The Pre-SoV Workshop

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Leaf_It

I didn't intend for this to mean that a boring or useless power should be used, it just means that so long as the price reflects the value a design will have during a game, that it won't be imbalanced. If a power is boring, or useless, then it probably should be reworked, or it shouldn't be on the design, but that doesn't mean that it is imbalanced. My original statement was in response to SinChan's worry that moving order markers might be too powerful. I just wanted to say that it won't be imbalanced, or too powerful so long as the price reflects the value. Maybe my wording wasn't the best, but I stand by my intended meaning.

I understand your point better, but I still can't agree. It's trivial to make a power that is unbalanced regardless of cost.

BEST POWER
At the start of the game, you immediately win.

It's obviously absurd, but my point extends beyond simple absurdity. You can say that the above power will cost 1,000,000 points, but it's still broken in a 1,000,000 point game. Heroscape is too variable to be determined solely by pricing units, because there is no bound to possibilities. Look at how Taelord goes from terrible in a 400-point game to amazing in a 2000-point game. And that's just talking 1v1 on a simple map. That's why pricing calculators are only useful as a guideline, and why playtesting in many environments is important.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I think you two might be using "balance" differently. As I understand Leaf It's position, it is that "balance" relates by definition only to cost. I don't use it that way, but I think that is what is being lost in the translation.

Heh heh. I wrote an entire post reviewing the old example power Aldin used to give, "roll a d20 and on a 10+ you win," but then I scratched it and rewrote it as above, to make it more conciliatory. But my point was precisely the same as Scy's, with pretty much the same power.

I believe Scy is correct, as is normally the case. Unless I was correct that Leaf It is using the word "balance" to mean only in relation to cost, which doesn't seem right to me, because powers (and customs) can be balanced in other ways, as well.

[Pumpkin_King]

Hi all! The Lawman project has been chuggign along and we have a new versioon of Clayton to look at, hopefully incorporating some feedback from the last version. Let us know what you think.

[superfrog]

Sheriff's Posse needs to include the "must be able to" wording from the Kozuke.

I think Shootout should include some reference to Clayton Pierce. Perhaps clear sight?

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by superfrog

Sheriff's Posse needs to include the "must be able to" wording from the Kozuke.

It absolutely does not. "Must" means "must". "Must be able to" introduces the confusion of "can but doesn't have to". Kozuke Samurai were worded extremely poorly; there is no reason to inflict that mistake on other cards.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

It absolutely does not. "Must" means "must". "Must be able to" introduces the confusion of "can but doesn't have to". Kozuke Samurai were worded extremely poorly; there is no reason to inflict that mistake on other cards.

It absolutely must. The reason we have to inflict that mistake on other cards is that that wording already comes with its own rulings. Making new mistakes will force a new set of rulings.

The problem here is the "uncertain future" problem, as I like to call it. To be able to move a Lawman Hero, it must end its move within 3 spaces of Clayton. But you cannot guarantee that will happen. What if the Lawman dies from a leaving engagement attack or falling damage. Then he will fail to meet the condition which allowed him to move in the first place. So does he reset back to the beginning? It's a condition based on a condition in the future that may not happen due to the action itself.

Kozuke's wording is bad, bad, bad, but with rulings it has come to have a certain meaning. A meaning that encompasses all these problems. The only way I'll allow an uncertain future problem through (SoV or C3V) is by piggybacking on the existing, official wording as used by Charging Assault.

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by Scytale

The problem here is the "uncertain future" problem, as I like to call it. To be able to move a Lawman Hero, it must end its move within 3 spaces of Clayton. But you cannot guarantee that will happen. What if the Lawman dies from a leaving engagement attack or falling damage. Then he will fail to meet the condition which allowed him to move in the first place. So does he reset back to the beginning? It's a condition based on a condition in the future that may not happen due to the action itself.

Those are really stupid reasons. As long as you've proven that the figure can end its move adjacent to Clayton and do so if tragedy doesn't befall them in the mean time, that shouldn't create a paradox in a game with little plastic men.

That said, if following in the footsteps of folly allows the card to move forward and be evaluated on its merits instead of a dumb semantic argument, so be it. Alternatively, add "if possible" to the end of the sentence for something that actually makes sense.

[Scytale]

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.

I am a bit concerned about the overall power level. Two hero attacks, then three, then four. Plus the various special attacks and/or multiple attacks. It's a fragile army, though, so maybe it's ok.

Another wording note. We have stopped using "can only attack" wording because of various problems. "May not move" is the preferred wording.

[Kinseth]

Kozuke Samurai must be able to move adjacent to an opponents figure in order to use Charging assault.

Couldn't they take a LEA and die after moving from space 6 to 7...

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by Scytale

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.

I am a bit concerned about the overall power level. Two hero attacks, then three, then four. Plus the various special attacks and/or multiple attacks. It's a fragile army, though, so maybe it's ok.

Another wording note. We have stopped using "can only attack" wording because of various problems. "May not move" is the preferred wording.

I can't tell you how many times I've whiffed* and/or failed to inflict damage even with four peashooters. You're also definitely right about them being fragile. And shoring that up with Raelin and/or Rats doesn't leave room for much else.

I'd defer to current conventions on "may not move" as well, though I feel like that would actually open up even more issues (but apparently I'm not as well versed). On the other hand, James can Whip something in the middle of a Shootout that way.

*Especially with Clayton... always with Clayton.

[Pumpkin_King]

In our various tests (including previous versions) we've found that attacking with all/a couple of lawmen sounds very strong, but isn't in practice. We were concerned about the opposite, in fact.

[superfrog]

Another rules issue: Shootout currently happens during the first figure's turn, which creates turn stacking, which is no bueno. You probably want to have it start like this:

After revealing a numbered Order Marker on a unique Lawman Hero you control and taking a turn with that hero, if it did not attack that turn, you may start a Shootout. (etc.)

Here's a spitballed alternate take on Posse which avoids the Kozuke comparison altogether, and allows a bit more flexibility (just a thought, though, so take it with a grain of salt):

SHERIFF'S POSSE
After revealing an Order Marker on this card and moving Clayton Pierce, you may move any number of Unique Lawman Heroes you control up to 5 spaces. While moving with Sheriff's Posse, a figure may not move onto a space that is farther away from Clayton Pierce than its current space. Any figure moved with Sheriff's Posse must have at least one unrevealed Order Marker on its Army Card.