The Book of Ra's al Ghul (League of Assassins)

[IAmBatman]

Understandable. The doctors did say I’m contageous.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Ronin

The tell-tale symptom of Bat-fever is the tall pointy ears you grow.

I think high-end Batman being a peer to Spider-Man makes sense. Ra's being up there seems fair as well. Definitely a high-end Ra's, but the guy is a much bigger threat than most other Bat-villains, when you take his organization into account (which this design is doing).

Much like we were cool with a high end Cyclops as it was really taking his group into account as well.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Much like we were cool with a high end Cyclops as it was really taking his group into account as well.

Cyclops at 260 felt a little high to me as well. I feel happier with him at 240.

[dok]

Oh, I didn't realize Ra's got to take a turn on the X turn. So yeah, 8 not 7.

Yes, there is the potential to activate a ton with with the unique squads, but that's a bit of a glass cannon build (and again, no different than what you could already do with Kingpin1 or Masahiro). If you want 3 squad attacks and a hero attack each turn, I'd much rather do that with Hand Ninjas and Assassin Heroes than Ra's and Elite League Assassins. I can bring multiple squads of HNs and multiple Assassin heroes, so it's a much more reliable approach.

It's still really all about that big OM3 turn AFAIC. If anything is going to need a nerf, it's that. Everything else is just an incremental upgrade to the offensive power the existing Assassin options have.

[Arkham]

FWIW, Ra's has been shown as an equal to Batman on many levels, and can even exceed him in certain aspects depending on the story/writing. That said, you also have to take into account the Star-Lord/leader effect. His points are being driven by his leadership bonding power, much like Professor X, Star-Lord, Cyclops II etc.

If we were to strip away his leadership, you're looking at about 180 in terms of actual worth.

The power breaks down to:
Ra's + 1
Ra's + 1 or 2 if you reveal the X
Ra's + 1 or 3 if you reveal the X

At its best you get 5 turns + 3 turns with Ra's. In order to use all 8 efficiently, you would need Ra's engaged with enemies.

The power is essentially Mister Fantastic's Fantastic Four but with the floor raised and the ceiling lowered. You avoid the luck/chance in favor of a steady set of turns. Heck, even Mystique II would make for a decent comparison, though she still relies on the luck aspect.

All that said, if dok's main concern is him being able to chill back and pop OM3 for big results while the other leaders handle the 1st 2 OMs, we can just go with the modified:

LEAGUE OF ASSASSINS
After revealing an Order Marker on this card, before taking a turn with Ra's al Ghul, you may immediately take a turn with an Assassin Army Card you control or, you may reveal the "X" Order Marker on this card to instead take a turn with up to X Unique Assassin Heroes you control, where X equals the number of revealed numbered Order Markers on this card.

This would make you have to commit to Ra's, and thus make him need to be in the fray for his own turn to amount to anything, and gives him a bigger target on his back.

[Ronin]

I was actually going to suggest that exact tweak.

[IAmBatman]

Hmm also means you can park him in the startzone and pop turns of 1 Assassin, 1 Assassin, 4 Assassins. I like a lot there, but isn’t the potential big turn dok feared just as big?

[IAmBatman]

If the X turn was based on the highest numbered OM on the card (max 3 Assassin turns instead of 4) that seems like it would be safer, right?

[Arkham]

I'm confused at what you're suggesting exactly.

Dok's concern is that you only really want to put OM3 and the X on him, since the amount of turns is dependent on the number on the OM just revealed. So for turns 1 and 2, you can have other leaders in the fray while Ra's hangs back in the start zone perfectly safe for OM3.

But by making the amount of turns equal to the number of revealed numbered Order Markers on Ra's card, it means you only get the 3 turns + Ra's if you revealed OM1 and 2 on his card as well, which is what I proposed just now.

[Yodaking]

I would just cut Ra's out of his X reveal turn and add a clear sight range restriction (6 spaces?) on the bonding. These guys are not tech people with wireless communication, he's issuing his commands via hand signals or verbal commands. Since the bonding is only once per round, he can still bond with Ubu and jump into the healing water on either of the two other OM reveals.

Reveal OM1, take a turn with Ra's + 1 assassin, reveal OM2, take a turn with Ra's + 1 assassin, or reveal the X and take a turn with 2 assassins but not Ra's, reveal OM3, take a turn with Ra's + 1 assassin, or if you didn't reveal the X after OM2, reveal the X and take a turn with 3 assassins but not Ra's.

That seems potentially balanceable since by the time you get around to OM3 the opponent could have KO'ed one or more of the assassins in range you wanted to bond with. Also as the game wears on you may not even have 3 assassins left to bond with. The only thing I would worry about after that change is bonding with 5 attack Swordplay, I have dominated at times with Fandral. The all move or all attack aspect of the Warriors 3 power is the only thing that keeps that trio bonding in check. Here Ra's and the Assassin he bonds with will be able to move and attack every time. I'd cut his base attack down to 4 if you really want to keep swordplay. If the base attack of 5 is more important to you, then drop swordplay for something else.

[Arkham]

Gotta disagree. You can already run Luke Cage + Swordsman who has Swordplay for far cheaper.

I trust dok, and I think with the last proposed direction it addresses his only real issue. Now, I'm not against the idea of Ra's not taking a turn during the "X" reveal. But I'd rather make that call once it's proven too good and that Ra's can't be stopped within the first 2-3 rounds.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Arkham

I'm confused at what you're suggesting exactly.

Dok's concern is that you only really want to put OM3 and the X on him, since the amount of turns is dependent on the number on the OM just revealed. So for turns 1 and 2, you can have other leaders in the fray while Ra's hangs back in the start zone perfectly safe for OM3.

But by making the amount of turns equal to the number of revealed numbered Order Markers on Ra's card, it means you only get the 3 turns + Ra's if you revealed OM1 and 2 on his card as well, which is what I proposed just now.

I missed the “numbered” in the red phrase. Seeing it addresses the issue. Apologies.