|
Post by gwek on May 30, 2010 1:17:29 GMT -5
How is she getting a double ranged attack at +40? Are we looking at the same card?
As for being "worth the cost"... The version currently "in play" doesn't have a cost yet! If we like the stats, we can start discussing the cost as the next step.
|
|
|
Post by surfrider56 on May 30, 2010 1:28:27 GMT -5
How is she getting a double ranged attack at +40? Are we looking at the same card? As for being "worth the cost"... The version currently "in play" doesn't have a cost yet! If we like the stats, we can start discussing the cost as the next step. +30 from Repulse and +10 from Rak? Or aim I not reading the right card the right way?
|
|
|
Post by gwek on May 30, 2010 1:41:30 GMT -5
Sorry, the "double ranged" thing threw me, so I was thinking that maybe you were looking at a version with Dark Temptation (although the ranged part REALLY threw me! It's late...).
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Rakghoul Disease's extra damage would apply to Force Repulse (or any Force powers). "Damage" with a capital "D" (as in Rak Disease, Cunning Attack, etc) refers to the character's Damage rating, which is used for a successful attack. Force powers, on the other hand, do "damage" with a lowercase "d" (as do special abilities that inflict direct damage, like Grenades).
Rakghoul Disease's Damage bonus would apply to Force Repulse no more than it would to, say, Grenades or Missiles.
I think.
That's my interpretation, anyway. Can someone confirm this?
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on May 30, 2010 14:09:49 GMT -5
Yeah, Rakghoul Disease wouldn't affect the damage output of Repulse. Here's the glossary text, courtesy of bloomilk:
This character gets a +10 bonus to Damage whenever it hits a living enemy. The target can avoid this extra damage with a save of 11. If this character defeats a living enemy, you may immediately add a character named Rakghoul to your squad. This character sets up in a square of your choice formerly occupied by the defeated enemy. This character doesn't count toward the cost of your squad. If you are scoring points for defeats, or in a tiebreaker, defeating the extra Rakghoul doesn't score points.
Seems no different from something like Cunning Attack or Jedi Hunter, which only affect attacks.
On another note, where do we think we should cost her? (Assuming we like the new version; speak up if you don't!)
|
|
|
Post by gwek on May 30, 2010 20:03:40 GMT -5
Well, I'm not sure that I love her. I mean, I just wanted to see if we could get the core of the character on the card. Looks like we can.
I guess my thinking is:
1) Do we LIKE the combo of Rakghoul Disease and Force Repulse? This is somewhat different than the Muur Talisman/Force Repulse combo we'd previously had.
She currently does more melee damage than she did with Muur Talisman (which did not provide a +10 Damage vs living enemies).
2) Would we rather combine the two abilities into a custom "Muur Talisman" force power? I'm picturing something that resembles Force Repulse, does damage vs living targets, but instead of pushing opponents back, the effect is to turn those defeated into Raks.
3) Independent of those questions, do we want to fiddle with the overall stats? Honestly, I wouldn't mind getting Lightsaber Defense back on her, if room permits. I'd love Dark Temptation, but it seems like it's not in the cards.
I'm not sure how much room we have to play with (if any), but a combinued Muur Talisman ability would probably open up some room, and if we get close another option would be to change Stealth to the somewhat-shorter Cloaked.
*****
Although it probably still requires some editing, the definition below is 274 characters, as opposed to 470 characters for Force Repulse 3 + Rakghoul Disease. That's a lot of characters to play with.
Lightsaber Defense is slightly more than 100 characters, and Dark Temptation is 228 characters. The custom ability would probably allow for one of these to go back on, and, depending on how things lay out, both MIGHT be an option.
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on May 31, 2010 14:50:49 GMT -5
That's a pretty good idea, Gwek. However, the Force power should specifiy that only characters defeated by use of the Force power are converted into Rakghouls. Also, good call on only converting enemies.
With that change, I wouldn't be opposed to adding Lightsaber Defense back on, over Dark Temptation.
|
|
|
Post by surfrider56 on May 31, 2010 19:17:14 GMT -5
With that change, I wouldn't be opposed to adding Lightsaber Defense back on, over Dark Temptation. I actually have no problem with a Repulse-style + Rak FP; I however, would rather go DT over LtSaber Defense .... other opinions?
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on Jun 1, 2010 14:57:03 GMT -5
With that change, I wouldn't be opposed to adding Lightsaber Defense back on, over Dark Temptation. I actually have no problem with a Repulse-style + Rak FP; I however, would rather go DT over LtSaber Defense .... other opinions? I would opt for LS Defense over DT because a) LS Defense takes up less room b) DT doesn't fit the core of the piece as well as LS Defense would. The piece is designed around the Muur Talisman FP, and DT is much less effective in this version because she cannot convert enemies to Rakghouls with her attacks
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Jun 1, 2010 17:59:50 GMT -5
I can see the argument for either, but agree that DT is less compelling if she can't convert Raks via direct attack.
So I'd say that we consider adding Lightsaber Defense back in and also continue to fiddle with the wording of Muur Talisman to get it right. Anyone have suggestions? (Because, really, all I did was combine aspects of Rak Disease and Force Repulse into a single power!)
|
|
|
Post by surfrider56 on Jun 2, 2010 0:33:02 GMT -5
Maybe we need to look at How Much Room do we need? Two lines worth? Three?
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on Jun 24, 2010 0:18:01 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure, but I don't think we need to save any room. With Muur Talisman changed, we have a lot of room to play with. I don't think it's enough for DT to fit, however.
|
|
|
Post by gwek on Jun 30, 2010 0:07:31 GMT -5
In attempting to spread out the "trouble" piece, I'm hoping we can get Celeste Morne finalized by 7/9. I think our recent discussion was headed in the right directed, but stalled a bit as we worked on "easier" pieces. So, let's get her going again!
|
|
|
Post by surfrider56 on Jun 30, 2010 2:30:24 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure, but I don't think we need to save any room. With Muur Talisman changed, we have a lot of room to play with. I don't think it's enough for DT to fit, however. Ok ... so what Do we have if Talisman has been changed and Do we keep DT or not ... I'm still partial to DT myself ....
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunter9 on Jun 30, 2010 11:47:11 GMT -5
I think this is what we have:
Muur Talisman saved a lot more room than I thought it would, but I think we need to revisit it to make sure the wording is perfect. I think that, after it says, "Whenever this character defeats a living enemy" we should insert, "in this way", or something to that effect. And of course we need to address LS Defense or DT.
|
|
|
Post by surfrider56 on Jul 2, 2010 12:42:10 GMT -5
Time to ask GF what she looks like on a card?
|
|