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

[Pumpkin_King]

How did the tests make you feel about clear sight during shootout?

[superfrog]

I played with a clear sight restriction, and it was fine. It didn't come up very often, though. Maybe twice in the 4 games.

In most cases, I think a figure's powers should involve the figure itself in some way. As it is, Clayton's basically giving a free activation power to every single Lawman while he's alive. I think it hits theme better, and follows precedent better, if he has to see them.

[dok]

Taking a fresh look at this; I've decided to comment without looking at previous discussions to avoid the echo chamber effect.

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

Hi folks!

You may have seen in the pre-SoV thread, but we think we've hit on a direction we're settled on.

We wanted to ask for volunteers to playtest this version of Clayton and post here with general feelings or full reports. WE'd very much appreciate if you could!

On the stat side, I really think Clayton's gonna need 6 life. He's going to be the focal point of the enemy's attack and his toughness will need to reflect that. He'll probably need a third point of defense too, for that matter. Dude's gonna have a target on his chest, big time.

On the power set, I feel like you're a bit too constrained in OM arrangement here. Clayton gets every OM1 for maximum figure rearrangement, then you run shootout turns as best you can by flipping OMs on the others. The order is forced and that's not ideal, IMO.

I do like the idea that one figure can move on shootout turns. It feels like every old western where the action flips from one guy to another while everyone else stands and fires. Good work there.

My suggestion is, don't allow attacks when moving with Posse. Posse can simply be a way to speed deployment of the army. The corollary of this is that you wouldn't allow posse and shootout on the same turn. This simplifies things considerably because now the powers aren't triggering on top of one another.

So...

SHERIFF'S POSSE
After revealing an Order Marker on this card and taking a turn with Clayton Pierce, if Clayton Pierce did not attack, you may move up to four other Lawman Heroes you control up to 5 spaces each. Figures must be able to end their move within 4 clear sight spaces of Clayton Pierce in order to move with Sheriff's Posse.

SHOOTOUT
After revealing an Order Marker and taking a turn with Clayton Pierce or a Lawman figure within 4 clear sight spaces of Clayton Pierce, if that figure attacked, then you may choose a different Lawman Hero within 4 clear sight spaces of Clayton Pierce that has an Order Marker on its Army Card. Clayton Pierce may be the chosen Hero. Take a turn with the chosen Hero. During this turn, the chosen figure cannot move.

That's just a straight 2 activations per turn, as opposed to the 2, then 3, then 4 that the current version supports. And that first turn can't be So it's admittedly a bit of a nerf. There are other ways to play it, but I don't really like the 2->3->4 progression the current power set creates.

[superfrog]

I do think dok's right about forcing the OMs. Almost every round I played across 4 games had the same OM configuration on team Lawmen, which was a bit wooden.

I disagree that a 2 turns per turn kind of deal is better, though. Been there, done that.

EDIT: Also agree that 6 life is reasonable, but I'd turn to 3 defense first, and also change to 6 life from there if necessary.

[Pumpkin_King]

That direction is something we did consider while designing in the discord server (where most of the designing took place), but it almost definitely wouldn't pass SoV, seeing as how that's....well, basically just bonding. Scy (and others) have said explicitly that it can't be just bonding, and that forced us to create a different (but still fun and understandable) sort of activation that felt true to theme. Also, just 2 activations per turn is simply not worth the effort. Planning and OM management/sacrifices should let you get the ramping-up effect of the firefight over the course of the round.

In addition, we also felt strongly that "printed" limits (such as "move 4 lawmen") were the inferior choice to something involving OMs. @NecroBlade pushed against a printed limit very strongly and we agreed with him.

[dok]

You could move 1 lawman for each order marker on a lawman with posse. That gives you a max of 4 but it's not static.

As I said there are other ways to play it, but a straight 2->3->4 progression as written isn't going to fly for me.

To be blunt, I think it's a mistake to take this through SoV as there must be a lot of give and take on this design. But if you insist on that route then you're going to need to be responsive to concerns from a large group... not just judges.

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by superfrog

I played with a clear sight restriction, and it was fine. It didn't come up very often, though. Maybe twice in the 4 games.

In most cases, I think a figure's powers should involve the figure itself in some way. As it is, Clayton's basically giving a free activation power to every single Lawman while he's alive. I think it hits theme better, and follows precedent better, if he has to see them.

I just wanted to say that I agree that the clear sight restriction feels more thematic. I don't see it as a way of nerfing Clayton (if anything, I fear that he's too weak already), but it feels odd for Guilty and Johnny to get into a firefight with his power while in a castle twenty spaces away (potentially even without an Order Marker on him at all). I don't think it'll come up often, but there are a few cases where I think that even just a basic clear sight restriction like with Kato Katsuro will make the theme stronger.

On the topic of bonding/the current reliance on Order Markers, I much prefer the current direction. We've seen plenty of other methods before, so something using OMs like this that still works thematically is much more preferable to me. I agree that you'll basically be getting 4 movement activations each round anyway, but this comes with the built-in cost of being forced to spread out your OMs each turn, which is an interesting aspect, especially if more Unique Lawmen are released.

[superfrog]

I know that dok has a special fondness for the Posse/Shootout concept, and I think his general point of getting a broader base of support within VC is absolutely the correct way to go.

Heck, I bet he'd be glad to join as a major collaborator on this, if you asked.

I bet there's a way to tweak what you've got (that satisfies dok) in a way that's more interesting than "take two turns".

Keep chugging

[Pumpkin_King]

A mistake to take this through SoV....as opposed to a C3V project, do you mean?

[dok]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

A mistake to take this through SoV....as opposed to a C3V project, do you mean?

Yes. And I absolutely recognize that C3V has had its own issues when it comes to this design and it's not your fault that you have felt compelled to go this route. This isn't on you. Believe me, I get that.

That said, I hope you are willing an able to support an unusually open and collaborative process out in the open in an effort to compensate for the lack of easy workshopping once the formal SoV process begins.

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by dok

That said, I hope you are willing an able to support an unusually open and collaborative process out in the open in an effort to compensate for the lack of easy workshopping once the formal SoV process begins.

I appreciate the feedback, but I need clarification on 2 things...

1) What is an "unusually open and collaborative process out in the open"?
2) What exactly makes the 2-3-4 progression a no-go for you?

[dok]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

What is an "unusually open and collaborative process out in the open"?

You mean, other than a redundant use of the word "open"?

Most SoV submissions are the work of a single designer or at most a very small group that does their work largely in private. Other people may give feedback or suggestions but at the end of the day it comes down to the owner's call on what to submit. This is in contrast to C3V, where there are leads on a given design but they must take feedback from a pretty large group, and if they are intransigent the design won't go forward.

I believe this design would benefit greatly from the sort of give and take that is characteristic of a C3V design. It is my hope (and I have no reason to suspect it won't be the case) that PK, et al, are willing to proceed in that spirit, where feedback is dealt with until something approaching a consensus can be reached, followed by fairly rigorous testing.

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

What exactly makes the 2-3-4 progression a no-go for you?

I never called it a "no-go", but the current mechanics with their somewhat rigid OM requirements (and, IMO, needlessly wonky X marker reveal mechanic) don't feel right to me. I'm not tied to the 2 activations version I laid out, either. Rather, I think this is something we should continue to workshop, because I suspect there's a better option hiding somewhere.

Semi-relatedly, I don't like how he can't work with common lawmen, and other versions of this could address that.