Boot Camp of Valhalla--Draft Chosen!

[Scytale]

Forced hard synergy isn't going to get through the process. Especially forcing synergy on existing stand-alone units. There is currently a lot of pushback to the "everything has to synergize" design philosophy.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

Our hybrid leader has a fine line to walk. I think Mogrimm is one. He bonds, but is strong enough without it to be drafted on his own hook - certainly in a heroes only game. . . .

[superfrog]

I think Option 1 is actually two different things stuck together.

A "bonding class" hero doesn't really increase the synergy in the game, and would have little problems in the SoV.

A hero with highly synergistic powers greatly increases the synergy in the game, and would have major problems in the SoV.

That said, it looks like 3 is a consensus, so it's a moot point.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

Now I’m not clear . . .

Does this mean that bonding our Wolfrider directly to the Warriors of Ashra would be more acceptable than a power affecting all Elves, or Friendly units? Up till now, I thought it was the opposite.

BTW, we could also give her Defensive Agility . . .

To be more specific, when you say highly synergistic powers, what do you mean? Examples of types of powers and their relative levels of acceptance would help clarify this issue.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Does this mean that bonding our Wolfrider directly to the Warriors of Ashra would be more acceptable than a power affecting all Elves, or Friendly units?

Quite the opposite; that would not be looked well upon.

I think superfrog means it's ok to create a new hero that can bond, like a Warlord or Human Champion.

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by Scytale

Quite the opposite; that would not be looked well upon.

I think superfrog means it's ok to create a new hero that can bond, like a Warlord or Human Champion.

Yep. Precisely what I meant.

[All Your Pie]

My personal preference is for option 2. I won't push too hard for this since it seems like it's unanimously unfavorable, but I will go ahead and explain my reasoning. I think a lot of the pushback on it is based on an assumption that the SoV is not very interested in accepting standalone fantasy heroes, in the vein of many of the D&D heroes. I think that avoiding that critique would be relatively simple for a large, double-based figure that can aim for a higher point bracket or a different army role. I also think that the design would not have any more trouble justifying its existence as a unsynergistic figure than a synergistic one--in fact, I think the opposite is true, that a synergistic figure will be much trickier to design and face much harsher scrutiny.

Beyond that, though, it looks like option 3 is pretty much the consensus. Based on the comments of the community as well as the judges, I'll try and define what that means: a hero figure with some light synergy elements that does not add another broad synergistic power into the game. What this could include is a bonding class such as warlord, or a very tightly controlled power that leaves very few options open (for instance, something that was narrow enough to call out a specific other unit rather than a broad possible range of them).

What are not likely to serve the design well are fairly complex or broad synergy interactions. These would include any type of reverse squad bonding or turn efficiency in a broad faction. So, what we should consider is what type of synergy power to give (perhaps a power that allows other units to help this figure, rather than the other way around?) or, possibly, to not give one at all and to simply give her a synergistic class.

As an example, something like "WARRIORS OF ASHRA MOVEMENT BONDING" might fit well on the card, as it is a highly specific synergy that won't interact directly with any future design space (just don't put it on the card if she's also a warlord). I'm not advocating for that specific option, but I think that if a power is more open-ended then that on a hybrid figure than it likely needs to be scaled back. Another direction to consider is that a non-leader figure should not be drastically improving the OM efficiency of your army. A design that works well with the WoA or Aubriens shouldn't eliminate the OM decisions of playing those squads with a hero, even if that hero benefits them specifically.

Great discussion so far! If there isn't much else in the way of disagreement, I'll update the SP a bit later with the directions as it seems to be decided.

[MrNobody]

My problem with calling out a specific Elf unit for bonding is that, imo, this figure has a substantial difference in aesthetic from the classic Heroscape Elves. Tying this Elf specifically to the Warriors of Ashra, for example, feels wrong to me. This figure is regal in heavy metal armor with a mount that feels very arctic, like she came from some High Elf kingdom in the cold North. The Warriors of Ashra have a woodland warrior feel that almost reminds me of something like the Ewoks. So it doesn’t entirely make sense to me that she’d work just with them. I’d maybe rather see a synergy-free hero than one with a specifc call-out.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by All Your Pie

I think a lot of the pushback on it is based on an assumption that the SoV is not very interested in accepting standalone fantasy heroes, in the vein of many of the D&D heroes.

Small/medium fantasy heroes are a dime a dozen in the customs world, including VC. That's why the Inner Sanctum has grown weary of them; we want to maintain some level of diversity.

A large hero has a lot better chance of making it through the process. A mounted elf might be pushing it a bit, but I think it would be ok.

[All Your Pie]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

My problem with calling out a specific Elf unit for bonding is that, imo, this figure has a substantial difference in aesthetic from the classic Heroscape Elves. Tying this Elf specifically to the Warriors of Ashra, for example, feels wrong to me. This figure is regal in heavy metal armor with a mount that feels very arctic, like she came from some High Elf kingdom in the cold North. The Warriors of Ashra have a woodland warrior feel that almost reminds me of something like the Ewoks. So it doesn’t entirely make sense to me that she’d work just with them. I’d maybe rather see a synergy-free hero than one with a specifc call-out.

This is a very fair point (although the Nakitas can work with the Gorillinators for some reason, but I don't think that's a very good precedent). This figure looks like it might belong to some other elf culture on Feylund than the one the WoA come from. That said, I think if we want to call out a boost for this figure to give to others, we might have to be that specific.

Another option would be a power somewhat like Knight's Courage from Sir Dupuis that incentives you to play with certain units while not granting them any explicit synergy. Alternatively, something like Mogrimm's Commander's Strike that is balanced to work with any unit might be a workable direction.

[Astroking112]

In my eyes, the "hybrid" route would be something along the lines of Sir Dupuis, like AYP noted. I don't think that "X gets +1 attack for every Elf within Y clear sight spaces" is particularly inspired on its own, but something along those lines is a lot more palatable to me.

I do actually love the idea of an expensive and powerful standalone Elf, though. It reminds me of the original dragons, and that has a ton more design space to explore than designing around a specific squad.

[AMIS]

Not my call but I would consider this Elf in Jandar, getting away from the classic Elves in scape, more than the other generals.
I see her more as a scout but with movement bonding or bonus to any squad of wild hunters with 1 attack for her mount and one for her.


So I guess I'm kinda disagreeing with the thread direction...sorry about that.