|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 24, 2015 21:27:25 GMT
Yeah the Junlocks are the ones they fight the most but they are far from the only group the Ivos battle. Before the Nameless War they had a big war with the Darsai.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 24, 2015 21:35:41 GMT
Ivos basically fight everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 24, 2015 23:48:11 GMT
Page 12
In the “Purchase a unit or territory” section. The two paragraphs seem closer together than other paragraphs usually are.
Page 13 Maybe not in the rulebook, but for the reference cards it might be a good idea to have the pay 2 sovereigns symbol next to the part about purchasing an event. I'm not sure if this is there already or not, so just a thought.
Action Events: “You must be able to have the target of an event in order to play it.” It might be simpler to say “You must have the target of an event in order to play it.” Unless there is another reason for this?
Also, the “Loyal Support” card has no colours on the guile, nobility, and might sections. They're all a weird dried blood crimson colour. Is that meant to represent reinforcement? You could make that an opaque whitish colour to be similar to the reinforcement tokens if you wish.
Action – Use a Territory Action... due to the repetition of “action” here it might be better as “use a territory effect” or “use a territory power” or “use territory ability”. This change would also have to be done for the list of possible actions, of course.
Page 15 Triggered Events. The last paragraph of this section is somewhat confusing and requires reading again. However, that may be a necessity.
Reinforce tokens. “Remain on Unit...” Remain on the Unit.
Page 16 For the example, presumably Thundercloud attacked someone and knocked them out of the fight beforehand, which is why Tade has no damage. Though in theory, Thundercloud should have taken some damage in return for the attack. Am I correct? It works well for demonstrating the rules though.
Action-Attack an enemy unit. “becomes in the challenge”. I know that it is this way to label things, but grammatically it should be something like “enters the challenge.” Or, I suppose, you could say “becomes 'in the challenge' ....”. Not a huge nitpick but something to consider.
Attacker Battle Event: “Battle Events are discarded after the battle. they do not...” The “they” needs to be capitalized.
Page 17 Defender Battle Events. The “does not” part of “does not remain in play” is really really small.
So can armour now stop “weapon” damage? Taking out that it can't simplifies things.
Also, I have a Question. Are units that attack in a battle eventually removed from that challenge and able to support/oppose another one? It doesn't seem so, but I want to be clear.
Page 19 Question: You cannot heal a unit that is supporting/opposing a challenge, right? If so, could use a reminder here. But also, could you heal a unit that has attacked? Or is this just for left over damage from a previous turn (this seems to be the case after reading the Clean Up phase).
Page 20 For the FAQ maybe it would be a good idea to emphasize that wealth and money are separate things.
Page 21 Ready All Exerted Cards: “After all cards have Readied...” that might be better as “After all cards have been Readied.” If possible.
Why give two possible tie breakers and then just repeat them in a list after? Cut out the part about how Wealth and then Sovereigns break ties in the text and leave it to the list?
|
|
|
Post by RED_NED on Oct 25, 2015 0:58:27 GMT
Here's some answers to the rulesy stuff:
The reason for the Action Events having a target was just so you couldn't play an Event that said "heal all damage from a Unit" on an undamaged Unit. That just felt wrong? It also lets you do a weird pseudo pass, where you don't pass but your opponent must take an Action. This is high level manipulation of the rules, I just didn't want it to be possible.
The Loyal Support thing. So, you hold the Events in your hand, but they have different times they can be played. If we have the Loyal Support events use the same colours, people got really confused and played them as Assign Events on their Unit. Maybe the purple hexagons is a terrible idea. Maybe we need a section in the Action Events to explain what they are.
The Territory Action is called that because its the most direct explanation of what it is. I can see it being a bit weird in the rules (Action - Territory Action). We could use a different word, but we need to stay away from other game terms - Power, Effect and Trigger are all words used in the rules (The stats of Units are called Abilities).
The triggered effects section is messy, i'll tidy it up. There are Events you play on challenges that damage units when they support the challenge (and one when you oppose). I need to clear up that if your unit supports, it's triggered effect (such as gain a sovereign, heal one of your units etc) applies before the event. similarly there are response events that stop people supporting/opposing - but they are played AFTER the triggered effects of the unit.
It is possible to attack and not take damage - you could attack someone with 0 in an ability (they were damaged), or you could have enough armour to prevent the damage the enemy unit would deal. you could even be healed after the attack. Theres tons of little plays you can make. I mainly didnt put damage on him just to make the example clearer.
Maybe i need to rethink the 'in the challenge' wording. Originally Units 'Assigned' to Support and Oppose. Units in a Challenge were 'assigned' to it. (This is why Assign events are called what they are) I tried to take a lot of rulesy sounding words out. You're right though this is worded badly.
On the weapon beating armour rule - ye we took it out as it barely mattered and just added rules for the sake of it (it was a bigger issue earlier in the game's design because we were a lot more generous with throwing weapon and armour on cards).
Units in a Challenge only ever leave the challenge when they are Stunned, Destroyed or the turn ends. There are a few events that let you remove a unit from a challenge and use it again - really useful with units that attacked (you can use it to save the unt from being attacked, heal the unit or bodyguard and you can support /oppose and even attack a second time)
With healing - lots of cards heal units, exerting to heal isnt the only way it happens. Exerting to Heal is an action you can only take when you are not in a challenge and not exerted. If you are supporting/opposing then you are in a challenge so can't exert.
You're right about the tiebreakers. I put those 2 conditions first because they are the ones that mostly matter. It rarely comes up because players *should* be aware of the tie breakers and play accordingly. Having the most sovereigns on the last turn is kind of a strategy. I'll cut out the redundancy and explain this in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 25, 2015 1:11:36 GMT
So you can use a territory, for instance, to heal a unit in a challenge?
|
|
|
Post by RED_NED on Oct 25, 2015 1:16:50 GMT
Some territories have a Territory Action that heals 2 damage from one of your units:
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 25, 2015 1:22:02 GMT
Finishing up my 2nd round of proofreading.
Page 22 Experiences: “put directly into play... on Champions whore...” who're, the ' seems to be missing. Amusing, but probably not what you want.
Experience Example: paragraph one, second sentence. It just seems oddly put together. “Because he doesn't have an experience he gains one at the end of the turn.” Or “He doesn't have an experience, so he gains one at the end of the turn.” Something like that.
Paragraph two. The last three words... “next” seems to be missing half the “n” or at least it is miscoloured. And “next” is also darker, which I would assume only the “Might Challenge” part should be?
Page 23 Bodyguarding: The section about the Champion not adding its weapons and armour. “only the Regiment's weapons and A'rmour”... we're this close to “A'mour” but we should probably get rid of the ' rather than the first r...
Also, the pages in the rulebook don't match up with the pages in the pdf, but that isn't important. All my notes correspond to the book's pages.
That makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 25, 2015 1:30:23 GMT
The thing with needing a target to play a card is interesting. Me and Red Ned have played this game pretty intensively for several years and so over time we have learned all the tricks and high end tactics. If there is a way to exploit something trivial for even a slight advantage, once you get good at the game you will start going that all the time to get even a tiny advantage. If I can play events with no target as my action, we are effectively adding a mechanism that you can discard an event (play it to no effect) to avoid passing. This adds an additional element of complexity in the tactics that we dont want and could really change multiplayer in unpredictable ways.
There are a few odd little rules in the game that deal with things like this (including the way damage affects stats on cards in a unit.) At first glance they may seem slightly odd but they often serve some vital function in controlling the way the game plays out.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 25, 2015 2:28:35 GMT
I can imagine!
|
|
|
Post by RED_NED on Oct 25, 2015 12:15:08 GMT
Fantastic! I fixed loads of the problems and cleaned up certain areas (Like the tie breakers, being clearer about experiences etc).
I probably need to add a little section about healing. The rules mention healing as an Action where you Exert a Unit, but lots of cards have healing as an effect which I don't think the rules is clear about.
Maybe I should remake the page numbers - I didn't count the cover as a page, so as a PDF the page number is one page off (You will get a physical rulebook with the game so the PDF isn't the be-all and end-all).
I'm thinking of expanding the Action Events section to explain that some Events are played on Challenges for the turn (like loyal support) while others are one-shot. I can explain the purple ability boxes there.
I can reword the healing cards to say "heal an undamaged unit" to stop the shenanigans I'm concerned about and take out the confusing line from the rulebook. They are the only effects where its an issue anyway.
|
|
|
Post by RED_NED on Oct 27, 2015 19:06:45 GMT
The rulebook is nearly done, I've remade it in a different program so it should run smoother: New Rulebook **EDIT** Rulebook Version 4I didn't do the contents/index or page numbers (because they can change).
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 27, 2015 19:53:29 GMT
Something I noticed while scanning through it just now, not meaning to do anything.
But in case I forget:
In the section on the Knarl, you talk about precursors before the "magic's" of the younger races. I'm assuming it isn't meant to be possessive? I don't know, but the magics aren't owning something. Might it rather be magics or magicks?
|
|
|
Post by RED_NED on Oct 27, 2015 20:28:56 GMT
That's what I get for trusting the spellchecker! It complained that 'magics' wasn't a word. You are right, I'll change it back!
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 31, 2015 19:59:20 GMT
I'll go through the rulebook again today if I manage to finish costume stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Nov 1, 2015 3:31:55 GMT
We're getting really close to having this finished. I have a couple of people I want to go over it and we should be okay to move ahead. Any more feed back is always welcome of course.
|
|