Talk:Temporal Reversion (540): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (-100 for CMAN noted) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'd love if those of you in the know could update this with any additions. Looking through the forums is a pain without being able to log in *grin*. Oh, for the record, I like the way the spell looks, and the potential for the "counter" attack would make it even more interesting - base rate seems decent, too. [[User:DOOMDUCK|Doom Duck]] 15:45, 23 April 2006 (PDT) |
I'd love if those of you in the know could update this with any additions. Looking through the forums is a pain without being able to log in *grin*. Oh, for the record, I like the way the spell looks, and the potential for the "counter" attack would make it even more interesting - base rate seems decent, too. [[User:DOOMDUCK|Doom Duck]] 15:45, 23 April 2006 (PDT) |
||
'. . . as well as a comparable increase in maneuver defense' - Not sure if we've tracked this, but I'm logging -100 to CMAN roles with this active. Not sure that's 'comparable', but it isn't insignificant. I'm going to get a few more samples on this and if it aligns, change the verbiage. But - if there's research and consensus, we can change it right away. [[User:DOUG|DOUG]] ([[User talk:DOUG|talk]]) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (CDT) |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:31, 31 October 2015
I'd love if those of you in the know could update this with any additions. Looking through the forums is a pain without being able to log in *grin*. Oh, for the record, I like the way the spell looks, and the potential for the "counter" attack would make it even more interesting - base rate seems decent, too. Doom Duck 15:45, 23 April 2006 (PDT)
'. . . as well as a comparable increase in maneuver defense' - Not sure if we've tracked this, but I'm logging -100 to CMAN roles with this active. Not sure that's 'comparable', but it isn't insignificant. I'm going to get a few more samples on this and if it aligns, change the verbiage. But - if there's research and consensus, we can change it right away. DOUG (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (CDT)