though.

[mcmeeple]

Originally Posted by Grishnakh

So, what's the best way to word a power like this:

You may not place order markers on this card unless you control one of the following:
• Superperson 1
• Superperson 2
• Superperson 3

I find this first one more confusing because it goes from a negative to a positive... if NOT this then you CAN this.

Originally Posted by Grishnakh

Or...

You must control at least one of the following to be able to place order markers on this card:
• Superperson 1
• Superperson 2
• Superperson 3

I find this easier to understand and when I first read these this one made sense. It is positive to positive...aka if you HAVE this you CAN do this. TO me, that makes it simpler to understand.

Just my 2 cents...hope it helps.

[japes]

I was going to agree with you but then mcmeeple's comment sold me. I like the option he mentioned.

[Grishnakh]

Originally Posted by mcmeeple

I find this first one more confusing because it goes from a negative to a positive... if NOT this then you CAN this.

I find this easier to understand and when I first read these this one made sense. It is positive to positive...aka if you HAVE this you CAN do this. TO me, that makes it simpler to understand.

Just my 2 cents...hope it helps.

Originally Posted by japes

I was going to agree with you but then mcmeeple's comment sold me. I like the option he mentioned.

Thanks guys. I see your point about the second example. When you're too close to something you've designed it sometimes gets hard to see the best path moving forward. We kept flipping back and forth between those descriptions until I was ready to scream. That's why I threw it out to the community. You've sold me! The second one it is.

As to what it is, well, it's kinda deep.

[Tornado]

Great insight there Grish.

I know I have run into the same problem, mostly with my RPG.
You just need fresh eyes sometimes.

[BigThumbToe]

Seeing this gets me excited as to what it could be. Hmmm

[Grishnakh]

I'm going to resurrect this thread and ask the community for your thoughts.

For a long while now we've been working on our version of Parallax. This guy has been through so many different versions I'm really getting tired of him! Regardless we think we need some new eyeballs looking him over.

So our questions are: Does this card make sense? After you've read it over do you see any loopholes in a figure such as this? I just feel like we're treading in no-man's land with this design, where no one (that I know of) has gone before kinda thing.

Plus, I might add, the figure for this guy is crazy expensive. So hopefully our idea of a non-figure Entity allows us to play him with out forking over major bucks for a piece of plastic!

Thanks in advance!