HoME Playtesting Thread

[KingZombie]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

What you're proposing sounds a little more like an SoV approach, and it's not one I'm personally interested in. If we're trying to capture something specific about a character and someone else has captured that well, I could see riffing off of their power (with their permission). But that's tricky territory, IMO, and simpler left untread.

That said, perhaps this project would be better off going with an SoV approach.

Personally, I would prefer to have something more cohesive and consistent than we would likely get from an SoV approach.

Oh...I totally get what you're trying to do. I just came across this when I decided to bust out my Heroscape after several years of it collecting dust. I was searching the forums and have seen how active C3G and SoV are and would love to see this thread get as active.

Any ideas why hasn't this thread taken off as much as the others? I mean, who doesn't want to battle in Middle Earth? Does it relate to the difficulty of getting figures to use?

I've loved the discussions I've seen about Merry & Pippen, too. I've never made a custom or ever playtested anything. I'm trying to make time to get back into the game and make the time to be an active participant in this endeavor...but first I'll need to get some more hours of normal HS under my belt before trying to playtest. That's partly why I thought if we could use the cards previously made by others and then tweak them, it would speed up the process and maybe generate more buzz.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by TREX

I think this is kind of funny because there are only two members, and next to nothing to actually play test. When I was asked to help out here I assumed we were re starting a design team with the handful of us. Then when none of my ideas were "acceptable" and didn't make the grade, I figured out what is actually going on here. Then I had a realization on why the project died the way it did. Ninja Status, I don't see why they wouldn't build a new team as your ideas are just as valid as the next guy. If it is just two guys making cards, you are really just play testing some guys custom thread.

@TREX
Originally, there were 10 members of this project, with 3 of those on the Executive Review Board as the leaders. Gandalf, Aragorn, and the two hobbits were collaborative designs of that group.

Now that the project is restarting, most of the original members have moved on. I think adding more people would be great--in fact, I think we should add anyone who wants to join. I personally don't have much time to give right now, but I've tried to chip in as I can, especially with historical information about the vision and discussions that have already taken place.

One of your recent ideas was full bonding for the hobbits. This was discussed at length in the Brainstorming thread, and finally decided against. I understand that with restarting the project we are bringing in new ideas, but we should not just ignore decisions made in the past that were made with pages of careful deliberation.

So what I see with Merry and Pippin:
- Capsocrates has a version he likes (no bonding)
- I have a version I like (movement bonding)
- You proposed a new version (full bonding)

I'd be willing to see playtests on full bonding versions of Merry and Pippin. I'd be happy to see any playtesting. But I will say that I really liked my movement-only bonding versions when I playtested them.

Anyways, if you are willing to stay with the project a little longer, come up with full-bonding versions for Merry and Pippin, try them out, and if they work well in playtesting I'll vote for them.

[caps]

Originally Posted by TREX

I think this is kind of funny because there are only two members, and next to nothing to actually play test. When I was asked to help out here I assumed we were re starting a design team with the handful of us. Then when none of my ideas were "acceptable" and didn't make the grade, I figured out what is actually going on here. Then I had a realization on why the project died the way it did. Ninja Status, I don't see why they wouldn't build a new team as your ideas are just as valid as the next guy. If it is just two guys making cards, you are really just play testing some guys custom thread.

TREX, you're accusing me of running my own little customs thread here and that is neither true nor fair to me. I'm loud and opinionated, but if you look through the thread history you'll see that I don't have the final say. In a collaborative process I expect pushback when there is disagreement. See any of White Knight's posts.

--

Originally Posted by KingZombie

Any ideas why hasn't this thread taken off as much as the others? I mean, who doesn't want to battle in Middle Earth? Does it relate to the difficulty of getting figures to use?

I can think of at least two reasons.

The obvious one is the overall decline of activity on the site. C3G started while the game was still in production and the site was bustling with activity. They set up such a strong community that they are almost self-sustaining. Many people that are active in C3G still come to the site regularly *because* of C3G.

C3V and SoV got their start after the game went out of production, but whole activity on the site was still pretty high. The remaining members are pretty committed to the game.

I don't remember when HoSS started, but I remember that they had probably well over a hundred designs before they decided to get serious about playtesting and releasing everything. They're a pretty small group.

HoME came even later, inspired by the first HoSS release to get some LotR customs out in a similar format.

All of these groups have seen a decline in available and interested playtesters. All of these groups, to my knowledge, have taken measures to try to compensate. HoME, as the smallest and newest, has the least weight to throw around and the least draw--with no releases yet our name isn't very well known.

So that's one reason. It's a pretty important one.

The other reason is more historical to HoME itself.

When we started, we (perhaps I should say "I") put too much emphasis on playtesting. That burned several members out. We lost several other members to Real Life activities and the draw of other commitments on the site; I myself only recently retired as an SoV judge and still participate internally in C3V.

Does that help answer your question?

--

Originally Posted by White Knight

Originally, there were 10 members of this project, with 3 of those on the Executive Review Board as the leaders. Gandalf, Aragorn, and the two hobbits were collaborative designs of that group.

Now that the project is restarting, most of the original members have moved on. I think adding more people would be great--in fact, I think we should add anyone who wants to join. I personally don't have much time to give right now, but I've tried to chip in as I can, especially with historical information about the vision and discussions that have already taken place.

One of your recent ideas was full bonding for the hobbits. This was discussed at length in the Brainstorming thread, and finally decided against. I understand that with restarting the project we are bringing in new ideas, but we should not just ignore decisions made in the past that were made with pages of careful deliberation.

So what I see with Merry and Pippin:
- Capsocrates has a version he likes (no bonding)
- I have a version I like (movement bonding)
- You proposed a new version (full bonding)

I'd be willing to see playtests on full bonding versions of Merry and Pippin. I'd be happy to see any playtesting. But I will say that I really liked my movement-only bonding versions when I playtested them.

Anyways, if you are willing to stay with the project a little longer, come up with full-bonding versions for Merry and Pippin, try them out, and if they work well in playtesting I'll vote for them.

Personally I have come around on the movement bonding version. I believe the playtest results so far that say the current version is not worth using, and am okay with the upgrade to movement bonding. I would vote against a full-bonding proposal at this point in time.

Given the change to movement bonding, my concerns at this point are: A) I'm not sure we have captured the individuality of Merry and of Pippin very well B) we have given one of them a power related to his blade, when blades should be represented by glyphs (not a Heroscape standard--but a standard I think we should adopt in HoME).

I disagree with White Knight that we should let anyone in that asks. I think we should require would-be members to submit some playtests first, to show they're not going to flake out. BUT I could be out-voted by WK and NS if someone were to put forward a new membership proposal. Unless playtesting is in the rules somewhere as a prereq for membership--I'd have to check. But they could vote to change such a requirement and overrule me there, too.

[Ninja Status]

I like capsocrates' idea. Requiring a number of playtests before adding someone in as a member is exactly what sifts out the people who might not be as committed later on, and I'm pretty sure C3V and C3G as well as HoSS operate on that same basis.

However, specifying the amount isn't a good idea, IMO. I think the current members should discuss (perhaps via PM) who has contributed the most and then from there, can determine who should be added next, as a member.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Ninja Status

I like capsocrates' idea. Requiring a number of playtests before adding someone in as a member is exactly what sifts out the people who might not be as committed later on, and I'm pretty sure C3V and C3G as well as HoSS operate on that same basis.

However, specifying the amount isn't a good idea, IMO. I think the current members should discuss (perhaps via PM) who has contributed the most and then from there, can determine who should be added next, as a member.

Right, I don't think that a number of playtests needs to be set in stone.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

From the General Discussion thread:

If we were to ask everyone to vote...

Options
1) Original version, 150-165 points.
2) Stronger version, 180 points (with 4 Attack for Blazing Strike and scatter after Blazing Strike)
3) Reduced life version, 120-130 points (6 life, move 4 figures with Leadership--figures end movement within 3 spaces of Gandalf)

I would vote:
1 - yes
2 - yes
3 - yes

We should have moved number 1 out of playtesting. I would still be okay with that. I like the idea of the nerfed version but the idea of more gandalf playtesting gives me PTSD

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by White Knight

THE WORKBOOK OF GANDALF (THE GREY)
(Under Construction)

DESIGNER = White Knight

Lord of the Rings Set

FIGURE USED FOR UNIT: Gandalf, The Hobbit Heroclix set


NAME = GANDALF
GENERAL = JANDAR
SPECIES = MAIA
PLANET = ARDA
UNIQUENESS = UNIQUE HERO
CLASS = WIZARD
PERSONALITY = WISE
SIZE/HEIGHT = MEDIUM 5

STATS, MASTER/BASIC
LIFE = 7
MOVE = 5
RANGE = 4
ATTACK = 4
DEFENSE = 3
POINTS = 180

BLAZING STRIKE SPECIAL ATTACK
Range 1. Attack 3.
All opponents' figures adjacent to Gandalf are affected by Blazing Strike Special Attack. Roll attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. At the end of your turn, after using Blazing Strike Special Attack, you may move Gandalf up to 4 spaces. Gandalf does not take leaving engagement attacks when moving this way.

LEADERSHIP
After taking a turn with Gandalf, you may move up to 3 small or medium Unique Heroes you control up to 4 spaces each. Any figures moved by Leadership must end their movement adjacent to Gandalf. Figures moved by Leadership do not take leaving engagement attacks.


Character Bio: (Insert Character Bio here)


-RULINGS and CLARIFICATIONS-
(Insert questions and answers about unit function and/or power interpretation)


-COMBINATIONS and SYNERGIES-
Synergy Benefits Received
(Insert links to figures that benefit the unit, and short explanation of synergy)

Synergy Benefits Offered
(Insert links to figures that this unit benefits, and a short explanation of synergy)

[Splash]

Once we get a list of members, we could do the yeas and nays. We could always reevaluate later if we just wanna get something out now. And yeah 51 playtests is more than enough, I'm sure Hasbro may not of even been as thorough.

Also just curious, what does the no leaving engagement attacks originate from?

[Shiftrex]

Is that a reference to when Gandalf has used fire as a distraction? Or used light to nail Thorin and company out in the Hobbit?

[caps]

I think it primarily represents the time he used a flash of light to help the company escape from the Goblins in the misty mountains. As well as the beginning of that situation where he used a flash to kill some Goblins and sneak in to the back of the line. I forget if there are other times he did something similar.

We should discuss whether to move forward with this or just start over fresh. We'll throw this and some other ideas around in brainstorming and see if we want to stick with what we have (that's playtested) or do something else

[Splash]

Agreed, I do like this one though.

[caps]

This one might be better as Hobbit Gandalf than a FotR Gandalf

[Shiftrex]

Multiple iterations of a character is NEVER a bad thing.