Player Expansion Preview/Discussion (Wrath Champions)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sokolov, Mar 8, 2017.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    What Bloodbinder? There isn't one here?

    Can you be more specific, what are you saying here? "New Birds?" Isn't there only one bird?

    EDIT: Oh, I see, you are referring to the Ravens as "New Birds." I read it as multiple bird runes :D

    Anyway, yea, I could see that change, it would add a few nora but makes a bit of sense with the design limiting its movement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Sure.
     
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    This is correct.
     
  4. LoganMkv

    LoganMkv I need me some PIE!

    Elder. Raven tongue produces FW beasts.
    BirdS cause the rune is called ravenS.
    Fw beasts is a thing, not toptier ofcourse, but clearly distinctive. For example with ST/ you get 25hp on RT birds, and if you manage to save up several of them + real messengers, you can BoL/coordtower/tailwind for nice dmg and noragen. With UD/ you have free dmg, grekin adds physres to bunnies, messenger/elder cover lacking range. And so on with almost all other factions.
     
  5. themacca

    themacca Master of Challenges

    Fw beast runes exist. How ever it is not a theme that actually exists
     
    SireofSuns likes this.
  6. MovnTarget

    MovnTarget Forum Royalty

    Fine! I'll come back!


    <3 Tar Shark
     
    Anima26, Kampel, SPiEkY and 5 others like this.
  7. Ralphen

    Ralphen I need me some PIE!

    Indeed, it's very far from the original design. It also loses Arroweater and gain Manic. Hard to judge its future role on paper.
     
  8. Schmacko

    Schmacko I need me some PIE!

    Why, hello there, sexy.
     
    Etherielin and Qucas like this.
  9. kalasle

    kalasle Forum Royalty

    1-3 and Surge Beast?...

    Damn you know how to mangle a design quick.
     
    IronStylus and Etherielin like this.
  10. Skeezick

    Skeezick Forum Royalty

    wait....isnt basilisk rider just slightly different basilisk templar?






    and damn,the stitched is boring
     
    Anima26 and Kampel like this.
  11. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    their are a few like that, basically just slight variations on old designs, amarok is just a white star with flying and frost armor instead of mirror, surge tundra, 1-2 range and a cheaper cost for example
     
  12. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I know you dislike Surge, but I don't see how that is "mangled."

    Of course, it's your design, so I'd defer to you if you feel strongly about it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I am just working with what was submitted. If you have actual suggestions, feel free to make them.
     
  14. Schmacko

    Schmacko I need me some PIE!

    1 more dmg, 1 less def, 3 less HP. The Templar should tank better and has more long game dmg potential due to violent and quest. The rider has more early game burst dmg thanks to power attack and can engage quicker due to leap abilities. Honestly it just seems like a fat phys dmg, melee beater (in a faction with a lot of those) that randomly has portal dancer + leap slapped onto it for no obvious reason.

    It's also drak, beast instead of drak, dragon - which just seems like some kind of inconsistent oversight.

    In a beast BG it seems like it competes with destroyer and ravager for that honored spot of "kinda cool, but not making the cut"
     
    Kampel likes this.
  15. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    That's easily fixed, though I suppose it could go either way (is Basilisk a dragon or a beast?).
     
  16. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    This is always the problem with PoxNora now. You add something the faction doesn't have, and it's diluting faction flavor or doesn't help any existing themes. You add something the faction has and is good at, and it is "faction already has lots of those" or "faction shouldn't get too much of X or it's OP." You do something a little bit different than expected and it's "slapped onto it for no obvious reason."

    Anyway, remember that these are player designed runes and they had to use existing abilities only, so it's a bit limited. In this case, I see Portal Dancer + Leap as fitting thematically to describe a nimble basilisk that jumps into the fray and gets a jump on opponents.

    Additionally, I think it's very rare to get a design that's "new" because there are already so many runes - it's almost impossible without giving the faction something it shouldn't have or has never had - which then also gets complained about. So IMO, pretty much everything is a variation on an old design, it's just the way it is.

    That said, the point of this expansion is to get more player design input, so feel free to make specific suggestions on what you'd like to see, if anything.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  17. Skeezick

    Skeezick Forum Royalty

    +1 spd to stitched plox
     
  18. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I didn't dislike the amarok, at a cheaper cost it could be a nice start to an elemental sub theme based on the activated ability. that said I can't not draw the comparison between the two
     
  19. kalasle

    kalasle Forum Royalty

    Why would a champ built around cheap positioning control suddenly become a squishy melee damage dealer for a theme that doesn't exist?
     
    Etherielin and OriginalG1 like this.
  20. Sirius

    Sirius I need me some PIE!

    The original design of the Basilisk Rider, which I've submitted, is:
    Kind of fragile small champion who can double leap (or crushing charge) (kinda like Boghopper Blackhand can), who can displace champions/break apart formations and can either go for more damage or more displacement as part of his upgrade options.
    Portal Dancer was there because originally it was something like a 42-44 hp champion that was forced to keep moving/leaping in order to keep his ability to survive, that both being its drawback and its strength. It could have been Elusive Leap and that perhaps would've conveyed the idea better.

    So, this champion was meant to be able to do things like: leap/crushing charge forward, activate sweep to push enemies away OR hit something, then leap back to safety.
    OR leap behind an enemy unit and Sweep them into my own forces and then charge back toward them. OR leap/crushing charge over/through a roadblock champion to get to the squishy high damage champions behind and punch them, or petrify them to prepare for next turn.

    This is also why it had Unleash initially, so that you could select a turn where you'd just go nuts and make this champion act like a rocket who can get to your enemies's squishies and make them vulnerable. Though I can understand why adding Unleash may have been too much, it makes sense to require other cards to give it AP to prevent it from being too powerful.


    I may have, in my initial submission, failed to explain the core idea of the champion, idk. But in its current form, I can barely recognize it. I still can, but just barely. Even it being a 2x2 gets in the way of my intentions with it.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this champion can be totally cool and I don't want to be mean or disrespectful or anything of that sort. It just simply doesn't feel much like my submission anymore. It could also be that I didn't understand and my initial design wouldn't have worked.

    But yeah, anyway, I wanted to explain for anyone who may have been confused about the ability kit. Core design is 'Double relocation unit with Petrifying Gaze, Sweep/Displacement, decent damage and potential for either more damage or more displacement; BUT you get to only use its full potential in occasional bursts'.
     
    Kampel likes this.

Share This Page