Soo final stat block? haha

and this

http://www.bloomilk.com/Forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=20528&p=6


Ya'll got ADD - you need to finish one thing before you start another.

Regarding the flavor/function "debate": I'm much more of a function designer generally, which I think people know. That doesn't mean I don't like creating flavorful pieces, just that I think most of the designs that fit the category of "pure flavor" probably won't fit very well in the competitive game and therefore should be modulated for more fun play (think Maz Kanata from set 13). Because you guys are right--these are characters that exist in the Star Wars universe, so their representations should feel like those characters. But the pieces we make, and especially the competitive pieces we make, ALSO exist in the Star Wars Minis universe. And within that universe, interactions have to be considered. As designers (and I was not a designer on the current set, so I'm just offering general thoughts on the process), we're not designing pieces in a vacuum--we're designing them with an eye to how they will work within their factions and how they will affect the competitive game. So in the case of Rogue One, the designers weren't just looking at representing individual characters, but at representing a team. That's a valid design choice for them to make. I playtested against the Rogue One subset, and I can tell you that they are very scary and their interactions feel true to their characters and the movie.

Another problem we have when balancing pieces is that sometimes we are left with abilities whose names don't sound quite right, but which contain a mechanic the piece needs. So it is with Baze Malbus. I wasn't present for the design of the piece, but "Single-Shot Blaster" is generally used when, with the boosts available to a particular character, it would be unbalanced to allow them to get twin attack. A Furious Assaulter with Twin could easily become very overpowered. So even though "Single-Shot Blaster" might not sound quite right for the character, it IS the right mechanic for the piece as the designers envisioned it. One person might think that Furious Assault with Twin (or starting with a higher base damage to make getting Twin harder) wouldn't be a problem, because they might think Baze should be a power 9-10 piece by himself. The designers seem to have made a different choice, choosing to focus on how the team functions together instead of creating another elite Rebel shooter. This is the kind of balancing and negotiation that goes on throughout the design process, at least on every piece that's designed for competitive play.

My point is, as designers, we're not just throwing abilities on a card to achieve a desired function without regard to the character. We're trying to strike a balance that both feels right AND works the way we want it to in-game, which means considering other pieces and game mechanics. That's really hard, and sometimes we miss the mark. It's okay to disagree about the direction a character took in design. But just know that there are reasons for these choices, and the reasons, a lot of the time, have to do with improving the game experience for a wide range of people, not only those who value flavor above all else.

What a great post. I understand the thought process here, I just disagree with the outcome. when an ability makes no sense whatsoever, single shot blaster, it should not be utilized for game function when there are ways around the issue. Make it to where he only benefits from commander effects or special abilities of an ally whose name contains chirrut, considering he was more devoted to chirrut then anything else.

I for one enjoy the outside the box thinking that allows for more creative pieces and flavor instead of a one size fits all attitude such as +4 +10.

This is what this discussion really seems to be. The design team on set 14 (and every set for that matter) made intentional strides to make flavorful characters.

Clearly, some people disagree with our interpretation of flavor for this piece.

What did not happen, is a complete disregard for flavor.



Flavor is subjective.




The reason I can't get too riled up over people getting upset over not liking our interpretation of flavor is not because I don't care about flavor - it is because flavor is subjective, and someone will always quibble over it.

its kind of hard to not get caught up on special ability names when it is so grossly wrong. I guess I should just give mando's force attuned armor instead of beskar'gam, or maybe crab armor they all do the same thing so I don't see the need for all the different types...oh....wait......flavor....

and the final SAs to this spoiler are....????

let's put this thread to bed and discuss another character.

See I actually agree with you here, having multiple abilities that all do the same exact thing but have different names for flavor is really just poor planning. If there was a SA called Armored Defense that had that function it would be unarguably universal.

I personally have used Bombad Gungan on a couple of (non-Gungan) characters - from a name standpoint it's absurd, but from a function standpoint it works great.

That's an odd conclusion to what I said, but regardless. It's about the collection of ability functions that should give a character flavor not the names of them.

As for Baze and Furious Assault - the scene people are using to argue against it actually works as reasoning for it - He stands up from cover - that is for all intents and purposes movement, furious assault only requires 1 space of movement so perhaps a little obscure translation for some, but definitely not absurdly so.

Sigged!