Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion

[Lamaclown]

OK, sorry it took so long but here is my question...

If Nilfy or another large or huge figure is on top of a castle wall, the Gatekeeper is able to see them from 2 spaces away. Does deft assault enable them to be placed on gtop of the castle wall?

I just want to make sure I fully understand tghe ability.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Lamaclown

OK, sorry it took so long but here is my question...

If Nilfy or another large or huge figure is on top of a castle wall, the Gatekeeper is able to see them from 2 spaces away. Does deft assault enable them to be placed on gtop of the castle wall?

I just want to make sure I fully understand tghe ability.

The card says yes. It's a teleport, not a lunge.

[Lamaclown]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

The card says yes. It's a teleport, not a lunge.

You read my mind. That is what I needed to know.
Being teleport it makes sense.

I vote YES to review the Gatekeepers.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Lamaclown

You read my mind. That is what I needed to know.
Being teleport it makes sense.

I vote YES to review the Gatekeepers.

I had that exact question for darkmage7a in the discussion thread he made for these guys. It's some sort of magic thing he has in mind. It was harder for me to wrap my brain around when they had, in an earlier draft, a range of 2.

[1Mmirg]

Well, I'll be the grumpy judge. This does look like a fun unit, but between the repeated sculpt (not a game ender, but not a winner, either) and a power that goes up infinite heights, but only a couple of spaces away, well, I'm not so sure about them.

A name for the power that suggests teleporting would help. A height limit would help a lot. I can teleport to the farthest side of Nilf 20-30 spaces up, but not over the a unit 3 hexes away from me.

I vote NO to reviewing the Gatekeepers. (They are close, very close, but I'm not quite ready for them.)

[Killometer]

Darkmage7a's Gatekeepers have recieved 4 YES votes to review (Dad_Scaper, Killometer, Lamaclown, ZBeeblebrox) and move on to being reviewed.

[Arrow Grut]

I find the Gate Keepers' name to be ironic, as they seem more like assians with their deft assualt. But irony of the name in no way takes away from the awesomeness of the unit. Thanks Darkmage.

[Darkmage7a]

Originally Posted by Arrow Grut

I find the Gate Keepers' name to be ironic, as they seem more like assians.

Really? I thought their abilities seemed more akin to catching the escapee. Bonding with the Drow Chainfighter to drag the prisoner back. On the other hand they do have that nifty teleport ability which I would imagine opens a gate of some type. Oh we'll.

[Killometer]

As soon as I started to play Unukk by Gamebear I saw that there is a problem with him. Savage Frenzy gives no indication whether or not it provokes Leaving Engaement Strikes. My immediate assumption was that since it doesn't say that it doesn't, it does (confusing? sorry), but Taelord sets a clear precedent for intentional omissions of this sort. Because of this potential for confusion, I have to vote NO to induct him.

[GameBear]

Thank you, Killometer, for taking the time to consider Unukk.

To clarify: yes, Unukk does take leaving engagement attacks.

[Dad_Scaper]

My on this one narrow issue of the precedent of the Taelord card.

Taelord has flying, which already says Taelord can "fly over figures without becoming engaged," or some such language. Which is why he doesn't take engagement swipes when flying, even when beginning to fly.

So I don't think Taelord is actually precedent.

Unukk, warts and all, lurches on in the process, Gamebear.

[dok]

Taelord was the subject of an errata as well, so it's clear (at least to me) that the intention was for anything that avoids disengagement strikes to spell that out explicitly.

D_S, that was a mean trick you played on me by posting here.