The Book of Ghostface

[Arkham]

We can always change it if something else is preferred, but as of now it seems this is fine.

This passes. #1331

[Dr. Jekyll]

Found another option for this guy, same sculpt, different color scheme. Figured I'd put it here if you wanted to copy and paste it to the OP.

The figure used for this unit is a modified Heroclix figure from the Worlds Finest set.
Its model number and name are #014 / Druid.

[Arkham]

There were some concerns expressed around Ghostface's potential as a start zone assassin on turn 1, so after talking with LV, I'm thinking this might be a solid and simple tweak here:

SCREAM
After placing Order Markers and before rolling for initiative, you may choose an enemy figure that is not adjacent to any figures it considers friendly. Place Ghostface on an empty space 2 spaces away from the chosen figure. If you do, the player who controls that figure subtracts 1 from their initiative roll for each of their Order Markers not on its card and, if they lose initiative, that figure subtracts 2 from its Defense number when attacked by Ghostface this round. Ghostface never takes leaving engagement attacks.

That follows the horror movie trope of sticking together or else you're gonna get got. It should prevent immediate start zone assassination attempts unless the other player chooses not to prevent it.

Then, as a possible additional tweak for simplicity, if desired, we could change the -1 per OM not on their card to a flat -2 with no qualifiers.

Thoughts and preferences?
@Tornado
@MrNobody
@Lord Pyre
@IAmBatman
@LordVenoc @fret_gurglo

[LordVenoc]

You know I dig it. I like the streamlining for sure.

[fret_gurglo]

I'm fine with both the not adjacent clause and the static -2, but I think a balance test or two might be in order as I this will probably reduce his effectiveness.

[LordVenoc]

Originally Posted by fret_gurglo

I'm fine with both the not adjacent clause and the static -2, but I think a balance test or two might be in order as I this will probably reduce his effectiveness.

FWIW, after talking with Ark and looking at the other test, he wasn't used as a start zone bomber in his tests, and this probably even helps even out effectiveness some with Leprechaun coming out after him and adding more of an initiative swing to the faction.

[fret_gurglo]

It's not the start zone prevention I'm concerned with. I actually don't see it being very effective except to kill off some weak characters or delay the rush of your opponent by forcing LEAs, but then this leaves Ghostface to fend for himself (and defense 2, he won't last long). It just seems that this power would become easy to circumvent altogether by just keeping figures adjacent to each other.

[LordVenoc]

That's fair. It was just being seen that you could easily get a turn 1 attack with double skulls on someone that would have at least -4 to defense, if not more with some other weird combos. Pinhead could potentially give you a turn with Sadako as well for some more pain (and she's potentially putting a hurting on the start zone folks with this as well).

[MrNobody]

I'm not hugely concerned with SZ bombing potential. He got really lucky in our game against japes and LP, but City Park is one of the rare few maps with height right next to a SZ. I've played Ghostface twice now and I've found him to be fine. Deadly, but dies incredibly easily.

The simplification does sound nice though.

[Tornado]

Cool with the adjacency tweak. Undecided on the other option.
I guess I would want to hear from other people who have seen him in action before making.a decision.

[Arch-vile]

I've almost always used Ghostface as a start zone bomber in my games, but I think he'd still be fine with that adjacency tweak. It's typically tough to keep a whole army together so he'd probably get a round 2 entrance.

Streamlining the numbers makes sense, it's a minor debuff anyway.

[Arkham]

Tech. I think it's a bit of an average net result. Can't get up to -4 on those without markers, but let's you get -2 against anyone markers or not.

Sounds like we're a bit mixed on the main change though.