View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 21st, 2018, 1:04 am



Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 15 Dec Packet Feedback 
Author Message
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 321
Location: Australia
Well based on the rules being essentially finalised this feedback is more about wording and organisation changes that I believe can be considered to improve the final product. I will hopefully get a game in soon.

General:
It would be beneficial if all rules terms appear in bold when used throughout the document to highlight that the word has a specific definition in the rules.

(From here the feedback is by page order using headings on pages.)

Unique:
I much prefer Hero be used here instead of unique, or alternatively Champion (because it’s not tied to being a good guy in narratives). This helps with the fact there are 2 levels of uniqueness in the game, units whose card name is 1/cadre and units that have the Unique [specifier] trait.

Aside from removing using the same word to restrict a unit in 2 different ways Hero (or Champion) is also more in line with the flavour created by the other unit type designators (Knight/Avatar/Minion).

While this is focused on the RB, there are units that still reference Hero in their text.

Command Tokens
Rules wise this section is good, but clarity wise I believe it could still use some work.

Flips
The first sentence can be removed. This section also talks about “players” and “they” while other rules sections say “you” when it is the player doing something. Revise for consistency.

Movement
The first 2 sentences should go. Especially as the second one talks about models and then the rules text starts (correctly) discussing objects.

The section on direction changes could be removed (see next comment).

The bit on forced movement that causes a fall is repeated in the Forced Movement section. It only needs to be there.

Forced Movement
It would be clearer if all forced movement was in a straight line, then you could remove that from the text of each of the forced movement types. If it is intended that compel allow any number of direction changes this can then be made clear as the exception in compel’s text.

Free Movement
Should state that it allows unlimited changes of direction unless it is due to push, pull, etc.

Engaged
I still believe that adding the Size of the model on the lower elevation to the 2” is a simple enough rule. It allows a Size 4 model next to a 2.5” high terrain item to attack the model on the terrain.

Disengage
This section is still very confusing in its organisation. A list of instructions is likely clearer.

To disengage:
  1. Before declaring an initial move or free movement from an action (but not a follow up movement), declare the intent to disengage.
  2. Flip 3.
  3. If you did not Flip an Esper of a type shown in your unit’s Armor trait you may discard a card from hand with that Esper type.
  4. If you flipped or discarded an Esper of the appropriate type the unit moves normally for the movement it was attempting. If it did not it may not move, remaining in its position and engaged.
  5. If the unit disengaged using its initial move it may take an action or make a follow up movement (but not both). If it disengaged using free movement from an action it may still make a follow up movement.

Then follow with the rules for “automatically disengage” effects.

LoS & Elevated Terrain
“Any terrain with a size smaller than the terrain either unit is standing on is not considered blocking unless the unit on the lower elevation is within 3” of it.”
This rule implies a Size 2 model on Size 3 Terrain with 3” of a Size 2 Terrain between it and a Size 2 model on a Size 3 Terrain would have LoS blocked….

(I still don’t like these rules.)

Esper
This section probably should immediately follow the unit card description and include the discard and draw piles. It might even be better to have it before the unit card nsection as that way how Esper works is explained before you start discussing the use of it in other rules.

Markers
It seems strange to say Markers only affect LoS if they have height >0 then give an example where it is equal.

AoE
The last few sentences of the first paragraph are difficult to parse.

AoEs should be able to be ‘dispelled’ by being within them, not just within 3” of their marker. This allows you to make AoEs with a range under 3” as well.

Sharing Information & Rules Conflicts
These sections probably should be at the start of the book before “Key Concepts”.

Modelling Objectives
As Objectives are Height 0 modelling is now a bad idea. (And rendered my existing ones into the realm of scenery :( ).

First and Second Player
Having 1 player both deploy and activate first is a bad idea, it gives that player 2 strategic advantages (ie there is no reason to ever choose to be second player). This should go back to choosing first deployment at the cost of first activation (or vice versa) so that you have only 1 strategic advantage.

Power Tokens
I like this idea.

It’s not entirely clear how they work with putting a second command token on a unit (say via Leopold Magnus’ Esper Distortion) and surge activations.

It seems that current RAW would let you double dip Esper Draw via the token then as you would move the token to the unit, put the second command token on it do the surge action, then next turn (after all the tokens are cleared) put a first token on it and draw an extra Esper again.

Action Effect
All the text talking about targeting in the first paragraph is unnecessary.

Targeting
Be specific and concise;

All actions must target an enemy object. The exceptions to this rule are;
  • Support actions may target friendly or enemy objects.
  • AoE actions must target a place they can legally position an AoE marker.
  • Defence actions do not have a target.
  • Other actions that specify they do not require a target.

Actions that have a target must be able to draw line of sight to the target (unless the action says otherwise).

Actions have no minimum or maximum range.

Any action that targets an enemy object is an attack action (even if it has the support trait).

If there is no legal target for the action the action cannot be taken.

Action Types
The types are all listed as Attacks still even though the types now apply equally to Attack and Support actions.

Collateral Damage
However, they may benefit from their armor as well as things such as shielding or guard, if the unit has access to them (without initiating an action).

Knights
Unless there is a Knight that doesn’t have a Cadre Ability there is no point saying “most” have them.

The 2 blocks dedicated to Cyphers should be a single block.

Squads and Elevation
Should be before broken, and may not need to be a section on its own.

Broken
It’s more concise to say “Broken squads may only take Defence actions.”

Squads and Damage
I feel an example situation in a call out (with picture) showing a squad taking damage from 2 sources, where the second can not see the models the first saw, would be beneficial.

Objective Markers
The paragraph before Traits on page 37 probably belongs back on page 18 as it’s more about using the Markers in game than in scoring VP off them.

Speaking of that Traits section, it seems irrelevant. In the 1E book there was an a section listing all the fluff Traits I presume this is a placeholder for this. This should be an appendix.

Abilities
This section should be a clear appendix.

Cadre Ability: the sentence about being “usually being” on Knights/Avatars is irrelevant.

Cypher & Cypher [Name] can be left out, the same as Avatar and Relic/Questing Knight are not on the list. Or just be call backs to the page where the text is.

Page 38 call out should be Remember not FYI

Support Actions: this trait’s text becomes superfluous if you word the various sections in the main rules clearly to address them. So it becomes a reminder point with a page reference.

———
At this point I’ve stopped examining the rules.

However I believe the Advanced Terrain Rules should keep that heading but be moved to the end of the prior terrain section, and that the optional missions section should go before any Appendix featuring traits and Abilities. Putting Abilities at the very end of the book makes it far easier to reference them during the game, only the index and an play summary page should come after the Abilities appendix.

_________________
Australian Soda Pop Community On Facebook
South East QLD Relic Knights on Facebook


December 19th, 2017, 2:34 pm
Profile WWW
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 514
Obsidian-Crane wrote:
LoS & Elevated Terrain
“Any terrain with a size smaller than the terrain either unit is standing on is not considered blocking unless the unit on the lower elevation is within 3” of it.”
This rule implies a Size 2 model on Size 3 Terrain with 3” of a Size 2 Terrain between it and a Size 2 model on a Size 3 Terrain would have LoS blocked….

This is incorrect. The unit(s) on the terrain would add the terrain to their size, per the first bullet point in the section you are referencing. Making both units size 5, in your example, unless I missed something. Blocking terrain still needs to be equal or greater in size than at least one unit, and in this case that size would be the combined size.

Obsidian-Crane wrote:
AoE
The last few sentences of the first paragraph are difficult to parse.

AoEs should be able to be ‘dispelled’ by being within them, not just within 3” of their marker. This allows you to make AoEs with a range under 3” as well.

The current implementation of the rules requires a set distance for dispelling, because there is at least one AoE without a range - Golden Vance's AoE must be placed in contact with an Objective, and then instead of having a range, it affects any enemy unit that is in contact with the Objective. It also allows for AoEs with greater range requiring more movement into them to dispel (ie A magical storm you must brave to be able to stop it at the core.)

Obsidian-Crane wrote:
Modelling Objectives
As Objectives are Height 0 modelling is now a bad idea. (And rendered my existing ones into the realm of scenery :( ).

I agree. If the reason to change Objectives to Height 0 was because many players forgot they had a size, then suggesting to give them a physical size is directly counter to that, even if it means a slightly more boring presentation.

Obsidian-Crane wrote:
I believe the Advanced Terrain Rules should keep that heading but be moved to the end of the prior terrain section, and that the optional missions section should go before any Appendix featuring traits and Abilities. Putting Abilities at the very end of the book makes it far easier to reference them during the game, only the index and an play summary page should come after the Abilities appendix.

I second both suggestions. While I can bookmark a spot in a digital version, the print version should have the ability glossary in as easy a place to access as possible. Even if it makes sense to be earlier in the rules from a first-read standpoint, the far more common use will be by players during games, and having the list easily accessible will be appreciated. Advanced terrain rules being with the rest of the terrain also makes more sense to me because I shouldn't have to consult two different sections of the book when setting up the battlefield.


December 19th, 2017, 10:41 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 695
Thanks for this!

Going through here. (And Major Glitch's thread as well)

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


December 21st, 2017, 11:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.