The Pre-SoV Workshop

[Astroking112]

I do like this version a lot more. My only quibble is with Dragon Guard Special Attack. I like the concept, butt I don't like calling out the range on the targeted figure's card. I'd personally prefer a static amount, such as 1-4 spaces or the like. I'm not sure if this actually breaks convention, though.

If calling out the range itself isn't a problem, though, then I would just make it work with the normal attack. Like capsocrates said, we have figures like Quahon with variable ranges on special attacks, so it would be best to make it static.

[caps]

I also lean towards a static value.

I think you're not quite there yet on the bonding. I might lean towards movement bonding with large/huge if Sherman doesn't move? I don't know. I'll be curious to see what others have to say.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I was okay with the bonding power affecting just Dragons; I'll have to think about the double wyrmling activation. It seems like a straight upgrade to Wyrmling builds that I'm not comfortable with.

That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, but let me take the opposite perspective. Wyrmlings function a lot like two-figure squads. In general, when any hero bonds with a squad, he inherently is a "straight upgrade" to that squad, adding a +1 activation to the mix. That's par for the course with bonding. So I'm trying to follow a more or less normal pattern of bonding by letting Sherman work with the Wyrmlings in the way that they normally operate. If he only lets one activate, then he's like a new hero that could bond with Zettian Guards or Zettian Deathwings but says only one of those other figures may activate.

Having said all that, I'm not opposed to making it a single activation for any Dragon, big or little.

Originally Posted by capsocrates

The special attack is fine and I like the theme, but I'm concerned there are odd corner cases and the wording, particularly considering Special Attacks with "Range Special"

When writing it, I looked at a bunch of example cases and thought they were clear. But based on the concerns raised here, this morning I did an exhaustive analysis of all "Range Special" and "Range x + Special" SAs, as well as all the general range-buff powers like Reach and Rock Throw. And sure enough, there are a few cases where things get blurry, like the Gorillitroopers' AUTOCANNONS range change being optional, and then just plain weirdness with Pelloth and his LOLTH’S WRATH SPECIAL ATTACK.

So yeah, I concede the point that, as written, this will be a problem in some cases.

It's a drag to have to consider making all the melee units with ranged SAs immune to this; but to be candid, I already had that theme-break issue with melee figures who have clear-sight d20 wounders (which leads to a new idea further below).

Originally Posted by Astroking112

a static amount, such as 1-4 spaces or the like

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I also lean towards a static value.

I feel like this sort of just flips the theme break in the opposite direction, by letting Sherman target true melee-only figures who really are not threatening any dragons (especially if they are engaged). And furthermore, all of this points out another weakness in my original design: it also didn't take into account that a ranged figure could be tied down by engagement and thus be unable to target the dragon in the first place.

But these issues also bring with them the faint whiff of opportunity. They lead up to the possibility of taking a different tack, and redesigning this power so it asks the right question: Would the opposing figure be able to choose one of my dragons as the target of any attack or special power? I realize that sounds fairly broad, but one thing I've learned over the years is that when you have a semi-restricted definition that's not working, sometimes you have to dial it down to a more narrow effect, while other times you can open it up to a broader set of circumstances, if the game's general conditions are favorable and if you write the template carefully.

It seems the ingredients for such a template already exist in the canon. There's precedent for asking in advance what a figure hypothetically "could" do or is "able" to do: for example, CHARGING ASSAULT and MARCHING ORDERS (Kozuke, Manauvi, 8th Pathfinder) say "must be able to move adjacent to," and the HEADLONG CHARGE and NINJUTSU BARRAGE SAs (Kumiko, Augamo) say "as long as <this figure> is on a space where she could end her movement." In addition, several powers show us how to make wide references to special powers on army cards in general; CURSE OF THE MUMMY (Crypt Guardian), QUEEN OF THIEVES (Elaria), CYBERCLAW (Gladiatrons, X17), STEADFAST (Shieldsmiths), and HOLY RELIC (Van Nessing) are good examples. Referring to figures' current location is even part of the existing canon; see SHADOW DANCE (Mika), KNOCKBACK (Shurrak), FEY STEP (Erevan), or RAMMING (Augamo).

With all that in mind, I think there's a way to avoid references to Range at all, and simply write this to ask the general question that such a power really wants answered. I haven't worked through all the possible wording templates, but here are a few versions to serve as a starting point, just to see if there are other issues with the concept:

1. You can only use Dragon Guard Special Attack if the targeted figure would be able to choose a Dragon you control as the first figure chosen for an attack or special power (at their current locations).
   
   
2. If an opponent's figure would be able to choose a Dragon you control, at their current locations, as the first figure chosen for its normal attack or any of its special powers, then you may choose that figure to attack with Dragon Guard Special Attack.
   
   
3. If a friendly Dragon could be chosen as the first figure targeted with a normal attack or any special power by an opponent's figure (at their current locations), then you may choose that figure to attack with Dragon Guard Special Attack.

Note that by saying "as the first figure chosen," I believe I am avoiding all the weird corner cases with explosions, fire lines, Pelloth, and such. For example, if a wyrm is just close enough to Jotun to be included as a backup singer for WILD SWING SA but not close enough to be picked as the lead vocalist, then that doesn't qualify. A more complex case study could be FIRE AND RUSH SPECIAL ATTACK: the "first" wording should make it clear that a wyrm within 5 spaces of an unengaged Samuel Brown does indeed make Brown a guard-worthy threat, but a wyrm that he could only reach and engage in melee after making the first attack does not qualify.

This is new territory, of course, and I realize there's potential to make people feel uneasy about this new combination of game vocabulary. But it would be great if we could let the idea sink in for a bit and see if it might really be seaworthy. This kind of "true guarding" seems like an untapped design space that makes a lot of sense in a synergy-laden battle game, and for my part I'd like to put in the effort to find out if it's really viable.

[Scytale]

Making it based on the Range of the targeted figure is hazardous enough. Making it within Range of the targeted figure's special attack? That would be a hard Nay from me as an Editor. Way, way too many corner cases.

[caps]

I don't think it is a theme fail to assume that any opponent's figure within say, 5 spaces of a dragon is enough of a threat to that dragon in some present or future sense for it to be a valid target.

[Lamaclown]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I don't think it is a theme fail to assume that any opponent's figure within say, 5 spaces of a dragon is enough of a threat to that dragon in some present or future sense for it to be a valid target.

I agree with capsocrates.
Guards aren't only supposed to neutralize real threats but also recognize potential threats.A melee figure who can move adjacent to and attack the dragon on its next turn is a potential threat.

I think it would fit the theme just fine. Really cool unit, BTW!

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Scytale

Making it based on the Range of the targeted figure is hazardous enough. Making it within Range of the targeted figure's special attack? That would be a hard Nay from me as an Editor. Way, way too many corner cases.

They wouldn't even be "corner" cases. One look at many, many of the SA's in the game gives you "Range: Special." It has to be limited to normal attacks, otherwise it's just impossible.

[Astroking112]

I can see where you're going with taking inspiration from Charging Assault and the like, but while I don't think that it's necessarily incorrect, I'm not a big fan of it. Charging Assault is one of the most problematic powers in the game in my eyes, requiring a lot of R&Cs for its various implementations despite being simple. I'm not a big fan of reusing the wording as a result, so building even further off of it doesn't seem very appealing to me.

Like others have said, I don't view "within X spaces of a Dragon" as being a theme break, or at least not one big enough to necessitate complicating the design.

[Just_a_Bill]

Under normal circumstances, before declaring something impossible I'd hope to see a couple of specific examples of the problem, but nevertheless the consensus is very clear. So let's make it this:

DRAGON GUARD SPECIAL ATTACK
Range 7. Attack 4.
Choose a figure to attack that is within 5 spaces of any Dragon you control.

I don't even think it needs to be clear sight spaces, since an enemy doesn't have to actually be able to see the dragon at this moment to be a threat to it on its next turn.

It would also be pretty easy to fold back in a simplified version of the rapid-fire effect from the first draft:

DRAGON GUARD SPECIAL ATTACK
Range 7. Attack 4.
Choose a figure to attack that is within 4 spaces of any Dragon you control. If Lt. Sherman Hiang inflicts at least 1 wound with Dragon Guard Special Attack, he may attack one additional time.

Any other comments on the bonding? I'm leaning toward activating one Dragon, period, after Sherman's turn is over. Obviously you'd get a bigger hammer out of activating a big Dragon, but on the other hand with Wyrmlings you have a larger supply of bonding partners.

There's also another option. The existing Wyrmling Bonding power is structured in such a way that it could be used by Sherman:

WYRMLING BONDING
After revealing an order marker on Lt. Sherman Hiang's Army Card, before taking Sherman's turn, you may take a turn with one Wyrmling you control.

Of course the downside here is forcing the wyrm to go first, which means Sherman doesn't get a chance to shoot the enemy that's locking down the wyrm you want to move. And it's by far the weakest version of every option we've discussed. I'm okay with that if still encourages Wyrmling builds, but I'm not sure I can tell if it does.

Thoughts?

[Astroking112]

I still feel more interested in him working with Wyrmlings over the big dragons, especially if he's getting a full turn. Adding another good ranged special attack to Nilfheim or Quahon concerns me (especially if they can get in a deadly normal attack as well).

If you want to go the Wyrmling route, then I think a 7 Range 4 Attack special is more than worth taking Sherman with them. Needing to take a turn with two Wyrmlings isn't necessary, because they already have a lot of good tools and the player can always place Order Markers on them to accomplish something.

I don't think that reusing Wyrmling Bonding is the best choice there, though. I'd rather see a unique power that can have a more thematic name and let you take a turn with a Wyrmling after taking a turn with Sherman so that he can use Dragon Guard, personally.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by Astroking112

I don't think that reusing Wyrmling Bonding is the best choice there, though. I'd rather see a unique power that can have a more thematic name and let you take a turn with a Wyrmling after taking a turn with Sherman so that he can use Dragon Guard, personally.

Yeah, I feel the same way; I much prefer Sherman activating first. I'm starting to come around on your "one wyrmling is enough" argument, too. Let's see what others have to say, and then I'll revise the card again.

Any thoughts on Dragon Guard getting the conditional second shot? I like it thematically (that's clearly some serious automatic fire he's packing), but I'm wishing I had followed Brunak's lead and required destruction as the qualifier: "If Lt. Sherman Hiang's Dragon Guard Special Attack destroys a figure, Sherman may attack one additional time."

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

Any thoughts on Dragon Guard getting the conditional second shot? I like it thematically (that's clearly some serious automatic fire he's packing), but I'm wishing I had followed Brunak's lead and required destruction as the qualifier: "If Lt. Sherman Hiang's Dragon Guard Special Attack destroys a figure, Sherman may attack one additional time."

Any sort of extra attack on Sherman points to a lack of restraint. If his thing is working with dragons (freakin' bonding with dragons!), then let that be his thing. Don't give dragons two extra attacks.