The Book of Black Canary

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

It sounds like the "within one space" wording is the cleanest and currently has my support.

Black Canary's scream, thematic or not, has never had a height limitation imposed on it, and shouldn't have one now, after as long as she's been out. The problem with space adjacency or "next to" language is that the height interactions between spaces become unclear. Whereas, "within one space" means the same thing whether one figure is on a ladder 30 spaces up from the other figure, or whether the two figures are adjacent.

I agree Bats.

If there were ever to have a height restriction put on Canary Cry, I'd be done with anything C3G from that point on.

[johnny139]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

In English, yes. In Heroscape, no. It is a defined game term with specific meanings built into it. Using a game term in a context where it cannot apply makes a game harder to play, not easier, and it adds to the endless stream of rulings that become increasingly harder to remember. It gets harder for players to play correctly, and harder for designers to design correctly.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but just because one person doesn't see a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think this is a difference in philosophy - I'd much rather have people playing incorrectly than not playing at all. Word sprawl is a major, MAJOR turnoff for new players, and if we can take shortcuts to limit it where possible I think that's only a good thing. I don't care if people play Black Canary correctly as long as they enjoy playing C3G; wording that is strictly accurate but confusing to read for new players creates the opposite effect.

Naturally, something that is both sound and elegant is ideal, but if we can only have one Idy take elegant any day of the week.

The point about it being important for designers to understand the rules completely is well-taken, though, and that's definitely something we should work on... I find that we Heroes tend to answer "How does this work?" with "Eh, I dunno." a bit too often. Even if we do get to the bottom of it eventually.

I do find that SG's wording works, though, and doesn't pass the complexity line, though "spaces and spaces within spaces of those spaces" does brush up against it. We should be mindful of both sides.

[IAmBatman]

We have, what, 615 completed unit designs (not counting optional rules, scenarios, glyphs, etc.). 0% of Heroes have been involved in every single one of those. So, yeah, we're not going to know the answer sometimes. It'd probably be good to know them a bit more often, but I know we all have other obligations as well (like the three jobs I have outside of this) so I think some discovery and rediscovery and debate is only natural.

Also, sometimes interactions for new units, or missed interactions in the process of making new units changes the necessary interpretation of old units, leading to that confusion and uncertainty. I'd much rather have a Hero say: "I don't know" than to say they know for sure, and end up putting out more contradictory information (something we've really done too much of! ).

I pretty much consider all of the stuff that we've done continual works in progress, because that's what you get when you have a fan-made project without paid designers or customer service agents who can professionally devote themselves to it (which is not to lower our standards any, but to state a reality of how we are going to function differently than, say, Hasbro).

Edit: But, yes, I agree that the primary goal of the project should be getting people to play C3G and have fun playing it. Clarity is an important part of that, but not at the price of wording complexity or unwieldiness. I can't see ever putting "parallel" on a card, for instance.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Black Canary's scream, thematic or not, has never had a height limitation imposed on it, and shouldn't have one now, after as long as she's been out.

If that's the case then I agree. I wasn't actually trying to add a new height limitation, I just assumed from the use of "adjacent" that some vertical proximity had been originally intended for story purposes (even though the vertical thing is undefined, I made the assumption that the original design intended for a vertical limitation to apply via "adjacent space"). Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.

So I think this all leaves us roughly here, then (noting a couple of other grammar/consistency corrections I recommend while the hood is up):

CANARY CRY SPECIAL ATTACK
Range Special. Attack 4.
Choose 3 spaces in a straight line from Black Canary. All figures on the chosen spaces, and all figures within 1 space of the chosen spaces, [add comma] are affected by Black Canary's Canary Cry Special Attack. Roll 4 attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Black Canary is not affected by her Canary Cry Special Attack. Symbiotes roll 1 fewer defense die against Canary Cry Special Attack.

FWIW, there are six other powers that should also receive the "x fewer di[c]e" grammar correction:

• Count Vertigo – ELECTRONIC IMPLANT
• Daredevil – CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION
• Doomsday – SUPER LEAP
• Joker – IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME . . .
• Punisher – ASSAULT RIFLE
• Rorschach – CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION

(I realize that Hasbro made the same "less when they meant fewer" mistake on Abomination, Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, and Venom, but copying that error doesn't gain us anything. It's more important to be consistent with the other 80+ cases in C3G that correctly use "fewer" when counting dice. Even if you don't care about the bad grammar, Black Canary and those other six are definitely inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of correct uses in C3G.)

[IAmBatman]

I'm down with that wording.

Fwiw, I've heard debate within the grammarian community over acceptable uses of "less" including a perspective that endorses the legitimacy of using it as synonymous with "fewer" rather than restricting it to numerical uses. That said, I learned the latter in journalism school and I agree with your analysis that the most important thing is internal consistency anyway!

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by johnny139

Word sprawl is a major, MAJOR turnoff for new players, and if we can take shortcuts to limit it where possible I think that's only a good thing.

I agree, but rulings sprawl is just as bad (it's actually worse for me). The more I find that I have to play one way for this handful of cards and another way for that handful of cards and a third way in some other situations I can never remember (not to mention the things I have to "unlearn" when switching between C3G and classic or vice versa), the more I feel like playing a different game.

Probably each of us perceives that new players are more affected by the problem that we ourselves find more oppressive. But hopefully our mutual goal can be elegance in both areas.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

I can't see ever putting "parallel" on a card, for instance.

Agreed; I didn't like that either! It was just the beginnings of the brainstorming process. I was simply trying to get outside the box and experiment with new ways of defining a very odd cluster of target spaces. And then I saw Soundwarp's simpler solution and abandoned my awkward brainstorm.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

That said, I learned the latter in journalism school

Journalism seems to be obsessed with saving ink. "Less" is visually narrower than "fewer," and also has one less fewer letter.

I think that's why they also hate the logically-superior-but-ink-squandering Oxford comma.

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

I agree, but rulings sprawl is just as bad (it's actually worse for me). The more I find that I have to play one way for this handful of cards and another way for that handful of cards and a third way in some other situations I can never remember (not to mention the things I have to "unlearn" when switching between C3G and classic or vice versa), the more I feel like playing a different game.

Once I played C3G I had no desire to ever play classic again.
Just me but I prefer heroes in my Heroscape.

[Ronin]

I'd like to see a couple more Heroes weigh in on the proposed tweaks, but people seem to be cool with the direction here, so I compiled a list of units that could use similar edits in the FAQs thread.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

The 'within X space(s) of that/those space(s)' wording isn't really mine, y'all have used it before on Harley Quinn.

Incidentally, Harley's R&Cs had this to say on 'adjacent' spaces:

Q: Only figures on same-level spaces are adjacent to spaces. So the bomb affect figures within two spaces horizontally and 0 spaces vertically. Was that the intent? Or should there be a height limit on the affected spaces? Or is it infinite? (If Harley bombs the space at the base of a 50-hex cliff . . .)
A: "Any figure on the chosen space and all figures within 2 spaces of the chosen space are affected." That is the second line on her card. To determine which spaces are "within 2 spaces of the chosen space" all you have to do is count two hexes over in all directions just as if you would check for the range of an attack, and each counted space is "within" the chosen space. So if Harley bombs a space at the base of a 50 level high hill or a 50,000 high hill, the figures that are one or two spaces over from the chosen space are affected, even if they are all the way up at the top. That is just one of those quirky things in Heroscape; like how Ana Karithon only has a range of 4, but she could still attack a figure that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 levels higher up than she is. Vertical range is not a factor in this game, unless otherwise stated on cards like the Fen Hydra and Catwoman.

[Viegon]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

CANARY CRY SPECIAL ATTACK
Range Special. Attack 4.
Choose 3 spaces in a straight line from Black Canary. All figures on the chosen spaces, and all figures within 1 space of the chosen spaces, [add comma] are affected by Black Canary's Canary Cry Special Attack. Roll 4 attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Black Canary is not affected by her Canary Cry Special Attack. Symbiotes roll 1 fewer defense die against Canary Cry Special Attack.

Coming into this conversation late, but I support this direction. However, the old "Black Canary's Canary Cry Special Attack" should be replaced with our standard of "this special attack":

CANARY CRY SPECIAL ATTACK
Range Special. Attack 4.
Choose 3 spaces in a straight line from Black Canary. All figures on the chosen spaces, and all figures within 1 space of the chosen spaces, are affected by this special attack. Roll 4 attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Black Canary is not affected by this special attack. Symbiotes roll 1 fewer defense die against this special attack.

@Ronin and @Just_a_Bill , I really hope you guys keep working on stuff like this. The project could really use some people watching us for clarity and consistency and managing wording updates and FAQs. If you ever need hero input, don't hesitate to tag us (for reference, the current heroes are SirGalahad, johnny139, TrollBrute, Karat, IAmBatman, and me).

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by Viegon

However, the old "Black Canary's Canary Cry Special Attack" should be replaced with our standard of "this special attack":

I fully support all streamlining efforts like this. I considered suggesting that myself, but having been slapped with the "Hasbro precedent" stick a few too many times (mostly over in C3V land, probably), I was a bit hesitant to suggest too many changes all at once!

And actually, I contemplated going even a step further, to save space and help reduce the number of times some of these special attacks monotonously reference themselves:

CANARY CRY SPECIAL ATTACK
Range Special. Attack 4.
Choose 3 spaces in a straight line from Black Canary. All figures on the chosen spaces, and all figures other than Black Canary within 1 space of the chosen spaces, are affected by this special attack. Roll 4 attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Black Canary is not affected by this special attack. Symbiotes roll 1 fewer defense die against this special attack.

In my book, being more concise while still being clear and leakproof is a very good thing; "tradition" is not always the best editor.

This recast also puts the BC self-immunity where it belongs instead of as an afterthought (that technically doesn't show up until after attack and defense dice have been rolled!), and avoids separating the defensive dice rolling from its mandatory Symbiote modifier. To show that more visually...

Structurally speaking, there are 3 sentences about Targeting and 3 about Rolling, but they are interleaved: TTRTRR. In each group, statements about one thing that we would naturally expect to group together are separated by a statement about the other thing. The proposed recast groups them together more naturally as 5 chronological sentences: TT(t) RRR.

Overall it's just better organized and shorter, in my opinion.

(Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that the wastefully ubiquitous sentence "Each figure rolls defense dice separately" should have been a rule and was never really needed on any army card, but now I'm just howling at the moon, eh?)

All of these efforts, I think, help achieve Johnny's goals, which (despite our different perspectives on certain details) I do very much share:

Originally Posted by johnny139

Word sprawl is a major, MAJOR turnoff for new players, and if we can take shortcuts to limit it where possible I think that's only a good thing.

and

Originally Posted by johnny139

I'd take elegant any day of the week