Justice League Design *Brainstorming*

[Arkham]

Originally Posted by dok

So all the theme-fail options can still get in there. You can still have Thanos the Justice League member. So... what, exactly did we gain with all our restrictions? It's the worst of both worlds.

I get the feeling you just like to complain just to complain, and are only happy with your 1 version. You seriously haven't compromised at all, and have made no attempt since the beginning to adapt to other favored options. Meanwhile, the rest of us have worked on them all, adapted, compromised, and continued fighting. You've just shown up from time to time to chime in on how it's not classic markers. Good job.

[dok]

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

I get the feeling you just like to complain just to complain, and are only happy with your 1 version. You seriously haven't compromised at all, and have made no attempt since the beginning to adapt to other favored options. Meanwhile, the rest of us have worked on them all, adapted, compromised, and continued fighting. You've just shown up from time to time to chime in on how it's not classic markers. Good job.

Everything doesn't have to be personal, Sock. Address arguments. I am not the only one pushing these exact views, although I seem to be the only one who immediately makes you blow your top when I do.

Consider the motivations behind "classic markers":

1. Obvious analogy to the Avengers system that has been established by C3G, which feels appropriate since the JL is more or less the Avengers of the DC universe.
2. Simple, Elegant
3. Thematically, JL isn't about where someone comes from; it's just heroes united towards a common goal.

Others would probably phrase it differently but those are the basic points; I think everyone who favored classic markers would broadly agree that those are ideas they like.

What you are proposing is not, remotely, a compromise that addresses any of these motivations. Adding one unrestricted spot doesn't solve the theme fail of having class restrictions in the first place, and it certainly doesn't solve the lack of elegance.

To be perfectly honest, if this did end up being the approach taken, I'd prefer to not have the "compromise" of an unrestricted spot. After all, the idea that you only want heroes, at least, does have some merit. Why pollute that by allowing conquerors to join in?

Having an unrestricted spot seems to pretty much ruin the thematic motivation behind the class-based system.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by dok

Everything doesn't have to be personal, Sock. Address arguments. I am not the only one pushing these exact views, although I seem to be the only one who immediately makes you blow your top when I do.

Consider the motivations behind "classic markers":

1. Obvious analogy to the Avengers system that has been established by C3G, which feels appropriate since the JL is more or less the Avengers of the DC universe.
2. Simple, Elegant
3. Thematically, JL isn't about where someone comes from; it's just heroes united towards a common goal.

Others would probably phrase it differently but those are the basic points; I think everyone who favored classic markers would broadly agree that those are ideas they like.

This - the idea of a restricted JL when the Avengers weren't still feels silly to me. They can still be different while still keeping open membership - do Masters of Evil feel like the Avengers? Or Iron Patriot Armies? Or Martian Manhunter (present) armies?

[Arkham]

Here's what happens if we open it up completely.

The +3 on Martian Manhunter and -2 on Batman? Those get nerfed, due to how many new options open up that can possibly abuse them. So now you've got maybe a +2 and a -1 on Batman. Do people really want to have to burn limited markers for those? Not so much. So then bye bye Burn Markers, and hello simple "place markers on 5 figures, and receive static bonuses" like we have on several other synergies.

Whether it gets nerfed or not, or the marker burn is there or not, you also run into a big issue of "who is the ideal picks for these bonuses?". Opening up the d20 boost to the likes of Vision, Gorgon, Psylocke, Darkseid etc. and having them able to use said bonuses more than once...now you're risking losing the encouragement to play Green Arrow, Zatanna, Aquaman I etc. Now it's going to be a case of who can benefit from it most? Let's throw them in the Justice League! Martian Manhunter will be in every d20 build out there. Who couldn't use a -2 to the opponent's defense? But I tell you who really could benefit, all double attackers, perhaps the Wrecking Crew, someone like Carnage who can take another attack if they kill a figure, or any figures with decent attacks, auto skulls, or unblockables based on each wound caused...

So in the end, if the Justice League characters aren't the prime picks, you're totally losing the whole point of the reason I even started this. The goal was always to put the spotlight on the Justice League characters, and have them get more play, and offering things that benefit them. When you change the pool from 70 choices, to 600+ and growing...you're not likely to see a whole lot of actual Justice League play, and a lot more of 1 or 2 of the hubs thrown into the most useful armies.

I know that's not something everyone will do, but it's an option a lot of people wouldn't pass up on, other than the random "thematic" game where they force themselves to pick thematically.

If I had it my way, the Avengers would have the same restrictions. But I guess that's where we differ. I've rarely if ever played the Avengers as actual Avengers. I've many times chosen Cap + Zemo + Emma, and paired them with Darkseid, Green Lanterns, Doomsday, Mutants etc. I'm not even a "competitive focused" player either, I just know when something is much better suited in combination with someone else.

[japes]

Originally Posted by dok

You mean rejecting the "classic marker" approach that had essentially the same amount of support as what's been put forward so vocally here?

I'd also note that some of those supporting the "Marker Burn" concept may have been saying that they liked the idea of the expendable markers, not that they liked the long list of class restrictions.

It looks like at least one Hero has actually affirmed that...

Originally Posted by johnny139

We could always have one power only apply to certain classes and the other be open. I don't have a problem with open marker placement at this point, though, in general, so long as it's balanced and remains suitably differentiated from the Avengers.

It would be a shame to have a compromise that actually cut out the parts that people liked. Although I admit I am less against this version than I was a week ago as long as the always on power is good enough that I can play it without using the burn option occasionally.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

Here's what happens if we open it up completely.

The +3 on Martian Manhunter and -2 on Batman? Those get nerfed, due to how many new options open up that can possibly abuse them. So now you've got maybe a +2 and a -1 on Batman. Do people really want to have to burn limited markers for those? Not so much. So then bye bye Burn Markers, and hello simple "place markers on 5 figures, and receive static bonuses" like we have on several other synergies.

maybe. Maybe not. I admit I don't love the Burn Marker concept (I don't really see it on theme, there's no power getting used up here) but I don't hate it, and I think it could still be done, and be made quite strong.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

Whether it gets nerfed or not, or the marker burn is there or not, you also run into a big issue of "who is the ideal picks for these bonuses?". Opening up the d20 boost to the likes of Vision, Gorgon, Psylocke, Darkseid etc. and having them able to use said bonuses more than once...now you're risking losing the encouragement to play Green Arrow, Zatanna, Aquaman I etc. Now it's going to be a case of who can benefit from it most? Let's throw them in the Justice League! Martian Manhunter will be in every d20 build out there. Who couldn't use a -2 to the opponent's defense? But I tell you who really could benefit, all double attackers, perhaps the Wrecking Crew, someone like Carnage who can take another attack if they kill a figure, or any figures with decent attacks, auto skulls, or unblockables based on each wound caused...

I don't think a strong d20 bonus is out of the question. A +3 to anyone for the whole game is probably out, but remember that Gorgon can get +4 all game to his instakill power in a Sage/Magneto/Destiny build. This wouldn't be breaking completely new ground.

As for stacking JL on top of some sort of efficiency build -- I mean, it's possible I guess, given a high enough point total. But it seems easier to just get Cyborg2 for the extra attack, I think.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

So in the end, if the Justice League characters aren't the prime picks, you're totally losing the whole point of the reason I even started this. The goal was always to put the spotlight on the Justice League characters, and have them get more play, and offering things that benefit them. When you change the pool from 70 choices, to 600+ and growing...you're not likely to see a whole lot of actual Justice League play, and a lot more of 1 or 2 of the hubs thrown into the most useful armies.

If we rewind the tape to the designs that you floated when you nominated MM for public design, I thought you had a fairly unique version of classic marker synergy there that wasn't particularly abusable by efficiency-maximizing builds. I realize you've moved on to new ideas, but I still think there was plenty of merit there. And that was open synergy.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

I know that's not something everyone will do, but it's an option a lot of people wouldn't pass up on, other than the random "thematic" game where they force themselves to pick thematically.

Some will, some won't. I bet a lot of people play theme a lot. And we've had a number of heavy-theme Avenger builds in the competitive online supers events, too.

And some people play Airborne Elite with Drake Alexander even though there's no reason other than theme, too.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

If I had it my way, the Avengers would have the same restrictions. But I guess that's where we differ.

To some extent, yes. The idea of the Avengers being somehow limited does make some sense to me. But the only theme that would really work for me is "heroic". And as Tornado said, that's not something we have access to.

The thing is, if Galactus was headed Earth's way and Superman showed up to help instead of Thor, he would be an Avenger. Same for Batman. The Avengers are almost Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-esqe in their hodgepodge, "whoever can help" membership criteria.

To me, their unrestricted membership, while clearly not perfect, is a good way to capture this. I think using the same approach for the team that is the DC analog, and has a pretty similar approach to membership, makes quite a bit of sense.

[japes]

Originally Posted by dok

You mean rejecting the "classic marker" approach that had essentially the same amount of support as what's been put forward so vocally here?

I'd also note that some of those supporting the "Marker Burn" concept may have been saying that they liked the idea of the expendable markers, not that they liked the long list of class restrictions.

It looks like at least one Hero has actually affirmed that...

Originally Posted by johnny139

We could always have one power only apply to certain classes and the other be open. I don't have a problem with open marker placement at this point, though, in general, so long as it's balanced and remains suitably differentiated from the Avengers.

Originally Posted by Aggressive Sock

Here's what happens if we open it up completely.

The +3 on Martian Manhunter and -2 on Batman? Those get nerfed, due to how many new options open up that can possibly abuse them. So now you've got maybe a +2 and a -1 on Batman. Do people really want to have to burn limited markers for those? Not so much. So then bye bye Burn Markers, and hello simple "place markers on 5 figures, and receive static bonuses" like we have on several other synergies.

I for one hope that this portion doesn't become an afterthought. This should be an option as well and even used otherwise the tension of using the burn isn't there. If the only viable option is the burn then it's not as interesting and this possible interest is what has me not disliking this as much as I did a week ago.

[IAmBatman]

All I know is that I see designs I like that four Heroes have said they'd approve and I have the ability to nominate, vote for, and work on designs. I plan to use those abilities rather than engaging in constantly circular debates between people who just want different things out of this.

[japes]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

All I know is that I see designs I like that four Heroes have said they'd approve and I have the ability to nominate, vote for, and work on designs. I plan to use those abilities rather than engaging in constantly circular debates between people who just want different things out of this.

It's growing on me for sure so I am cautiously optimistic and it will depend on the actual powers and which figures use which classes.

[Dysole]

With Bats sounding like he is going to wrap up his involvement, I'll try to wrap up mine. Here are basically my soundbites.

1. I am more than willing to help contribute to an open ended version of Marker Burn (this is not Cyborg getting his open ended person) because while it might not be my favorite, the mechanic seems like one with a lot of potential options to it. With a Class limited version, I am much less enthused to pitch in due to the following reasons.

2. The class distinction is being made for theme purposes and yet I can draft a completely thematic team that makes no use of the power it is supposed to help out.

3. I feel like theme should be read from the card and not have to be extrapolated by either homework (albeit in this case the simple homework of looking at a JL roster) or justification for theme beyond someone being unfamiliar with the character. And to me, the mightiest heroes of the planet are better shown thematically via an open ended mechanic than one which is delineated along class lines since the Justice League doesn't try to fill out its ranks based upon the functions someone fulfills.

4. The Heroes have already requested the class restrictions drop down at least a little bit and unless I am mistaken only AS, Bats, YK, and maybe Ronin (could be wrong but that's just been observational of late) seem super pumped about this version which does not feel like a clear majority to me. As such, it feels like it is less a compromise that has been reached and more a decision made based upon what the most vocal and active members want to do.

As a note, I mean no ill will toward any one involved in these decisions. If this passes through and becomes C3G cards as is, I will likely play it (although I will probably feel about it the same way I feel about Crypt Guardians {I hate that they don't have the ability to bond with future Undead Kings}). Maybe I should have been involved in these discussions more earlier and maybe it would be going a direction I would rather it go. I don't know. I just know that the class thing has always felt weird to me and it's very hard for me to support it from a theme standpoint.

~Dysole, hopefully signing out

[laughing matter]

I know a lot of you guys have long, detailed posts about why you don't like this direction, but for me if boils down to the fact that with guys like the Lanterns, and zatanna this feels like it could end up being a lot more Markers on a card than I want to deal with, including wounds as well.

[Spidey'tilIDie]

I would like to address a few comments made here:
Justice League and Avengers are not the same. The main League has never been controlled by the government whereas the Avengers has for a majority of their existence. Also, Justice League far more often has most of the Big 7 as members even though they also have their own monthly comic. Not so with Avengers. While it was formed by some of Marvel's big guns, they have frequently not been members. Also, arguably Spider-man and Wolverine are their most popular characters (pre-MCU) and neither was an Avenger until the last 10 years (in New Avengers #1 2005). Also, Avengers usually has more obscure, always on call Heroes in their ranks, whereas Justice League usually has big heavy hitters who have their own lives and issues going on outside the JL (granted JLI/ Super Buddies is the exception to this). This is why the Marker Burn makes perfect sense to me because the members of JL do have other things going on. Consequently, they don't get to train together like the Avengers, X-Men, and Fantastic Four. I've always heard the Teen Titans referred to as a family and the Justice Society is like a club. Well the JL is like the hall of fame of Superheroing. They don't just let anyone in. People like Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Wonderman, and Vision never would have had a shot to get in. Lastly, the Justice League absolutely recruits for certain roles. Hawkeye has been the only archer in the Avengers but Ollie has been succeeded by his son and his protege in the Justice League. Cyborg has recently taken on the scientist role that the Atom used to have. GLs and Flashes have followed their predecessors, and Zauriel replaced Hawkman. At least twice I can remember specific stories where they recruited and discussed the roles they needed to fill. On the other hand, Ironman, Hank Pym, and Thor were replaced by Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, and Quicksilver; not really equal replacements there, IMO.