And that's the very reason I'm posting these rules here, so everyone can take a look at the suggestions, figure out how they would affect game balance, and see if perhaps the revised version (which I generally always back up with the rules) might be better, more properly balanced.

With all my suggestions, do you know how many times someone has said, "I don't know what that will do to play balance. I'll play test your way with my friends this weekend and let you know if you're full of it"? Exactly 0. Do you know how often I've heard them say, "I *think* this will totally mess up the game"? Quite often. The former opinion I would value, because it's based upon something. The latter is just plain annoying. There are problems here, I'm offering *possible* solutions, and hoping the rest of you will test them out to see if they work. Is that really so wrong?

Well, that was in direct response to your supposition that I was making changes based upon my not liking cheap combos. Tit for tat, and all that.

It doesn't really matter what dreadstar meant. I'm under no obligation to fulfill anyone's wishes but my own. If WK wants to pay me for my efforts, then I'll rewrite the rules to their liking. I'm doing this for me, so they're to my liking. If you don't like that, you don't have to take part. I would value any contribution you (or anyone) was willing to make, but if all you're going to add is "I don't like it because it's not exactly as WizKids already has written", well then I'm afraid you probably shouldn't bother reading and responding any more. That's why I've clearly marked all threads with TheSpirit Rules and posted the disclaimer at the top of each. It's considered fair warning.

I think I will let you have that point on the tit for tat. That does seem fair. I was being harsh and unfair. Sorry. That really was uncalled for.

You said that this idea was given to you by dreadstar, and then you say it doesn't matter what he meant? You just contradicted your own reasoning. Shame on you.

I would also like to say, I am fine with the idea of playtesting these new rules and everything, I just have problems with the fact that you intend for these to go beyond house rules. This is WizKids game, not yours. You can change it for your fun, but I know that I don't approve. You also ignored the bit about how insulting this is to WizKids.

Did you really say you hope the rest of us will test these rules? I think, realistically, you should try to do that on a large scale. You could actually start a thread or two based on the play testing of these rules. That would be interesting to see. Since this is your project, it seems fair if you try to get things rolling on this and run it. Obviously, I don't like this whole thing, but I believe this would solve that problem of yours. Also, then you can rub it in people like mines face if it actually does work out and doesn't unbalance the game. Also, I think letting WizKids see this run out would be less of an insult and be insightful. That would be a superior way of getting across all of the stuff you want. I'm still against this, I'm just pointing out how I would solve that one problem of yours.

matthe, are you saying you want me to rewrite all the rules, then play out hundreds of games online to test them? How much free time do you think I have?

And I just don't get this idea of yours that these are WK's rules, and I'm somehow insulting them by suggesting changes. Players have been suggesting changes - and WK has responded by making changes - since this game began. They openly encourage house rules (and really, that's all these are unless WK decides to adopt them officially, which isn't likely).

As for dreadstar, how am I being contradictory? I wrote to him saying I would do as he asked on certain preconditions. One of them was being able to revise what I felt needed revision, in accordance with the rules. So no contradiction, my friend.

Listen, it's nice that you're so interested in this project, but rather than argue against it or against me, try out some of the rules modifications I'm suggesting instead, and see if they really would destroy the game. That's really the only problem I have... too many people telling me they don't like my ideas, and not enough telling me why my ideas didn't work out in practice.

Changing Barrier in this way means you can almost never surround a figure with a barrier. Unless you are looking down from the roof there's no way to get LOF on 4 sqaures surrounding an enemy figure. I realize that's not the only way to use barrier but it's one of the most comic book ways to do it. I like barrier the way it is with no LOF required. It's a solid power but it's bever been a gamebreaker.

If you really want LOF I'd require it to only 1 square of the barrier. I don't know why you care about keeping it all in the character's range either. Should an energy explosion stop because it went outside of a character's natural range?

How so? If you ignore figure bases when determining LoF with Barrier, you can totally surround a figure even if there's a wall of friendly and unfriendly units in front of you. Read it again. Erecting a barrier wall around a figure is completely legal in my rewrite.

That's a valid point. But the inconsistency crops up in the 0 range figures. Why can a figure with a 2+ range extend his barrier outside his natural range, while a 0 range figure must keep all barrier squares adjacent? One should change to maintain consistency. Giving 0 range figs the ability to put squares 2, 3, and 4 away from him is just as reasonable.

I'm pretty sure the balance you speak of is what Spirit is trying to restore/maintain. If you would have been involved in this discussoin from the beginning, I think you would know that he has an excellent understanding of the game and 'balances' therein.

Agree - no need to make such accusations without imperical evidence.

No - I'm pretty sure that TheSpirit understands what 'rewrite' means, and in order to clarify some of the language of the old rules, new rules are necessary.

New game, better game, same difference. Glad you don't mind.

I thought you didn't mind? Oh well so much for that. Well actually why shouldn't we be able to re-write and play by our own house rules? I thought WK even endorsed this? Is it pretentious to think the people who actually play the game can't do a better job of re-writing the rules, or is it more pretentious to think that a bunch of guys working on several different games and new role-outs are actually going to clean things up and make the game work right?

Yes they do and they have designed a very cool game with lots of loop-holes and they have no desire to clarify the language of the rules as written by the original designers. They just want to 'clarify' and put out an FAQ 10 pages long. So it's silly to think that we can do a better job? Please. Spirit - Carry on please.

Arguments aside, I think that the rewrite for barrier is a good one. I also agree with the earlier post about smoke cloud. It would make sense to allow a smoke cloud to be put up in figures square. It would make smoke cloud a lot beter. Imaging Robin slowing down a character with charge by enveloping them in a field of smoke.

I guess I missed this point before, or just glazed over it...

If a character has a 0 range, they could only surround themselves with the Barrier? That just seams off to me...I can see the first square would need to be adjacent to the originating figure, and then extend out from there.

Also, the way you have it worded, all pieced of a Barrier need to be adjacent to all other pieces of the Barrier, creating a 2x2 block of barrier. Maybe change the wording to: "All pieces of the Barrier must be adjacent to at least 1 other piece of the Barrier."

If this all has been addressed, I apologize....

I can't say I like what TheSpirit is doing with TheSpirit Rules. I was with him when it began, as a rewrite of the rules to make them clearer and more concise.

Sadly, it has turned into a rewrite of the rules to make them different. I was really hoping that TheSpirit Rules would help to make the current rules easier to understand and less in need of a huge FAQ.

Instead, they are simply an attempt to make the game the way TheSpirit wants it. That's cool and all, TheSpirit has some valid points on how the game could be improved. I just think his rewrites lose credibility when he moves from rewrite to remake.

WizKids might actually consider something like this if it didn't change the game; if it just changed the wording.

At any rate, have fun, TheSpirit. In the end, however, I think this project is doomed solely to becoming an extravagant set of house rules.

It was only a year ago that I started playing HeroClix with some guys I'd just met. We didn't know a thing about "Organized Play" or "Limited Edition Figures". The rules didn't cover everything, so we worked out the solutions ourselves. We had a lot of fun, too.

Once the licensing cycle ends, I'd like to think that I'll still be playing, even without fancy prizes. Right now, the only reason players tolerate the current rule situation is because of the prize support.

I'd really like a set of rules, and a reference card, that I could give to newbies with a clean conscience. The current rule situation is plain ol' NASTY. The beauty of the "combat dial" is supposed to be that you don't need to refer to a massive codex to be able to play. The current state of affairs is about as far from this paradigm as is possible.

I missed that. Actually that sounds pretty good as long as you ignore figure bases.


What's the point of a barrier that only wraps around the figure? If it's just as reasonable to let that figure extend the barrier outward then write it up that way. It also simplifies play more to only have to draw LOF and range to where the barrier begins. Just find a legal starting square and drop down the rest of the barrier rather than verify all 4 squares are legal targets.

Even if you re-write the rules the game is still bound by the wiz-kids set. It may help you to understand them better, but its not like you can go to a tourney and ask to play by spirit rules.

Slvrknght0, do you even have a clue what this is all about? This has NOTHING to do with tournament play, and NOTHING to do with WK.

Sorry if I sound a little snarky, but it's not like the purpose behind TheSpirit Rules hasn't been rather widely discussed here for weeks. Check out dreadstar's Open Letter to TheSpirit in the GD forum, and my own TheSpirit Rules: Introduction to get up to speed.

OK...NOW, KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for yelling, but this is getting ridiculous.

For the detractors of TheSpirit Rules, GET OVER IT.
RIGHT NOW. It's not necessary you use these rules, nor is it even recommended. You like 'em, fine. You don't, fine.
BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE, STOP POSTING RESPONSES THAT DO NOT ADD TO THE DISCUSSIONS.

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME.
These rules are meant to stick to the original spirit of the PAC and Rule Book. As such, TheSpirit has had to reinterpret certain FAQ rulings that in general make no sense. If you like playing by the FAQ, then do it. It's plain English, shouldn't be difficult. But the intent here is to close idiotic loopholes and bad ruling interpretations, which means changing rules. That should be obvious by now.

SO GET OVER IT.
YOU WASTE YOUR TIME AND MANY OTHERS REPEATING THE SAME BACKWARDS ARGUMENTS. YOU WANNA POST ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THIS ENTERPRISE, PLEASE KEEP IT TO THE SPIRIT RULES: INTRODUCTION.
This isn't the place for it. This is intended to debate the concepts being developed, not whether or not they're necessary. Again, if you DON'T LIKE THEM, DON'T BOTHER READING THEM OR USING THEM. We are not collectively attempting to usurp HC for our own; we're just MAKING HOUSE RULES that make sense. And guess what? A lot of people AGREE with the concepts. So please don't bother griping unless it's a gripe regarding the new phrasing of the rules WITH SOME THOUGHTFUL EVIDENCE to back up the gripe. Then you're contributing.

OTHERWISE, PLEASE STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM THESE THREADS, 'CAUSE THIS ISN'T THE PLACE FOR YOU. GO BACK TO YOUR TOURNAMENT RULES AND PLAYING---I GUESS IT WORKS FOR YOU. BUT NOT FOR US.

Sorry for yelling...this is just getting to me now.