Flail | Epic Flail

[Drake_XIV]

Time for a poll?

[juan_de_diablo]

Yes, sorry, I've had company over all day, but I have been thinking about this card. The poll is up.

I will be changing the description of the card to include a 1 turn delay for the flail when Bash Shield is used, and this is why it was not included in the poll.

[juan_de_diablo]

Ok, based on discussion, this is what has been changed so far with this card:

Shield Bash is a passive skill. It treats most shields equally.

Shields that cannot be targeted or destroyed are immune from the Shield Bash skill.

If Shield Bash is activated with a Bone Wall in place, then 2 bone walls are removed from the stack.

If Shield Bash destroys a shield, then flail does its normal attack damage to the enemy and the weapon is delayed 1 turn.

Keep in mind that the poll is running, and this card will certainly undergo more changes. I set the poll to end in 10 days, but really just playing by ear.

And, if there're bigger problems with this card that aren't represented in the poll, don't worry: I am certain they will be revealed through discussion and further refinement of this card.

Be sure to go over the changes stated above, or in the card notes, before voting!

Edit: Grammar

[juan_de_diablo]

hmmm. Outright destruction of untargetable objects is generally frowned upon highly.

Innaccurate/imprecise

Destruction via targeting untargetable objects is frowned upon.


If the flail were magical then I would see no problem with thinking of the shield bash as an automated Deflagration. This would hit Wing or 1 layer of Bone Wall but not Reflective Shield.

I didn't put this in the poll or in the current changes in the card notes, BUT the idea of it being an automated Deflagration might be where this is headed. We shall see.

[esran]

i think destruction chance could be balanced at 30/50.

[juan_de_diablo]

i think destruction chance could be balanced at 30/50.

My honest thought that if reducing the % was what we decided on changing, 20/40... or 25/50 since you threw out 50 for the upped 

[Taargus]

The delay after shield bash seems unintuitive to me. Why would the flail be delayed?
Instead of that, what if it were balanced like this:
30% chance of Shield Bash|30% chance of Normal Attack|40% flail is completely blocked (no damage)

and maybe epic flail could be:
40% chance of Shield Bash|40% chance of Normal Attack|20% chance flail is completely blocked (no damage)

[juan_de_diablo]

The delay after shield bash seems unintuitive to me. Why would the flail be delayed?
Instead of that, what if it were balanced like this:
30% chance of Shield Bash|30% chance of Normal Attack|40% flail is completely blocked (no damage)

and maybe epic flail could be:
40% chance of Shield Bash|40% chance of Normal Attack|20% chance flail is completely blocked (no damage)

Is the chance flail is completely blocked only if the opponent has a shield equipped, or is it at any point it can be blocked?

[teffy]

Typos will really make this to an "epic fail"

[Absol]

Relevant:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpicFlail

[juan_de_diablo]

Typos will really make this to an "epic fail"

Uh oh, please let me know if there are any major typos in the weapon description!!! (I finally get it...)

and

Idea: Flail has an x in 10 chance to destroy the enemy shield; Epic Flail has a x in 8 chance to destroy the enemy shield, where x is the number of turns in play. Note: x=0 for round in which it was played, so it would have a 0% chance of destroying the shield immediately. Does this make sense? Is this a reasonable improvement?

(Also, the poll is still running for the initially suggested ideas... please vote!)

and

Relevant:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpicFlail

lololol, thank you... it's... perfect...

[OldTrees]

Typos will really make this to an "epic fail"

Uh oh, please let me know if there are any major typos in the weapon description!!! (Plus, your sentence)

Idea: Flail has an x in 10 chance to destroy the enemy shield; Epic Flail has a x in 8 chance to destroy the enemy shield, where x is the number of turns in play. Note: x=0 for round in which it was played, so it would have a 0% chance of destroying the shield immediately. Does this make sense? Is this a reasonable improvement?

(Also, the poll is still running for the initially suggested ideas... please vote!)

Please modify your previous post rather than double posting. (It is a forum rule)