hi, i want to suggest to change tha kind of the following cards:

Johanei Borheim: cavalry to knight

Slayers of Karak-Kadrin: warrior to slayer

Dragon Prince: warrior to dragon

Dragonmage: Mage elite to dragon

Thank you.

Can we please stop calling ordinary forum posts "formal petitions"? I don't recall who started this nonsense, but these sure are inappropriate thread titles.

On topic, I agree that a unit that has "Slayer" in its name should be a slayer too. I guess if traits should become more important, there'll be a debate about the to me mostly arbitrary trait assignment in the past. And if they don't, it doesn't matter anyway.

I was thinking the same thing Mallumo. I can understand the opinion in this post, but every post does not need to be titled this way.

Petition... yeah! Where do I have to subscribe?

sorry about the title.

Can i still make posts titled "informal petition" if i dont get formal approval from one of the super cool elite tourney players on this forum to formally place the word formal in my post title?

rzarectz said:

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Mallumo said:

Hi folks!

I did. And I'm proud of it, 'cause it was useful to everyone around here (FFG itself explain it did).

VTHC was a non sense, not the "formal petition" sentence. It was a "funny" way to draw the FFG's and audeince attention and It did its job.

Now, I'm not responsible of any single player who writes it.

I'm against the idea of asking for bans with "formal petitions", no doubt about it. But it's a way to tag requests. If you're not interested in those petitions, just don't read 'em, as I do. But it's ok havin' some "involvement" of players in card design and this is just a way to get it.

FFG is made up of intelligent guys who certainly read what we write and take it into account, ignoring what's not important.

IMHO, as usual

DB