Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Helm
Simple, elegant... that's what I'm talking about.
I'm not so sure about the "must" take a turn though. I mean, every aspect of a turn is voluntary anyway. You say I must take a turn so I say, "OK, in my turn, I chose not to move and not to attack. Now my turn is over so let me remove a wound marker and roll again for a 16." My point is, "must" take a turn doesn't really matter from "may" take a turn unless he has a another power that must be used each turn. As it stands, there's no reason not to take the extra turn but I hope you see what I mean.
Great start and keep them coming.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmBatman
I agree with Mr. Helm on the may/must issue. I like the ideas here a lot. I think if I were doing this for C3G I'd want to see the Blood Frenzy move lowered and I'd probably have an idea for a third power to add on.  But I really do like how the powers her encapsulate the character well. Good stuff. |
A good point. What if I added this to "Bloodlust":
Quote:
BLOODLUST
If there is at least one wound marker on this army card, Sabretooth may not attempt to leave engagement with an enemy figure and must attack a figure he is engaged with on his turn.
|
Since you're never 'engaged with' your own figures, you don't have to worry about friendly fire. I might consider changing 'engaged with' to 'adjacent to'...
Including "must" in the frenzy with this version of Bloodlust means that if Creed is wounded, you have to attack on your turn. Seems to fit the theme and address your point. What do you think?