The Pre-SoV Workshop

[Pumpkin_King]

Originally Posted by Leaf_It

So, this whole thing looks really confusing.

The simplified version that I'm getting is:

Write this all out as clearly as you can without all the wording rules that Heroscape uses. You can add all the wording stuff once you get the design nailed down.

This is absolutely the core of the design, yes.

I really want the Common Lawman Hero (that I know nothing about, other than that it exists) to work with Clayton, even if it's just with Posse, and not Shootout.

The harder you try to distance the is design from the other Order Marker Dump Heros, the more people seem to try and push you towards that design style.

I don’t think it would be a problem to let them work with him, as long as there’s some kind of limiter.

And yes, that does seem to be a theme. I would like to get a solid answer from some of the judges whether or not they think a much simpler version will pass.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

I would like to get a solid answer from some of the judges whether or not they think a much simpler version will pass.

A simpler design is more likely to pass, as long as it still captures enough of the gameplay and theme you're striving for. This is a general statement, not just for this unit.

[Astroking112]

I don't agree with the complaints about using "up to the number of the Order Marker" on Shootout. Yes, adding bells and whistles just for the sake of being different but achieving the same result is bad. If it was just a bunch of extra rules without much of an impact on gameplay, then I would 100% say that it's unnecessary.

However, no matter how I look at it, it does look like it will impact gameplay. This isn't adding arbitrary conditions about taking a turn with another Lawmen, it is directly impacting the number of Lawmen that you can attack with and at what times during the round. To say that it is mechanically equivalent to a static "take a turn with 3 Lawmen" just seems wrong to me. Perhaps @NecroBlade or @Pumpkin_King , who have the most experience with playing Clayton, can comment on this in practice (although I think they have already multiple times and had explained the benefits well before, but these complaints seem to be persisting). I don't want to create another Lao Xin/Kato/Kantono just for the Lawmen, especially when an interesting mechanic like this can be explored.

On a broader topic, I don't think there can be a consensus for what direction to take Clayton, Pumpkin_King. Everyone has their own opinions of course, which is doubly true for a synergy leader for a bunch of unrelated official units. It's great info to probe and see everyone's thoughts, but I think you're just going to find increasingly different opinions the longer you search. In my opinion, the best course of action here is to settle on which version you like the most, polish it until you're happy, and then submit.

I'm not convinced that you need to scrap what you've done so far, and there are a lot of things that I've liked about the various iterations of Clayton in the past. So long as you're doing something exciting or engaging, I think that you're on the right track.

[superfrog]

I think some kind of OM spread would be nice, but Scy had it right a few posts up. There's lots of ways this could go which would be workable. I'm not going to sit here and say what the powers should be, because then it'll be my unit.

You care a lot more about this design than I do (and rightly so, because you have invested a lot in it). If you want some thoughts on what is acceptable to me, here's a short list:

-Shootout chooses Lawmen up to the current OM number
-Shootout chooses Lawmen with a revealed OM
-Shootout chooses a static number of Lawmen
-Shootout chooses Lawmen with any OM

Ideas I haven't liked as much (not that I've seen all of these suggested):

-Only Clayton starts a Shootout
-Shootout is limited to normal attacks
-Shootout allows full turns

I really hope that is helpful, and I'm sorry this has been such a frustration recently.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Astroking112

However, no matter how I look at it, it does look like it will impact gameplay. This isn't adding arbitrary conditions about taking a turn with another Lawmen, it is directly impacting the number of Lawmen that you can attack with and at what times during the round. To say that it is mechanically equivalent to a static "take a turn with 3 Lawmen" just seems wrong to me.

I disagree. I don't think another Ninja leader who gives one more Ninja turn than Kantono would be considered different. A variable number of turns has the potential to be new and interesting, but only if the player can affect it in some way. I just don't see that here. The first round you get one, the second you get two, etc, regardless of what you do. I don't see it even changing who to put order markers on; you want your '3' on the guy who survives into the third turn, regardless of having this rule or not.

For any bell and/or whistle, one needs to consider the value it brings to the table. Is it intended as a weakness for a Clayton build? It's definitely weaker to get less attacks earlier in the round (you'd want the opposite in most situations). If that's the case, it makes sense to add it as a mechanic. If it's just there in an attempt to be different, I don't see what it's adding other than complexity.

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by Scytale

I disagree. I don't think another Ninja leader who gives one more Ninja turn than Kantono would be considered different. A variable number of turns has the potential to be new and interesting, but only if the player can affect it in some way. I just don't see that here. The first round you get one, the second you get two, etc, regardless of what you do. I don't see it even changing who to put order markers on; you want your '3' on the guy who survives into the third turn, regardless of having this rule or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by a new Ninja leader giving one more turn than Kantono. That's the same mechanic, with a different number, which is much more akin to some proposed ideas for Clayton that I've seen.

I do think that having a weaker turn, a normal turn, and then a strong turn each round has a much different effect than normal turn-normal turn-normal turn. I just don't think the two are the same at all.

Say it's the last round of a game, and the cowboys are in the lead. The opponent is much more likely to stay in the game for a little while longer, perhaps long enough to wound a key target, take down a Lawman, and turn the tides. The other player will be keenly aware that the beginning of each round is his strongest chance to stop multiple attacks from being made, and play more aggressively as a result, perhaps placing OM1 on a heavy hitter instead of a glyph grabber or trying to secure more board control.

The Lawmen player will be equally aware that he's weakest at the start of every round, which will affect his plans and timing, leading to different decisions. Placing OM3 on Guilty McCreech is probably a downright terrible idea, but what about James Murphy and Johnny Sullivan? Where OM3 is suddenly becomes a very important guessing game to the other player, since it can take away the strongest part of the Lawmen's round with guarantee if guessed well. Yes, you still want your OM3 to be on the guy who survives to the third turn in any case, but the weight of that turn is worth much more than the weight of OM1 or 2.

Of course, the above works best if the mechanic is paired with another that encourages you to spread out OMs, but there are other effects as well. The fundamental timing of playing Clayton Pierce is different than other leaders. I don't think that this is just a superficial dressing, it feels very much like a defining factor of the unit to me.

For any bell and/or whistle, one needs to consider the value it brings to the table. Is it intended as a weakness for a Clayton build? It's definitely weaker to get less attacks earlier in the round (you'd want the opposite in most situations). If that's the case, it makes sense to add it as a mechanic. If it's just there in an attempt to be different, I don't see what it's adding other than complexity.

I do agree with this sentiment, despite disagreeing with your conclusion in this case. I'm sure that NB or P_K will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there are plenty of legitimate gameplay reasons for the differing strengths of turns here. If there isn't, then I'd agree that there's no reason to do this mechanic.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Astroking112

I do think that having a weaker turn, a normal turn, and then a strong turn each round has a much different effect than normal turn-normal turn-normal turn. I just don't think the two are the same at all.

I understand the argument, but I think it's mostly a perception of difference, not a real decision point. Let's look at your examples.

Originally Posted by Astroking112

Say it's the last round of a game, and the cowboys are in the lead. The opponent is much more likely to stay in the game for a little while longer, perhaps long enough to wound a key target, take down a Lawman, and turn the tides. The other player will be keenly aware that the beginning of each round is his strongest chance to stop multiple attacks from being made, and play more aggressively as a result, perhaps placing OM1 on a heavy hitter instead of a glyph grabber or trying to secure more board control.

Would the player make a different choice because of the number mechanic? The beginning of the round is the best time to cut off opponent's attacks, whether they get more attacks later or not. If anything, without the numbering mechanic its even more important to strike early, as a key strike can wipe out multiple attacks immediately as well as later. The only strategy change I might see is the opposite of your conclusion: that the opponent opts to go for a glyph early instead of attacking, since the Lawmen's first turn is relatively weak. That's kind of interesting, but not worth the added complexity imo.

Originally Posted by Astroking112

The Lawmen player will be equally aware that he's weakest at the start of every round, which will affect his plans and timing, leading to different decisions. Placing OM3 on Guilty McCreech is probably a downright terrible idea, but what about James Murphy and Johnny Sullivan? Where OM3 is suddenly becomes a very important guessing game to the other player, since it can take away the strongest part of the Lawmen's round with guarantee if guessed well. Yes, you still want your OM3 to be on the guy who survives to the third turn in any case, but the weight of that turn is worth much more than the weight of OM1 or 2.

The weight of the choice does not change the choice, it just makes the result more swingy. Both players are still gambling on order markers; the Lawman player wants to use his and his opponent wants to take them out. There's no reason to make different choices with a flat scheme or the number scheme. Where this may be interesting is what I said earlier, in that it makes sense if it's designed as a weakness. This case is one example that illustrates that, as it shows the fragility of having the weight on the least predicable order marker. But I'm not convinced the Lawmen need this nerf, nor do I see a good thematic reason for it.

[NecroBlade]

There is a ton to respond to in regards to Clayton Pierce. I’m going to quote a bunch of feedback, and not worry about who gave it, just respond to the ideas expressed. The forums may force me to put this much in separate posts.

I have 2 things that throw me off with Clayton. The first is simple, he can't activate Shootout, nor can he be activated by Shootout, which is odd, since he's the one with the ability.

This was simply a wording issue that has been corrected in the latest version. It was always the intent for Clayton to participate in his own powers (sometimes those “intent” things are cleared up later by SoV’s editing team, but the criteria isn’t exactly clear as to what they will handle; either way, no reason not to have it on the card now).

Sheriff's Posse is quite a mouthful. The whole power has only two periods.

This is a complete non-issue, as I happen to know there are powers currently being worked on inside the C3V that are both more complicated and have less punctuation (indeed, a single run-on sentence). Honestly, I think it’s a bit hypocritical to make an issue out of it.

Why Valiant instead of, say, Resolute?

This honestly hadn’t received much attention, and should be reflected going forward.

Re: Common Lawmen

the Common Lawman Hero inside the C3V won't work with him at all.

It's safer to just work with what we can see, and if they do both work with Lawmen, then we'll suddenly have two neat ways to build armies around them.

I think this design leaves plenty of space, and I'll leave it at that.

Restricting this design to only help Uniques is probably a mistake. He's supposed to be a posse leader, after all.

Officially, it hasn’t even been announced that the figure in question is a Lawman (it could change at any time even if it were currently). Additionally, including Common Lawmen in Clayton’s synergy forces any future designs to work around that synergy, while not including them leaves their design space more open. Finally, thematically, a Sheriff’s Posse is a few good men that could be rounded up for the cause, not any old gunslinger off the street (see theme points way below).

there is a certain symmetry here, which I'd like to try out for myself.

That’s the idea. A card that creates tension within itself requires thoughtful decision-making. Using OM#s a) is new design space (that hopefully could be explored further in the future), 2) requires careful planning every round, and d) helps Clayton and his faction stand out from other “commanders”. In fact, novel and thematic is kind of Heroscape’s thing.

New types of powers are not a bad thing, either. For example, here’s something I just happened to come across while working on this response:

Took me a few rounds to get comfortable with the [new powers], but I got the hang of it and enjoyed that.

And relatedly:

Pushing boundaries is not only good for individual designs, it's good for advancing the game as a whole.

Referencing the number on the order marker is cool because I haven't seen it before

There is untapped design space in Heroscape that can lead to new and enjoyable things. Using the number of the OM is one of those things and using it on two powers to create tension is another.

I don't agree with the complaints about using "up to the number of the Order Marker" on Shootout. This isn't adding arbitrary conditions about taking a turn with another Lawmen, it is directly impacting the number of Lawmen that you can attack with and at what times during the round.

Agreed.

A variable number of turns has the potential to be new and interesting, but only if the player can affect it in some way.

Would the opponent being able to interact with your OMs be interesting? Sure, but it’s also irrelevant. There are few ways to interact with enemy OMs in Heroscape, yet Heroscape as a whole is a very interesting game.

I guess part of it for me is I don't really see much tension, like to me you'd use the movement power in the first round and after that it just doesn't feel like it would get much use (outside of pretty big maps). It's not like you're giving up all movement for Shootout or anything, so to me you get plenty of board positioning just by spreading out your OMs and going for Shootout.

This is partly correct. In my tests, Sheriff’s Posse has mainly been used in the first round or two. I think that’s OK. Acolarh’s Ullar’s Amulet for example is also mostly a first-round thing. That said, there have been times every few games where it makes sense to make a sudden push for positioning and board control instead of shooting whatever few enemies are left in range.

The other part is I just don't like how the powers sort of work the same, but not quite. It makes for a lot of text and it feels kinda inelegant and potentially confusing.

They do work the same. Each triggers something extra up to the OM#. What is being triggered exactly is slightly different, but they are different powers trying to accomplish different things. It’s new and slightly wordy, but not as bad as Jotun’s Throw or Tor-Kul-Na’s Trample Stomp, and those become pretty intuitive after a use or two. Heck, people still sometimes ask questions about Mimring’s Fireline. See also above quote about “getting the hang” of new powers.

I just think the design would benefit from either a simpler movement power or rolling the two powers into one unified power using bullet points.

This sounds like exactly the opposite of making things more elegant and less confusing. It is, however, a good example of the mixed-messages type of feedback Clayton has gotten from the beginning.

Also a bit weird to me that the movement power is so much more restricted than the attacking power, if anything I'd expect the reverse.

I'm not seeing anything in the power that necessitates attacking; I would support the power if it had that.

These have also been addressed in the latest version.



On contradictory feedback…:

SHERIFF'S POSSE
After taking a turn with Clayton, you may move two unengaged Unique Lawmen Heroes you control up to 5 spaces each.

SHOOTOUT
After revealing an Order Marker on a Unique Lawmen, instead of taking a turn with that Lawmen you may choose any number of Lawmen within 4 sight spaces of Clayton. One at a time, take a turn with each of those Lawmen. During these turns, the chosen Lawmen may not move.

You get the idea, I would try to simplify it more, more streamlined.

What I see here is a fairly normal leader unit with a bunch of gimmicky stuff tacked on to it

I have heard, appreciably, from at least one person that unlike here their use of “gimmick” wasn’t meant to be a negative, but more something that makes him stand out. Here’s some other feedback related to simplicity vs. standing out:

If you change Clayton to use bonding I think you'll struggle to get him through the SoV, let alone VC unified review. On the other hand, if he *doesn't* have bonding, you may also have a hard time getting him through unified review.

So Clayton needs both not-Bonding and Bonding.

We'll never make another mistake like Omegacron again.

Omegacron-style bonding is bad. I won't support it.

Personally, I’d like to hear the full reasoning here (though that’s probably a different discussion for a different time). I don’t have much issue with Omegacron myself, but I also think he’s messier than anything Clayton has tried to do.

My biggest personal concern with cowboy synergy is "sameness." What the cowboys should not be is just like everybody else.

Cowboy synergy is fine too, as long as it's not "take turns with two cowboy heroes" or a similar re-tread of earlier factions.

We already have Kato Katsuro, Kantono Daishi, and Master Lao Xin that function somewhat similarly in how they tie together a band of units.

Which has been noted since the very beginning. While a leader, Clayton has always strived to stand out. But then there’s this:

Just make it a form of movement bonding where the Lawmen move first.

And we have this:

I do not like how Shootout triggers off of other army cards. That's not only not very 'Scapy, it's also dangerous rules territory. It would be much cleaner and simpler if it was only on Clayton's card, which is where many of your order markers will be anyway because of Posse.

Despite plenty of sentiment not to turn Clayton into an “OM dump”:

A faction design that requires or at least encourages a spread of order markers would be fantastic

I don't think that a leader should necessitate hogging OMs. There are many more inventive ways to tie an army together, and I hate the idea of every faction leader being an Ulginesh/Kato/Kantono/Lao Xin. We've seen enough of those OM sinks, and I'd like to see a new type of leader that encourages players to spread them out for a change. It fits the Western theme pretty well, too, in my eyes, especially since we have so many disparate unique Lawmen already.

A ham-fisted approach to forcing order marker spread does not make a cowboy leader significantly less same-y

There is a fair point that some people are going to see any type of leader as the “same” as the other factions mentioned. That’s understandable and all the more reason for the way it’s handled to stand out. I do, however, find it ironic that there are calls to go back to a version that moves/shoots with Lawmen “with OMs on their cards” as if that’s somehow less “ham-fisted” than opening up the new OM# design space. Interestingly, this:

Shootout feels like an order marker-spread mechanic is shoehorned in, because it is.

Was said about a version that didn’t even mention OMs. This, however:

This is a much more interesting, unique design. Spreading order markers does not feel forced here, it feels like it's part of the overall concept.

Was applied to what was probably the most “ham-fisted” version that also seems to be clostest to what some people are wanting to return to now.

Wasn't there a version that said you can only use Shootout with Heroes that have order markers on them? I loved that idea.

The harder you try to distance the is design from the other Order Marker Dump Heros, the more people seem to try and push you towards that design style.

Or push toward forced OM-spread after saying that isn't a direction the design should go in.

There isn't much value in putting your order markers anywhere but Clayton (as long as you can keep him safe)

And why would I put Clayton in harm's way? To get an extra shot? I'd keep him in my starting zone as long as possible.

With the current cast of Lawmen, Clayton on height is your only chance for 4 attack dice, which is a good reason to not hide him in the back.

But with the only requirement for Posse being that they start within 6 spaces, and the only requirement for Shootout being clear sight, you can send out your cowboys up to 11 spaces in front of Clayton and still have them participate in Shootouts

While not true that there’s no value to OMs elsewhere due to the movement inherent in Shootout, concerns about “keeping Clayton safe” instead of adding his gun to the fight (which some players would see as more valuable, because what does it matter if he’s safe if the rest of the Lawmen can’t keep up with the opponent’s army?) were noted and addressed in the latest version.

That gives you the freedom to use Sheriff's Posse or Shootout each turn depending on the situation.

While true, again you miss out on the movement of a different Lawman if you rely on Clayton to do everything, not to mention you’re asking your opponent to kill Clayton even more than they already will be. And that Shootout movement:

Seems thematic too, move out together, then start moving out to cover once the shootout starts, one Lawman advancing at a time while the others provide cover fire

allowing Shootout to work on any Lawman's turn feels like a gimmick (a troublesome one--adding a new power to other cards is dangerous)

This is just nonsensical to me. Aren’t powers like Parmenio’s Defy Death, or hell Raelin's Aura just "added to other cards"? There seems to be no reasonable distinction here, just a baseless complaint.

I will say I preferred the previous version (I think it was the one previous to this one from the other comments -- the one with the powers triggering off of Order Marker placement). I wonder if the designers could explain why they went with this version from the previous one?

The unrevealed OM Posse/revealed OM Shootout version had issues with predictability and rigidity, as @dok pointed out. You’d basically always want your OM1 on Clayton to move the most Lawmen. Even if both powers were based on any OM (not un/revealed), you diminish the bluff capability with the X, which was an integral part of Heroscape’s design from the very beginning. You’d have to put your X by itself on a Lawman that you want to participate in either power, but with the OM# version you can pair the X with any other OM(s) and still get full use out of Sheriff’s Posse, Shootout, and the X. In fact, here are points that were laid out on what Clayton is trying to accomplish, and all of these boxes are checked with the OM# powers:

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 on any Lawman OM reveal.

There is a natural limiter for Shootout, which is nice and may be good enough. You still have insane board control with your mass movement, too much to fly with me. Just the fact there aren't many Lawmen units is not a sufficient argument; I don't want to have to stop making Lawmen at some point to avoid making Clayton too good.

He can let you move an army of Unique Lawmen in one turn, and lets you attack with that whole army in a turn as well (granted, not the same turn). I really dislike not having actual numbered restraints here as it means that every Lawman in the future will have to be below a certain power level with how much freedom this design would give

This was some good, earlier feedback that moved Clayton in the direction of using OMs more uniquely. OM# sets some very real limits.

FWIW, I preferred previous versions of Posse I saw where the Lawman Heroes had to end their move within X amount of spaces of Clayton, rather than begin.

This is now addressed as well. Lawmen can start Sheriff’s Posse within 6 and end anywhere, but if they want to participate in Shootout they better end within 3.

I thought about suggesting normal attacks only, but I decided it was not only weak but dull. And not particularly thematic either.

Agreed.

I only ran three tests on the card two versions ago

I don't consider 15 tests overall to be extensive.

Playtesting is almost never as extensive as we’d like. I have been looking forward to testing Clayton again after the latest tweaks, though. I expect him to play almost exactly the same, since much of the changes were intended to begin with, and maps lend themselves to certain playstyles as well.

On a sort of related note:

Making it work with Dan would require it to work with Snipers, which I think is a whole different kettle of fish.

Sad trumpets for Dan.

[Scytale]

Let me clarify my position on a Lawman leader. I have no real love of the idea, but I agree that such a thing would be both fun and thematic.

I very much would like to see a version of a leader figure that is different than the sorts we have seen before which grant bonus turns to others in the faction. Unfortunately Lawman have zero synergy between them otherwise, and likely won't ever be able to hold their own without such a thing. So the reality is a Lawman leader will probably be similar to others that came before.

If the design is to go the expected bonus turn route, uniqueness has to come from the faction design level, not just the leader itself. By that I mean the designers need a strong vision of how the faction is supposed to be played, not just how the leader affects it. A faction that strongly encourages spreading order markers around is such a way; so far leader figures are either order marker dumps or the bonders of order marker dumps. A faction that encourages order marker spread will naturally play differently than what came before, even if the leader itself is fairly standard.

The easy trap to fall into is false uniqueness. By that I mean a mechanic put on the leader in an explicit effort to make it different than other leaders but does not make the faction play different than other factions. I see the numbered order marker mechanic as such a thing. Having a variable number of turns can be interesting; the Marro Drones and Thralls are interesting because of their unpredictability, for example. Outside of that, variable number of turns could be interesting if it's something the player has to make happen in some way, as its something they have to play around and something the opponent can attempt to counter. Basing the number of turns on the number of the order marker has an effect on gameplay, but not in terms of decision-making. It's just a variation on "X bonus turns."

If a Lawmen leader goes with a bonus turn design, just admit that it's not that different than other leaders and focus on making it a good unit instead of trying to force uniqueness. If you really want a Lawman leader to be unique, don't focus on the leader itself, focus on the faction as a whole. Make that unique, and the "uniqueness" of the leader itself doesn't matter.

[Tornado]

WANTED
At the start of the game, choose an opponent's Unique Hero to be Wanted. After an order marker is revealed on the Wanted figure's card, you may immediately move every Lawman figure you control 2 spaces. Figures moved with this special power will take any leaving engagement attacks.

[NecroBlade]

@Scytale, as you say, the Lawmen have no existing synergy to speak of, so your point about uniqueness coming from the faction level is moot. They're just a bunch of Heroes, so it's up to the leader to tie them together in some way.

Just because he grants bonus movement and bonus attacks doesn't mean the OM# method isn't unique. It literally hasn't been done before, so no other faction has the same escalating playstyle. Also, neither Kato, nor Kantono, nor Lao Xin share the splitting of movement and attack.

Finally, neither Clayton nor his Lawmen become OM dumps. I know you insist you'd only put OMs on Clayton, but as I point out every time there is value in putting OMs on other Lawmen that is different from the value of putting them on him. You do want to spread OMs around, what we don't have to do is be explicit about it to achieve that.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

Just because he grants bonus movement and bonus attacks doesn't mean the OM# method isn't unique. It literally hasn't been done before, so no other faction has the same escalating playstyle.

Fine, but don't try to sell me that it's different than other leaders. It's just bonus turns. Sell me that the escalating playstyle is thematic for this faction and provides real gameplay value over a set number.

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

Finally, neither Clayton nor his Lawmen become OM dumps. I know you insist you'd only put OMs on Clayton, but as I point out every time there is value in putting OMs on other Lawmen that is different from the value of putting them on him. You do want to spread OMs around, what we don't have to do is be explicit about it to achieve that.

Just because you have the potential to put order markers elsewhere doesn't make it automatically helpful to do so. If, when played optimally, it's best to put most order markers on Clayton, then it's a mostly extraneous part of the power, and we would have to decide if the extra complexity is worth it.