HoME General Discussion Thread

[Xorlof]

Sorry all--had no internet connection the past couple of days, but I'm back and catching up on things tonight.

Re: Valhalla Generals or LoTR Generals

One part of me says, "yeah LoTR is so awesome it deserves its own generals" but really, we're talking about a discontinued product here (Heroscape) and if we want these cards to see play beyond a dozen or so people on this planet of 7 billion people, we've got be as accessible to Heroscape players as possible. Unless Hasbro re-issues Heroscape we can expect a decline in population of players in the future--there are still lots of us, but we need all we can get.

That means we need point costs fully compatible with Valhalla-scape; playtesting, theoryscaping, and rules compatibility with Valhalla-scape; and yes, probably following Valkyrie generals. Although not ideal thematically, I can stomach it and any sort of loose explanation as to why they're following them is fine. We're talking about a back story that already encompasses a huge diversity of characters. To say we're *that* special that we *must* have our own general...eh. Don't forget there are gameplay advantages to using existing generals.

Why not make an independent game?

Primarily the reason mentioned above(because that's the only way we can reasonably expect our cards to get used). That and if we invest the time to make it compatible, it is (comparatively) easy to later use those cards as a solid base for an independent system. Therefore those who want an independent game can still have it. Just reissue cards re-themed, tweaked, and re-costed. If we start with an independent system, you cannot just "tweak" such cards to mesh into Valhalla-scape. There are too many interactions with existing units that wouldn't have been considered in the original design. I would vote against this card re-issuance being an official part of this project, at least at this point.

ERB?

I've ignored caps' mentions of a possible ERB up to this point, both because my name was involved and because I was unconvinced that we needed it, but I have come around to his thinking. Yes, I think we would benefit from a small subset of members whom we trust to steer the project. Their decisions should be followed, but should only be made after consultation with the membership as a whole. And they have an interest in keep the members happy because if they don't there soon won't be any members.

I'll leave some time for discussion pre-motion discussion, but on Wednesday, I intend to move for the creation of an ERB:

• composed of 3 members who would then be voted into those positions.
• I will propose that the ERB have the authority to basically do whatever they heck they please barring overwhelming member disapproval (obviously gotta firm up this wording before the proposal).
• I will further propose that if the motion passes, a vote for ERB members immediately follows over the course of the following 48 hours and there be a suspension of the normal voting rules to allow the ERB election.
• During the 48-hour election "season," members may cast a vote for up to 3 people (in a single post). At the end of the 48 hours votes will be tallied and the top 3 vote-getters will be appointed to the ERB.
• In the case of there not being only 3 clear top vote-getters (e.g., a tie for third place, or 4-way tie for first place), there will be a 24-hour re-voting with only the top vote-getters eligible to be voted for in the re-vote (i.e., the top 3 vote-getters and those tied with the 3rd highest vote-getter). If that fails to satisfactorily identify only 3 top vote-getters, keep repeating this step of eliminating the bottom vote-getters and doing 24-hour re-votes until 3 ERB members are identified.

So you've got until Wednesday to convince me the ERB is a bad idea or come up with proposed modifications we should include in the proposal in the previous paragraph. After that, I'll put it up to the vote if there isn't anything else in the voting thread barring it from being proposed.

In conclusion

I think a lot of what is tempting to discuss at this point in the project is 1) *good* to discuss for a bit, but 2) should be resolved quickly so it doesn't hold this up any further. A "good/reasonable" decision is better than a "perfect" decision.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Xorlof

Spoiler Alert!

Sorry all--had no internet connection the past couple of days, but I'm back and catching up on things tonight.

Re: Valhalla Generals or LoTR Generals

One part of me says, "yeah LoTR is so awesome it deserves its own generals" but really, we're talking about a discontinued product here (Heroscape) and if we want these cards to see play beyond a dozen or so people on this planet of 7 billion people, we've got be as accessible to Heroscape players as possible. Unless Hasbro re-issues Heroscape we can expect a decline in population of players in the future--there are still lots of us, but we need all we can get.

That means we need point costs fully compatible with Valhalla-scape; playtesting, theoryscaping, and rules compatibility with Valhalla-scape; and yes, probably following Valkyrie generals. Although not ideal thematically, I can stomach it and any sort of loose explanation as to why they're following them is fine. We're talking about a back story that already encompasses a huge diversity of characters. To say we're *that* special that we *must* have our own general...eh. Don't forget there are gameplay advantages to using existing generals.

Why not make an independent game?

Primarily the reason mentioned above(because that's the only way we can reasonably expect our cards to get used). That and if we invest the time to make it compatible, it is (comparatively) easy to later use those cards as a solid base for an independent system. Therefore those who want an independent game can still have it. Just reissue cards re-themed, tweaked, and re-costed. If we start with an independent system, you cannot just "tweak" such cards to mesh into Valhalla-scape. There are too many interactions with existing units that wouldn't have been considered in the original design. I would vote against this card re-issuance being an official part of this project, at least at this point.

ERB?

I've ignored caps' mentions of a possible ERB up to this point, both because my name was involved and because I was unconvinced that we needed it, but I have come around to his thinking. Yes, I think we would benefit from a small subset of members whom we trust to steer the project. Their decisions should be followed, but should only be made after consultation with the membership as a whole. And they have an interest in keep the members happy because if they don't there soon won't be any members.

I'll leave some time for discussion pre-motion discussion, but on Wednesday, I intend to move for the creation of an ERB:

• composed of 3 members who would then be voted into those positions.
• I will propose that the ERB have the authority to basically do whatever they heck they please barring overwhelming member disapproval (obviously gotta firm up this wording before the proposal).
• I will further propose that if the motion passes, a vote for ERB members immediately follows over the course of the following 48 hours and there be a suspension of the normal voting rules to allow the ERB election.
• During the 48-hour election "season," members may cast a vote for up to 3 people (in a single post). At the end of the 48 hours votes will be tallied and the top 3 vote-getters will be appointed to the ERB.
• In the case of there not being only 3 clear top vote-getters (e.g., a tie for third place, or 4-way tie for first place), there will be a 24-hour re-voting with only the top vote-getters eligible to be voted for in the re-vote (i.e., the top 3 vote-getters and those tied with the 3rd highest vote-getter). If that fails to satisfactorily identify only 3 top vote-getters, keep repeating this step of eliminating the bottom vote-getters and doing 24-hour re-votes until 3 ERB members are identified.

So you've got until Wednesday to convince me the ERB is a bad idea or come up with proposed modifications we should include in the proposal in the previous paragraph. After that, I'll put it up to the vote if there isn't anything else in the voting thread barring it from being proposed.

In conclusion

I think a lot of what is tempting to discuss at this point in the project is 1) *good* to discuss for a bit, but 2) should be resolved quickly so it doesn't hold this up any further. A "good/reasonable" decision is better than a "perfect" decision.

This guy is great.

I don't know how the C3G operates, but the C3V's ERB doesn't make any decision without more than ample discussion amongst themselves and the rest of the C3V membership. Although they're solely responsible for organizing waves and master-sets and I think they usually do that without a lot of feedback from the rest of the membership. It works very well.

The ERB should be thought of as the folks that set the vision, direction, course, goals, etc. of the project.

[boromir96]

Originally Posted by Joseph Sweeney

I insist that caps bears the third, (or B96...on second thought, I'm not sure we can trust him with a ring of power.)

The Ring of Power, falls right into my hands......

[Xorlof]

Hey, stop looking at infectedsloth that way--you're weirding him out!

[White Knight]

Xorlof has some good points about why we should keep the standard generals. I think there are 3 main reasons:

1) People feel more comfortable mixing with classic Scape if the same generals are used. Therefore, if we use the classic generals, our customs are more likely to be used.

2) Any powers we make that reference generals would will only affect classic figures if we reference classic generals on our cards.

3) Some of the powers on army cards reference generals. Making new generals would mean that our figures are not affected by those powers.


HoME Generals Rebuttal
(Note: I haven't made up my mind yet about the generals, so I felt I needed more information. Here is what I found.)

1) I agree that we want our customs used, and it's probably true that they will get used more if they follow the classic generals.

2) We could always say: "any figures that follow Utgar, Valkrill, or Morgoth" on our cards if we really want to include classic generals in our abilities.

3) This is the list of abilities that reference generals (not including C3V):

Dishonorable Attack
Pistol Fire Special Attack
Ullar Warlord Bonding
Einar Warlord Bonding
Evil Eye Protection
Protection from Evil Aura
Righteous Smite

Jandar's Dispatch (flagbearer)
Ullar's Amulet (flagbearer)
Vydar's Range Enhancement Aura (flagbearer)
Adjacent Tough (flagbearer)
Red Flag of Fury Aura (flagbearer)
Cover Fire (Agent Skahen promo)

Targeting Beacon (affects Soulborgs only)
Homing Device (affects Soulborgs only)
Gift of Empress Aura (affects Kyrie only)
Utgar's Orders (affects Kyrie only)

A) First, I would ask why Protection from Evil Aura and
Righteous Smite apply to Utgar but NOT to Valkrill? Is Valkrill NOT evil?

In the same way, is Ullar not good? (his elves are not affected by Dishonorable Attack)

Right away we see that the general specific powers already have some inconsistencies.

B) Second, I don't think we'll have any HoME Kyrie or Soulborgs, so those powers would not affect our customs either.

C) Third, most of the other general specific powers are flagbearer powers or promo figure powers. I don't know how many people actually have any of the flagbearers, but I know that I don't (not at the current prices).

Summary
Using classic Scape generals is really only a perception thing--people will use them more because they fit into the whole Scape universe. That is a valid reason, as Xorlof pointed out.

On the other hand, having our own cool HoME card designs might draw people to use our cards as well.

[MegaSilver]

Ana came out before Vakrill was even a General! So that doesn't count at all White Knight.

As to Ullar being good, he is actually neutral leaning toward good. (Jandar and Aquilla are the only ones "true" good, in the sense.) Thus, Dishonorable Attack should work on Aquilla too, but once again Isamu was created prior to Aquilla, so once again that doesn't count.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

Ana came out before Vakrill was even a General! So that doesn't count at all White Knight.

As to Ullar being good, he is actually neutral leaning toward good. (Jandar and Aquilla are the only ones "true" good, in the sense.) Thus, Dishonorable Attack should work on Aquilla too, but once again Isamu was created prior to Aquilla, so once again that doesn't count.

We are talking about whether we should add new generals for the HoME customs. Classic Scape added Valkrill and Aquilla--and now those attacks don't make as much sense. But they still added them anyways.

So I think it's valid to say that if the originators of Scape felt it was OK to add new generals--even knowing that abilities such as Righteous Smite would not affect their figures--then it sets a precedence for us to do so as well.

Not that we should, but it wouldn't necessarily make our figures incompatiable.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

1) I agree that we want our customs used, and it's probably true that they will get used more if they follow the classic generals.

Yes.

Originally Posted by White Knight

2) We could always say: "any figures that follow Utgar, Valkrill, or Morgoth" on our cards if we really want to include classic generals in our abilities.

It has less to do with us including classic generals and more to do with classic generals including us.

Originally Posted by White Knight

3) This is the list of abilities that reference generals (not including C3V):

Dishonorable Attack
Pistol Fire Special Attack
Ullar Warlord Bonding
Einar Warlord Bonding
Evil Eye Protection
Protection from Evil Aura
Righteous Smite

Jandar's Dispatch (flagbearer)
Ullar's Amulet (flagbearer)
Vydar's Range Enhancement Aura (flagbearer)
Adjacent Tough (flagbearer)
Red Flag of Fury Aura (flagbearer)
Cover Fire (Agent Skahen promo)

Targeting Beacon (affects Soulborgs only)
Homing Device (affects Soulborgs only)
Gift of Empress Aura (affects Kyrie only)
Utgar's Orders (affects Kyrie only)

Excellent list. Well done.

Originally Posted by White Knight

A) First, I would ask why Protection from Evil Aura and
Righteous Smite apply to Utgar but NOT to Valkrill? Is Valkrill NOT evil?

In the same way, is Ullar not good? (his elves are not affected by Dishonorable Attack)

Right away we see that the general specific powers already have some inconsistencies.

So we want to add to those inconsistencies? I think not. Ullar is technically a sort of neutral--their core essence has less to do with being 'good' and more to do with being wild and natural. They are also 'not evil.' Dishonorable Attack is directed at those who are particular examples of Virtue and goodness.

Originally Posted by White Knight

B) Second, I don't think we'll have any HoME Kyrie or Soulborgs, so those powers would not affect our customs either.

That's true.

Originally Posted by White Knight

C) Third, most of the other general specific powers are flagbearer powers or promo figure powers. I don't know how many people actually have any of the flagbearers, but I know that I don't (not at the current prices).

This would be a bad reason to NOT use Classic Generals. Two of the four people I know that collect 'Scape (including myself in those four) have most or all of the flagbearers. One of them bought a SW Mara Jade figure as a proxy for Skahen.

Originally Posted by White Knight

Summary
Using classic Scape generals is really only a perception thing--people will use them more because they fit into the whole Scape universe. That is a valid reason, as Xorlof pointed out.

I think this is a very strong reason.

Originally Posted by White Knight

On the other hand, having our own cool HoME card designs might draw people to use our cards as well.

If Artsy people want to come up with templates for LotR generals, then I would be okay with creating identical copies of our classic cards that follow other generals for people that want that. I think our official figures should be Classic. That way anyone who wants to include them at, say, a low-key tournament, will have less issues doing so. I'd like to see more consistency between Customs projects, not less.

EDIT: If I could persuade HoSS (and maybe even Project Pokemon, although I personally have no interest in Pokemon) to change their figures to follow Classic Generals, or at least have alternate cards that follow Classic Generals, I totally would. It would be very Heroscapey to see Sgt. Alexander fighting Storm Troopers alongside Aragorn, all following Classic Generals.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

We are talking about whether we should add new generals for the HoME customs. Classic Scape added Valkrill and Aquilla--and now those attacks don't make as much sense. But they still added them anyways.

So I think it's valid to say that if the originators of Scape felt it was OK to add new generals--even knowing that abilities such as Righteous Smite would not affect their figures--then it sets a precedence for us to do so as well.

I think that's a little bit of a stretch. They trickled in units from new generals that were from the same backstory as the other generals. We are talking about making all-new units from all-new generals with no cross-consistency.

[Xorlof]

Ah crap, White Knight. Here I had my mind all made up what I wanted to do and there you go giving me something to think about! Seriously though, very good research and very good points. I'm not convinced we need our own generals yet, but you've got good points, which I can address individually if you'd like (but I'm guessing you'd be able to guess my responses already).

One point I will make is that cool HoME card designs are not incompatible with using the current generals. That technically is a separate issue. We don't *have* to use the Utgar template for someone who follows Utgar (although without much reflection, I would say we ought to strongly consider it).

And assuming no one wants us to make stats for the Basic game (*please, please, please let there be no one*), if we have enough art talent, I'd *love* to see a card with a miniature picture side using Hasbro card designs, and another side with our own design and movie-type photographs instead of the miniatures. On "our side" we could alias the generals into factions along the lines of what infectedsloth previously said.

EDIT: capsocrates is a faster poster than me. I'll read his items to see if any of what he wrote changes what I wrote here. I suspect not.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Xorlof

One point I will make is that cool HoME card designs are not incompatible with using the current generals. That technically is a separate issue. We don't *have* to use the Utgar template for someone who follows Utgar (although without much reflection, I would say we ought to strongly consider it).

I wouldn't want to stray too far from the basic color themes, but we could consider this.

Originally Posted by Xorlof

And assuming no one wants us to make stats for the Basic game (*please, please, please let there be no one*), if we have enough art talent, I'd *love* to see a card with a miniature picture side using Hasbro card designs, and another side with our own design and movie-type photographs instead of the miniatures. On "our side" we could alias the generals into factions along the lines of what infectedsloth previously said.

This is excellent thinking.

[Joseph Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Xorlof

And assuming no one wants us to make stats for the Basic game (*please, please, please let there be no one*), if we have enough art talent, I'd *love* to see a card with a miniature picture side using Hasbro card designs, and another side with our own design and movie-type photographs instead of the miniatures. On "our side" we could alias the generals into factions along the lines of what infectedsloth previously said.

Sorry, this is probably very simple, but I'm failing to understand it, are you saying that: On one side we could use the original Kyries, and on the other side use are own?

If this is what you are saying then, yes, I agree.