|
C3V and SoV Customs A place for C3V and SoV customs |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#998
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
Quote:
~Z P.S. I haven't been paying attention. Are there any Unique Lizardfolk Heroes in the offing in the SoV? |
#1000
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
Killometer's been doing a great job keeping the OP updated with current information about what we're doing. Anyone curious for an overview should check there.
|
#1001
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
Quote:
|
#1002
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
And the SP (Second Post ) has links to all the units we have reviewed but not inducted, along with links to the reviews.
|
#1003
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
Quote:
I have to admit I'm not a fan of an explosion that doesn't require line of sight (I'm honestly not a huge fan of more explosion attacks). But I'm not going to tank a figure just because of this. I'm glad to see a lower defense, a modest boost to the Mindflayer, a relatively low attack, etc. So I vote YES to review this figure (CXYOON'OGNGTH ...). I'll be curious to see if this unit stands up to scenario play. I'm not too worried about traditional tourney maps, where no LOS explosions shouldn't be something you can break. I'm curious about what happens in casual play. --- In other news, I'm sad to see kc's Green Wyrmling go out. I hope that it will come through again, with a lower defense. New? Read this. | The INDEX 2.0 | Mmirg's Maps Magnify Your Scape: BoV | SoV | C3V (Playtest!) | C3G The Dice Tower Con w/ Scape! |
#1004
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Based on availability I have to say NO to review. EDIT: It's since been confirmed that this is a figure still in production and one that Auggie can order more. YES to review Cxurg'gyath. -insert signature here- Last edited by nyys; June 3rd, 2011 at 12:31 PM. |
#1005
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
Sorry guys - I haven't been watching this thread recently (I havne't been watching a lot of threads recently. I've been a HS slacker lately because I never get to play....). I'll confess that I even forgot I had a unit nominated for consideration.
I need to go back and re-read DS's playtest post and see what his problems were with the unit to see if there's a way to revise it and still keep the theme. If any of the other judges playtested it and have some thoughts, please PM them to me and I'll take them into consideration. I'm not sure I even realized how big of a "following" this custom has, and I don't want to disappoint those that have went out and bought some relatively expensive Copper Wyrmlings. I'll edit this post in a couple minutes after I go back and re-read DS's post.... EDIT: Found it. Looks like DS was only concerned about availability. In that case, I apologize but I'm not sure I see myself revising and resubmitting unless a more widely available figure for it can be found, or more Copper Wyrmlings become available. I won't be able to get it past nyys with 5 defense because they're too strong against melee, and I don't want to change the personality from Valiant to something else because it breaks the theme with Charos. I feel like 6/1/4/4 breaks the theme as well, so I'd probably end up at 5/1/4/4 or 5/1/3/4, and then I think the GW's get rolled by KoW and probably Romans, too. Would the 4th Mass be able to clean up after them? Maybe, but a Wyrmling army trying to use GW's as a screen has no chance. I actually like that they were strong against melee - they're supposed to be. I don't want to reduce their defense enough so that melee crushes them, or change them just because Raelin and the 4th are too strong. They are already. I guess the thing is that while GW's help the 4th against melee, they don't really do anything to help the 4th in their bad matchup (Q9 / Rats), which is why I liked them at 3/5. If you bump them to 4/4, suddenly the 4th have a cheap heavy hitter to help against Q9, and that scared me. At 3/4, I think they're just too weak at 30 Points, and I don't want to drop them any. I guess the only chance might be to increase them to 35 Points, but that still allows for the 4th x4, GW x4, Raelin army at 500 that nyys used to beat KoW.... anyone who has anymore ideas should post in my customs thread so we don't further clog this one. I've rambled too much here already. Thanks for the consideration, guys! Like battle reports? Click Tourney Reports (New 10/21/2012 - Cutters / Brutes!) KC's Maps Click KC's Customs Scaper of the Week #57 Last edited by killercactus; June 3rd, 2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason: I think we NEED some units to beat the KoW besides 4th/10th.... |
#1006
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
KC, don't strain yourself looking for my post. My concern was that, for an inexpensive common hero, there just weren't enough out there for people to buy.
Reading nyys' post I am persuaded that, once again, I should have thought more carefully before agreeing to review the unit. Both in the SoV and in the C3V, I am finding there is a reason counterstrike is not cheap and does not come lightly. Live and learn. Anyway, I've been persuaded before that the availability issues are not as bad as I'd thought, and I'll revisit my concern if it's nominated again. I am intrigued that one Heroscape player already bought 4 of them for *Scape*, and I wonder how many others did the same. Hmm... |
#1007
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
I also missed a chance to vote on the Ibixian Ridge Raiders and the Herd Chief Baabas by Typhon2222 and Sertorius. So, I'll add my thoughts (and vote) on them now.
These strike me as great concepts and the kind of thing that I'd love to see worked through more. I don't feel like they are clearly enough worded to be admitted as is to the SoV. There has been confusion in this thread about their powers, even among the creators. And I'm honestly not sure, just reading their cards through with my kids, that we know how to play them correctly (or that they'd understand the cards without my help at all or a FAQ or something). Just a couple examples: Surefooted raises issues and questions and I'll be honest that while I get the concept (now that it'd been explained), I'm not sure about the wording or whether someone else, without help from the designers, would consistently get to the same interpretation. (Or that more than one someone else would all arrive at the same interpretation.) Herd Fervor is, imo, a confusing power. Anything where you base an attack boost off of proximity at the beginning of the turn feels challenging. I know that we're going to end up in a game saying, "Now, was this the one that was next to X at the beginning of the turn? I remember one of them was and I thought I moved him here, but this guy here. No, wait, it was this guy here and that guy there..." A movement boost based on initial placement, yup, that makes sense and should play well (initial placement and movement are immediately linked). An attack boost based on where a unit used to be and in relation to another unit that is likely not where it was either and only applied after each of the members of the squad moves and others may attack, etc. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. (I can mark them with a stone or something, but I think it's one step too far toward Hordes and away from Scape.) This power is going to get confusing. If it was on a Hero, maybe--one unit, one placement, one think to remember--but I'm not a fan of this kind of thing on a Squad. I also worry about the relation of the Hammer and Knockback. I read the powers literally and what I see is the Hammer says adjacent units are affected by Knockback and then the Knockback says units are only affected if they had to roll defense dice (which they didn't, in relation being adjacent to a target of the Hammer), so, in my literal mind, they are affected by the power, but then the power says, "Yeah, but you don't have to do anything, because you didn't meet the minimum requirement of this power." (And, beyond that, the first phrase in Knockback has a confusing element as well.) Anyhow, I like these guys, but I really wonder if they are "finalized" or are more in concept form and could use some feedback and tidying up in terms of word choices and powers. I'm sorry I missed them when they came through, but all of this together leads me to say NO to accepting the Ibixian Ridge Raiders and Herd Chief Baabas into the SOV (at least in their current form). Love the concepts, not so sure about the current form of the cards. I hope to see these guys come back again. Sorry for being Mr. Negative. New? Read this. | The INDEX 2.0 | Mmirg's Maps Magnify Your Scape: BoV | SoV | C3V (Playtest!) | C3G The Dice Tower Con w/ Scape! |
#1008
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
1Mmirg, thanks for the thoughtful feedback, as always.
Just for the record, Sertorius and I have never been confused regarding the Surefooted power. If we once appeared not to agree on it, it was only because we were confused about the precise nature of the confusion on the part of others. I also suspect that much of the confusion about their powers stems from attempting to read too much into it. But that said, I'm sure we could find a way to reword Surefooted to stave off objections. As for the first phrase in Knockback having a confusing element.... I have to laugh. Agreed, it's hideously worded. But we were just following the original there: the wording is pulled directly from Shurrak's Knockback power. A good case of "dam*** if you do, dam*** if you don't". Again, it could easily be reworded to clarify the interaction of Hammer Smash and Knockback. As for your concern about keeping mental track of bonuses from Herd Fervor however.... I understand your hesitation, but don't know how to address it without changing the power so fundamentally as to leave it unrecognizable. Last edited by Typhon2222; June 3rd, 2011 at 12:34 PM. |