Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

Oh I'm definitely not pushing it. In fact, I just put away the figures and cards (b&W printed paper ones :)) away from Test 1 and chose and army for Test 2 and brought out those figures and cards. So one step down and test as I can, a round or two at a time and then the big finish. :D


I may have only burned his BM once or twice max for WO even before the change. That BM is way more important to me than a life or two, but if he had whiffed vs. a 3 skull attack and gotten 3 wounds early, he had no choice but to burn BM's for WO if the situation warranted it.

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

When it comes to double attacks or activations, when you want to limit it to just one additional time, the official precedent is to spell that out. Also, "use this power once during" seems very awkward. I realize that you and I both usually don't worry about wording until much later on, but these were just a couple of things I noticed, so I figured I would go ahead and fix them up for you as best as I could. Oh, and when you re-reference the figure that is frenzying at the end of the power, like the Aubrien Archers, you say their name again, not just say "him". And when you reference a single wound and a single marker, it should be done the same way instead of using "a" and "one", either or is fine when looking at many official precedents (though I prefer "a" as "one" blends in too much with the "one additional turn" directly after it), but it should be used consistently in the same power at least.

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

:thumbsup:

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

I actually worded the power very carefully, Griff. :-)

My version:
Overextend Attack from Alastair MacDirk (my basis and the clear precedent for this power):
Your version:
Now if we want to depart from official precedent because we like how yours reads better, I'm fine with that. I've definitely grown to the point where I don't think we absolutely have to word everything exactly the same as official stuff as long as our wording is clear, concise, and reads in a way that doesn't sound "customy" to our trained ears.
That said, I figured you'd want to know where my thinking came on this one before we as a group decided where to go on this.

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

I think if there is an official wording for a power that we aren't requiring to modify then we use it. By modifying, I don't mean just adding another clause like in this case, so I think staying with the official wording here is the best choice.

Cheers

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

That McDirk card is old, and it has several very old precedents that are no longer used. Everything that I suggested was based on more commonly used precedents, but it isn't that big of a deal to me, I just wanted to help.

Bats, if you want to know what common precedents I used, I could tell you, but if you don't care it is no big deal to me either. As long as the reader knows what we are saying, we are fine. I am much less concerned about "official wording" these days, but I am willing to work towards that goal if "we" agree that is what we prefer.

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

What he said.

Re: Green Lantern: Guy Gardner - Design Phase
 

I just figured since the powers were essentially the same exact thing beyond the Battery Marker inclusion, that the power would be less confusing to those familiar with Valhallascape if we kept the current wording (and so no reason to really reinvent the wheel).
That said, like I said, I'm not totally in love with official wording here, so if people like the other wording better I'm cool with that too.
I just wanted you guys to know that what's in the first post wasn't something I pulled from my heiny or anything.

Re: GL: Guy Gardner - Design (initial playtest in progress)
 

I'm fine either way for the wording.


I added the mid-level and squad tests to the test sheet (need it linked to first post please :D). Those tests were done before change to defense of 2. I have finished both army tests with the changed defense and will write those up either tonight or tomorrow morning.

Re: GL: Guy Gardner - Design (initial playtest in progress)
 

I managed to get Army Test 1 added to test sheet during lunch. :D

I also just added Army Test 2 results to test sheet during some FO time :D

My test sheet is complete Mr. Bats.

Re: GL: Guy Gardner - Design (initial playtest in progress)
 

So do you have the day off, or do you have a Heroscape table in your office at work? ;)

Re: GL: Guy Gardner - Design (initial playtest in progress)
 

Sorry for not being more proactive on the link, Hahma! And thanks for all the playtesting. :-) I'll circle back here once I'm more caught up and read your results, rep you if I can, and propose this one for the ERB phase if I don't see anything amiss.