|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,029
|
Dimetrodon wrote:Lord_Ball wrote:I meant for future characters that you want the Force points not really working like force points. WOTC certainly changed things up whenever they added new powers (adding Species/Pilot/Trooper, etc. being prime examples). Just a thought for future reference. WOTC added new special abilities and force powers, and the occasional errata, but they never changed the basework and frame of the games mechanics. Except I was merely addressing the notion that a new ability (which I called "Luck points") could have been created so that the FPs of Luck/skill points characters don't actually count as them having a force rating, which would address, IMO the two biggest issues (Force Rating CEs and Jedi Hunter). It doesn't require any changes to game mechanics, just offering an idea for the future.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009 Posts: 8,428
|
Lord_Ball wrote: Except I was merely addressing the notion that a new ability (which I called "Luck points") could have been created so that the FPs of Luck/skill points characters don't actually count as them having a force rating, which would address, IMO the two biggest issues (Force Rating CEs and Jedi Hunter). It doesn't require any changes to game mechanics, just offering an idea for the future.
I thought that was a great idea. Not worth 4 pages of discussion, but a great idea. I wouldn't expect to see it, though. As stated, where a design 'template' exists to represent a particluar idea, the designers plan to follow WotC's template if possible.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,029
|
FlyingArrow wrote:As stated, where a design 'template' exists to represent a particluar idea, the designers plan to follow WotC's template if possible. In respect to this particular concern I really don't get the "template" issue, as WOTC certainly changed things up as the game continued, between the addition of Living, Order 66 (which required Errata for CS clones), and early sets being largely unplayable is evidence of this (thanks to the newer abilities like Twin Attack). Anyway it's not my call, I was just offering an idea.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009 Posts: 8,428
|
Lord_Ball wrote:FlyingArrow wrote:As stated, where a design 'template' exists to represent a particluar idea, the designers plan to follow WotC's template if possible. In respect to this particular concern I really don't get the "template" issue, as WOTC certainly changed things up as the game continued, between the addition of Living, Order 66 (which required Errata for CS clones), and early sets being largely unplayable is evidence of this (thanks to the newer abilities like Twin Attack). Anyway it's not my call, I was just offering an idea. Great point! The WotC template is to fix things! Winner! Luck Points: This character is not considered to have a Force Rating for the purpose of Special Abilities or Commander Effects. Errata: Characters with a name containing Han Solo, Jarael, etc... gain Luck Points
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2009 Posts: 388
|
FlyingArrow wrote:Lord_Ball wrote:FlyingArrow wrote:As stated, where a design 'template' exists to represent a particluar idea, the designers plan to follow WotC's template if possible. In respect to this particular concern I really don't get the "template" issue, as WOTC certainly changed things up as the game continued, between the addition of Living, Order 66 (which required Errata for CS clones), and early sets being largely unplayable is evidence of this (thanks to the newer abilities like Twin Attack). Anyway it's not my call, I was just offering an idea. Great point! The WotC template is to fix things! Winner! Luck Points: This character is not considered to have a Force Rating for the purpose of Special Abilities or Commander Effects. Errata: Characters with a name containing Han Solo, Jarael, etc... gain Luck Points Hah! well played. That way its a special ability and leaves the framework of the game alone, and fixes many issues. And if it means we need errata for past figures, well then good. Nothing confusing there, just let everyone know. If they could do it to all Clone Troopers from a whole set, I don't think making errata for a few figures should be an even remotely big deal.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 12/23/2009 Posts: 1,399 Location: MD
|
Issuing errata for WotC pieces is a horrible idea. It introduces a complicated relationship with the V-Sets when people who had been playing the WotC game find out about our V-Sets and think, "Oh, cool! I have more pieces to add on to my collection of WotC pieces!" but then we have to tell them, "Oh wait, that piece you have there actually has these abilities that we decided to place on them after WotC cancelled the game. The way you've been playing this piece before you heard about the V-Sets is wrong and now you have to change how you play with them."
Issuing errata for our own stuff is necessary because they're printing errors that the people didn't see prior to printing, but to go back and change the philosophy of WotC pieces which already had all of their errata handled is overstepping our bounds and not good for the game if we hope to bring new people into our V-Sets.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 8/7/2008 Posts: 400
|
I'm inclined to agree with Demosthenes. I also don't think the Luck Points idea that has been discussed as potential errata is really comparable to previous errata, and I don't see it as comparable to Order 66 or a definition for "living."
Errata is generally used to fix a mistake, whether that mistake was an oversight, a printing error, or a power level issue that developed unintentionally (WotC seems to use this last one a LOT for D&D 4E, but I'm not sure that they used it for SWM at all).
Folk are certainly entitled to their opinion on the subject, but I think it's quite clear that Force points vs "luck" was not a MISTAKE, but an intentional game design feature. It appeared in very first Star Wars minis product and was used through the product line (a total of 26 products, including 17 sets). NOT a mistake or oversight, but an intentional game design feature.
Order 66, on the other hand, was arguably an oversight. Whether it was "forgotten" or simply not thought of yet, it was corrected at the earliest opportunity, in the next set (which was also the first set where Order 66 would have been a factor). I think, by the way, the game designers could fairly easily have chosen NOT to include the errata (after all, it only impacted 7 pieces, the majority of which have since been reprinted WITH Order 66), but that might have created a problem (eg, Why do the Clone Troopers from CS have different stats than the ones from RotS? Which is right?).
"Living," as another example, isn't about creating anything new, or even "fixing a mistake." It's about clarification and simplification. The game designers COULD have chosen not to define "living," but would then have basically had to write out the entire definition of "living" every time they wanted to use it.
Point is, neither of these errata had any significant retroactive effect on gameplay.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009 Posts: 8,428
|
I agree - we shouldn't do errata for WotC pieces. Targeted boosts via Vset pieces is the way to go, and we just live with the Force as Luck (which doesn't really bother me much anyway).
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,029
|
I for one never mentioned errataing old pieces, however I see no reason why new pieces couldn't have an SA like Luck Points. gwek wrote: Folk are certainly entitled to their opinion on the subject, but I think it's quite clear that Force points vs "luck" was not a MISTAKE, but an intentional game design feature. It appeared in very first Star Wars minis product and was used through the product line (a total of 26 products, including 17 sets). NOT a mistake or oversight, but an intentional game design feature.
I don't think this is entirely true. As IIRC, the initial set didn't include any of the issues that presented themselves with the force points as luck (Force Rating CEs/Jedi Hunter/Force Absorb/etc. The impression I get is that on WOTC's scale was too minor an issue to fix (wasn't even really an issue until UH), or perhaps they didn't really know how to fix it because like the Vset they didn't want to overcomplicate the game with a new Luck Points feature, that functioned too closely to FPs, so FPs as luck became the norm.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008 Posts: 5,201
|
Jedi Hunter first appeared in Clone Strike, the second set. That, along with Lightsaber Duelist, caused a few complaints. Considering Han didn't stop getting Force Points until A&E (and even then, only some of them), with all the tweaks they made to the game in Alliance and Empire, not to mention the sets inbetween, it was an obvious design choice that was changed somewhere in development.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 8/7/2008 Posts: 400
|
Let's not forget that although Han Solo is the most prominent character this applies to, he's not the only one. There are at least three others.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,029
|
Sithborg wrote:Jedi Hunter first appeared in Clone Strike, the second set. That, along with Lightsaber Duelist, caused a few complaints. Considering Han didn't stop getting Force Points until A&E (and even then, only some of them), with all the tweaks they made to the game in Alliance and Empire, not to mention the sets inbetween, it was an obvious design choice that was changed somewhere in development. Even so it really wasn't much of an issue until UH (as the original Solo was the only one it affected at the time, who was also a bit pricey point-wise). It did recieve a boost in annoyance in ROTS with Grievous, but in UH the addition of Han Solo, Rebel Hero and Vader, Jedi Hunter + Thrawn being a popular team really started to bring the problem out. Even by then it was still a small issue compared to other things that needed addressing (override being one of the biggest at that time), so it fell by the wayside and became the norm. That said in the grand scheme of things it's still only a handful of WOTC figures that are victims of this issue, however, that doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't be addressed more adequately moving forward though.
|
|
Rank: Moderator Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009 Posts: 8,428
|
Let Chewie fix Luck Points and Pilot issues all at once:
Chewbacca, Co-Pilot Cost: 21 HP: 100 Def: 17 Atk: 7 Dmg: 20
Special Abilities Unique, Wookiee, Pilot Double Attack Han's Co-Pilot: An ally that counts as Han Solo gains Pilot. An ally that counts as Han Solo gains Luck Points (This character does not count as having a Force rating for the purposes of Special Abilities or Commander Effects.)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,029
|
FlyingArrow wrote:Let Chewie fix Luck Points and Pilot issues all at once:
Chewbacca, Co-Pilot Cost: 21 HP: 100 Def: 17 Atk: 7 Dmg: 20
Special Abilities Unique, Wookiee, Pilot Double Attack Han's Co-Pilot: An ally that counts as Han Solo gains Pilot. An ally that counts as Han Solo gains Luck Points (This character does not count as having a Force rating for the purposes of Special Abilities or Commander Effects.) Don't forget Lifedebt Fulfilled(If an allied character who's name contains Solo would be defeated, including via disintegration you may instead defeat this character.)
|
|
Guest |