View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 14th, 2017, 9:53 pm



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 July 28th Update: Not happy. 
Author Message
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 320
Location: Australia
So deafening silence for weeks.
Especially after last week's "we are here to answer questions and will be checking through the week."

Which clearly didn't happen, because;
New units but no issues with existing units that were called out addressed.
Line of Sight issues for buildings called out weeks ago are still present.

(sarcasm)Yeah, I'm motivated. (/sarcasm)

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


July 28th, 2017, 10:33 pm
Profile WWW
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: December 18th, 2014, 9:27 am
Posts: 23
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Afraid I have to agree with you. Surely we/they should get the RULES right and then fine tune old/new units.

Haven't checked exact dates, but questions/issues taht are weeks if not months old still seem to be ignored.

[sigh]


July 28th, 2017, 10:51 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Hi,

On the 17th we released a pretty major update with lots of unit changes, many of which you requested.

Unfortunately, that update was put up on Monday (I can't entirely say why) so that Friday there wasn't a ton of feedback.

And this last week (between the 21st and 28th) there just were not a lot of reports. I think I got two? Not a lot to base changes on.

Now, maybe there was a ton of feedback on the forums. Unfortunately I haven't had time to read here as much as I would like. Getting the SDE Legends rules up and doing the final community edits for SDE wave 1 took quite a bit of my time. But that's done so I'm here today to read the forum comments and gather feedback.

As to the line of sight question: are you referring to your desire to have more of a "shadow" rule involving elevated terrain? If so, there is a difference between not listening and simply disagreeing. I have heard you. I disagree. That said, I'll be reading through everything today and I'll reply in the relevant thread when I get there.

Hope that helps explain some of it. Thank you for the feedback you have given so far. :)

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


July 31st, 2017, 3:16 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 495
Thank you for the reply. I was also surprised by the general lack of attention given to RK this past week (I just didn't have anything to add to the thread). Are you able to give us an estimate of where things are with the rules? Are we close to targeted testing to determine baselines? Are the mechanics and rulebook at a point where wording for clarity will be the only changes? Are there factions or units that you would like to see more player-driven testing of?

While I do feel that a rule requiring a unit to be within 3 inches of the edge of elevated terrain that the LoS window wouldn't cause much issue (since in all other cases a unit must be close to the terrain to benefit from it). I assume you're disagreement is based on ease of play/not wanting to over-complicate things? I do see issue if a unit is on a high "stepped" structure (would you only count the level you're standing on?). It was nice the first couple of weeks after 2.1 when you had a more constant presence here. Even if it's just to say "X won't happen", at least we would know to focus our attention elsewhere. (How dare you spoil us with great communication early on and then get busy! ;) )


July 31st, 2017, 5:56 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Major Glitch wrote:
Thank you for the reply. I was also surprised by the general lack of attention given to RK this past week (I just didn't have anything to add to the thread). Are you able to give us an estimate of where things are with the rules? Are we close to targeted testing to determine baselines? Are the mechanics and rulebook at a point where wording for clarity will be the only changes? Are there factions or units that you would like to see more player-driven testing of?

While I do feel that a rule requiring a unit to be within 3 inches of the edge of elevated terrain that the LoS window wouldn't cause much issue (since in all other cases a unit must be close to the terrain to benefit from it). I assume you're disagreement is based on ease of play/not wanting to over-complicate things? I do see issue if a unit is on a high "stepped" structure (would you only count the level you're standing on?). It was nice the first couple of weeks after 2.1 when you had a more constant presence here. Even if it's just to say "X won't happen", at least we would know to focus our attention elsewhere. (How dare you spoil us with great communication early on and then get busy! ;) )


Since we're divorcing the cards from the models and shipping them in a later wave, the only thing development-wise that affects wave 1 shipping is the two player starter. So that is my personal primary focus.

My plans this week are:

1) Go back and reread past reports along with forum feeback to finalize any potential rule changes. Having started on that today I have a few:

-minions will be allowed to activate before Heroes if a player wishes.
-all terrain will grant +2 armor in terms of cover and "protection" will be deleted for simplicity
-I am strongly considering your suggestions to Mark/Blood tokens but need to run it by Freeman

2) Give the rules a thorough readthrough for clarity.

3) Write the two player starter.

So the two player starter and any core rule revisions will likely be the update this week. With next week focusing more on the units and any feedback you guys have on the starter booklet.

I also want to see about splitting the units up into "waves" for you guys to focus on testing.

For LoS, yes my primary concern is ease of play and ease of interpretation over verisimilitude. If we wanted maximum verisimilitude we would go true LoS (and this isn't sarcasm, I'm fine with true LoS, just not what we have).

I'm glad my early responses were appreciated. Part of pulling away was also seeing a lot of comments about me coming off as arrogant or not listening. I prefer to tell you guys when we're just not going to do something, but if I'm not helping I have no issue staying silent. Just let me know.

Anyway, glad to be really digging in again!

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


July 31st, 2017, 7:19 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 320
Location: Australia
Justin there has been no presence here for more than a month.

I'm aware of the modifications that reflect my reports (and a couple of other folks) in the 17th update which is great.

I also happen to have stopped being on holiday and had to go back to adulting, so wasn't able to test that week (and your Monday is my Tuesday).

Then the next weekend you committed to paying attention to questions and then addressed none of the existing questions, mine or anyone elses.

Then the testing that was done wasn't reflected in the last update because you added 8 models only 3 of which mattered based on public information

As to LoS, seeing you have GenCon coming up feel free to set up the situation in question and ask the following questions.

Can the model on the terrain shoot at the model on the ground?

Do you know the current 2E rules?

See how many people say yes to the first question that don't know the 2E rules, and even how many that know them say yes.

Its not a matter of going to True LoS, its a matter of making rules that support the inherent logic of the situation.

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


July 31st, 2017, 9:04 pm
Profile WWW
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 495
ND_Justin wrote:
I'm glad my early responses were appreciated. Part of pulling away was also seeing a lot of comments about me coming off as arrogant or not listening. I prefer to tell you guys when we're just not going to do something, but if I'm not helping I have no issue staying silent. Just let me know.


For me, I enjoy the access to the process that your presence allows. I'd prefer the interaction to the silence - I'd rather know for sure I'm being heard even if my contributions are not used (and so far as you are responding to the game reports, that is happening). I have seen similar negative comments about other players who are involving themselves in the beta process and largely liking the changes. I think regardless of what choice you make about your involvement, people are going to complain. However, I think if you are able to take time to comment just so people know you're seeing things, that will go a long way to building up trust and support. (I agree that explaining your reasoning on every change will be counter-productive for testing, so a simple "We've already considered this" or the like will help.)

For the LoS, I have no problem with abstraction, and I prefer it because it is generally faster to use than true LoS. This game wasn't designed with true LoS in mind, from a model standpoint, so I would personally not like to see it go that way. As a friend pointed out, the issue with LoS in general is that rules for LoS can make or break the adoption of a game. Overall I am happy with the way LoS rules work now, as I think they blend expectation and expediency fairly well without causing the need for a lot of interpretation on behalf of the players. I am glad to hear that protection is being made a basic feature of cover from terrain - has it been considered if "cover" in general should grant protection (IE allow it if claiming cover from objectives, AoEs (Black Dragons) or other units)? Additionally, has it been considered to add a rule to Wreck It on terrain that makes terrain with that trait take damage passively whenever units benefit from cover?

I am also looking forward to testing the hero/minion change for activations. It feels odd emotionally, since it is a big departure, but logically I can find no issue with it and I think the choices it opens up will be nice (though some abilities might need to be reconsidered for combo purposes...)

As for the faction token change, my initial concern has been lessened in terms of Noh, with the changes made to a couple of the units (notably Marikan To), though my overall feeling is that Mark/Blood/Stoic tokens are the weaker and more boring tokens compared to the other factions. Unlike Note and Pit tokens, the tokens based on combat reward you for doing something you were going to do anyways, whereas the others require you to make a purposeful choice to gain them. Note/Pit are more interesting and add more diversity to the decisions you have to make, and having the other factions follow in some way adds more flavor - the combat tokens simply reinforce the rest of the design for that faction (not a terrible thing, but not as interesting as Note tokens either). Having gotten more factions on the table and seeing more of the planned units, I am not as worried about keeping the tokens as they are, though I'd still appreciate other options being explored.

So again, thanks for taking the time to check in, and I hope you'll reconsider engaging from time to time (though right now there's only a few of us regularly posting...)


July 31st, 2017, 9:20 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Obsidian-Crane wrote:
Justin there has been no presence here for more than a month.

I'm aware of the modifications that reflect my reports (and a couple of other folks) in the 17th update which is great.

I also happen to have stopped being on holiday and had to go back to adulting, so wasn't able to test that week (and your Monday is my Tuesday).

Then the next weekend you committed to paying attention to questions and then addressed none of the existing questions, mine or anyone elses.

Then the testing that was done wasn't reflected in the last update because you added 8 models only 3 of which mattered based on public information

As to LoS, seeing you have GenCon coming up feel free to set up the situation in question and ask the following questions.

Can the model on the terrain shoot at the model on the ground?

Do you know the current 2E rules?

See how many people say yes to the first question that don't know the 2E rules, and even how many that know them say yes.

Its not a matter of going to True LoS, its a matter of making rules that support the inherent logic of the situation.



I've been reading, but I have limited my responses because they seemed to be doing the opposite of helping, as noted above. If you want more interaction, that's fine, I'm happy to give it. As you noted, much of the feedback is clearly reflected in the update on the 17th.

For the next few weeks after the 17th I was busy with SDE stuff. I cannot comment on what was written in the updates as I do not write them. But I'm not the only one working on Relic Knights and I know other people were paying close attention, compiling feedback and testing the game.

Rules that support the "inherent logic" of LoS boil down to "do you think this character can see that character?" which is true LoS. Which is fine! But we have an abstract system. It's nice in that there's less disagreement and more clearly defined rules. But falls behind true los in that it doesn't always make complete intuitive sense. Now, you can disagree with me here, that's fine! But we've had this discussion before. It is unfair to say it was ignored. I just don't agree.

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


July 31st, 2017, 9:29 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 320
Location: Australia
True LoS means playing a game of statues, it's one of the worst and most abuse prone rules foisted on gamers ever.

Just ask the questions of people. It takes seconds to set the scenario up and seconds to get the answer. It takes less than 1 sentence to fix the current rules as written to remove the ability to ignore the building you are standing on totally.Further fixing this is likely to result in rules that match the way people will play the game anyway.

As to the updates your lack of responsibility for them doesn't absolve ND/SPM of the responsibility of carrying through with them. There are a tiny number of backers testing, but lots of concerns about the state of the models and the project over all. People are overall happy with the rules updates progress but the KS isn't just rules thing (& there are plenty of lingering complaints about the fundamental rules changes but I'm not considering those) and there is plenty to be talking about that isn't happening.

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


July 31st, 2017, 11:25 pm
Profile WWW
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 320
Location: Australia
And the deleterious effect of your posting is exactly because of this sort of thing, saying "I disagree" and not testing if adding "if within 3" of the edge" to the second dot point of elevated terrain LoS rules would solve the LoS problem is exactly the sort of situation that got complaints last time.

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


July 31st, 2017, 11:53 pm
Profile WWW
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Obsidian-Crane wrote:
And the deleterious effect of your posting is exactly because of this sort of thing, saying "I disagree" and not testing if adding "if within 3" of the edge" to the second dot point of elevated terrain LoS rules would solve the LoS problem is exactly the sort of situation that got complaints last time.


I have tested it in office.

I have tested it with other games.

Every single thing that is posted here cannot make it into a beta packet. It would be a mess. I understand you want it. I hear you. I respect your arguments. I still don't think it's a good idea to put in the public test packet.

I can't put everything in. I just can't. And if that is the expectation, and responding to things I'm not going to put in has a deleterious effect, then giving the forums some breathing room was likely a good idea.

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


August 1st, 2017, 2:07 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Obsidian-Crane wrote:
True LoS means playing a game of statues, it's one of the worst and most abuse prone rules foisted on gamers ever.

Just ask the questions of people. It takes seconds to set the scenario up and seconds to get the answer. It takes less than 1 sentence to fix the current rules as written to remove the ability to ignore the building you are standing on totally.Further fixing this is likely to result in rules that match the way people will play the game anyway.

As to the updates your lack of responsibility for them doesn't absolve ND/SPM of the responsibility of carrying through with them. There are a tiny number of backers testing, but lots of concerns about the state of the models and the project over all. People are overall happy with the rules updates progress but the KS isn't just rules thing (& there are plenty of lingering complaints about the fundamental rules changes but I'm not considering those) and there is plenty to be talking about that isn't happening.


Fair enough.

Keep pushing for more on models, art, production, what have you.

But, I'm a rules guy, so that is what I will be talking about. :)

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


August 1st, 2017, 2:09 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Major Glitch wrote:
ND_Justin wrote:
I'm glad my early responses were appreciated. Part of pulling away was also seeing a lot of comments about me coming off as arrogant or not listening. I prefer to tell you guys when we're just not going to do something, but if I'm not helping I have no issue staying silent. Just let me know.


For me, I enjoy the access to the process that your presence allows. I'd prefer the interaction to the silence - I'd rather know for sure I'm being heard even if my contributions are not used (and so far as you are responding to the game reports, that is happening). I have seen similar negative comments about other players who are involving themselves in the beta process and largely liking the changes. I think regardless of what choice you make about your involvement, people are going to complain. However, I think if you are able to take time to comment just so people know you're seeing things, that will go a long way to building up trust and support. (I agree that explaining your reasoning on every change will be counter-productive for testing, so a simple "We've already considered this" or the like will help.)

For the LoS, I have no problem with abstraction, and I prefer it because it is generally faster to use than true LoS. This game wasn't designed with true LoS in mind, from a model standpoint, so I would personally not like to see it go that way. As a friend pointed out, the issue with LoS in general is that rules for LoS can make or break the adoption of a game. Overall I am happy with the way LoS rules work now, as I think they blend expectation and expediency fairly well without causing the need for a lot of interpretation on behalf of the players. I am glad to hear that protection is being made a basic feature of cover from terrain - has it been considered if "cover" in general should grant protection (IE allow it if claiming cover from objectives, AoEs (Black Dragons) or other units)? Additionally, has it been considered to add a rule to Wreck It on terrain that makes terrain with that trait take damage passively whenever units benefit from cover?

I am also looking forward to testing the hero/minion change for activations. It feels odd emotionally, since it is a big departure, but logically I can find no issue with it and I think the choices it opens up will be nice (though some abilities might need to be reconsidered for combo purposes...)

As for the faction token change, my initial concern has been lessened in terms of Noh, with the changes made to a couple of the units (notably Marikan To), though my overall feeling is that Mark/Blood/Stoic tokens are the weaker and more boring tokens compared to the other factions. Unlike Note and Pit tokens, the tokens based on combat reward you for doing something you were going to do anyways, whereas the others require you to make a purposeful choice to gain them. Note/Pit are more interesting and add more diversity to the decisions you have to make, and having the other factions follow in some way adds more flavor - the combat tokens simply reinforce the rest of the design for that faction (not a terrible thing, but not as interesting as Note tokens either). Having gotten more factions on the table and seeing more of the planned units, I am not as worried about keeping the tokens as they are, though I'd still appreciate other options being explored.

So again, thanks for taking the time to check in, and I hope you'll reconsider engaging from time to time (though right now there's only a few of us regularly posting...)


I think I'm going to allow objectives to grant cover, but not other units. Your version of wreck it is definitely realistic, but seems like a bit of book keeping.

The other nice thing about updating the blood/killmark tokens is it opens up future design. I don't want to have to put melee on every Noh and ranged on every black diamond. So, I'm leaning that way more and more, personally. But, need to talk to the rest of the team.

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


August 1st, 2017, 2:16 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
So I'm sort of on "speak now or forever hold your peace" mode on the rulebook, allowing me to write the two player quickstart. Here is a quick look at this week's changelog, feel free to shoot me any questions or comments:

-Minions may activate before Heroes if the player so chooses
-Knockback rewritten
-Units with Fly do not suffer falling damage
-Squad cohesion in regards to elevation cleaned up
-Multiplayer rules removed (they will not be in the core book but will be released in another format eventually)
-Blood Thirsty rewritten
-Killmarks rewritten
-Terrain Protection trait removed, all cover grants Armor 2

KILLMARKS: After a unit with Killmarks finishes resolving an attack that damaged an enemy unit which at least one other friendly unit has line of sight to, the unit with Killmarks gains a Mark token until the end of its next activation.

BLOOD THIRSTY: After a unit with Blood Thirsty finishes resolving an attack that damaged an enemy unit which was damaged before the attack, the unit with Blood Thirsty gains a Blood token until the end of its next activation.

KNOCKBACK: (After Action) If a unit is affected by Knockback, place a Knockback token on its card. A unit with a Knockback token does not gain any benefits from gaining an activation token (including activating, drawing cards, or triggering abilities). When the unit’s controller clears the activation tokens of the unit’s type during clean up, remove all Knockback tokens from the unit.


Minions activating before heroes I want to see some testing on before completely finalizing, but having tried it out I'm fairly confident it can stay. Still, good to have feedback on it.

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


August 1st, 2017, 7:37 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 495
Thank you for the rules preview. Without testing the proposed changes look like they will be good. I am sad about the multiplayer rules, but if their delay means they will be more robust, I can endorse the decision, though I still would like to see them in the main book for completeness.

Specific thoughts:

I'm all on board with the changes to Killmarks and Bloodthirsty!
- Does Bloodthirsty work on a unit that had been damaged but healed to full, or is it only meant to trigger if the target unit actually has damage marked?
- Consider changing "...the unit with Killmarks gains a Mark token..." to "...the active unit..." (So that it cannot be argued that the second unit providing the condition for Killmarks should get a token if it also has Killmarks.)

Units not taking falling damage if the have fly is a neutral change, but I know some people were asking for it so I'm all for testing it.

Can you give us a better idea of change to the Cohesion wording? (Is it going to be similar to the 1.0 wording that had a vertical allowance independent from the horizontal?)

"All cover grants armor 2" - I assume you mean "all cover granted by non-unit objects" based on an earlier comment?

I'm a little sad to see that multiplayer will not be in the core rules. I assume this has to do with balance and wording regarding victory? I do hope that the choice to release the multiplayer rules separate from the main book means we'll see some multiplayer-specific scenarios...

Knockback also seems like a great revision. This change makes the ability always relevant without having to time it's use with your opponent's refreshing activation tokens.

I look forward to testing player choice on hero/minion order. It makes units that combo like Sophia Drake and Betty far easier to use, and that is a big win. I haven't found any interactions that are overly powerful when a minion can go first, though in a few cases it does allow for some interesting combos. which is a good thing in my mind, and should open up the design space quite a bit.

Are you keeping the Abilities broken into 'common' and 'advanced' sections? I still feel this is a poor choice from a usability standpoint. If you feel the need to keep abilities not used by units in the starter separate, I think the better choice is to include the abilities used by starter units in the quick start rules instead, and possibly listing those abilities not in the QS rules in a "expanding beyond the starter" bit at the end of the QS rules.

Will units be updated this week as well as the rules? (One specific that jumps to mind is Black Dragons, I think their starting AoE could be worded better with the change to cover).


August 1st, 2017, 8:24 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Just copy and pasting:

COVER
If any line could be traced within the window that crosses any blocking or obscuring object, determine the distance between the obscuring object and the target. If the target is within 3 inches of the object, the target has cover. (Line of Sight Fig. 3) Units may not gain cover due to other units within the sight window; however cover may be gained from terrain, objectives, etc.

If a unit has cover against a ranged attack, it gains an additional armor 2 for the duration of the attack, Armor, page XX.


SQUADS AND ELEVATED TERRAIN
When a squad interacts with elevated terrain, cohesion is determined from base-to-base as normal, and cohesion is measured diagonally where necessary.



The advanced abilities section will not be surviving this update. I'm going to try to move some of them to cards, others I will throw into one generalized abilities section.

I was about to say that, no, there will not be many card updates. But I already updated Black Dragons and the Unstable Nitro ability.

That said, the major update this week will be the inclusion of the quickstart booklet.

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


August 1st, 2017, 8:52 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 495
ND_Justin wrote:
If a unit has cover against a ranged attack, it gains an additional armor 2 for the duration of the attack
Should psychic be included here?

Cohesion rules look good.


August 1st, 2017, 9:07 pm
Profile
Employee
User avatar

Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 6:01 pm
Posts: 674
Major Glitch wrote:
ND_Justin wrote:
If a unit has cover against a ranged attack, it gains an additional armor 2 for the duration of the attack
Should psychic be included here?

Cohesion rules look good.


I'm leaning no but I'm open.

_________________
The Demogorgon tires of your silly human bickering!

Email: justin.gibbs@ninjadivision.com


August 1st, 2017, 9:20 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 495
I'm not entirely against the change, I just wanted to make sure it was intentional. Psychic had an edge in 1.0 because fewer active defenses could be used against those attacks. Not allowing the bonus armor from cover makes psychic more of a threat again, and helps further differentiate it from ranged attacks.

However, psychic already has one big advantage over ranged in that it can be while engaged. Ignoring the cover bonus makes the attacks quite a bit more powerful since they gain an inherent damage bonus against units with block, and a marginal bonus against all other units. On average, psychic attacks cost a little more, so that might balance it, but at the same time this change will benefit one faction disproportionally. My experience also suggests that Doctrine needs a boost, since they have the worst win rate of all reported 2.0 games I have played/read.

So I want to test it, but my initial thoughts are concern over balance between ranged and psychic.


August 1st, 2017, 9:45 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 320
Location: Australia
ND_Justin wrote:
I have tested it in office.

I have tested it with other games.

Every single thing that is posted here cannot make it into a beta packet. It would be a mess. I understand you want it. I hear you. I respect your arguments. I still don't think it's a good idea to put in the public test packet.

I can't put everything in. I just can't. And if that is the expectation, and responding to things I'm not going to put in has a deleterious effect, then giving the forums some breathing room was likely a good idea.


There are plenty of things I'm not sold on in the rules I'm willing to support because my problems with them stem from my knowledge of the 1E rules rather than problems with the 2E rules.

I'm also curious what rules system you have played/tested/written or whatever before this that allows people to ignore the building they are standing on as RK currently does?

Again I ask that you take the time at GenCon to examine the rule with a wider audience.

ND_Justin wrote:
So I'm sort of on "speak now or forever hold your peace" mode on the rulebook, allowing me to write the two player quickstart. Here is a quick look at this week's changelog, feel free to shoot me any questions or comments:

-Minions may activate before Heroes if the player so chooses
-Knockback rewritten
-Units with Fly do not suffer falling damage
-Squad cohesion in regards to elevation cleaned up
-Multiplayer rules removed (they will not be in the core book but will be released in another format eventually)
-Blood Thirsty rewritten
-Killmarks rewritten
-Terrain Protection trait removed, all cover grants Armor 2

KILLMARKS: After a unit with Killmarks finishes resolving an attack that damaged an enemy unit which at least one other friendly unit has line of sight to, the unit with Killmarks gains a Mark token until the end of its next activation.

BLOOD THIRSTY: After a unit with Blood Thirsty finishes resolving an attack that damaged an enemy unit which was damaged before the attack, the unit with Blood Thirsty gains a Blood token until the end of its next activation.

KNOCKBACK: (After Action) If a unit is affected by Knockback, place a Knockback token on its card. A unit with a Knockback token does not gain any benefits from gaining an activation token (including activating, drawing cards, or triggering abilities). When the unit’s controller clears the activation tokens of the unit’s type during clean up, remove all Knockback tokens from the unit.


Minions activating before heroes I want to see some testing on before completely finalizing, but having tried it out I'm fairly confident it can stay. Still, good to have feedback on it.


I'm very excited (again) to test the Activation order change, especially as this fixes a lot of situations where Minions seem to want to activate before Heroes.

I'm also happy to see the rest of the changes listed here as they address a number of things that have been lingering around.

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


August 2nd, 2017, 4:23 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.