Flaming Swordsman

[TAO_Chaos1]

Name: Flaming Swordsman
HP: 40
Armour: 20
Power: 20
Blocking: 60% front, 40% side
Movement: 4
Range: 1
Recovery: 2

Melee Attack: The FS melee attack is like the knights, only after a succesful hit the enemy that was hit is left with the burn effect. The burn effect lasts for two turns and gives 3damage every turn you go and every turn the opponent goes, like the wisp.

Secondary attack: The FS secondary attack is the attack patern like the wisps. You hold down the center tile of the FS attack pattern and it appears all around him, you click only one and flames comne up from below. This leaves only the burn effect, but for three turns.

Comments are freely accepted, and i will answer questiopns that need answers.

[Magician]

I like this guy, although I feel he may be overpowered with the burn effect after the melee attack - effectively 32 damage (without armor taken into account for the original attack)

[TAO_Chaos1]

Ok do you think i should reduce his burn effect power?

[Cosmo88]

Lame.
Only because you stole the name from an incredibly stupid TV show.

[TAO_Chaos1]

Well we can change the name what about the unit, i have no clue what show it is though.

[Swartzstrom]

The show is called Yu-Gi-Oh!, and the name of the Monster in question is the Flame Swordsman. If I were you, I'd change the name, lest you be Negative Repped by like...many people...not including me.

Besides the wack name, I like the unit, actually. Perhaps you should stick the Burn effect on 2 HP per turn, though?

EDIT: But I'm definitely am not a CAU veteran, though.

[Cosmo88]

Well we can change the name what about the unit, i have no clue what show it is though.

Sure you don't.

The unit is fine, though. A tad overpowered, but I see you put some thought into it. Thinking always deserves some reward. Good job.

EDIT:

The show is called Yu-Gi-Oh!, and the name of the Monster in question is the Flame Swordsman. If I were you, I'd change the name, lest you be Negative Repped by like...many people...not including me.

Besides the wack name, I like the unit, actually. Perhaps you should stick the Burn effect on 2 HP per turn, though?

Are you a complete idiot? Jesus, shut the hell up.

What you're saying is "hurry and change the name because you will get negged!!!!!!," and you're saying it like rep matters. The last thing we need is morons going around the TAO forums and scaring noobs so they care about their rep.

REP DOESN'T MATTER!!!

So shut up.
TAO_Chaos, keep the name. Screw the losers who "maybe" might neg you.

[TAO_Chaos1]

K, the name is changed lol........ and the burn efect is reduced to two.

[TAO_Chaos1]

Sure you don't.

The unit is fine, though. A tad overpowered, but I see you put some thought into it. Thinking always deserves some reward. Good job.
Thanks.

[Cosmo88]

K, the name is changed lol........ and the burn efect is reduced to two.

No, don't listen to Swartz, he doesn't think when he posts.

Change it back to Flaming Swordsman, it sounds cooler than "Warrior of Flames."

[TAO_Chaos1]

OK thanks

[shatterstar]

nice simple unit. melee attack blockable? reducable?

secondary attack focus based i presume?

i bet you get steam when u hit a frosty with this.

[TAO_Chaos1]

oh yes the melee attack is bloackable, and no secondary is not focus based its like the muddys, only three ranged, thansk for the good comments though.

[Geeky_Bastard]

oh yes the melee attack is unbloackable, and no secondary is not focus based its like the muddys, only three ranged, thansk for the good comments though.
Unblockable melee definitely makes this way overpowered and it doesn't fit in the rest of the melee units in the game.

[TAO_Chaos1]

whoops i mean blockable, not unblockable imnot that stupid to make it unblockable.

[TAO_Chaos1]

It's name is changed back to normal its attack IS blockable and the burn effect is two damge each turn.

[warkiller]

Um so this unit does 24 damge over a three turn period ? Also nice job, kind of like it. But what maked no sence is that how could you get the blobking on the side 40% when the based blocking percentage is 60%. You should make it 30% having better changes of distroying this unit. Then does it move aside for the other unit or not? Thanks for the anwsers and good job man.

[Cuathon]

this isnt very good. the seconda attack is a crappy version of the wisps. 6(or 12, you werent very clear in your explanation,) damage to like 3 units is basically a waste of a turn.

the attack itself is a knight attack with a bad add-on. firstly, do you mean it does 8 damage, or 4? if it does four its a waste. unless the unit would die from a 28/24 damage attack, your adding burn is just an attempt to make it not an altered knight.
maybe if it did 12 straight off and like 4 delayed for two turns it woudl be better. (in this comment im assumming it does 2, 2, 2, 2.) for the most part the fact that you have delayed 8 of the damage has no affect at all, unless the guy can get off a cleric heal in the next two turns.

did you search when you made this? there are many units like this and most are done better than yours. better effect explantaion, better effect, better stats.

[TAO_Chaos1]

this isnt very good. the seconda attack is a crappy version of the wisps. 6(or 12, you werent very clear in your explanation,) damage to like 3 units is basically a waste of a turn.

the attack itself is a knight attack with a bad add-on. firstly, do you mean it does 8 damage, or 4? if it does four its a waste. unless the unit would die from a 28/24 damage attack, your adding burn is just an attempt to make it not an altered knight.
maybe if it did 12 straight off and like 4 delayed for two turns it woudl be better. (in this comment im assumming it does 2, 2, 2, 2.) for the most part the fact that you have delayed 8 of the damage has no affect at all, unless the guy can get off a cleric heal in the next two turns.

did you search when you made this? there are many units like this and most are done better than yours. better effect explantaion, better effect, better stats.
uhhh......i thought i did pretty decent on this unit, you are the first not to like it. Your comments have helped and i will take them into consideration. Maybe the ttwelve then 3 turn delay will work better.

[Cuathon]

you still havent explained it adequately. assume this: a round is a turn for each player. so the wisp does 8 damage a round.

does yours go for two rounds?(it switches to other guys turn and the burned unit takes 3 damage, then it switches to your turn and he takes another three, then it switches to his turn and unit takes 3 again, and finally it switches back to your turn and the burned unit takes 3[for a total of twleve damage]) or for one turn by each player?(that is, 3 damage when your opponents turn starts and another 3 when yours does.[for a total of )

[warkiller]

you still havent explained it adequately. assume this: a round is a turn for each player. so the wisp does 8 damage a round.

does yours go for two rounds?(it switches to other guys turn and the burned unit takes 3 damage, then it switches to your turn and he takes another three, then it switches to his turn and unit takes 3 again, and finally it switches back to your turn and the burned unit takes 3[for a total of twleve damage]) or for one turn by each player?(that is, 3 damage when your opponents turn starts and another 3 when yours does.[for a total of )
yeah that si what i was thinking also. So this unit is a more powerfull unit kind of the same version as the wisp?

[ks5bns]

well i like the unit i dont like u tho tao chaos....
but the unit is cool.... i do agree that its primary attack does alot of damage...
i mean 20 damage then 12 damage (that cant be reduced) makes it very powerful....
but i do like this unit

[Cuathon]

can you guys say: walking l-ward?