So happy to see Hank Pym enter the game as an ally in his Ant Man identity.

As one of the original founding Avengers and a character that until recently had his whole identity really baked into Avengers history, I'm very glad to see him.

I am hoping that down the line we slowly see his other identies as well

Giant Man, Goliath, Yellow jacket (my favourite) and Dr. Pym.

Yellowjacket could be aggression

Dr Pym, protection or basic

Giant Man maybe justice.

Lots of options to bring in his other identies in time.

Yes, this first avenger it's one of my favorite characters too.

I would have preferred Hank as Ant Man over Scott, but i don't design the characters.

Remember when Hank took on the wasp name after Jan's death? I think it's my favorite Hank Pym uniform.

He teamed up with O'Grady under the title of 'Ant-Man and the Wasp', only this time he was the Wasp. What happened to O'grady's Ant Man? Suddenly we went back to Scott and I lost sight of him (since they made the movie).

But the best version of Hank i have ever seen, has been when he join the West Coast Avengers, his powers changed and he no longer needed the pym particles. He can shrink anything with his bare hands. He had divorced Jan and was going through a depression. Tigra prevented him from committing suicide. They were very complex human stories told in a way that even a child could understand. It was like they finally treated you like an adult.

Hank has always been a complex character from a psychological point of view. Various identities, depressions, anger management issues ... I think that's why Disney is trying to trade him for Scott and relegate him to the background just before making him disappear. They try to turn it into something more politically correct (let's remember that Hank beat his wife) and simpler for the new generations.

It's a shame, he was a very interesting character.

4 minutes ago, aeixea said:

Yes, this first avenger it's one of my favorite characters too.

I would have preferred Hank as Ant Man over Scott, but i don't design the characters.

Remember when Hank took on the wasp name after Jan's death? I think it's my favorite Hank Pym uniform.

He teamed up with O'Grady under the title of 'Ant-Man and the Wasp', only this time he was the Wasp. What happened to O'grady's Ant Man? Suddenly we went back to Scott and I lost sight of him (since they made the movie).

But the best version of Hank i have ever seen, has been when he join the West Coast Avengers, his powers changed and he no longer needed the pym particles. He can shrink anything with his bare hands. He had divorced Jan and was going through a depression. Tigra prevented him from committing suicide. They were very complex human stories told in a way that even a child could understand. It was like they finally treated you like an adult.

Hank has always been a complex character from a psychological point of view. Various identities, depressions, anger management issues ... I think that's why Disney is trying to trade him for Scott and relegate him to the background just before making him disappear. They try to turn it into something more politically correct (let's remember that Hank beat his wife) and simpler for the new generations.

It's a shame, he was a very interesting character.

They pretty clearly identified that he was an unstable and dangerous person in the movies, the distinction being they attributed his instability to a side effect of long term exposure to Pym Particles.

I believe O’Grady died during Secret Avengers... I may have misremembered that though...

I do understand the movie decisions and love the Paul Rudd character and performances.

Michael Douglas is also great as Pym himself.

As I said already, I am just glad he's now in the game and hopefully they will look at his other identities as well in time.

Put me in for a Pym fan, would have preferred him over Scott for sure. He's a great character because he's screwed up but still chooses to be a hero, and it's pretty sad to sideline him over 'unfortunate implications' kind of stuff. But then a lot Marvel's writers have clearly found it easier to just go back to the well on him and make domestic abuse his primary defining characteristic.

Just looking through the rules though...Would there be anything to prevent you running multiple copies of the same person with different titles?

Obviously they could add something, but so far it seems like uniqueness only applies to the main title (e.g. Ant-Man), and not the subtitle (e.g. Hank Pym). So does the game currently not have anything to handle characters that have gone my multiple names? Seems like this is something they should have worked out at the start, considering there's plenty of characters who've had multiple titles.

14 minutes ago, Abyss said:

Put me in for a Pym fan, would have preferred him over Scott for sure. He's a great character because he's screwed up but still chooses to be a hero, and it's pretty sad to sideline him over 'unfortunate implications' kind of stuff. But then a lot Marvel's writers have clearly found it easier to just go back to the well on him and make domestic abuse his primary defining characteristic.

Just looking through the rules though...Would there be anything to prevent you running multiple copies of the same person with different titles?

Obviously they could add something, but so far it seems like uniqueness only applies to the main title (e.g. Ant-Man), and not the subtitle (e.g. Hank Pym). So does the game currently not have anything to handle characters that have gone my multiple names? Seems like this is something they should have worked out at the start, considering there's plenty of characters who've had multiple titles.

It’s not shocking that the Ant Man character is Scott Lang. It would have been surprising to me if they had made him the main Ant Man, since Hank Pym stopped using the Identity in the 60’s and Scott has been Ant Man since the 70’s...

3 hours ago, FearLord said:

It’s not shocking that the Ant Man character is Scott Lang. It would have been surprising to me if they had made him the main Ant Man, since Hank Pym stopped using the Identity in the 60’s and Scott has been Ant Man since the 70’s...

Yes Scott has had the Ant Man title for an awful long time now.

He's a very distinct character from. Pym. Hank was Yellow jacket I think the longest and this is how I really remember him.

On 8/26/2020 at 2:54 PM, Derrault said:

They pretty clearly identified that he was an unstable and dangerous person in the movies, the distinction being they attributed his instability to a side effect of long term exposure to Pym Particles.

The truth is that in the movies I did not understand it that way, I will have to see them again. Thanks for the tip!

:-)

On 8/26/2020 at 4:32 PM, FearLord said:

I believe O’Grady died during Secret Avengers... I may have misremembered that though...

The truth is that I did not read Secret Avengers. I didn't know, I'll look into it. Thanks for the comment

:-)

On 8/27/2020 at 9:40 AM, Abyss said:

Put me in for a Pym fan, would have preferred him over Scott for sure. He's a great character because he's screwed up but still chooses to be a hero, and it's pretty sad to sideline him over 'unfortunate implications' kind of stuff. But then a lot Marvel's writers have clearly found it easier to just go back to the well on him and make domestic abuse his primary defining characteristic.

Just looking through the rules though...Would there be anything to prevent you running multiple copies of the same person with different titles?

Obviously they could add something, but so far it seems like uniqueness only applies to the main title (e.g. Ant-Man), and not the subtitle (e.g. Hank Pym). So does the game currently not have anything to handle characters that have gone my multiple names? Seems like this is something they should have worked out at the start, considering there's plenty of characters who've had multiple titles.

Are you saying that we could play at the same time Ronin (Clint Barton), Hawkeye (Clint Barton) and Goliath (Clint Barton) even though they are actually the same person?

Well, I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. The rules only refer to the title of the letter.

On 8/27/2020 at 1:18 PM, Humantorch101 said:

Yes Scott has had the Ant Man title for an awful long time now.

He's a very distinct character from. Pym. Hank was Yellow jacket I think the longest and this is how I really remember him.

I did not mean to dispute Scott's authority to be Ant-Man, he has been for years (since the 70s? So many?). I just prefer Hank. Matter of taste, I guess.
Hank happened to be the hero Yellow Jacket (albeit with a curious demeanor), but in the movies this character is the villain and it is not about Hank. I think that will make it difficult for us to see him become a Hero Pack (hopefully).
Speaking of which, if they were going to use Yellow Jacket as a villain, shouldn't they have used their niece Rita? The Yellow Jacket who was part of the Masters of Evil in the assault on the mansion and who would later join the Guardians of the Galaxy in the thirtieth century?

If we talk about giant cards as a mechanic created for Ant Man and the Wasp (it did not exist before in other hero packs); now that we will have giant heroes, what do you think of having giant villains?

Galactus
Fing Fang Fum
Groot (the original monster that inspired the Guardian of the Galaxy)
Growing man
Living Monolith
Super Adaptoid
Ego

Imagine a campaign where you take on the Mole Man with two types of minions, the normal-sized topoids and the giant monsters that inhabit his subterranean domains.
Perhaps another against Bolivar Trask and his giant sentinels, accompanied by other life-size nanotechnological sentinel models (Bastion comes to mind).

mmm ... now that I think about it, maybe they wouldn't leave much space on the table to play ...

What is your opinion?

1 hour ago, aeixea said:

If we talk about giant cards as a mechanic created for Ant Man and the Wasp (it did not exist before in other hero packs); now that we will have giant heroes, what do you think of having giant villains?

Galactus
Fing Fang Fum
Groot (the original monster that inspired the Guardian of the Galaxy)
Growing man
Living Monolith
Super Adaptoid
Ego

Imagine a campaign where you take on the Mole Man with two types of minions, the normal-sized topoids and the giant monsters that inhabit his subterranean domains.
Perhaps another against Bolivar Trask and his giant sentinels, accompanied by other life-size nanotechnological sentinel models (Bastion comes to mind).

mmm ... now that I think about it, maybe they wouldn't leave much space on the table to play ...

What is your opinion?

I highly doubt they'd make giant minions. They still have to be in the deck, and I'm pretty sure that the giant cards are made of a different material.

Although concerning giant villains, what would be the point? It's a nice way for an identity card to have three sides, but I feel like it would just be unnecessary for a villain with only one side.

Galactus would have be giant, end of story. No need for him to be a triple changer, but giant please.

Seriously though, that would be cool.

Just as a matter of common sense, it would follow that the alter ego is what needs to be followed regarding multiple characters at any one time.

For example we are getting two different Hawkeye identities very soon and two different ant men.

However if they bring out a Ronin or Goliath ally which is Clint Barton, they would not be allowed in play if Clint is already in play as a hero or an ally.

Is this correct?

Allows us then to have different Caps in the future then but if Nomad is made into an ally it would still be Steve Rodgers.

4 hours ago, Humantorch101 said:

Just as a matter of common sense, it would follow that the alter ego is what needs to be followed regarding multiple characters at any one time.

For example we are getting two different Hawkeye identities very soon and two different ant men.

However if they bring out a Ronin or Goliath ally which is Clint Barton, they would not be allowed in play if Clint is already in play as a hero or an ally.

Is this correct?

Allows us then to have different Caps in the future then but if Nomad is made into an ally it would still be Steve Rodgers.

The thing is, rules wise I'm not sure you couldn't at the moment. The rules specifically call out multiple people with the same identity, but I couldn't see anything about the same person with multiple identities. Basically the rules check uniqueness against the Title (Hawkeye) and then the sub title (Clint Barton or Kate Bishop). I don't think there's anything about just checking uniqueness against the sub title.

But yeah, if it actually ever happens I'd expect to see a rules change to go with it. Just seems a little odd that they didn't have anything in there from the start (again, unless I've just missed it).

@Venompuppy Since when did we need cards to be in the encounter deck to be used? You seem to forget that a heroes nemesis don’t start in the deck and get brought into play by card effect. It wouldn’t be a problem at all to have Trask, MasterMold or Bastion to call in giant minion Sentinels set aside during a game.

And a character can be played as long as it doesn’t share both a name and a title. So Clint Barton/Hawkeye & Kate Bishop & Clint Barton/Ronin could all be in play at the same time since none of them would share both name or title.

4 hours ago, Hyperjayman said:

@Venompuppy Since when did we need cards to be in the encounter deck to be used? You seem to forget that a heroes nemesis don’t start in the deck and get brought into play by card effect. It wouldn’t be a problem at all to have Trask, MasterMold or Bastion to call in giant minion Sentinels set aside during a game.

And a character can be played as long as it doesn’t share both a name and a title. So Clint Barton/Hawkeye & Kate Bishop & Clint Barton/Ronin could all be in play at the same time since none of them would share both name or title.

But what's the point of giant minions? It's good to have a couple of giant hero's, but it's fun, AND useful. These would just be giant, with the only benefit being giant, is being giant.

7 hours ago, Hyperjayman said:

And a character can be played as long as it doesn’t share both a name and a title. So Clint Barton/Hawkeye & Kate Bishop & Clint Barton/Ronin could all be in play at the same time since none of them would share both name or title.

I don’t think this will be the case when we actually get two allies that test this. In the rules reference under unique it specifically states that there can be more than one Captain America, but only one Steve Rogers.

They list the three cases that allow for like named unique characters, it’s unfortunate that they didn’t blatantly state, “You can’t have two Clint Bartons.”

16 minutes ago, KimJoshIl said:

I don’t think this will be the case when we actually get two allies that test this. In the rules reference under unique it specifically states that there can be more than one Captain America, but only one Steve Rogers.

They list the three cases that allow for like named unique characters, it’s unfortunate that they didn’t blatantly state, “You can’t have two Clint Bartons.”

Thats how I will be doing it in our group even if the rules don't state that at the moment.

It just makes thematic sense that only one unique alter ego name could be in play at any one time.

Ie one Clint Barton, one Steve Rogers etc.

However, thematically if Kang is involved as the scenario or an encounter set, as a house rule I would totally throw out the rules about unique allies and allow not only multiple unique alter egos but also unique allies at same time ie mockingbird and war machine and even heroes and allies such as spider man and iron man.

Kang is messing with the time stream in that play so heroes versions from. Different times can Co exist.

Thematically this is brilliant but only when Kang is involved lol.

1 hour ago, Humantorch101 said:

Thematically this is brilliant but only when Kang is involved lol.

Kang/time travel, alternate universe, clones, etc. - it's not like comic books don't have all kinds of tropes to create these shenanigans.

22 hours ago, Venompuppy said:

But what's the point of giant minions? It's good to have a couple of giant hero's, but it's fun, AND useful. These would just be giant, with the only benefit being giant, is being giant.

I think it gives more game. It allows you to have a minion with two states (like the heroes), until now the minions only had one state.

For example, a galactus card with ATK, THW and DEF statistics (on the other side the back). And on the third side (when card opens) a bigger and more powerful version of Galactus.

If Galactus is devouring the earth, when the plan reaches half of its maximum plan it changes to the giant form because it is more powerful (for that it is feeding) and when we reduce plan below half of its maximum plan, it is more weak and returns to its less powerful form.

We've never had two-faced villains, it's a new concept and you could do new things with it. You just have to do a little research.

What if the minion could revert to his alter-ego identity and the hero couldn't attack him in the meantime?

Molecule Man -> Owen Reese
Sidewinder -> Seth Voelker
Black Mamba -> Tanya Sealy
Hobgoblin -> Roderick Kingsley

Imagine a campaign with the serpent society where its members could advance the plan from their alter ego form without the hero being able to attack them.

I think it's an interesting mechanic that makes villains harder to beat.

I'm just wondering how useful you find it, if it seems unnecessary, if you think it would be boring or if you think that it is over-complicating things.

All opinions are good :-)

1 hour ago, aeixea said:

I think it gives more game. It allows you to have a minion with two states (like the heroes), until now the minions only had one state.

For example, a galactus card with ATK, THW and DEF statistics (on the other side the back). And on the third side (when card opens) a bigger and more powerful version of Galactus.

If Galactus is devouring the earth, when the plan reaches half of its maximum plan it changes to the giant form because it is more powerful (for that it is feeding) and when we reduce plan below half of its maximum plan, it is more weak and returns to its less powerful form.

We've never had two-faced villains, it's a new concept and you could do new things with it. You just have to do a little research.

What if the minion could revert to his alter-ego identity and the hero couldn't attack him in the meantime?

Molecule Man -> Owen Reese
Sidewinder -> Seth Voelker
Black Mamba -> Tanya Sealy
Hobgoblin -> Roderick Kingsley

Imagine a campaign with the serpent society where its members could advance the plan from their alter ego form without the hero being able to attack them.

I think it's an interesting mechanic that makes villains harder to beat.

I'm just wondering how useful you find it, if it seems unnecessary, if you think it would be boring or if you think that it is over-complicating things.

All opinions are good 🙂

Well we have had Norman Osborn/Green Goblin already.

Some villains do actually lend themselves to alter ego versions where you have different problems such as Kingpin/Wilton Fisk where he is a powerful businessman that you actually have to prove is the Kingpin of crime.

2 hours ago, aeixea said:

I think it gives more game. It allows you to have a minion with two states (like the heroes), until now the minions only had one state.

For example, a galactus card with ATK, THW and DEF statistics (on the other side the back). And on the third side (when card opens) a bigger and more powerful version of Galactus.

If Galactus is devouring the earth, when the plan reaches half of its maximum plan it changes to the giant form because it is more powerful (for that it is feeding) and when we reduce plan below half of its maximum plan, it is more weak and returns to its less powerful form.

We've never had two-faced villains, it's a new concept and you could do new things with it. You just have to do a little research.

What if the minion could revert to his alter-ego identity and the hero couldn't attack him in the meantime?

Molecule Man -> Owen Reese
Sidewinder -> Seth Voelker
Black Mamba -> Tanya Sealy
Hobgoblin -> Roderick Kingsley

Imagine a campaign with the serpent society where its members could advance the plan from their alter ego form without the hero being able to attack them.

I think it's an interesting mechanic that makes villains harder to beat.

I'm just wondering how useful you find it, if it seems unnecessary, if you think it would be boring or if you think that it is over-complicating things.

All opinions are good 🙂

No, I actually love that idea! I like adding new mechanics like that in games. I just didn't like the idea of having giant cards, just so they can be giant, if that makes any sense. Also, the fact that the minions would have to be outside of the encounter deck, which can be fixed.