The Pre-SoV Workshop

[caps]

I agree with Scytale.

If he bonds with Dragons (which I think I prefer on a thematic level and a mechanical level when it comes to Wyrm Rider) then he is an obvious add to Greenscale armies, which are already very good. Normally those armies have to sacrifice a turn with the dragon + greenscales in order to get a ranged attack. He definitely seems like an upgrade in that sense.

If he bonds with Wyrmlings, then he could be a very valuable addition to half-wyrmling armies, which are also very good.

There's not much to take away from that other than it will take some competitive testing. I am curious if @dok or @kevindola have any thoughts on this figure from a competitive point of view.

[TREX]

Greenscales with a figure like Nilfheim is a total of up to 6 attacks in one turn. Ive played against this kind of thing in tournaments enough to know it doesnt need boosted. In my opinion its a top tier army at 6 attacks in one turn. If there is a figure that bonds with a dragon there should be something limiting it to that figure and the dragon. Throwing my pennies in here because C3V/SOV is allowed at all the tournaments I attend.

[Dysole]

Not quite on the level of either of those two but it seems good. Range 7 attack 4 twice is really good and I get to use a dragon? That's going to be strong. Just make it a single attack. The figure is very solid and doesn't need an additional attack. It's fine in a wyrmling army as never turn down extra range, but it's not a significant upgrade like it is for greenscale builds.

~Dysole, who loves wyrmling armies

[caps]

Just so we're all clear, as worded now this new ranged attack would not be a 7th attack in that one turn. But it would mean that a turn using Sherman to make a ranged attack would still get to take a turn with Nilfheim, including his three attacks from Ice Shard Breath.

Nilfheim is the dragon I was most worried about, of course.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Just so we're all clear, as worded now this new ranged attack would not be a 7th attack in that one turn.

Thank you for clarifying this before the snowball gets any bigger. It may not be apparent what with the double-attack ponderings, but I have actually tried to choose wordings that avoid unwanted activation chaining.

Let's have a fresh image so everyone can see where the discussion has brought Sherman at this point:

[Dad_Scaper]

Should he have line of sight on targets for Dragon Guard? The way it reads right now, I think it's pretty clearly not restricted that way.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

I also think an attack of 4 is needlessly high. His base attack is 2; I think an SA of 3 there would serve the design better, and add some restraint to the power level. I do not think an adjustment in his price would be necessary.

Apologies if this has been covered already.

[Dysole]

The TBR and Mind Flayer precedents indicate that a SA needs to specify that it doesn't require clear line of sight although I would personally write the text as "Dragon Guard Special Attack may only be used on a figure within 5 spaces of a friendly Dragon."

~Dysole, thinking the attack is still a bit high, but the design is reasonable

[Dad_Scaper]

Ah. Thanks, dysole. That doesn't seem right to me, but precedent is precedent.

I know I don't like it with a ranged special attack of 4 dice. That feels less-than-restrained.

Overall I don't like this design very much. It's all bells and whistles, designed to fasten on to armies that don't need or want the help. But that's just my sense of it, and I (as always) thank JAB and all the other nominators who are willing to put their precious creations into this crucible.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by Dysole

The TBR and Mind Flayer precedents indicate that a SA needs to specify that it doesn't require clear line of sight

There are quite a few powers that say "within x spaces" without either specifying LoS/clear sight or explicitly saying that you don't have to have clear sight, including

• Chrono-Key
• Fey Step
• Fire and Rush Special Attack
• Mage Hand
• Reach
• Shadow Dance
• Shifting Sands
• Swamp Water Tunnel
• Temporal Jump
• Throw 14
• Underground Movement
• Water Tunnel

I've always taken those wordings literally (though I've questioned whether Fire and Rush is actually a typo), especially given the thematic nature of many of these effects. Shifting Sands is a particularly interesting example, because it uses both versions (with and without clear sight) in the same power, implying a clear gameplay difference between the two phrases.

SHIFTING SANDS
After moving and before attacking, choose two small or medium figures on land spaces within 4 clear sight spaces of Arashara Goshiri and within 4 spaces of each other. ...

I must confess I'm not certain I'm tracking 100% on the issue, though. Are you saying the powers listed above all require clear sight even though they don't say it? Or are you saying they all should be re-written like TBR/MFM? Or something else?

I thought TBR/MFM were written they way they are because, when an SA says "Range 3." there is already implicit in that all the rules of range/targeting/LoS. It would be redundant to say "choose a figure within 3 spaces," and in fact this wouldn't even override the fact that "Range 3." means "choose a figure within 3 spaces that has LoS." What those powers need is to subtract the LoS requirement from "Range 3.", so TBR and MFM (and Cxurg’gyath) simply do that explicitly. In fact, the only place I can find that wording template is on these three Special Attacks, which is good evidence for the conclusion that it's only there to subtract a requirement from the implict requirements of "Range x.", and not something that's required on every special power that ever wants to ignore clear sight or LoS.

(I hope I've presented that clearly.)

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Should he have line of sight on targets for Dragon Guard?

Unless I misunderstand something, he already needs LoS on the target because this is implicit in every Special Attack that starts out "Range 4." (unless the text then overrides that, of course). I welcome corrections if I'm wrong about this, but that's what I see when I look at the texts as a whole.

Now relatedly, at some point I think somebody was asking whether Sherman should require clear sight on the dragon. I don't mind adding that, but if it's not actually necessary then it would be nice not to have to add the complexity. I guess if that's needed, then I would assume we'd be wanting to tack on something like

You can only use Dragon Guard Special Attack if a friendly Dragon is within 5 spaces of the targeted figure and that Dragon is also within clear sight of Sherman.

(Personally I'm not liking the added complexity.)

Originally Posted by Dysole

thinking the attack is still a bit high, but the design is reasonable

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I also think an attack of 4 is needlessly high. His base attack is 2; I think an SA of 3 there would serve the design better, and add some restraint to the power level.

If the SA were only 3, would this then make Sherman a unit that's really for big dragons and not so much for Wyrmlings? On average, I'm thinking it might generally be better to activate another Red Wyrm instead of Sherman. Although the range is shorter, the Red's SA doesn't have additional restrictions, and if the target is a common squaddie then the reduction in defense dice is statistically even better than adding another attack die. And, if the Red is adjacent with height, it has 4 instead of 3.

In other words, I set Sherman's SA at 4 so as to overcome the additional difficulties of using the power. It's not a trivial thing to give the opponent the ability to shut off Dragon Guard SA by moving a space or two away from the nearest enemy Dragon. If it were going to drop to 3, I would feel like it should no longer be a Special Attack, so he then had the opportunity for height bonus again.

[Just_a_Bill]

Hmm, I wish I had looked for updates before submitting my really long post. Anyway...

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It's all bells and whistles, designed to fasten on to armies that don't need or want the help.

(Maybe I should have started this sub-discussion earlier in the process...)

I realize that the big dragons probably don't need any of this, but regarding Wyrmlings and Wyverns, there seem to be differing opinions on whether it would or would not be good for the canon to have some new build types with those units. If the consensus really is "none of this is needed or even wanted," then I should just go back off the grid and continue working Sherman toward my thematic goals, rather than wasting everyone's time trying to tune it for an audience that isn't particularly interested.

No worries (either direction is fine), but it would make sense to be sure I'm reading the room correctly. Sometimes I forget that the VC community — generally speaking — values theme differently than I do, and Sherman may belong in my "just for fun" pile.

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

If the SA were only 3, would this then make Sherman a unit that's really for big dragons and not so much for Wyrmlings?

Personally, I think that designing Sherman in such a way that he's viable in both Wyrmling and big Dragon builds would be extremely difficult. Both armies are pretty radically different, so different things would work for one but not the other. It's akin to designing a unit that's meant to work well with both Blade Gruts and Arrow Gruts--they're too very different armies, despite sharing the same race and themes. What works for the Wyrmlings (a better ranged Special Attack, for example) can't work with Nilfheim.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that this is part of the problem here. Narrowing the focus for this design would help a lot, I think, whether you go for focusing on the Wyrmlings or the big dragons. Personally, I think that the Wyrmlings would benefit more from the expanded design space, but either way, I think that designing explicitly for both won't be possible.

[Kinseth]

The ability to Kite with the Dragon moving the Rider along with how powerful of attacks Nilf and many of the dragons have is just too strong. This concept is cool, but a complete not starter for me.