Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion

[MegaSilver]

You're correct in that, capsocrates.

Would it be better to word the power closer to Swordplay, then?

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by Scytale

I don't know Swordplay so I really can't comment on how I feel about that.

If the Attack number is reduced by 1 each attack (as opposed to "attack with one less die"), then most of my issues go away. There is an odd issue involving allowing someone to attack repeatedly with zero dice, which I'll bring up with the C3V editing team and may kill the design. For example, player A's Rampage could repeatedly roll zero attack dice at Player B's Deathreaver so that Player B can swarm Player C's area with Deathreavers. If we can't prevent shenanigans like that, it won't get through Inner Sanctum review.

Pretty sure the Deathreaver thing isn't an issue since he has to kill something to get another attack. So right now he could get one attack of 0, but no infinite scatter.

Honestly, I think I'd rather see Rage of Destruction as special attack though. Makes things way easier, and might help separate him from the Frost Giant as well.

[caps]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

You're correct in that, capsocrates.

Would it be better to word the power closer to Swordplay, then?

This power is unrelated to SWORDPLAY. This thread is not for discussing SWORDPLAY. Please consider discussion of SWORDPLAY in this thread to be finished.

[dok]

OK, but about SWORDPLAY....

Seriously, though, that power needs "with a normal attack", lest you get weird questions about leaving engagement attacks or the Bolt of Witherwood glyph or Lumbering Bully triggering an out-of-turn attack from Rampage.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by dok

OK, but about SWORDPLAY....

Seriously, though, that power needs "with a normal attack", lest you get weird questions about leaving engagement attacks or the Bolt of Witherwood glyph or Lumbering Bully triggering an out-of-turn attack from Rampage.

Wow, I can't believe I missed that I think my brain just auto-filled it in.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Wow, I can't believe I missed that I think my brain just auto-filled it in.

I also thought the intent was pretty clear. Aren't there other powers that mention "attacks" and mean Normal or Special Attacks?

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I can imagine some clauses that could go on the end of the power to prevent said shenanigans without changing the power's mechanics.

--

Lazy O, SWORDPLAY allows a figure to get extra *attacks* for each extra attack die that they start with. It works that way because it subtracts attack dice rather than subtracting from the attack value. Rampage, on the other hand, subtracts from the attack value, so things like getting height do not increase his possible number of attacks. Although I suppose anything that modified his attack value might do that--like INDOMITABLE.

Rage of Destruction
Each time Rampage destroys he may attack again with one less attack die.


SWORDPLAY
If Fandral attacks an adjacent figure with his normal attack and at least one skull is rolled, he may attack an adjacent figure again. He may continue attacking adjacent figures, rolling 1 fewer attack die for each subsequent attack, until you fail to roll a skull.

Except that Swordplay's wording is more polished, and the trigger is different, the wording is exactly the same, and they play exactly the same. Swordplay acts like it's the attack value that's lowered as well, rather than the number of dice - that's the way it is always played in C3G. It is because it is the base attack value rather than the number of attack dice that's lowered that they can potentially attack more with things like height. I'll admit, the wording of this isn't quite clear, but, as Megasilver said, that's the way it's played - maybe C3G should have used the 'subtracting one from your attack' wording instead, but that's how it works. This may actually be something worth querying to the C3G Design Team.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

SWORDPLAY
If Fandral attacks an adjacent figure with his normal attack and at least one skull is rolled, he may attack an adjacent figure again. He may continue attacking adjacent figures, rolling 1 fewer attack die for each subsequent attack, until you fail to roll a skull.

Except that Swordplay's wording is more polished, and the trigger is different, the wording is exactly the same, and they play exactly the same. Swordplay acts like it's the attack value that's lowered as well, rather than the number of dice - that's the way it is always played in C3G. It is because it is the base attack value rather than the number of attack dice that's lowered that they can potentially attack more with things like height. I'll admit, the wording of this isn't quite clear, but, as Megasilver said, that's the way it's played - maybe C3G should have used the 'subtracting one from your attack' wording instead, but that's how it works. This may actually be something worth querying to the C3G Design Team.

We're not looking for finely-polished wording here, the Editing team will handle that if the unit passes review.

The wording is definitely not exactly the same, and if they're played exactly the same the wording on Swordplay is inaccurate. Rolling fewer attack dice is not the same as reducing one's Attack value.

Regardless, let's put this to rest. We know the intent of the power and we can test based on that. Editing will hammer out the finer details if it comes to that.

Originally Posted by Soundwarp SG-1

Pretty sure the Deathreaver thing isn't an issue since he has to kill something to get another attack. So right now he could get one attack of 0, but no infinite scatter.

Oh yeah, duh. *pulls foot out of mouth*

There may be some corner cases, but in general this is just a variation on Double Attack. I'll discuss with the Editors if this passes initial submission, but I'm pretty sure we can make it work.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by Scytale

We're not looking for finely-polished wording here, the Editing team will handle that if the unit passes review.

The wording is definitely not exactly the same, and if they're played exactly the same the wording on Swordplay is inaccurate. Rolling fewer attack dice is not the same as reducing one's Attack value.

Fair point - that is the way I've always seen it played, but it may be that the wording isn't quite right. I'll bring this up to C3G.

[William099]

Shall I make a new card with Attack value in the wording instead of attack dice?

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by William099

Shall I make a new card with Attack value in the wording instead of attack dice?

That would be appreciated, but I won't require it.

[Scytale]

Cormin the Dark by Maklar the Silver Prince has passed United Fanscape Review and moves forward in the process.