[WGP...] Supervillian teams, plus a question

[Hans]

Hi all:

I guess I'm the new buyer, so I will be the one asking questions.

* Supervillain teams:  I can see different ways to work this.  1) Each villain is its own sheet with its own plan.  2) There is one sheet, say with "Syndicate of Evil" as its "name", and each villain is listed as a separate asset (probably power).  3) There is one sheet, but only one Power Asset and any other aspects that are appropriate.  4) some combination of the above; some villains have their own sheets and plans, others are combined.

Which, if any, of these ways have people used?  Any comments on which might be best or worst by situation?

* page 55 of the pdf indicates you should "feel free to add more" villain aspects than the base two.  Under what circumstances is this a good or a bad thing?  Mechanically it seems close to being neutral; you can get more cards without increasing Suffering too much, but you get fewer cards since your Suffering levels on your aspects will be lower.  In actual play, how important is it to have simple vs. detailed villain aspects?

* In this OLD post it seems to suggest that you can retroactively cancel a ranking card in a conflict.  In my copy of the rules, I can't find this; in fact it specifically says in the cancellation section that you cancel the card your opponent JUST played (pg 44 of the PDF).  Is this just an artifact of an update from an older edition?  Or am I missing something?

* on page 46 of the pdf, it states that you can assess an Aspect from no suffering to Primed.  However, on page 32 it seems to indicate you can only assess Primed aspects.  On page 20 it states that an aspect can be Primed in either enrichment or conflict scenes.  Page 40 says you cannot make use of any aspects that have not been Primed in the first panel.  I suspect that I am being confused by USE vs. DESCRIBE; "use" means move the marker and draw/discard cards, "describe" means create some fiction that illustrates the aspect.  Putting all that together, I get:
- I cannot DESCRIBE an aspect in the story until it has been primed
- I can USE an Unprimed aspect in a conflict scene, but only via assessment to Prime it.  After Priming it, I can then continue to USE and DESCRIBE it for the remainder of the game.
Does that sound right?  If I assess a strife aspect, I get 1 card, right (because of the +1 for strife)?  Finally, I don't think there is any way to prime an aspect as a consequence of victory in a conflict, because by definition an aspect that is unprimed at the end of the scene was not involved in the scene.  Right?

[Hans]

I just noted that in several places in these threads you have noted that the ranking card is cancelled with a cancellation.  This answers my third point...I retract it.  However, the example in this thread gives me thoughts:

*   In the first panel, the GM plays a King of Spades. Several style changes later, the King of Spades is still the ranking Spade on the page, but the current ranking card is the 10 of Hearts. Can the player play a King of Spades on the 6th panel (with a wild card for the suit change, of course)? If so, does this count as a cancel? What does that mean--does the just-played action get cancelled (even thought it was a 10 of Hearts), or do we retroactively cancel the action associated with the original King of Spades?

Yes, it counts as a cancel. Steal a card from the GM's hand.
I play it that the just-played action gets cancelled. Retroactive Continuity is nobody's friend. It's too much work for too little reward. Keep conflicts immediate

Based on this example, here is another example, with possible courses of action.  Please tell me if I have it right.

* I play 5 of hearts, in my first panel.  You play six of hearts as the response.  Then we switch to other suits and play in those for a while.  Now I have a Ace of Hearts and a wild card in my hand.  I have two choices: 1) play my wild as a six of hearts, and my Ace of Hearts.  The Ace gets discarded, but the wild as six of hearts cancels your card and lets me steal one from you.   Ranking card is my six of hearts.  Physically, per the tip on page 45 of the pdf, I take your six of hearts out of your first panel and replace it with my face down wild card, and then put that six of hearts into my 5th panel, or wherever it is that I am doing the switch.  2) Play my wild as, say, a three of hearts.  The wild gets discarded as a three of hearts.  I don't get to steal, but I rule in hearts with my Ace. 

Fictionally, both are "yes, but..", but the first choice is also a "no".  Which should take precendence, the "yes" or "no"?

[WildElf]

* Supervillain teams:  I can see different ways to work this.  1) Each villain is its own sheet with its own plan.  2) There is one sheet, say with "Syndicate of Evil" as its "name", and each villain is listed as a separate asset (probably power).  3) There is one sheet, but only one Power Asset and any other aspects that are appropriate.  4) some combination of the above; some villains have their own sheets and plans, others are combined.

Which, if any, of these ways have people used?  Any comments on which might be best or worst by situation?

Any and all of the above. First things first. When filling out your rogue's gallery, do you want to make a Syndicate of Evil? That's certainly an option. I don't see a problem with putting in teams of Supervillains in there. You might even have members of Syndicate of Evil, like Doctor Malevolent and Polly Acid as separate members in the Rogue's Gallery as well. Maybe on their own they are National and Personal respectively, but the Syndicate has Global influence. The only thing I would add is that you probably want a key figure as the leader, to give it a face and personality for the players to focus their anomosity.

The key thing to keep in mind is that you need a piece of the plan to address every Strife Aspect, which means for each player. So what works best for a particular story can only be answered after the players have set up their characters and their strife.

So maybe you'r eplaying with 3 players, and with the wicked plan you are formulating doesn't sound right for only one or two or three villains.  And any more than that is took many. So you pull out the Syndicate of Evil sheet and tie it all together. So they're really fighting against the Syndicate and its plan, even though they might end up fighting several villains who are executing the plan.

Then next time you play you have 6 players. So maybe you still want to use the Syndicate of Evil, but you feel like bringing in 6 separate villains and have each one targetting a different PC. The villains are working toward a common goal for the Synidcate of Evil, but the Syndicate itself is part of the background color.

- I cannot DESCRIBE an aspect in the story until it has been primed
- I can USE an Unprimed aspect in a conflict scene, but only via assessment to Prime it.  After Priming it, I can then continue to USE and DESCRIBE it for the remainder of the game.

That sounds right to me.

* page 55 of the pdf indicates you should "feel free to add more" villain aspects than the base two.  Under what circumstances is this a good or a bad thing?  Mechanically it seems close to being neutral; you can get more cards without increasing Suffering too much, but you get fewer cards since your Suffering levels on your aspects will be lower.  In actual play, how important is it to have simple vs. detailed villain aspects?

"Whatever feels right for the fiction" is my answer. It's just like players. They must start with three, but can describe more if they feel necessary. If you want to add more depth or variety to your villain, add more aspects. If two is enough complexity for you to keep things interesting or you can't think of anything else, then stick with two. As a villain returns again and again, you'll probably find that you want more aspects and that they come easily to you.

Fictionally, both are "yes, but..", but the first choice is also a "no".  Which should take precendence, the "yes" or "no"?

No, fictionally the first is a "no" and the second a "yes, but". There's no conflict here, although mechanically there's an illusion of a quantum state that you might be seeing. Just because you are using the old ranking card to display what your Wild Card is doesn't mean that you've won ranking. It's still a cancellation. So in your first example, you don't have two different options happening at the same time.

[Michael S. Miller]

Based on this example, here is another example, with possible courses of action.  Please tell me if I have it right.

* I play 5 of hearts, in my first panel.  You play six of hearts as the response.  Then we switch to other suits and play in those for a while.  Now I have a Ace of Hearts and a wild card in my hand.  I have two choices: 1) play my wild as a six of hearts, and my Ace of Hearts.  The Ace gets discarded, but the wild as six of hearts cancels your card and lets me steal one from you.   Ranking card is my six of hearts.  Physically, per the tip on page 45 of the pdf, I take your six of hearts out of your first panel and replace it with my face down wild card, and then put that six of hearts into my 5th panel, or wherever it is that I am doing the switch.  2) Play my wild as, say, a three of hearts.  The wild gets discarded as a three of hearts.  I don't get to steal, but I rule in hearts with my Ace. 

Fictionally, both are "yes, but..", but the first choice is also a "no".  Which should take precendence, the "yes" or "no"?

The first option still ought to be played as a "no" insofar as you've canceled the player's card. If you want to get fancy, you can pencil how the new style of conflict (because of suit change) has allowed you to disregard the effectiveness of the previous action.

However, the second example is incorrect. If you play the wild as a three, then the ace gets discarded, because it's higher than a three. Wilds are only wild until you define them, then they're just a card of that value. The second example works perfectly if you play the wild as an ace, though.