NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8302960" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I’m not [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] , but my guess is her litmus test is something like:In order for something to be sufficiently tactically deep to call it “tactical”, the implications of the move-space/decision-points navigated needs to be layered with each layer having significant and diverse consequences and synergies to be leveraged or avoided.So, it’s not good enough to have a discrete “Shove” action. Forced Movement needs to  interact with and be integrated with other layers of system for it to be possessed of sufficient tactical depth to be considered “tactical.” Otherwise it’s bordering on mere color (even if its just north of that). For instance, If I do this Forced Movement move will it:* Trigger a rider (condition or damage or narrow the move space and/or shut down a synergy for Team Monster) due to terrain interaction or new configuration of battlefield position.* Will that condition/new configuration of the battlefield open up the movespace for Team PC or amplify their synergy?* Will it chain a secondary effect/opening for the PC in question or open up a sequence of moves.* Will it impose a Catch 22 on Team Monster…maybe force another member to spend action economy inefficiently or to make a move that damages the structurally integrity of Team Monster’s position (eg someone has to move and spend bad action economy to help the guy who was Force Moved, and that movement exposes the formerly well-protected protected Artillery/Leader/Controller).* Does that move let Team PC be more efficient (eg, they can save Daily X for a subsequent conflict).That kind of thing. I guess the modern saying is:“There are levels to this.”</blockquote>

Verification