PK's customs MK. III - 3/20 - Empyrean Issue 2: Imperiled

[Astroking112]

The prospect of C3V taking over a public design doesn't sit well with me (even if it is led by a C3V member, there are plenty of us who don't have access to those discussions and still like to contribute to Clayton). I'm glad that this seems to be the consensus.

I do think that the argument about Order Marker management being a little wooden has merit. There aren't many turns where you'd like to place your first Order Marker on someone besides Clayton, and typically you want to place all of your other ones on different Lawmen to maximize Shootout. There's definitely an efficient way of placing your OMs here.

That said, this design still gives you the freedom to do otherwise. Plenty of other leaders involve a much more rigid OM-placement (generally just requiring everything to be placed on them), so I'd actually argue that Posse/Shootout are the standouts in terms of OM freedom here. Fixing the heavy reliance on using OM1 for positioning and the other two for attacking would require major changes to the design itself, and I'm not sure that scrapping a lot of what makes Clayton unique is worth that.

I also feel like a big part of why it currently feels stiff is because we currently don't have that many Lawmen. There are only three options for Clayton right now (two of which are extremely similar), so each of the turns are going to feel pretty similar. Once more Unique Lawmen like Guilty McCreech or the shotgunners are added, with their own unique powers and Special Attacks, the choice of which ones to move (and which order to take their turns) becomes far more interesting.

[Pumpkin_King]

Originally Posted by Astroking112

I also feel like a big part of why it currently feels stiff is because we currently don't have that many Lawmen. There are only three options for Clayton right now (two of which are extremely similar), so each of the turns are going to feel pretty similar. Once more Unique Lawmen like Guilty McCreech or the shotgunners are added, with their own unique powers and Special Attacks, the choice of which ones to move (and which order to take their turns) becomes far more interesting.

I brought this up in the discord, and thank you for bringing it up here. Completely agreed.

[dok]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

We're at least in the same camp happy to see movement on this long-overdue addition to 'scape.

I'm glad you've remembered that I've been by your side in this argument, on and off, for the last seven years.

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

I will push back a little and say that, even if the C3V is more amenable to cowboy synergy now (which you’re probably right) nothing was being actively discussed.

Define active? I personally brought this up multiple times late last year, and again earlier this year. You were involved in several of those discussions. I specifically said I'd back this mini for the sherriff design when it was brought up there. You then, I gather, decided to work on it on your own instead of posting it in a brainstorm there, and made it over the next few weeks following that? When you say it wasn't active, do you mean just expressing support for starting the design instead of starting the thread myself was insufficient?

Anyway, since you guys keep referencing a discord, where is this? Is it a public server? I'm on one Heroscape discord channel but I don't believe it's the one you're referencing. I don't keep track of everyone's individual custom threads, so I'm honestly not sure how I would have known to find this.

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

It's actually less rigid than 1-2-3 on Dwarves/Capuans, X on Morgrimm/Spartacus.

"It's less rigid than the most rigid OM placement mechanic in the game". Uh... yes! That's true! But if you think it's good, then argue it's good. Because that comparison doesn't actually do that.

To be clear, I am a big fan of the fact that this design incentivizes spreading OMs instead of just dumping them. However, it then works against its own mechanic by enforcing a fairly rigid order.

I also find the interaction between the two powers, which will almost always both be in play on OM1, to be both excessively complex and not terribly thematic. (And when the wording is inevitably changed to prevent turn stacking, it will get even more complex.)

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

The X reveal is necessary to allow them to actually have some teeth. If you don't have that option, it's just 1-2-3 attacks which averages 2 per turn, which isn't good enough.

It's only necessary given the specific implementation you have chosen, but there are many possible implementations that avoid this. Most obviously, implementations that don't key on whether the relevant OM is revealed or not.

I can give some specifics here that are more in line with what you've done so far, if you like. I continue to believe things can be streamlined significantly from what you have here - not necessarily in terms of total word count on the card, but in terms of how intuitively the powers interact and in how rigid the OM placement is.

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

I couldn't care less if "we" made him work with Common Lawmen because it complicates the wording way too much and there are enough Uniques to make it work right now and any future Uniques only make things more interesting

I'll admit I don't really care much one way or another on this either, but I don't see how it complicates the wording very much at all. It's actually very easy to change, and saves you about as many words as it costs you.

[Pumpkin_King]

Originally Posted by dok

Define active? I personally brought this up multiple times late last year, and again earlier this year. You were involved in several of those discussions. I specifically said I'd back this mini for the sherriff design when it was brought up there. You then, I gather, decided to work on it on your own instead of posting it in a brainstorm there, and made it over the next few weeks following that? When you say it wasn't active, do you mean just expressing support for starting the design instead of starting the thread myself was insufficient?

Anyway, since you guys keep referencing a discord, where is this? Is it a public server? I'm on one Heroscape discord channel but I don't believe it's the one you're referencing. I don't keep track of everyone's individual custom threads, so I'm honestly not sure how I would have known to find this.

If I missed heavy support for the mini, I apologize. I posted them in one place, in Ollie's thread and, checking it now, there wasn't a huge outpouring of support. Yes, I did take it to the discord from there. Speaking of, there's a link in my signature.

And absolutely, if you have any ideas for how to make the OMs feel less wooden in your opinion, feel free. I would encourage you to play a gamewith Clayton as he is. You might find he feels better than you'd think.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

Yes, I did take it to the discord from there. Speaking of, there's a link in my signature.

This is what I get for using discreet and fast-loading.

[Pumpkin_King]

Originally Posted by dok

This is what I get for using discreet and fast-loading.

OOOF, well, that explains it!

[dok]

In cases like this, I think it's useful to step back and draw a distinction between what theme we're trying to implement, what gameplay effects we are going for (either to implement that theme or otherwise), and what specific mechanics we are using to implement it.

• Theme to implement: classic team of lawmen, working together, engaging in a shootout. Classic shootout where a bunch of brave fellows dig in their heels and fire away at the baddies.
• Gameplay effects we are going for: ability to move multiple lawmen into a tightly-grouped position on a single turn. Shootout mechanic where you get bonus turns of lawmen attacking without moving. Achieving the above without dumping all OMs on one figure that just "bonds" Ulginesh-style.
• Mechanics being used: Movement bonding (with spacing restrictions and OM requirements) on Clayton's OM reveal turn. Indirect no-movement bonding activations for lawmen with revealed OMs on any Lawman OM reveal. X marker reveal to juice aformentioned activation count.

Is that a fair characterization? Did I miss important theme/gameplay elements?

[Pumpkin_King]

Yes, those seem to be the major ones. Can't think of much else. Besides perhaps, as a smaller point, we were trying to avoid "move/attack with 3 lawmen", as in a printed number of lawmen. That's something we could possibly change if we did come up with something better.

[Pumpkin_King]

@dok this is a new version we're working on. How does this one hit you?

[Pumpkin_King]

IF anyone wants to help Clayton, we're playtesting this version!

[Pumpkin_King]

Also, a tweak we’re thinking about to help concerns about him being an OM dump - allowing him to participate in Shootout but not start one. Please test that tweak if you can!

[Pumpkin_King]

New version of Clayton. Completely new version of Posse and a slightly edited Shootout.