My proposed rule change

[norman]

The official wording from wizkids...........

***************************************
RANGED COMBAT
Ranged combat represents everything from thrown boomerangs, web shooters and machine guns to energy blasts and mind attacks. A character given a ranged combat action is called the attacker.
Every character has a range value printed on its base. This the maximum number of squares that a character’s ranged attack can reach. If the range value is greater than 0 and your character is not in base contact with an opposing figure, then you may give your character a ranged combat action. A character can attack in any direction, regardless of the direction he is facing.
Before making a ranged combat attack, you must determine if the attacker has a clear line of fire to the target, and if the target is within range.
To determine if there is a clear line of fire, use any straight edge or draw an imaginary line from the center of the attacker’s square to the center of the target’s square. Line of fire is blocked and the attack cannot be made if the imaginary line passes through a square that contains a figure other than the attacker or the target, or the line of fire crosses blocking terrain.
If the attacker has a clear line of fire, then count the shortest route to the target in squares using the imaginary line as a guide. Do not count the square the attacker is standing in for determining range.
You can check the map for your character’s range and line of fire before declaring your character’s action for that turn.
You may use a ranged combat action to target an opposing figure that is adjacent to a friendly figure.
Hovering: Hovering characters can attack or be attacked using ranged combat, even if the hovering character occupies a square adjacent to the attacker.
Soaring: A hovering or ground-based figure can make a ranged attack against a soaring figure. Reduce the attacker’s range by half, and blocking terrain will block the attack. Soaring figures can be targeted using ranged attack super powers such as Probability Control and Outwit. "
***************************************

My proposed rule change is to remove the hovering section from this part of the rules. That's all

So what do you think? I can't see WizKids changing things any time soon but I would like to get the ball rolling on something I believe would help the game.

[norman]

Here is the wording in the faq

"A Hovering figure that is adjacent to an opposing figure may make a ranged combat attack, but only against the adjacent figure.. "

I would like that changed to cannot make a ranged combat attack.

"Hovering figures may always perform Ranged Combat actions against adjacent figures. Grounded figures may perform Ranged Combat Actions against adjacent hovering figures, but only if they are NOT ALSO adjacent to any opposing grounded figures."

See it's just too complicated, why not make it simple and remove the advantage of RCE and flying.

Oh yeah and am I in the right forum or should I be moving this to general?

[scowlingone]

Unnecessary, and will never happen.

This rule change would reduce the effectiveness of both flying models and ranged models, and increase the effectiveness of non-flying models and non-ranged models.

Net result: you'd have to change the point values of every model in the game.

Put a fork in it, it's done.

[quixotequest]

Conceptually, if a Hovering figure is in base-to-base such that an adjacent enemy has to breakaway from melee to move, then the Hoverer is no longer *at range* to make an attack. The change should be made, and not just because of Firelord.

[norman]

Originally posted by scowlingone
Unnecessary, and will never happen.

This rule change would reduce the effectiveness of both flying models and ranged models, and increase the effectiveness of non-flying models and non-ranged models.

Net result: you'd have to change the point values of every model in the game.

Put a fork in it, it's done.

Actually they wouldn't have to change anything and infact there are only 17 characters in the game that have RCE and flying.

You searched for units who have DamageSA = 'Ranged Combat Expert' and have flight ic ic052 None 2 Hobgoblin Weak 34
ic ic053 Sinister Syndicate 3 Hobgoblin Experienced 53
ic ic054 Sinister Syndicate 4 Hobgoblin Veteran 62
ic ic124 None 3 Dr. Strange Weak 64
ic ic125 Defenders 4 Dr. Strange Experienced 71
ic ic126 None 5 Dr. Strange Veteran 87
ic ic136 None 3 Firelord Weak 66
ic ic137 None 4 Firelord Experienced 81
ic ic138 None 5 Firelord Veteran 97
ic ic140 Avengers 6 Quasar Unique 122
ht ht067 Superman Ally 3 Steel Weak 66
ht ht068 Justice League 4 Steel Experienced 70
ht ht069 NONE 5 Steel Veteran 74
ht ht081 NONE 5 Weather Wizard Veteran 50
ht ht118 Superman Enemy 3 Brainiac 13 Weak 101
ht ht119 Superman Enemy 4 Brainiac 13 Experienced 122
ht ht120 Injustice League 5 Brainiac 13 Veteran 133

7 that have EE and flight

You searched for units who have AttackSA = 'Energy Explosion' and have flight ic ic133 None 3 Ultron Weak 111
ic ic134 Minions of Doom 4 Ultron Experienced 139
ic ic135 Masters of Evil 5 Ultron Veteran 188
ic ic136 None 3 Firelord Weak 66
ic ic137 None 4 Firelord Experienced 81
ic ic138 None 5 Firelord Veteran 97
ct ct050 Fantastic Four 3 Human Torch Experienced 59


and 7 that have Pulse Wave and flight
You searched for units who have AttackSA = 'Pulse Wave' and have flight ic ic124 None 3 Dr. Strange Weak 64
ic ic125 Defenders 4 Dr. Strange Experienced 71
ic ic126 None 5 Dr. Strange Veteran 87
ic ic136 None 3 Firelord Weak 66
ic ic137 None 4 Firelord Experienced 81
ic ic138 None 5 Firelord Veteran 97
ct ct050 Fantastic Four 3 Human Torch Experienced 59

None of these figures are in any shape or form truely weakend by this change in the rules and therefore none of them would have to be recalculated. Fliers are not hampered by this rule because of the 60 fliers in the game only 19 of them are effected in any way by this rule. And every single one of those 19 are still just as effective as they were before. The only one hurt in any real means is firelords ability to consistantly do 5 damage, however note he still does 3 with a 13 attack and an 18 defense so he is still probably the best figure in the game even with this ruling.

[scowlingone]

You misunderstand my post.

Every model in the game is either a flyer or a non-flyer, a ranged model or a non-ranged model.

This proposed rules change would make every model in the game either more or less effective, necessitating the point value change of every model in the game.

As for Firelord, I've explained time and again why I think he's overrated, and not even in my Top 20.

[norman]

The only damage done is maybe to grounded figures with RCE or PulseWave (EE is never done adjacent to the attacker). And it only effects their ability to rip apart flyers. And there are 39 grounded figures with RCE and 9 with pulse wave. All other characters with any range (which there are 236 minus a maximum of 48 characters) are uneffected. Of those 40-48 characters effected by this change, all of which are used at a distance (or at least that's the benefit of having a range, which is why they will always be more effective then brawlers - 1st shot) no matter if it's attacking a flyer or ground figure.

[norman]

However you maybe right and I maybe fooling myself :D

And it would hurt those RCE, grounded figures but most of those guys are underpriced because of the change wizkids made to RCE just before the release of the game. That's why cheeselord is as tough as he is and why bullseye is priced like he is.

[scowlingone]

It changes every model in the game.

Suppose that Firelord can no longer make a ranged attack when in contact with another model. Sandman moves into contact with Firelord. Firelord can now only do 3 damage to Sandman instead of 5. Titania takes one click of damage through her Invulnerability, and then hits Firelord for 3.

Under the current system, Firelord hits Sandman for 5. Sandman takes 3, and then hits Firelord the next turn for 2.

As you can see, the rule has not only made Firelord weaker, it has made Sandman more effective.

Repeat this with other models. It doesn't matter if thy're flyers with RCE or not; the net result is that every model in the game is either more or less effective. This means that the point values are no longer useful and must be changed.

Since the point values of models are not going to change, there will never be a substantial change in the rules such as you are suggesting.

(And I maintain that Firelord is a wimp. I look forward to facing him when I see him across the table.)

[norman]

Actually it really only effects two situations

1) The example with McCheese (I don't know why I like saying that but I do :D ) and Sandman. With any other flyer in the game that doesn't have RCE this situation doesn't change (where a flyer is HtH with another figure). A character such as E Ultron is unaffected by this rule change (he would deal 3 damage no matter what). A character like DrDoom is also unaffected (however he couldn't use his EE, but who would use it in this situation).

2) The other situation this would effect is a when you base my Bullseye with your Vulture (and those are the only two in base contact). Bullseye can only do 1 instead of 3.

I really can't see this being a major change in game design only in game tatics. The value effected by this change is RCE and most characters that have RCE are usually very efficient damage to cost ratio. Look at McCheese, Bullseye, Steel, DrStange, hell even Shield sniper does 2 damage for 11pts and an 8 attack at rookie.

[TheSpirit]

Well, considering that the flying/ranged figures are more powerful than WK intended, a minor change like this would actually be righting a wrong. When you've got the new lead designer of the game disliking taxiing and believing it's not in the spirit of the game, then some small rule change like this that would reduce the power of flyers/range somewhat while still permitting the mobility needed for a dynamic game might be beneficial.

Everyone seems fixated on Firelord (well, not so much lately), but one major fault of the game is the weakness of grounded brawlers. A team of non-flying, non-ranged figs stands little chance against a team of just Hobgoblin and Vulture. And that's pretty pathetic no matter what way you look at it. Grounded figures have no advantage over ranged or flying.

[quixotequest]

The fact is the RCE rules (once identical to B/C/F) were changed after IC points values were already been assigned. So the numbers are already a bit arbitrary anyway. It's stating the obvious that any change either makes some figures weaker or others stronger. Changes still have been made and strategy will (and has) adapted around it.

One could argue whether the rule as it is makes conceptual sense. I think it is conceptually flawed. Sure, one could just errata Firelord, but the fact is Firelord has a lot going for him even if the change is made. Range attackers should have to attack at range, flyer or not, Firelord or not. Firelord is still a cheap flyer with a huge movement and high attack and high base damage even with a change to the rules. But to state making a change shouldn't be done because it shifts the value of point costs is ignorant of changes already made to the game. Nor does it render any figures "broken."

[scowlingone]

Originally posted by norman
Actually it really only effects two situations

1) The example with McCheese (I don't know why I like saying that but I do :D ) and Sandman. With any other flyer in the game that doesn't have RCE this situation doesn't change (where a flyer is HtH with another figure). A character such as E Ultron is unaffected by this rule change (he would deal 3 damage no matter what). A character like DrDoom is also unaffected (however he couldn't use his EE, but who would use it in this situation).

You're still not getting it.

Substitute any figure in the game for Sandman. Firelord does less damage to that figure, making that figure more effective.

So it does not merely reduce the effectiveness of Firelord, Steel, Strange, etc., it increases the effectiveness of EVERY OTHER MODEL IN THE GAME.

Thus, the point values of every model in the game must be changed. Thus, no rules change of this magnitude will ever occur.

[MindsEnd]

scowlingone you might wanna go back and edit your example of Sandman vs Firelord because all of a sudden Sandy has a sex change and become Titania.

[scowlingone]

I thought I caught them all. Makes no difference.

[norman]

Originally posted by scowlingone

Substitute any figure in the game for Sandman. Firelord does less damage to that figure, making that figure more effective.

So it does not merely reduce the effectiveness of Firelord, Steel, Strange, etc., it increases the effectiveness of EVERY OTHER MODEL IN THE GAME.


Actually you're wrong. In a game that doesn't have a single character with RCE what has changed? Absolutely nothing.

The only effect this ruling is making characters with RCE a little weaker and characters without RCE a little tougher, but not by that much. This ruling change would make RCE what they are suppose to be RANGE characters.

I'll give you an example if this rule was in affect would you still use the characters I've mentioned?? Bullseye? Steel? DrStrange? Cyclops? even Cheeselord?? Yes you would and they would still be some of the most efficient pieces in the game. The tourney scene probably wouldn't change much at all would it? Cheese lord would still be the most common piece at tournies because he is still amazing just like bullseye and the rest. This ruling would have less impact then you think.

[scowlingone]

Originally posted by norman


Actually you're wrong. In a game that doesn't have a single character with RCE what has changed? Absolutely nothing.

The only effect this ruling is making characters with RCE a little weaker and characters without RCE a little tougher, but not by that much. This ruling change would make RCE what they are suppose to be RANGE characters.

First you say I'm wrong, then you agree that it makes characters with RCE weaker and characters without RCE tougher?

I wash my hands of this topic.

[norman]

Yeah but your saying every character needs to be recalculated and I'm telling you they don't.

Do you really believe that if they changed this ruling that every character would have to be re-made? They have already change RCE and didn't change any of their point value systems and that is why these characters are so strong.

People are already commenting that ranged flyer already are overpowered. Increasing the power of non ranged flyers only makes sense to balance their already set point system.

[norman]

Originally posted by scowlingone
It changes every model in the game.
Repeat this with other models. It doesn't matter if thy're flyers with RCE or not; the net result is that every model in the game is either more or less effective. This means that the point values are no longer useful and must be changed.

Alright I have an example for you

Ultron vs Daredevil - neither one effected by this ruling.
Bullseye vs Sandman - not effected by this ruling
Bullseye in base with both sandman and ultron - not effected by this ruling
Vulture vs Wasp - not effected by this ruling
Magneto vs Cap - not effected by this ruling

As you can see this doesn't effect every character in the game
My brotherhood team of
V Magneto
V Sabretooth
R Hydra Medic
R Vulture
V Toad
V Avalanche
R Scarlet Witch
is completely uneffected by this ruling with the exception that Magneto and Vulture can now base a grounded character with RCE without taking additional damage. And all my characters can base a flying character with RCE without taking the additional damage.

My change wouldn't even effect how people use RCE, just in ways to defend against it. RCE will still be taxi'd around and making shots from a distance like they do now.

I truely believe that the point system now is completely adaquate for this change. Only RCE is changed by this ruling and it only changes it in 2 specific situations, which I've mentioned before. Tell me any other situation that it would effect?

[norman]

Sorry for my rants but I hate that generic answer "oh that would effect everything and everything would have to be redone (BS)". I once asked wizkids directly about a rule in MechWarrior and I got the same response. I know they must get a ton of emails but do you really think they take much time in considering suggestions? I mean if I got 100 emails a day (75% of them would probably be something retarded like why didn't you make a unique Aunt May) I would probably just s#### all of them after a quick glance too. I just wish once one of these people would respond by saying yeah maybe we will play test that, and then you would probably never hear from them again but at least you would get the impression that they are trying.

People just assume that this is just another Firelord thread and disregard it because it’s just some idiot complaining that he didn’t win. But I feel this is beneficial to the game and even wizkids changed RCE before the release and didn’t feel the need to re-do everything. What makes you think this would be any different? In fact their change had far more effect on the game then my rule would, but did they change any characters? Obviously not, so beside the standard BS answer tell me how drastically this is going to change the game from the way it is being played now?

[TychesCoin]

I understand your point scowlingone, but I think whats at issue here is that RCE on a flier is a completely different power than RCE on a grounded figure. I'm not sure the current point structure reflects that in the way the designers anticipated. Under the current rules giving RCE to a flier is pretty much the same as giving them CCE as well. A flier can make a RCE attack at whatever figure moves next to them, a grounded figure can only make the attack if a flier moves next to them.

Now in theory this makes flier more vulnerable to ranged attacks than a grounded figure is. All in all not a bad scheme, you need close combat to shut down range, you need fliers to taxi in the close combat so they don't get chewed up on the way, but those fliers are more vulnerable to ranged attacks even at point blank range.

In practice I don't think its worked out that way. Part of the problem is the heavy use of firelord (broken or not). Because of this ruling, he's designed as a premier ranged character (stats wise) but he's not afraid of close combat situations. I also don't think the designers fully anticipated how taxiing would be used. I doubt the expected the prevalence of fliers carrying fliers and the heavy use of hit an run tactics.

[Spy Master]

I read this thread and thought i should give my 2 cents :D , Well look at it this way , even tho the flying figure is in Hovering mode he can instantly change to soaring mode , their by making close combat impossible , so only ranged combat can occur. That is why the ruling from Wizkids is stated as such. Yes i know he would have to make a breakaway roll but if he does then he can switch to soaring mode if successful. just my 2 cents

[norman]

Spy Master my suggestion to the rules would still allow a range attacker to hit a soaring character. It's only when that character is in hovering mode and in base contact. Once that character soars he is no longer in base contact.

And thanks TychesCoin, that's the best explaination of the problem so far and what I've been trying to say but obviously haven't done so well. ;)

[Spy Master]

On your point of point costs not changing , it would have to change since the figure now isnt up to what it used to be in combat value, if he cant perform like he used to then his point value should be changed. The current point values are assigned based on their combat ability and eliminating the hover rule will change the hover figures combat ability, especially those with RCE. It will reduce their effectiveness and thus make them weaker than before. Granted Firelord may have been undercost in all aspects but Wizkids wont change that part of the figure becuase thats a major change. And the rule change u suggest is a major change , not something to be just erased with an eraser. It will change the dynamics and characteristics of the game entirely.

[Spy Master]

ok heres an example u should consider , say 2 ground figures are in base contact but on is on a building top , how do they fight each other? now change one to a hover , now u can have close or ranged combat , there for your rule change would elminate the hover figures ability to attack at either range , in the firelord example , u would use the RCE since it would do more damage , but under your rule change he could only do 3 at either range, there by making him not as effective and less useful.

[jedigeof]

"I would like to get the ball rolling on something I believe would help the game."

Now that is funny. Got to love the newbes.

[D. Byers]

For the love of God, people, can we please stop worrying about Firelord? He's a known quantity. Anyone who's played the game for awhile knows very well that he's got RCE. Generally, if I know I'm facing anybody with range combat abilities, let alone RCE, I have my figures TAKE COVER. Then, I lie in wait until the other guy moves Firelord or Cyclops or whoever into a comprising position. What is the Mystery? And, I always thought Hovering characters were just like Grounded characters and that when they were adjacent to another character, they were, in fact, in Close Combat range and NOT capable of Ranged combat.

[Earnan]

Here's why I think your ruling doesn't work.

It weakens ground based RCEers too much. By instituting your rule, you now make any flier with Toughness (E Doombot) able to utterly shut down Bullseye. And an Invulnerable flier would only fear the big, bad Firelord since no one else in the game currently can do more than 2 w/ RCE. (That I know of, I do not use the DC set)

You keep bringing up that it will not change how RCEers will be used, since they will just be taxied anyway, but that does bot prove your point (not to mention any HC player worth his salt will base both the shooter and the taxi anyway). You are bringing in a seperate, unrelated rule (Taxiing) to try and justify what you think is fair.

My point is that if this rule were to be made into effect, then Flying would have to be recosted as it would then funtion as a secondary, limited defensive power. I think that one of the reasons that flying is able to remain relativley cheap is because it does make a character more vulnerable.

You also, in my opinion, can not use specific characters as examples because the game is everchanging. If we knew that the only HC figures we would ever see are the ones we have right now, than maybe we could make that change since the characters would support it. But, there are other characters coming out. What if Rookie Angel (hypothetically, lets not get into a 'he should have this' argument) is a 22 point X-Men flier with a couple clicks of Toughness and that's it? Then, if you change was in effect, he would be the ideal figure for dealing with Bullseye, SHIELD Snipers, Hawkeye, and even Quasar and Kang! Now is the game balanced? Instead of seeing R Vulture on every team, you see R Angel due to his near-invulnerability to a number of figures.

I know you're not going to agree with me but I wanted to toss my arguments out there, since I do feel they are valid.

WarlordEarnan

[TychesCoin]

I understand your point Earnan, though I think you're arguing it the wrong way. Removing the ability to use RCE against adjacent hovering characters, wouldn't grant fliers a new defensive ability, it would remove a vulnerability they were given that grounded figures do not have. Sorry if it seems a little nitpicky, but it makes more sense to me that way. Saying the rule change would grant fliers a secondary defensive ability, sounds too much like you're giving them something special rather than making them more like grounded figures.

As far as fliers with invulnerability no longer fearing to close in on ranged characters, i've never really understood why a grounded RCE figure should be able to do more damage to an inv flier than an inv grounded figure. It comic book battle, it seems to me its ultimately the flier's choice at which range he wants to engage. He can float around in the air and blast away or charge in an take it to hand to hand. However there's no rule allowing you to land a flier and force close combat. So Bullseye would rather see Thanos close in on him than juggernaut or even hercules.

I think my big issue with the current rule is when it get turns the other way around and a flier with RCE can make RCE attacks at point blank range. As I mentioned earlier its pretty much like the figure has CCE as well, or a natural +2 to damage except that it can be outwitted. My problem isn't even that I'm sure that its unbalanced. I just really think its silly that RCE on a flier is a completely different power than on a grounded figure.

[Earnan]

But, they pay for the ability to make that RCE attack in the points they pay for being a flier.

I still stand by my way of phrasing it. By taking away the ability tp be shot at, you ARE giving them something special. They already get the ability to carry figures and near Leap/Climb (except for ignoring figure bases). In order to counter those benefits, they are slightly more vulnerable.

Being a flier w/ RCE is not like having CCE. If they had CCE, then ES/D and Stealth wouldn't matter. (If you're gonna get nitpicky one me, I'll do it right back :) ) It's another tactical option for a flier. They really ar ethe most versatile of the figures, and as such they should have some vulnerability.

No offense, but I'm going to ignore the comic book battle part. We're talking game mechanics here, bringing that into it isn't gonna help one bit :)

And, at any rate, this wasn't the point I was arguing. My point is that if you take away the ability for ground based characters to shoot a flier, then the cost for flying needs to go up because it just got more useful than it is currently in the game mechanics.

WarlordEarnan
good points, dude. This is definately a more intelligent discussion than most I've been involved in.

[Skarn]

Why wouldnt I want to use EE with Ultron or Doom (after MM clix). If I'm based by 2 figs, I would love to blast them both with EE...let's see, you take 1 (+1 splash), and so do you. Me? Oh, my Invuln negates the damage. And I think it's hilarious that Bullseye is more scared of Hercules (or any other ground figure with Toughness/Invuln) than any flier.

[TychesCoin]

Heh good point about energy shield deflection and stealth. I hadn't though of that. But then they can also use the shield or hydra ability in what could have been a close combat situation so there are some positive differences as well.

Part of my problem is I may not have your faith that all these things are accounted for in the points. Things like the extra vulnerability to RCE seem awfully game specific to account for to me.

As far as the phrasing, I suppose it really is a more of a glass half full, or half empty thing. I just choose to view it as fliers have already been given something special : the RCE vulnerability and by taking it away you're making them less unique. Where your explanation makes the removal of that just vulnerability sound like it would give them something special which would make them more unique by making their other abilities cheaper and more effective.

No problem on ignoring the comic book battle thing. Just to hit on it briefly though in a more game mechanic manner, I think the prevalence of taxis in the game has pretty much muted the flight ability of alot of the premier flying characters. If I field Thanos or Firelord, they're pretty much gonna be used as a grounded figure. So now I'm paying for abilities I only use as a last resort plus I get an added vulnerability. I realize its a penalty I can choose to avoid by using different characters. This is more frustration than honest gripe. Alot of the time I think I'd rather pay 185 points for a Thanos without flight since the vulnerability hurts me more than the flight ability helps. I think its messed up, Thanos should be more impressive because he flies, not less so. Honestly I;'d rather see some change to the taxi usage than to the RCE rule to fix this cause I hate how taxiing is used.

I'm also not entirely sure which side of the proposed rule change that started this topic I'm on. I do believe that the game was well designed, costed, and even the rules are well thought out if not necessarily explained perfectly. However I also think there may have been a departure between the how the game was designed to play out and how it actually has in the gaming public. I think taxi usage has surpassed the design vision. I also think the designers envisioned a "slower" game. Course this is just guessing. Ultimately I'm not sure the orignal rule sructure is best for the current play style. So either thing could change. I think wizkids are trying to alter the play style with their character additions (increasing number of RS/Charge characters helps reduce taxi dependence etc). I think its the right idea.

anyway thats pretty much all I've got to say. I've enjoyed the discussion as well.

[Earnan]

And that's my other point :)

The game is still evolving. Making a kneejerk change like this will only mess things up in the long run. Let things work themselves out naturally. :)

WarlordEarnan

[TheSpirit]

I'm sorry, Earnan, but it's laughable to suggest taking RCE away in adjacency will make fliers more powerful.

As for Bullseye, Kang etc, becoming useless when based by a flier with Toughness... why shouldn't they? Being based is supposed to mean "engaged in close combat" - hence breakaway - and any figure with 1 base damage plus RCE is a figure that's not very good hand-to-hand. A cheap, tough flier should be able to tie them up. If they're able to fend off a close combat attack, they'll have a 2 base damage like Cyclops. And it's certainly not impossible for Bullseye to hurt a figure with Toughness - it's called Outwit.

Ranged figures should only be good at range. Once they're tangled up with close combat figures, they should be weak. Artillery is very powerful in the battlefield, but an army of just artillery pieces should be quickly destroyed by fast moving infantry.

(and I don't think it's knee-jerk at this point, with IC, HT, CT, and soon XP, Indy, and DC2)

[TychesCoin]

TheSpirit,

I'd agree that post XP and DC2, making a rule change might make more sense. However it should be months afterwards when the characters have become fairly standard pieces of everyone's arsenal. Also there is a possibility that Indyclix could set back the game's evolution to a degree. When DC was introduced, they changed the game by introducing new powers. Currently Clobberin Time is the only set they could possibly considered as an attempt to gently reshape the game rather than drastically expand it through powers and rule addition. And even Clobberin Time included a new team ability so it was sill fleshing out the rule structure a bit. XP is going to be our first pure character expansion with no rule expansions. I think it would be wrong to make rule changes until it has a chance to settle in.

Also I fully agree with Earnan that removing a RCE in adjacency will make fliers as a whole stronger. Sure it might weaken one or two (those with RCE themselves) if the added potential of using RCE in close combat situations outweighs the added vulnerability to it in those same situations. Suddenly vulture is a cheap, mobile tie up piece for RCE chars as well as a taxi. You can't deny he's atleast slightly more useful than he was before. Once you get into fliers with inv and or toughness I think they become noticeably more powerful
They are no longer as vulnerable to sending in a grounded RCE character to tie them up and blast away.

To use your army analogy, I'd first change infantry to slow moving and then say that the artillery is vulnerable to the slow moving infantry (grounded close combat figures) Howeverthe artillery is going to chew up the infantry pretty good on approach since the infantry is so slow. Unless of course the infantry gains some mobility from an outside agency. In this case thats where the fliers fit in. They aren't infantry and they aren't really calvary either. Probably helicopters, vultures and wasp = llight transports, Thor's and Thanos's are heavy gunships. Siince in theory they tip the balance towards the infantry, something else should tip the balance the other way ((a slightly increased vulnerability to RCE). The more I think about it, the more I think thats the way the game was supposed to work. I think under that system the current rule works great. However nobody plays that way, or atleast not all the way.

Nobody limits themselves to placing only the infantry on the airlifts (nor should they) instead the little transports are regularly carrying artillery and or gunships. Since alot of the time a taxi's cargo wants to stay at range, the taxi is not likely to enter close combat areas. So the vulnerability becomes less of an issue. Also a large number of the gunship class characters are used as artillery instead so the vulnerability becomes less of an issue.

Once again I'd like to mention that I'm still not sure whether I'd be in favor of the proposed rule change even if the game was finished production and the three sets out were all there ever was going to be. I think if changes were made in how taxiing works, the vulnerability might become an effective balance for fliers.

[Earnan]

I apologize, Spirit. I've been saying 'more powerful,' what I should be saying is "more useful." Not gonna argue if that then in turn makes them more powerful, since it really doesn't matter... :)

The main argument throughout this thread has been whether or not if this change ever happened (this is a players suggestion, not something coming down as a possibility from WK) the cost of fliers should change. The orginitor of the thread doesn't think so, since he feels it doesn't change much of anything, since only a few figures would be effected.

My point is that is this change occurs, fliers become even more versatile on top of the bonuses they already recieved and paid for for becoming fliers. When R Vulture now takes 5 turns for Bullseye to kill no matter what, he is more useful than he was. For 15 points, he now becomes the best harrasser in the game with a few of the same advantages a L/C character has.

As for you saying that Bullseye can damage a Toughness character in b2b with Outwit: You can't bring other powers into this. The rules need to be balanced within the rules. Super Powers break the rules, and can not be used to justify a potential rule change. Though it may not SEEM like it, there are teams out there without Outwit. ;)

WarlordEarnan

[TheSpirit]

Originally posted by TychesCoin
Since in theory they tip the balance towards the infantry, something else should tip the balance the other way (a slightly increased vulnerability to RCE).

Nobody limits themselves to placing only the infantry on the airlifts (nor should they) instead the little transports are regularly carrying artillery and or gunships. Since alot of the time a taxi's cargo wants to stay at range, the taxi is not likely to enter close combat areas. So the vulnerability becomes less of an issue.

OK, I've paired down your comments to respond to what I believe are the key points. Regarding the balance between artillery and infantry - there is none. In this game, artillery is so far ahead of infantry, it's not even arguable. When have you seen a team of Hercules, Hulk, Titania, Doomsday, and Thing win? Now how about a team with Bullseye, Cyclops, and Firelord? Transports don't enter into it - since they can be used with both, they provide the same benefit to both. An infantry/transport team will be demolished by an artillery/transport team.

Compare V Firelord with V Juggernaut. Juggernaut gets the nod in defense and Firelord in movement, and their attack values are about equal. When it comes to damage, Juggernaut is better on straight stats, but when you add RCE Firelord is the clear favourite. Firelord can deliver his 5 damage to Juggernaut while adjacent, while Juggernaut does 4 back. True, Firelord's 5 is reduced to 3 with Inv, but that just means Juggernaut only does 1 damage more than Firelord. And Firelord can do that from 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 squares out. Juggernaut can only do it 1 square away.


I have no problem with Firelord doing that amount of damage from range - that's the nature of artillery. But to still be able to do it up close is wrong. Artillery at close range doesn't work well. Due to Battle Fury, Juggernaut can't even be taxied in, while Firelord can actually bring someone else with him. In short, there is no possible justification for choosing Juggernaut over Firelord. And did I mention Juggernaut is 50% more expensive than Firelord? This is balanced to you?

RCE figures are artillery; they're supposed to stay out of the battle, softening targets for the infantry and tanks to wipe out. They're powerful, but they should be vulnerable up close. But not in this game, where standard fliers can't engage them in close combat and flying RCEs always keep their range advantage.

A team with a good mix of close combat and ranged figures should do well against a team of just ranged figures. The all-range team might get lucky occassionally, but overall the war should go to the balanced team. And an all-close combat team should win as often as it loses against an all-range team. What's your experience been? Who wins? The mobile artillery team. So why isn't the US military just mobile artillery? Because in real life, in real battles, mobile artillery is just one part of the puzzle. It's medics, transports, heavy weapons, and most importantly, infantry. The mainstay of every army in the world is completely lacking in the realm of HeroClix. It may just be a comics game, but it should make a little sense.

Why wait for more unbalanced sets to come out before balancing the ones we have now? This is a fundamental problem with the game. Trying to fix the underlying problem by adding in new figures to counteract existing problem ones is just chasing your own tail. Whatever strategy buster they produce will just lead to a different problem they will need to correct with the following set.

[TheSpirit]

Originally posted by Earnan
My point is that is this change occurs, fliers become even more versatile on top of the bonuses they already recieved and paid for for becoming fliers. When R Vulture now takes 5 turns for Bullseye to kill no matter what, he is more useful than he was. For 15 points, he now becomes the best harrasser in the game with a few of the same advantages a L/C character has.
But you haven't explained why Bullseye *should* take less than 5 turns to kill Vulture. Vulture's a flying thug. Once he's adjacent to Bullseye, he should act just like a thug does. Why should a thug get an advantage over a super villain, even one as useless as Vulture?
As for you saying that Bullseye can damage a Toughness character in b2b with Outwit: You can't bring other powers into this. The rules need to be balanced within the rules. Super Powers break the rules, and can not be used to justify a potential rule change.
Well, you've lost me here. I can't bring in other powers like Outwit to discuss rules effects, even when we're discussing the effects of a power (RCE) on the rules? How does that work? OK, you ignore RCE and I'll ignore Outwit. Bullseye can do 1 damage to Hulk when adjacent. Sounds fine to me.

[KarateForever]

Originally posted by scowlingone
Unnecessary, and will never happen.

This rule change would reduce the effectiveness of both flying models and ranged models, and increase the effectiveness of non-flying models and non-ranged models.


IMHO, this is exactly what needs to be done. But at the same time I can see your point. Ranged combantants are useless right now and you almost never see them played in tournaments. Not to mention Vulture is one of the most dangerous characters in comics. :D

[Earnan]

No, we're talking about a specific mechanic. This mechanic is that hovering characters can both attack with and be attacked by ranged combat attacks. This does bring RCE into the mix. Again, I misspoke. Let's not bring in outside powers i.e. powers from other figures outside of the potential hypothetical combat.

I have explained repeatedly my reasoning. One more time, in detail, remembering that my argument is that if this ruling were to take effect, fliers would need to have their cost increased:

A flier pays points in order to get the Flying ability. They get the ability to taxi, soar, ignore terrain and change elevation as per Leap/Climb. In order to offset the bonuses granted by this ability, they were given the drawback of being able to be targetted by Ranged Combat attacks while adjacent to an enemy. They can also make a Ranged Combat attack against adjacent grounded (and by extension hovering) figures. I see this more as a drawback than an advantage for the flier, since this make them more vulnerable than a grounded figure. This offsets some of the bonuses they get, causing Flying to cost less than it otherwise would.

Changing this ruling would then make a Flying character even more useful than they were, since their vulnerability would then be gone. They would then be just like a grounded character, except that they can taxi, soar, ignore terrain and change elevation. Thus, their point cost would need to be increased.

WarlordEarnan

[TheSpirit]

Originally posted by Earnan
I have explained repeatedly my reasoning. One more time, in detail, remembering that my argument is that if this ruling were to take effect, fliers would need to have their cost increased:See, call me crazy, but when you take away the ability of fliers to use ranged attacks while in close combat, that's a negative. You're presenting it as somehow doubly beneficial.

A flier pays points in order to get the Flying ability. They get the ability to taxi, soar, ignore terrain and change elevation as per Leap/Climb. In order to offset the bonuses granted by this ability, they were given the drawback of being able to be targetted by Ranged Combat attacks while adjacent to an enemy. And this is another bit of creative thinking. A flier "pays" for an ability, then needs it to be "offset" to reduce their advantage. So what exactly are they paying for? If the advantages and disadvantages of a power balance out equally, then why the higher cost to have that power? Again, Vulture's a flying thug. He pays a higher cost than thug in order to be better. He doesn't pay a higher cost to be weaker.

Since you brought it up, what drawback is leap/climb given to offset its advantages? It's nearly as advantageous as flying - no taxi, but can breakaway for free. Where is the offsetting disadvantage to make it worse than other figures? Other than BF, does any power in the game have a corresponding negative (and yes, I know flying is not a power, but they're both game elements)?

[TychesCoin]

First of all I agree that firelord doing 5 damage at point blank range is of questionable fairness. However the proposed rule change does more than alter his effectiveness down. There are far more fliers without RCE than with. In fact firelord is the only flier I can remember making use of RCE on (maybe doc strange once) And everyone of them will receive a upward boost in value, how much that boost is worth is currently unknown. It may be enough to further tilt the game towards fliers, I don't know. Is weakening firelord worth strengthening Thor, Ultron, Thanos, and all the other high end fliers?

Secondly on the specific firelord/juggernaut issue, I've won far more games using juggernaut than I have firelord. For me juggernaut has always been a far more effective character than firelord. NOw I realize this isn't evidence as the people I play against and the people you play against may have a very different play styles.


Next assuming a complete absence of flying characters, an all ranged team should almost always win against an all close combat team. This assumes a well designed ranged team not completely dependent on RCE for its punch. I'd go further to say that on the game board, an all range team has an advantage over a balanced ranged/close combat team assuming no fliers. The large kill zone of a ranged character guarantees means the ranged team gets something out of everyone of its characters while some of the close combat figures could be cut down enroute to the target. Thats the role fliers fill, you almost have to have them to maximize close combat effectiveness while ranged characters can get by without as long as their opponents don't have them.

Just to warp our little comparison a bit and in point of fact even infantry is ranged in modern times. Close combat without transport is pretty much akin to picketts charge advancing under enemy guns against a prepared position. Without sufficient cover its slaughter.

As far as mobile artillery dominating the game, I'd argue it very closely resembles modern warfare. No the U.S. military does not consist solely of mobile artilery. I will not argue that infantry plays an essential role in the military structure, however when it comes to achieving the political aims that give purpose to military action, the U.S. has shown an increasing favoritism toward mobile artillery: specifically air power. Much of recent U.S. military action has shown a belief that air power can fight and win a military action almost on its own. Obviously this is a function of fairly limited military goals not requiring the seizing and holding of ground (which is the strength of infantry) as much as the destruction of the enemy forces and infrastructure.

Heroclix is a game of fairly limited goals: destroy the enemy forces and keep them from accomplishing their objectives. There is no requirement to defend ground. So it makes sense in real life terms that mobile artillery (in this case taxiied ranged characters) would dominate. So in this case I'd say for game balance and enjoyment, wizkids should strive to not too closely model real life.

As far as why to wait before making rule changes, its impossible to say that the future set will or won't be unbalanced. The marvel side of the game (assuming there are no further additions of powers from DC or Indy) finally became fully implemented with CT. Wizkids has not had a chance to adjust the game through character addition since the addition of perplex, will power etc. Also, they've had a chance to see how effective things like adding super strenght/charge characters are to enhancing the close combat side of the game. There are still alot of untried power combos out there. Sure none of this may fix the issue in question, but I think its worth a try before resorting to rule changes.

[onew0rd]

I think TychesCoin brings up the most important point. Everyone is assuming (rather gullibly) that all these aspects were considered when costing the figures. I am of the opinion that they didn't. Again, none if us can know, but I am of the belief that they did not cost characters with RCE and Flying more. What is impactful? Being able to hit someone with because of flying or being able to be hit by someone becuase you fly? If they made 3 characters right now. Identical in every way except for the following:
Character 1 has flying (Costed A) and ranged a ranged power (costed B)
Character 2 same ranged power as A (Costed C)
Character 3 has flying (costed D)

I have a feeling that cost B = C and cost A = cost D and no additional costs were effected. If this is the case then changing that line about hovering and ranged attacks would not affect anyone other than the figures costed that way.
Although unlikely, if A does not equal D and B does not equal C or there was an additional cost incurred then that means they took a lot more care in costing these figures than any of us thinks they did, which I doubt.

Off topic response: Scowlingone and everyone else who says FL is bad. Look, if you have beat FL good for you. I see that apparently you guys are some tactical genius that none of us can compare to. That's great! But I am not a tactical genius. And unfortunately, most people aren't either. If we cloned you and you played yourself I (and most sane people) would bet lots of money on the you playing the Firelords. Scowling one: He may not be on your top 20 list but he is in the top 3 of all abilities used to play this game. HE IS UNDERCOSTED!! I would be VERY interested in seeing your top 20. My top 3 goes like this: 3 V Firelord, 2 R Firelord, 1 E Firelord.

[norman]

Alright you guys can make as much fun of me as you'd like for suggesting this rule change but I really do think that the point system in place could handle this change. And as for that guy that was taking about a grounded figure on a roof top and grounded figure on the ground, what were you thinking?? They are not even at the same elevation and are not considered in base contact.

And just so you know wizkids are going to consider my suggestion (whether or not they do much of anything with it is up to them but at least they told me they would consider it).

The other thing I don't think you guys realize are the stats....

There are 432 Characters in the game right now
63 Fly - 14.5%
369 Don't 85.5%

Of the 369 that don't fly 39 have RCE (9% of all the figures in the game and 10.5% of all grounded figures)

Of those 63 characters that fly 17 have RCE (4% of all the figures but 27% of all flyers).

Are you telling me that the 14-15% of characters that fly are so drastically more powerful because of 10% of the grounded figures don't do as much damage to them? And the fact that 27% of all flyers that have RCE ability are kept in check by only 10% of the grounded figures?? If you believe this how many extra points do you think flying is worth? 10, 15, 20?

Most peoples main argument is that flying becomes much more potent because grounded RCE can no longer deal their max damage to them at all times (but note if also in close combat with a grounded figure they still couldn't do max damage), but still 90% of the remaining grounded figures still interact in the same manor. Also with this ruling 27% of the flyers are weakened to a degree.

Current strategies would hardly change as well as what figures people use in their current tourney armies.

You guys seem to have a lot of faith in the fact that wizkids has taken everything into consideration when it comes to their point system, that they tested everything. Well when one of the current game designers says oops we didn't really account for all those taxi's, does that really make you think they tested everything? They even changed RCE just before the release without changing point value systems and you want to know why? It would have cost too much to re-print those figures because they were already in production.

[Earnan]

norman-I am by no means making fun of you. I'm merely trying to present an argument. I'm sorry if any of my posts came across that way. I simply disagree, and am trying to state my case. You have obviously thought this out, and have presented your own arguments. It's all good. :)

Spirit-You miss my points. Again.

Everything is taken into account when a power is costed. Maybe I'm just plain stupid for having faith in the established game system, but I'm going to keep arguing from that standpoint.

My point remains that the cost of Flying should be increased if this change is made. I am not implying that all powers should have drawbacks. I am saying that in this case, the drawback helps keep the cost down of the powerful ability that is flying.

Taking away the ability for fliers to make ranged combat attacks has only a minimal effect on the game. Add in the fact that more ground based figures have Stealth than fliers, and then the effect of this rule change on the fliers is lessened even more.

Ground based figures would be effected more by this change, and in my opinion this would mean that Flying should be recosted.

WarlordEarnan

[TheSpirit]

Geez, are you even reading what you're posting? Originally posted by Earnan
Ground based figures would be effected more by this change, and in my opinion this would mean that Flying should be recosted.
This suggestion would affect grounded figures more, so you want to increase the cost of flying figures. Does that make sense in your world? Really? (and that's not to say I accept your assertion it would affect grounded figures more; I'll just save that argument for later).

I still don't get why you think weakening fliers makes them stronger. But that's not even my perspective in this discussion. I think all ranged figures are too powerful for their cost in comparison with non-ranged figures. I don't think Bullseye should be able to take out an adjacent Vulture with two shots, yet take five to kill a thug. That's asinine, and you've yet to try explaining why it isn't.

[TychesCoin]

Norman,

I also have not been trying make fun of you. To be honest I have completely lost track of which side of the discussion I was originally on or even was trying to argue in my last post. I have found most of the discussion very interesting and to a surprising degree thought provoking.

However, if you're referring to the interview with the game designer posted on this website, I didn't get the impression that he said they didn't account for all the taxis being used. I thought he implied that he was unhappy with the way they were used and that it was not how the game should be played. This does not mean they didn't cost it properly or test the rule alot. It just means their test conditions varied from the real world game conditions. They tested the rules under a particular play style. The gaming public has found a different one that seems to work better. Maybe this style needs different rules, maybe not. MAybe wizkids can steer the game back to the original vision by creating a character base that supports their play style as well as the new one. That would certainly create alot of game variety.

Also I think your percentages might be misleading. Sure a small percentage of the characters available are fliers or have RCE, but what about the percentage of those that see heavy usage. Take a 300 point game, how many figures do you play? I usually see suggestions for 5-8. How many of those are gona be fliers? atleast 1, I'd probably expect atleast 2. That would push the number of affected characters up to 25%. Could easily be much higher. Then there are RCE characters to consider, probably not as common as fliers but I think they turn in teams a bit more than 13% of the time. The fact that there are so many discussions about Firelord and Bullseye show that this class of character is a more important part of the game than the simple percentages dictate.

Also if current strategies and figure usage would hardly change, whats the point of making a rule change? If this is a problem then its being abused any change should remove the benefits to playing in an abusive manner and encourage an increase in strategies and character diversity.

Just to hit on another point, alot of abilities have drawbacks or restrictions to keep the cost down. Besides flight and battlefury, there's mind control. How much more expensive is mc if you can control 100+ point figures with no draw backs? Or energy explosion and pulsewave if they don't affect friendly figures? RCE/CCE without the restriction that they can't be used with other powers? not quite the same thing as an added vulnerability, but there is evidence that choices were made to add limitations to help balance cost.

EDIT:
Just wanted to add that I really didn't intend to sound abrupt but thats how it kinda reads to me. I'm not even sure your proposed rule change would be a bad idea and it even suggested an idea for a house rule I'm gonna test out sometime. Not exactly your proposed change, but addresses some of the same issues. Its posted in another thread somewhere if you're interested

[norman]

Earnan, I wasn't blaming you, there were a few people earlier that had nothing more then call me a newb and walk off and it p'd me off a little.

The reason I started this was to debate it because like everything in life there are pros and cons. I just thought the cons of this change were minimal enough, but I needed opinions. Your one of the few that have back up your arguments well, so I was never getting mad at you for disagreeing, I'm just stubborn sometimes that’s why I haven’t given up hehe.

[norman]

TychesCoin, I know you weren't making fun of me either. Your one of the other contributers to this thread making valid points and I respect that. You've also presented the problem as clearly as I've seen it originally before you went to the dark side of the force. :D

And you are right when my percentages don't show the fact that RCE and flying probably show up on almost every team fielded (I would say roughly 80% have a flyer, probably much more but that's being conservative and about 50% have RCE, maybe a little high but maybe not).

And the reason I suggest this solution even though it will affect very little in the game is for those 17 characters that have RCE and flying. It won't change how they are used but it will change how someone defends against it. All this ruling would do is to reduce the effectiveness of the current tournement pieces and strengthens many non-tournament pieces and potential make them tournament worthey pieces. The more tournament worthey peices there are means that the game is very well balanced.

[TychesCoin]

I wouldn't say I've gone to the dark side of the force, norman. I'm just completely lost. Glad atleast some of my posts have come across clearly,as I think I've managed to thoroughly confuse myself since then and have been talking in circles alot.

Anyway, I hope wizkids gives your suggestion careful consideration whether I think its a good idea or not (someday I'll figure that out). More importantly I hope they give you good response whether they do anything about it or not so we can all get a little more insight into what they're thinking.

Besides the RCE thing isn't really my favorite issue. If I do launch a crusade it will be over the taxiing situation. But I keep hoping the new sets will make it irrelevant.

[corn]

Ok, the hole hovering/ranged combat when adjacent ruling came after playtesting. The figures done when the ruling was made (not just IC) were costed for the way Norman suggests. So saying any costs need to be recalculated is not correct. As the rules stand now, figures should be recalculated. It doesn't matter who gets improved and who gets hurt by this change. The fact is arguing that the figures don't have point values to reflect this proposed rule change is false.

[norman]

I know the designer didn't actually say that but I was reading in between the lines. I'm a programmer and I have to do my own testing and I know that no matter how much I test something I will never be able to manipulate it as well as the final user and I think that's the case here. Wizkids can't have forseen everything that happens to their games once the mass public has their hands on it and they shouldn't be expected too.

I think their approach to any problems so far is just with future figures and expansions which may work but we'll have to see. Magic the Gathering made it's changes through rotating potential problems out of the tournament seen and I know wizkids doesn't want to do this but I think they need to do something and restricting doesn't sound like an option either (which I commend them but may be a lot more difficult as time passes by). Which is where I present my solution, which I feel takes care of a problem without altering too much of the game.

Now that's the real debate, to which degree this would alter the game. I feel it's minor and I'm not alone but many don't.

[onew0rd]

I think the real problem that has been mentioned here and a dozen other threads is that B2B units are inferior to ranged units. Until this is addressed, we will see issue after issue regardng ranged characters, Flying, taxis, etc.

[Dexceus]

It's been asserted by several people in this thread that all of the abilities of fliers were taken into account by the designers when the cost of flying was implemented. This is the logic behind the assertion that changing those abilities will make them need to be recosted.

I think the words of the designers themselves put this to rest. The lead designer has said that the use of taxis, as has devolped by the players, is NOT what they had in mind when they wrote the rules. With that fact in the open, how can you say that they are costed correctly, when the designers have stated that these uses were not forseen?

The designers have said that they forsaw the carrying rules to let people move into conbat quickly, not to move into combat, back out, back in, ect, ect.

As for making figures like Vulture more powerful because they can then easily tie up peices. Well, if you read the play tips for Vulture, you see that is EXACTLY what the designers had in mind for figures like Vulture.

It seems to me odd that a thug can more easily tie someone like Bullseye up more easly then someone like Vulture. Vulture is basicly a Thug that flies and is costed higher for that ability. So why should he be LESS effective in doing something then a lower costed figure?

Saying that the costs as they are, take into account everything is odd, considering that the designers have said that they didn't forsee this use.

Personaly I think this one tweak of the rule, with one other one (making figures breakaway when adjecent, whether they are being pulled away by a flier or not) will be enough to take care of the minmal problems that are in the game today.

[Earnan]

Cool, norman, glad we're all good. I'm just as stubborn though... :)

Spirit-This may be the last time I address you. You have yet to make a point of your own, you have merely questioned my arguments. Now, you are just getting snippy, and not contributing anything.

Maybe I am not able to express my points clearly enough for you. I think that my points make sense. Other people seem to think so (I even have a convert, now that I seem to be DarthEarnan :) ) I'm unsure how much more energy I should spend trying to spell this out to you. If you would like, after this post, list all your questions and I will address them one by one. But I'm not going to sit here and be mocked by you for putting my voice out there.

My point is that this rule would be better for Fying characters than ground based characters. I have not once said that this change would make fliers weaker. You seem to believe that, and you want my posts to say that, but that is not my point.

Our difference is in how we view the loss of the ability of the Flying character to MAKE the ranged combat attack. I've said, several times now, that losing that ability will in fact not be a huge loss for a flying character. Yes, it would be a loss, but that loss would not be as large as the gain of not being able to be targeted by a ranged combat attack.

But that's not even my perspective in this discussion. I think all ranged figures are too powerful for their cost in comparison with non-ranged figures.

Well, I'm sorry, but that is not the discussion at hand here. This has not been a close combat vs. ranged combat argument. I'm not even going to get into that.

WarlordEarnan

[TheSpirit]

Earnan:

Yet to make a point of my own? Really? Well, I went back through my posts, and lo and behold! Points! Made! By me! And Answers! Lacking! From you!

Sorry for the snippish tone (I was going for snarky, really), but you were continually responding to me specifically in your posts without responding to what I was saying.

My first post:
“Well, considering that the flying/ranged figures are more powerful than WK intended, a minor change like this would actually be righting a wrong. When you've got the new lead designer of the game disliking taxiing and believing it's not in the spirit of the game, then some small rule change like this that would reduce the power of flyers/range somewhat while still permitting the mobility needed for a dynamic game might be beneficial. Everyone seems fixated on Firelord (well, not so much lately), but one major fault of the game is the weakness of grounded brawlers. A team of non-flying, non-ranged figs stands little chance against a team of just Hobgoblin and Vulture. And that's pretty pathetic no matter what way you look at it. Grounded figures have no advantage over ranged or flying.”

As I said... Points. Like the designer believing taxiing (hence, flying) is too powerful, and non-range figures being too weak. That’s my contribution to the discussion.

Your first post:
“Here's why I think your ruling doesn't work. It weakens ground based RCEers too much. By instituting your rule, you now make any flier with Toughness (E Doombot) able to utterly shut down Bullseye. “

My response:
“As for Bullseye, Kang etc, becoming useless when based by a flier with Toughness... why shouldn't they? “

And again:
“ But you haven't explained why Bullseye *should* take less than 5 turns to kill Vulture. Vulture's a flying thug. Once he's adjacent to Bullseye, he should act just like a thug does. Why should a thug get an advantage over a super villain, even one as useless as Vulture?”

You continued to ignore this line of argument. Another post:
“In order to counter those benefits {of flying}, they {fliers}are slightly more vulnerable. “

My response:
“ And this is another bit of creative thinking. A flier "pays" for an ability, then needs it to be "offset" to reduce their advantage. So what exactly are they paying for? If the advantages and disadvantages of a power balance out equally, then why the higher cost to have that power? Again, Vulture's a flying thug. He pays a higher cost than thug in order to be better. He doesn't pay a higher cost to be weaker. “

Your response:
“I am not implying that all powers should have drawbacks. I am saying that in this case, the drawback helps keep the cost down of the powerful ability that is flying. “
And:
“I've said, several times now, that losing that ability will in fact not be a huge loss for a flying character. Yes, it would be a loss, but that loss would not be as large as the gain of not being able to be targeted by a ranged combat attack. “

Technically, you only said this once before. And you’ve never explained it once. Why isn’t the ability to attack with range while adjacent equal to the ability to be targetted by range while adjacent? Please explain this.

You, once again:
“I have not once said that this change would make fliers weaker.”

See, this is part of the problem here. I’m saying this change will make fliers weaker (as well as all ranged combattants). You’re saying it makes them stronger. You’re the one saying fliers should be costed higher if this rule was implemented, and I’m saying leave their cost alone. At least I understand what side of the argument I’m on.

You end by saying this discussion isn’t about ranged/non-ranged. Well, that was the key point I raised early in this discussion, well before you joined it. You see, a rule change has to be examined in totality, to see how it affects all parts of the game. That’s what I was doing - looking at its effects on grounded, non-range figures. This change would affect the dynamic between ranged and non-ranged figures, and is therefore quite pertinent to the discussion.

Can you see now why I may have adopted a snarky tone? You continually say you’re responding to my points, but then you ignore them completely in your answers. You haven’t answered any of the key questions I’ve asked, yet you’ve acted like you have. That’s aggravating.

Now, can we try again? You say you’ll answer specific questions, and most of the above is rhetorical. Here are the key points:

1) Why should a thug get an advantage over a super villain, even one as useless as Vulture?
2) Why isn’t the ability to attack with range while adjacent equal to the ability to be targetted by range while adjacent?
3) Why shouldn’t fliers be weakened somewhat, when the lead game designer himself has stated he thinks they are more powerful than originally intended?

(I'm not trying to be a problem here. We both obviously care quite a bit about this game. And you care enough to defend the status quo, which I respect. But in order for you to properly defend it, you have to understand how I'm attacking it. Don't take anything here personally - it's not personal.)

[CoyoteShaman]

Why is it (and this may have already been discussed a page or two back...) that a soaring figure can't make a ranged comabat attack? Doesn't that sort of go against physics (much less the value of being on a rooftop in HC...)

I think the 1/2 range rule would be fair for soaring figures, but making them targetable but not able to return fire has never seemed fair...

just my 2 cents.

[TychesCoin]

CoyoteShaman,

Its a balance issue. If soaring characters could target grounded figures while soaring it would completely eliminate the usefulness of alot of characters. Specifically the grounded close combat figures. To win most players would take only ranged fliers, remains soaring and attack other fliers/ranged characters first. Any grounded close combat character would pretty much be ignored until it was all that was left. It can't take the battle to the fliers and would end up being slaughtered. Soaring characters have the option to drop to hovering to engage grounded ranged figures so aren't completely helpless.

[CoyoteShaman]

"Nuff said"
-Stan Lee

[Earnan]

Spirit-I'm doing my best to not take this personally. I now understand that all of my arguments may not have been as clear as I intended... one of those things. All the info is in MY head, why isn't in in yours? :)

However, I just want to say this. If you don't want someone to take things personally, don't put personal attacks in the posts. Believe me, there are days I just want to tear peoples heads off on here for being idiots. I do my best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and treat them fairly, and the way I would choose to be treated. If I have to, I go back and reread my writing before I hit post and edit out anything that could be misconstrued as an attack.

One problem with your argument is that part of it is based on the idea the JonL feels that taxiing is too powerful. What he actually said was this:

[Jon Leithusser] I think it's lame (as you can probably tell from my comments above). Sure, it's perfectly valid in terms of the rules, but the intent of the rule was to make it easy to get characters into combat faster, not as a cheesy way to move in and out of battle. No one fights like that in the comics. Personally, I'd like to see it go away entirely just to avoid those tactics. Practically speaking, I may do something about it, but I haven't decided what or when. Whatever happens, it'll be playtested first, then released, then everyone can complain about how it crippled the game.

This does not read as him saying that taxiing is too powerful to me at least. It really just sounds like someone who is upset with the way people are playing his game :) I've felt the same way as a Judge before. I've had players come in with teams that are no fun for anyone to play. I don't like it, but it's valid within the rules. I've had players rules lawyer for wins against very new, very nice players. I have to uphold the rules, no matter how much I think the kid is being a jerk. I know it's not the same, but it's the closest I can get to explaining it from my experiences, what with me not being a game designer and all...

To address the specific questions:
1) Why should a thug get an advantage over a super villain, even one as useless as Vulture?
2) Why isn’t the ability to attack with range while adjacent equal to the ability to be targetted by range while adjacent?
3) Why shouldn’t fliers be weakened somewhat, when the lead game designer himself has stated he thinks they are more powerful than originally intended?

1) Why should a thug get an advantage over a super villain, even one as useless as Vulture?

Vulture already has a number of advantages over a Thug. He can taxi, soar, ignore terrain and change elevations. In my opinion, if this change came to pass, then there would be no reason to play a Thug anymore. Not that there really was before, but this would supercede what the Thug could offer. At least he could tie up Bullseye for more than 2 turns. I guess I just feel that every peice should have some degree of playability and this ruling, which would make fliers safer, would take away some of the usefulness of non-fliers. I don't want to get to a point that being a flyer makes or breaks a figure. As I see it now, grounded and flying figures have equal usefulness. Yes, flyers can taxi. But, they are more vulnerable in order to make up for this advantage. I don't see anything wrong with making a character more vulnerable when they allow you to break a fundamental rule of the game, that being moving one character with one action.

2) Why isn’t the ability to attack with range while adjacent equal to the ability to be targetted by range while adjacent?

This is relatively easy to explain, I hope. First of all, there are not as many flyers as grounded figures. (Now is as good a time as any to point out I don't play DC, so I only know Mravel characters. Bad Judge. *slap*) Then, a number of flyers don't have ranged attacks, or if they do they have them with Incapacitate, and that can be used in close combat as well, and is usually more advantageous to do so. Additionally, grounded figures in general have a number of anti-ranged defensive powers, not the least of which being Stealth. An adjacent flyer would need to use close combat anyway. (I know I mentioned in another post it's not a good idea to bring in other powers, what I meant was powers from figures outside of the hypothetical Doombot/Bullseye fight, specifically Outwit. A lot of things could be done with Outwit, arguments along those lines are not going to go anywhere.) This adds up, in my mind, to flyers being largely unnaffected on an offensive level by this change. This also makes the ability to make a ranged combat attack by a flyer a negligible bonus. Yes, it is an advantage, but not a particularly large one.

Whereas ground based ranged combat guys need to keep this ability, in my mind. In particular, now that there are a number of RCEers with 0 damage. If a flyer can be targetted by a ranged combat attack, then they are finally getting a drawback for all the bonuses. Taking away this drawback makes flying an all-win situation. What I fear is that, over time, if this change takes effect, ground-based figures will eventually become useless, much like 95% of the figures in MK have become useless since they don't have 14' range, or a huge attack, or couple other things that the game has evolved to covet.

3) Why shouldn’t fliers be weakened somewhat, when the lead game designer himself has stated he thinks they are more powerful than originally intended?

I already addressed this earlier in the post. I feel that he is saying they are being used in a manner that was not intended. I don't feel that they are necessarily more powerful than intended. And, as I've explained, this change would, in my opinion only make the flyers more powerful.

I think this covers the bulk of it... er, rather... I'm tired of typing. :)

WarlordEarnan

oh, yeah, the reason I was singling you out, Spirit, was that you were the only one really contributing anything useful for a while, at least after I 'converted TychesCoin.' I didn't intend anything personal, I just didn't want people thinking I was talking about them and giving more lame, unthoughtout reasoning. Hope this helps clear things up.

[heroclixguru]

Let's change all the rules, I'll start it off.

Here's my top ten.

1.) If you get knocked off the map, they are KO and you have to destroy your figure.

2.) If you role critical miss all your characters take a click of damage.

3.) If you bring Firelord or get him in a sealed booster you automatically get banned from the venue.

4.) If I mind control your character I get to keep it for the game and then I get to keep it afterwards.

5.) If the majority of the players vote that the judge's ruling is bad, you get to split his collection for yourselves.

6.) Anyone who knows the rules are automatically disbanned from tournaments.

7.) Anyone who one wins all their matches has to donate their prize to the biggest whiner their.

8.) Fellowship goes to person who whines the most.

9.) Telekensis allows you to move KO figures back onto the map.

10.) Taxis and anyone with support can only be used when you have the Sentinal.


:D - I want to work for wizkids now, do you think I'll be able to? Keep those suggestions going.....

[TychesCoin]

If this convert talk keeps up, I'll just have to disagree with Earnan to assert my independence. But as it is 've completely lost whatever points I originally set out to make. So instead I'd just like to thank theSpirit and Earnan for making their's and add a few comments.

First I agree with Earnan that the designer's comments imply more of an belief that the way the game is played simply isn't as fun as it could be rather than an implication of imbalance. However, I don't think we should discount the fact that enhancing the enjoyability of the game is just a valid reason as imbalance to make a rule change. In fact one solution (not the best probably) to the problem could be to artificially overcost the taxi ability to penalize players who depend to heavily on taxi's. Which would imply that currently taxis are undercosted and theSpirit is right. I don't think a balanced game is necessarily a single spot in the points continuum. There are most likely several ways of costing some abilities that are all playable and balanced while tweaking the ways and extent to which they are used.

Secondly I think the vulture/thug comparison is interesting but not of much importance. Both can affect the outcome of a game, but ultimately I think their uses are too different. Vulture is first and foremost a taxi, thug is moving terrain. I think a better comparison would include two characters with similar uses whose primary difference is that one flies and the other does not.

finally heroclixguru, really not sure what the point of your post was, but assuming it was in someway intended to humorous. As such, in an effort to be difficult I'll take it seriously and say I think your rules would drastically change the way the game is played and thoroughly unbalance things. So in conclusion I find unlikely wizkids will be knocking on your door with a job offer. Keep trying though.

EDIT: for spelling. I'm sure I'm still missing some. but i got the ones that were bothering me.

[heroclixguru]

Aww shucks I needed the job man....

Gee I thought those rules were great, just as valid as yours. I am totally serious.

You just got to laugh at this thread... I din't make it a joke, it is one already... let it die.... for the love of god let it die.....

[TychesCoin]

Because I have nothing better to do, I'll respond to heroclixguru. Personally I've enjoyed this thread alot. Probably spent too much time reading and responding to it for my own good. (If anybody thinks the posts I've made are a little verbose, you should have seen some of the ones I didn't cause my computer ate them.) I'll actually be a little disappointed when this thread lapse into its inevitable obscurity.

I really don't understand how this thread can be considered a joke. Just because it doesn't interest you or the majority of the board doesn't make it irrelevant. I think its been a pretty lively thread, most of the major contributors have been active from near the start and are still arguing their points. We may reach the point where we're just arguing in circles or all in agreement (heheh) at which point we'll get bored and abandon the thread. and it will die as you feel it should. But I promise your suggestions that the thread has outlived its usefulness are not going to hasten the event.

Course I also post this a little paranoid that everyone will decide out of a sense of irony to let this be the final post in the thread. Oh well.

[TheSpirit]

Don't worry, Tyches... there's still a lively debate going on here. Others may not appreciate it, but then again, nobody's forcing them to read it, either.In my opinion, if this change came to pass, then there would be no reason to play a Thug anymore. Well, that and the 9 point difference in value. See, you can take almost three R Thugs or one R Vulture. That's their value - they're cheap, and they still block LoF. If I had 18 points left on a team, I could choose to be more mobile and add a cheap flier, or more defensive and add a lot of (semi-)mobile blockers. Their low cost *is* their value - they can be squeezed into almost any team. 15 points can sometimes be better spent upgrading another unit, but 6 points...First of all, there are not as many flyers as grounded figures... Then, a number of flyers don't have ranged attacks... Additionally, grounded figures in general have a number of anti-ranged defensive powers...So you're basing your argument on the figures in existence? Now I see why you think we should wait for more sets to decide. I'm basing my argument on the rules alone. To hope future sets will "correct" game imbalances isn't a smart idea, as I said before, because each set will just be correcting imbalances in the previous one. There will be a constant need for WK to overpower old figures with new ones, instead of maintaining a solid balance.I feel that he is saying they are being used in a manner that was not intended. I don't feel that they are necessarily more powerful than intended.And I feel the opposite. As he said, the designers expected players would use taxiing to move quickly into combat and little else, and costed flying on that alone. They didn't foresee all the extra uses people would have for flying, hence it's more powerful than they intended. If something is more useful than expected, it becomes more desireable and therefore is more valuable. That's why I'm pretty confident in asserting that fliers are more powerful than the designers intended.Whereas ground based ranged combat guys need to keep this ability, in my mind.Thanks for reminding me - this was my implied but forgotten fourth question. Why? Why should Bullseye - or any figure who can only do 1 base damage - be stronger adjacent to a flyer? He's had his chance to do his 1+RCE damage at 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 range. Why does he need to do it at 1 range as well?
If you want the worst extreme, compare V Firelord with V Juggernaut. Firelord has the advantage of speed, Juggernaut in defense, and their attack and damage (with RCE taken into account) are a wash. Firelord can attack from any range every attack. Juggernaut can attack from range with Superstrength, but only if he's holding an object. Juggernaut can't be taxied (battle fury), whereas Firelord can both be taxied and taxi someone else. So why is Juggernaut 50% more expensive? Beats me. Didn't JonL say he thought Firelord was maybe 10 points undercosted? Taking away his ability to do an extra 2 up close would close that gap for me.
I hate to even mention Firelord, because he just seems to inflame people. I don't care for him one way or the other. My problem is with ranged combattants still being effective at point blank range. That's the scourge this change would help eradicate.

Oh, and to heroclixguru...
"6.) Anyone who knows the rules are automatically disbanned from tournaments."
You realize "disbanned" means the opposite of "banned", don't you?

"8.) Fellowship goes to person who whines the most."
And may I be the first to present you with a Fellowship. Congradulations!

[TychesCoin]

Glad to hear it TheSpirit.

Here's a few comments on your post. I still think yours and Earnan's comparison of Vulture and Thugs is irrelevant. Vulture's primary ability comes from his taxi ability. His blocking/tie up capabilities are always gonna be secondary. Yes he becomes more useful under the proposed rule structure since he's a slightly more effective tie up piece. But if he makes the team instead of a thug (or three) its because of his taxi ability. I think any enhancement of his tie up ability is negligible. For pure tie up ability I think there are already better options out there for about the price of three thugs: R Black Cat, R Quicksilver.

As far as Earnan using the fact that there are more non-flyers than flyers, I think thats a pretty safe trend thats going to continue. Course I also think the percentages of fliers increase as you consider higher and higher tier characters. And those are the character who should be feared by all. so i really don't know what my point is.

I also agree with Earnan that the designer said that flight isn't used as envisioned not undercosted. I don't think overuse necessarily means the ability is more valuable that its cost. There is no reasonable way to restrict where people are taxiied to, there are a few to restrict where they are taxiied from, but ultimately the cost of flight is independent of source and destination. To combat, from combat, to a medic, whatever, the purpose shouldn't effect the cost. If the cost were increased (or the character's weakened and the costs kept the same) would how flight is used really change that much. I don't think so. It might lessen the dependence on fliers to some degree which wouldn't be bad, but I think the ones that were used wouldn't change that much. And I think a complete change in the way flight is used is what the designers want.

As far as the Juggernaut/Firelord difference I think the point difference comes from the defense. I think there's a huge numerical difference in the defense and invulnerability tends to run up anybody's cost quite abit. Also there is the other end of RCE rule to consider, Juggernaut can shut down ground based RCE, firelord can't. That also contributes to the point difference. In a flierless game, he can dominate and is well worth the huge cost. Its only because of fliers that he starts to fall down on the job. But I don't think its because of the RCE issue so much as the taxi. If I could lock firelord in a standing battle and duke it out I'd be real happy with juggernaut. Its because I can't lock firelord down because he gets taxied away that juggernaut can't handle him as well as he should.

[TheSpirit]

Originally posted by TychesCoin
I also agree with Earnan that the designer said that flight isn't used as envisioned not undercosted. I don't think overuse necessarily means the ability is more valuable that its cost. So something that's more versatile isn't more valuable to you? So a car, for example, that the designers never envisioned would be used around water, yet could float and cross lakes, isn't more valuable than one that is limited to dry land? When you increase versatility, you increase value. I don't understand how you could argue otherwise.

As far as the Juggernaut/Firelord difference I think the point difference comes from the defense. I think there's a huge numerical difference in the defense and invulnerability tends to run up anybody's cost quite a bit.
In comparing the actual numbers, Firelord has a base point advantage of +26 in speed and +5 in attack, while Juggernaut has a +36 in defence and +8 in damage (could be considered a draw, but ADV: Juggernaut). They both have the same number of clicks. Juggernaut has 5 clicks of superstrength, while Firelord has an 8 range throughout his dial (ADV: Firelord). Juggernaut has 8 INV and 3 Tough, while Firelord has 5 BAR and 2 ESD (ADV: Juggernaut, but closer than it looks). Firelord has 5 EE and 3 PW, while Juggernaut has... nothing (ADV: Firelord). Firelord has 6 RCE, which takes Juggernaut's +8 damage advantage and turns it into +4 for Firelord (ADV: Firelord). Firelord can both taxi and be taxied; Juggernaut can never taxi, and can only be taxied for his last 3 clicks (ADV: Firelord). Juggernaut costs 146 points; Firelord 97 (ADV: Firelord). Yes, Juggernaut's defense is formidable, but it hardly compensates for all the disadvantages the character has in comparison with Firelord, let alone account for the cost difference.

[TychesCoin]

I'm not disputing that increased versatility indicates increased value. However, I don't believe the game designer was saying they didn't realize how versatile the power was. Once you grant the taxi ability, its pretty easy to envision characters moving around the game board, in and out of combat. Thats what taxi was costed for, the ability to carry another character regardless of destination or purpose. I simply think the designers had too much faith in the idea that heroclix was a "fun" game first and a competitive one second. They thought they were making a game for comic book fans (obsessive collectors that we are) to enact our fantasy battles and such. They assumed to some degree the attraction of having Hulk and Juggernaut slug it out while spiderman dodges and webs hobgoblin and vulture would outweigh the complete desire to win. They thought we'd build the teams we wanted to see in the comics and use the rules and strategy to try to win the fight. Instead the desire to win leads us to build teams that take advantage of the rules as best they can and play mercilessly. Faith was probably a little misplaced, but I could easily make the same mistake. We all know how careful comic book fans can be while guarding the continuity and integrity of "their" characters. We've all seem the complaints (I've made some) that the game doesn't really reflect comicbook battles. Wizkids simpy thought we'd play the game to reflect the comicbooks rather than playing to win at the cost of "realism".

So I don't really think its issue of taxis cost vs usability. I think its almost entirely a play style issue.

As far as Juggernaut v Firelord, I think you may be underestimating the expense/importance of invulnerability and toughness. They are a huge deal in a one on one fight with Firelord, but more importantly in a team situation where invulnerability could render juggernaut practically immune (barring outwit) to a large percentage of the opposing team. I think invulnerability drastically increases the effectiveness of juggernauts +36 in defense. I think it could easily make up most of the points differential. I think super strength maybe the one thing that really lets juggernaut down mostly because its not always easy to use. An object enhanced attack can be a fight breaker, but you've got to be able to grab an object.

[norman]

Well I'm still around and I started all this fun :D

I still stand by my belief that this rule change will not have a major negative impact on the game. The negative implications of this ruling, such as grounded RCE not being able do maximum damage to hovering characters when in base contact and therefore allowing hovering characters to tie up grounded RCE, would be delt with using current strategies (who doesn't use bullseye with a taxi anyways?). Unless a RCE has something like running shot for mobility or some other usefullness he is going to be paired up with a taxi, this will not change.

The issue wizkids has with Taxi's running all over the place isn't what takes the fun out of the game, even if they don't like it. The only reason this was brought up was to prove the fact Wizkids hasn't foreseen all issues when developing their point system, and there is even the case where they change RCE in the first place without changing their point system.

The issue is that RCE and flying has virtually no weakness while their grounded cousins are not so lucky. To say that the flying RCE are kept in check by grounded RCE, to me at least, is garbage (because of the limitations on grounded RCE). The only other weakness for flying RCE is stealth but that in it's self has limitations. If wizkids inteaded flying RCE experts to be this strong they obviously don't reflect this in their current point value system, at least that is my opinion.

This change would weaken RCE but not to the point that it wouldn't still be one of the most usefull powers in the game, but it would be used in a way I believe wizkids intended it to be which is to be used at a range. Yes it would weaken RCE figures and strengthen none because the usefullness of all the other figures goes up a tiny bit but I believe that RCE isn't priced as high as maybe it could or should be. This change may actually balance out the current point system instead of changing everything as some believe it might.

[TychesCoin]

I'm beginning to agree with the rule change will not have a major negative impact on the game. However I also begin to wonder if it will even have enough of an impact to be worthwhile making. As you point out RCE characters are generally paired up with taxis and thats true of whether they fly or not. I think the only thing the proposed rule change might change is that peope are a little more careful with where the flying RCE's are taxied to. Maybe I'm wrong.

Secondly I have to disagree that taxiing all over the place isn't what makes the game less fun. Ultimately that is what kills alot of the close combat characters. If they just can't close, they can't kill. And with a taxi range can run and shoot at the same time.

I don't think anyone intended to say that grounded RCE could keep flying RCE in check. Its more that grounded RCE provides a possible counter to flying in general. Grounded RCE v flying RCE is an even fight (assuming like stats/powers/etc). But the current rule allows Bullseye to be an effective tie up piece for Thanos (as much as anyone is an effective tie up piece for Thanos). Sure without the rule, Bullseye could still keep Thanos pinned down (heheh) and force him to break away or kill Bullseye. But the current rule makes Bullseye a better choice for this duty than quicksilver. Bullseye has the potential to hurt Thanos, quicksilver doesn't. Bullseye actually has a reason to get in a "close combat" situation, which might also have been part of the idea. If bullseye has a reason to stick around rather than running away all the time. if this rule is changed I think it will be even more difficult to pin down the RCE figures in close combat whether they fly or not.

If firelord finds himself and his taxi based by juggernaut, but can use RCE against him he's less likely to try breaking away. You'll have a chance to pull in more characters and beat him up in close combat. If he can't use RCE both he and his taxi will try breaking away to escape and remain at range.

Kinda a different perspective, but the current rule allows flying character to act as lures for groundbased RCE to get them in close combat situations, and grounded figures can be used to lure flying RCE. If they can both trap someone and still get max damage it might be tempting to move to close combat or remain there.

[norman]

Originally posted by TychesCoin
I'm beginning to agree with the rule change will not have a major negative impact on the game. However I also begin to wonder if it will even have enough of an impact to be worthwhile making. As you point out RCE characters are generally paired up with taxis and thats true of whether they fly or not. I think the only thing the proposed rule change might change is that peope are a little more careful with where the flying RCE's are taxied to. Maybe I'm wrong.

That's the point. Firelord and other characters with RCE would just have to be a little more careful but that's just strategy and we wouldn't want to remove that from the game. The only difference with this ruling is now you can tie him up without worry about receiving his maximum damage. Characters with plasticity may become more useful (especially if you can tie up the taxi as well with the same character). These characters really don't lose their efficiency, they just lose their ability to always do max damage (basically like having CCE and RCE just because you have flying). So now someone could tie up firelord with an invuln character and then take out his taxi forcing him to do HtH (note an invuln character still takes a point of damage) . But that's all strategy and a good player will find a way around the rules, but at least this will give an option against such characters.

[norman]

As for a grounded RCE being able to tie up a flyer isn't that big of an issue, at least I don't see it that way. Would you really put Bullseye or any other RCE in your team as a tie up piece? I know the situation might arise during combat and yes he would be less likely to run away but all someone else has to do is park a thug next to him and let his flyer bash bullseye's head in (basically I think it's too easy get around a grounded RCE limitations, especially compaired to a flying RCE).

Now the problem this does pose is that maybe an all flying team might now be reasonable since a flyer can now tie up a RCE. But still 90% of the game doesn't have RCE and are you really going to pass up abilities like outwit and probability control so that you can have extra taxi's/tie up pieces (well maybe not a strong argument on my behalf but what ya do?)?

Now there is an argument that now vulture is more powerful since he can tie up Cyclops, but the same argument could be said about thug because can now tie up DrStrange. You have to give a little to get a little and I just think this change doesn't give up too much to solve a major problem.

[Earnan]

Feh on not having DSL anymore.

Feh on a stupid 'field promotion' at work, with my boss getting pneumonia and I have to do his job now.

Feh on not having energy.

Bet ya thought I was gonna feh the argument, too? :)

We all have valid points. We aren't going to win anyone over to our sides. (Well, except me :) J/K TychesCoin :) ) We just have fundamental differences in how we value characters, rules, and stability of the game (how many more changes do we really need? :) )

I've made my points, you've listened. I hope whoever is looking into this at WK has listened. I'm not saying that to imply they should side with me, I just want them to see all the sides of the argument.

It's been fun, but we're just going to keep going in circles until one of us falls over dead from the exertion of typing these marathon posts.

I hope to see you guys in other discussions, this has been one of the most intelligent debates I've participated in, with little going 'off task' and debating to silly posts.

Thanks all, have a good one :)
WarlordEarnan

oh, and heroclixguru, if you don't find the thread interesting don't read it. Freedom of choice dude. But don't tell the participants in something they find interesting enough to continue with to "let it die." Not gonna win people over like that...

[TychesCoin]

The RCE tie up issue isn't a huge deal, but I think it is a factor. Under the current rules there exists the possibility that an RCE figure would want to do something other than continually fall back. Under your proposed rule, the RCE figure should always try to run away. No I wouldn't put Bullseye on a team as a tie up piece, but once he's on the team the potential to use him to tie up a flier is there. If I see vulture sitting alone in range of Bullseye's taxi, is there a good reason not to move bullseye adjacent to him, get a first shot and have vulture pinned down waiting for my next one? Yeah depending on how the rest of the team is situated therre could be some pretty good reasons and besides vulure isn't that big of threat to risk exposing Bullseye over.

I'm also think this may erode some of the differences between flying and grounded figures too much. As you point out the rule could make all flying teams more feasible. Currently, as you point out fliers are missing some of the key powers. That could change next set, or the one after. Sure the movement, soaring and taxi abilities do set fliers apart from grounded figures. But how differently does Firelord really play bullseye? His movements really good, but he's a bit of a dangerous weapon to use often as a taxi. Soaring anybody? I've mostly only used it as a last resort. MAybe more useful with charge/running shot/hypersonic speed I don't really have any experience with it. As far as just moving himself around, does a flier really move noticeably different than a leap/climb figure? The only real differences from a leap/climb figure is taxiing and the RCE issue. For the higher end characters, I don't even see taxiing being a big issue unless they have charge/running shot. I suppose that could change with the addition of cheap enhancement in the next set. But I think its more likely, the big flying guns are always gonna be taxied unless its a matter of desperation. So for alot of combat fliers the only major differences between having leap climb and flight and the RCE issue and the potential to have an additional power on movement instead of only leap climb. Whether the RCE difference is balanced or not, I think it definitely helps enhance the different feel of playing fliers and playing grounded figures.

The rule changes fom what is like a 90-95 % true statement: RCE characters must be at range to be fully effective, to an absolute. Not a huge deal unless people take it to extremes to avoid those new 5% situations. I think the rule change might cause even further taxi dependence possibly with an increase of double and triple taxiing (actions permitting). TK taxi A out, taxi shooter out with B, shoot, taxi shooter back with A. Very inefficient action use, but could be workable. Especially if a medic sits back with the TK to heal up the shot up taxis when they make it back. And if A and B can take some damage