|
Yammosk
Dec 26, 2009 20:56:09 GMT -5
Post by darthgrievous on Dec 26, 2009 20:56:09 GMT -5
If I ever get some time off to get up to the comic shop and play I will totally play test it
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jan 1, 2010 15:24:58 GMT -5
Post by darthgrievous on Jan 1, 2010 15:24:58 GMT -5
Are we almost done this one or what?
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jan 1, 2010 19:42:05 GMT -5
Post by gwek on Jan 1, 2010 19:42:05 GMT -5
I think we're waiting for another vote or two, or for RS to lock it down.
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jan 1, 2010 21:19:34 GMT -5
Post by Dendrite on Jan 1, 2010 21:19:34 GMT -5
It has my thumbs up
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jan 2, 2010 11:26:34 GMT -5
Post by Roque Saber on Jan 2, 2010 11:26:34 GMT -5
Sorry. I took a "Christmas Break" from the forums so I haven't been very active for the past few days. Lookin' good gentlemen, locking down the thread.
|
|
|
Yammosk
May 29, 2010 22:09:59 GMT -5
Post by gwek on May 29, 2010 22:09:59 GMT -5
I'd like to re-visit this piece from a gameplay standpoint. I think the text is lean enough that it will fit on a card (and, therefore, doesn't need editing from that angle), but I since we're taking another look, I'd like to address both Dependent Leadership and the cost.
I understand that Dependent Leadership is supposed to replicate the disruption caused by the defeat of a Yammosk, but I have a concern that it may be TOO disruptive. The yammosk is powerful, but its defeat effectively cripples your squad. I don't know how playable that is, since it's a huge risk. Despite it's HP, the yammosk has no way to defend itself (which, I think, is okay), which means you probably need to devote resources to protecting it.
I recommend that we lower the cost to make it affordable to have a back-up yammosk (right now, two yammosks will take up almost 25% of even a 200-point squad) and/or change Dependent Leadership to something with a more limited scope of damage.
I was thinking that perhaps it could instead force each Vong ally to make a save to avoid being activated. In that way, there is still a detriment--still a risk in relying on the yammosk--but the loss of a yammosk doesn't cripple the effectiveness and synergy of the squad in the long-term.
|
|
|
Yammosk
May 30, 2010 1:19:04 GMT -5
Post by surfrider56 on May 30, 2010 1:19:04 GMT -5
After reading up on it at Wook, how about using this idea;
Using this phrase from Wook
"the Yuuzhan Vong's Shapers were tasked with developing a yammosk species immune to the enemies technology"
perhaps a new ability along the lines of
Shaper Upgrade +4 Defense with an allied Shaper within 6 squares.
This would give it better defense, sounds plausible from the above description, and a shaper may be part of the squad anyway.
|
|
|
Yammosk
May 30, 2010 14:17:49 GMT -5
Post by bountyhunter9 on May 30, 2010 14:17:49 GMT -5
I'd like to re-visit this piece from a gameplay standpoint. I think the text is lean enough that it will fit on a card (and, therefore, doesn't need editing from that angle), but I since we're taking another look, I'd like to address both Dependent Leadership and the cost. I understand that Dependent Leadership is supposed to replicate the disruption caused by the defeat of a Yammosk, but I have a concern that it may be TOO disruptive. The yammosk is powerful, but its defeat effectively cripples your squad. I don't know how playable that is, since it's a huge risk. Despite it's HP, the yammosk has no way to defend itself (which, I think, is okay), which means you probably need to devote resources to protecting it. I recommend that we lower the cost to make it affordable to have a back-up yammosk (right now, two yammosks will take up almost 25% of even a 200-point squad) and/or change Dependent Leadership to something with a more limited scope of damage. I was thinking that perhaps it could instead force each Vong ally to make a save to avoid being activated. In that way, there is still a detriment--still a risk in relying on the yammosk--but the loss of a yammosk doesn't cripple the effectiveness and synergy of the squad in the long-term. An interesting point. With all the movement and swap, not to mention characters like Yobuck and Luke's Snopspeeder flying around in today's game, the Yammosk could be killed pretty easily. @surf: While the Shaper Upgrade is an interesting idea, I don't think it would be very practical. Because of Emplacement, the Yammosk would be stuck in one place (most likely at the back of a squad), meaning the Shaper would have to dedicate itself to standing by the Yammosk. I think the best way to fix this situation would be to go with Gwek's suggestion, of activating all allies, but I think doing it without a save would be best. Because YV squads often feature a lot of characters (esp with the Yammosk giving Gregarious), the saves could get pretty confusing. I think just flat out activating all YV allies would be good incentive as the opposing player to try and kill the Yammosk, but it wouldn't cripple a squad like Savage would.
|
|
|
Post by surfrider56 on Jun 2, 2010 0:46:37 GMT -5
But would this change put an even Bigger bullseye on the Yammosk? Do we Really want to do that?
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Jun 2, 2010 7:19:58 GMT -5
I don't think the change would necessarily make the Yammosk a bigger target. Honestly, I think the Savage thing is much, much worse.
If you can turn all your Vong opponents Savage, all their commander effects are useless. While the yammosk's CE is great, presumably, a Vong player is using at least one other commander with him, to benefit from Booming Voice. Take the yammosk out and you cripple that for the entire game, and also limit your opponent's movement.
If we make the change, you're crippling your opponent for a single turn. Sure, that turn can be a game-changer, but the opponent has the chance to rally back afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Dendrite on Jun 2, 2010 8:41:08 GMT -5
Good point
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jun 24, 2010 0:15:06 GMT -5
Post by bountyhunter9 on Jun 24, 2010 0:15:06 GMT -5
Does anyone have any other thoughts on changing Dependent Leadership? Do we like the proposed changes?
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jun 25, 2010 0:10:45 GMT -5
Post by gwek on Jun 25, 2010 0:10:45 GMT -5
If it's "All Vong allies are considered activated" or something similar, do we want it to take effect ONLY if there's no other yammosk in your squad (as the original Dep Lead functioned)?
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jun 25, 2010 11:38:22 GMT -5
Post by bountyhunter9 on Jun 25, 2010 11:38:22 GMT -5
I think that would be a good idea, Gwek. I think we may have to revisit the cost with the DL change, though. I'm pretty sure we have this:
Not sure on the wording of DL. Also, if you don't like the changes made to DL, speak up!
|
|
|
Yammosk
Jun 25, 2010 13:47:30 GMT -5
Post by gwek on Jun 25, 2010 13:47:30 GMT -5
Is it "allied YV" or "YV allies"? Is there a difference? Which is the more popular form?
I still think the cost may be a little high.
While the yammosk does do three really cool things, it also has three pretty big limitations.
In theory, Booming Voice, the Gregarious commander effect, and the double-up on special abilities thing is definitely worth 23... but it can't attack, can't move, and shafts its squad when defeated. Very tough to price, I think...
Although the double-special ability thing is pretty good, I believe it only impacts three abilities:
Thud Bug Razorbug Spit Poison 20 (only if Yomin Carr is in play)
All three have saves, and even at their worse, I don't think they give the Vong an unfair advantage (and Thud Bug is actually pretty cool because it gives the Vong a bizarre form of tempo control). These abilities are largely outdated in today's meta anyway...
All of which is my way of saying I think the yammosk is overpriced. Given the weaknesses of the piece, I think high teens. If I stand alone, I won't fight it, but since we're revisiting, I thought it was worth mentioning.
H
|
|