Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion

[Pumpkin_King]

Just so we’re all on the same page, and I hope this isn’t turning this thread into a workshopping thread like SF said, but here is the “previous version” people are mentioning. Or I’m at least 90% sure.

[superfrog]

That is the version I was referring to, yes.

I haven't played either that version or the current one (my playests were two versions back), but I think the card above is preferable in my eyes to the currently submitted one. It removes the "hide Clayton in the SZ" concern, and streamlines the movement power. Necro had a convincing argument that it had (at least somewhat) more OM flexibility than the one I tested.

Again, my vote on the current version remains , but I would also support that version.

[Cleon]

Congrats Kinseth.

Glad to see another hero to work with the Ravagers. He's cool thematically....he has to spend his duration of the round ripping the skull out of his victim and is busy doing that while the rest of your army is actively moving along lol. Reminds me of Predator.

Being a Durgeth I assume Uzog also benefits from Gruesome Display if he has skull markers on him? So his attack becomes 5 + minus the opponents def by 1 or 2.

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Congrats Kinseth.

Glad to see another hero to work with the Ravagers. He's cool thematically....he has to spend his duration of the round ripping the skull out of his victim and is busy doing that while the rest of your army is actively moving along lol. Reminds me of Predator.

Being a Durgeth I assume Uzog also benefits from Gruesome Display if he has skull markers on him? So his attack becomes 5 + minus the opponents def by 1 or 2.

Yeah, the theme is cool (although he can take breaks from skull harvesting to bash somebody else if they interrupt him).

Correct about Uzog benefiting from his own Gruesome Display.

[Cleon]

Cool.

Also, can I nominate a custom that isn't mine?

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Cool.

Also, can I nominate a custom that isn't mine?

Sure!

Generally, if the creator is still active, you should clear it with them first. But anybody can submit anybody else's customs. Both of Scytale's accepted units were submitted by somebody else (betawolf, I believe).

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Also, can I nominate a custom that isn't mine?

I was so naive when the SoV started that I thought people would be doing that all the time.

[Pumpkin_King]

I was thinking about nominating one of SF’s actually...

[Pumpkin_King]

So hey, was that yay or nay on Clayton? I’d like to bring both versions to the pre-SoV thread if this version fails.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

So hey, was that yay or nay on Clayton? I’d like to bring both versions to the pre-SoV thread if this version fails.

So far only two votes, a Yay and a Nay.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

I guess I’m a on the proposed version. Just feels like it could be cleaned up a bit to me.

[BiggaBullfrog]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

There was pushback (rightly so) on the OM placement being too rigid and predictable with previous versions. Currently you have a lot more flexibility and can double-up as needed, avoiding unnecessary risks.

Okay, that makes sense. I think I still prefer the interaction that the OMs had with the mechanic before, but that's a small personal thing I can drop.

You're right that the intent is that the Shootout starter must attack (as you say it only makes sense thematically). I'm not sure if that's an "intent is clear so editing can sort it out later" issue (like Clayton being able to participate) or not. Adding a space restriction back into Shootout (which we had before but there was some interest in the other direction... feedback has not been consistent on Clayton, to say the least) seems like a reasonable way to allay concerns of the Sheriff sitting things out.

Amen to inconsistent feedback. I haven't been following it super closely but even then it's super obvious that this is a design that everyone has a strong opinion about.

I'm not seeing anything in the power that necessitates attacking; I would support the power if it had that. Though I do much prefer the version PK posted earlier, and preferred more the version before that (maybe? there have been a lot and I thought the one I preferred was the one right before this), but I'd be willing to test any of them since they're hitting the theme well enough from what I can tell just by looking.

To get a solid vote in the mix to help move this along I'll vote to this version due to the technicality of it not having an attack requirement, which while it won't significantly alter the card it's a big enough change to how the design plays overall that I'd like the intent to be clear.