The Book of The Crow

[Lazy Orang]

So, the Crow can only attack his target, and as soon as he wounds it, he no longer has a target?

I'm sorry, I'm with dok and Dysole here - the original design is kind of irredeemable. We can keep the same spirit, but we need to make major mechanical changes before it is either balanced or thematic, and I thing my/dok's idea is the best way of doing that (though if LP has any specific thoughts/requests on it, that is of course important).

As is, I would never give the ideas quozl or A3N proposed a passing grade in a test, thematically or mechanically.

[Lazy Orang]

Okay, compromise time:

NAME = THE CROW
SECRET IDENTITY = ERIC DRAVEN

SPECIES = UNDEAD
UNIQUENESS = EVENT HERO
CLASS = REVENANT
PERSONALITY = VENGEFUL

SIZE/HEIGHT = MEDIUM 5

LIFE = 5

MOVE = 5
RANGE = 5
ATTACK = 3
DEFENSE = 4

POINTS = 190

SET THE WRONG THINGS RIGHT
At the start of the game, choose an opponent's Unique Army Card that is not The Crow and place the black Crow Marker on the chosen figure's card. If the Crow Marker is on this card and any other figure you control is destroyed by an opponent’s figure, you may place your Crow Marker on the attacking figure's Army Card. If a figure with your Crow Marker on its card is removed from the battlefield or your opponent loses control of that figure, place your Crow Marker on this card.

LIVE FOR VENGEANCE
While your Crow Marker is on another Army Card, if The Crow would receive one or more wounds, ignore one of those wounds. Any Unique Hero with your Crow Marker on its Army Card rolls two fewer defense dice against the Crow.

DOUBLE ATTACK
When The Crow attacks, he may attack one additional time.

This is the originally proposed re-eval version, with two alterations:
1) You start with a Crow Marker on an opponent's card. This is both closer to the original design, and much more thematic. (There's also the Unique Hero to Unique Army Card note, but no one's really argued with that change.)
2) The change to drop his attack and boost the defence subtraction to -2 and made it conditional on the Crow attacking. This a) makes him less useful to just blast away at other units while maintaining the defence boost, (balance win), and encourages him to go after his target for the -2 defence (theme win).

Can we please agree on this one? I'm doing my best here, and actually departing from the original design/theme less than the originally proposed revision.

EDIT: Calling @Lord Pyre , please approve this.

[Viegon]

I support that version.

[quozl]

I was hoping to see more people discuss this but I guess maybe it's become too contentious currently. At this point, I think we should table this until the Heroes talk with Lord Pyre about how we should handle this design.

[Ronin]

I've been a little wary about poking into this, yeah. Don't have the energy for a big argument in here.

I do think having the Heroes weigh in and render a verdict on the scope of the changes being made to the Crow is a good idea.

[dok]

I agree we should table things until we get feedback from the Heroes. If that's not happening quickly then I'd be happy to jump on Psycho-Man.

Just to reiterate: the core problem here is that if we just turn the dials down to where The Crow stops being a competitive issue, without changing things in a more fundamental way, we would very likely end up with something that LP wouldn't like, anyway.

[TrollBrute]

I guess it depends on what's most important to us in reevaluation (after balance, anyway) sticking as close as possible to the original LD's intent or keeping the figure an enjoyable one. If balancing a figure while sticking close to the original design creates a figure that no one wants to actually play, is it not worth making more changes to create a fun design?

I'll also point out that we have always said that each design is not a Lord Pyre design, or a TrollBrute design, or a IAmBatman design, it's a C3G design. The design belongs to the group as a whole, not the Lead Designer. How far does that ownership extend?

As I've said with every single reeval unit, I'd love for the original LD to be as involved as possible. If we can, I want the "fixed" product to be something that they are happy with as well. This requires an LD that is active and engaged though. There have already been times where we've pushed through with big changes without the LD's consent because that LD is no longer active.

[Arkham]

I'm of the opinion, that a design should be able to be re-evaluated for any category we try to ensure passes. For example, some of those include:

- THEME TEST/ Check to see if there are any powers or stats on the test unit card that does not accurately reflect the theme or likeness of what the character would and could do. Also consider destructible objects, and whether or not this characters powers should affect them.

- FUN TEST/ Consider whether or not the design was fun to play.

- FUN COMPETITIVE TEST/ Consider whether or not the design was fun to play against.

- DRAFTING TEST/ Consider whether or not this design is worth drafting.

- STRATEGY TEST/ Consider whether or not the design offers any real strategy or interesting tactics to the overall game.

As I've said prior in this thread, if we only allow changes due to balance concerns, then we shouldn't balk at the idea/proposal of a 2nd version of the character, as some do.

IMO, in this case, if we're going back for balancing, we may as well tackle any other issues with those categories above as well, if they are present. However, I think the LD should have a reasonable say on the matter. So here's to hoping LP elaborates on what he'd be OK with.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by Arkham

I'm of the opinion, that a design should be able to be re-evaluated for any category we try to ensure passes. For example, some of those include:

As I've said prior in this thread, if we only allow changes due to balance concerns, then we shouldn't balk at the idea/proposal of a 2nd version of the character, as some do.

IMO, in this case, if we're going back for balancing, we may as well tackle any other issues with those categories above as well, if they are present. However, I think the LD should have a reasonable say on the matter. So here's to hoping LP elaborates on what he'd be OK with.

I agree here, Arkham, and for me, a version of the Crow with only the balance concerns addressed would most likely fail all five of those categories.

[Tornado]

No arguments from me on those points.

[Lord Pyre]

I've already said what I like and dislike a few times

Basically the changes you guys want to make make the design something I'm not interesting in and would never have designed in the first place. But I still haven't seen evidence of him being overpowered competitively either. Plus I think it's awesome to attack your own figures. That's just something we're disagreeing on, so I'm not sure I can be of much more help.

My bigger suggestion is to just say he can only take one wound from art is when the bird is elsewhere and keep everything else the same, but we'd still disagree on attacking your own figures.

[TrollBrute]

Originally Posted by Lord Pyre

I've already said what I like and dislike a few times

Specific thoughts and changes really help here. We're trying to narrow things down, not brainstorm.

Originally Posted by Lord Pyre

But I still haven't seen evidence of him being overpowered competitively either.

1 , 2 , 3, plus I'll point to the simple fact that making him massively weaker tested fine at 190 points, as well as numerous complaints that people have had about playing against him.

Based on what you're saying though, I'm wondering if there are any changes you would be happy with?