The official MYTHIC BATTLES: PANTHEON message board.
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Beta version 2.4

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 4:14 pm

Version 2.4 available at this link:

https://quirkworthy.com/2017/01/05/mythic-battles-version-2-4/

Added the AoW manoeuvre rules.

Thanks
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Teowulff
Villager


Posts : 81
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 4:24 pm

"A player “buys” a manoeuvre by discarding 1 or more Art of War cards from their hand."

Perhaps it's good to add here that 2 dead unit's ACs count as 1 AoW?
And that you can mix them if you have to pay 2 or 3 AoW for a power, for example??

Which leads me to another question: in the rulebook it doesn't say you can use those as AoW to pay for a "to activate you must discard 1 AoW card" penalty (Echo, Orpheus) or un-petrify and such .. as (afaik) it's not a manoeuvre.
Shouldn't that be explicitely be mentioned somewhere as well?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Orword
Villager


Posts : 45
Join date : 2016-12-30
Location : Hades

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 4:42 pm

Rulebook wrote:
The flying unit cannot be the target of this or any other Range 0 ATTACK by a non-flying unit for the remainder of the currentturn.

What happens if the attack is performed by a Range 0 unit who could not enter the area the flying unit is in (because it is full) and has to use the +1 Range bonus? I know that attack will count as being melee, but does that mean the flying unit will still be able to evade it (even though it's technically a Range 1 attack)?
Also, even though it's already written, you may want to repeat that flying units cannot evade other flying-units attacks.


Last edited by Orword on 5th January 2017, 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
RichC
Villager


Posts : 25
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 4:42 pm

Quirkworthy, Great to see how well this is coming along you are doing a fantastic job.

I believe there is a difference in the British spelling and American of Manoeuvre (Maneuver). No idea what to do with that I am sure you are already aware.

For the When Allowed column of the Manoeuvre table, you could consider something like this for Draw Cards.
During the Activation Phases (steps B and C) of the players own turn.

Second Activation.
Only during the Second Activation (C1) of a players turn.

Recall
During the End of Turn phase (D1) of the players own turn. Recall can not be used if the divinity’s area is full.


I believe referring them to the correct step will help players learn game terms better than just referring them to the number.


For the effect of Draw cards, I would suggest “The player may draw up to 2 cards from their deck.” Wording just seemed odd or perhaps I played too much Magic years ago in school.


You could consider getting rid of the art of war cost column and saying all manoeuvre’s cost 1 Art of War except for invoking powers. May help save room to get this all on one page in the book.


I am still thinking about how breaking down the Simple action section and Complex in the Action phases will improve readability and eliminate the need for the Go to’s. What are your thoughts?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
skies
Villager


Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-12-31

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 5:27 pm

Quote :
@skies - I don't see your confusion over Sneak Attack.

"This unit gains +1 Offence as long as a friendly unit is in the same area."

The subject is "this unit", so "the same area" refers to the area with that unit in, not the area of a target that isn't even mentioned

With a name like sneak attack, the friendly unit is probably distracting the target for the attacking unit. When the attacker is far away it makes more sense that they would successfully distract the target by being in the same space as the target than to do it by being in the same space as the attacker. In the context of attacking there is inherently an area of the target, and referring to context is common. In a ranged attack there are 2 areas, and the ability doesn't say which area.

The confusion is that thematically it seems like it would behave the other way, and the phrasing doesn't explicitly specify. You could say "This unit gains +1 Offence as long as it is in the same area as a friendly unit"

Back to top Go down
View user profile
skies
Villager


Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-12-31

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 5:27 pm

Quote :
@skies - I don't see your confusion over Sneak Attack.

"This unit gains +1 Offence as long as a friendly unit is in the same area."

The subject is "this unit", so "the same area" refers to the area with that unit in, not the area of a target that isn't even mentioned

With a name like sneak attack, the friendly unit is probably distracting the target for the attacking unit.  When the attacker is far away it makes more sense that they would successfully distract the target by being in the same space as the target than to do it by being in the same space as the attacker.  In the context of attacking there is inherently an area of the target, and referring to context is common.  In a ranged attack there are 2 areas, and the ability doesn't say which area.

The confusion is that thematically it seems like it would behave the other way, and the phrasing doesn't explicitly specify.  You could say "This unit gains +1 Offence as long as it is in the same area as a friendly unit"
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Teowulff
Villager


Posts : 81
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 6:12 pm

-by the way- why can't we insert polls in our threads? Neutral
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 6:24 pm

@Teowulff - good point. Needs to explain the 2 for 1 ersatz AoW on the AoW page.

Regarding your second thought - I don't think this needs to be a core rule. As the rules hierarchy explains, powers can add to the core rules, and this is a prime example. It just needs to be clear on that power.

@Orword - the full area thing won't be a +1 range solution when I've rewritten it. That's what is causing all the trouble. You can evade vs someone attacking you in a full area.

@Rich C - thanks. Regarding spelling, I've decided to use English spelling as that's what I can write properly. If I tried to write in American I'd struggle with elements that aren't pure spelling - idiom and sentence structure variants. And that would leave us with a weird hybrid that was wrong everywhere Smile

Your suggestions are all longer, so we'll see how much space we have. I agree with your intent though.

I did consider removing the cost column, but have had a near identical situation in another game I wrote, where removing the cost lead to FAQ. I think that having most of what you need to reference in one table meant that was where folk looked for the cost too. We'll see how we do for space.

I think the clearest solution for the turn structure will be a graphic one.

@skies - you're thinking up the whole life story of the units Smile

I appreciate your story-telling and immersion, but I'm not sure how many others would be similarly confused. As written, I still find the rule unambiguous - as long as you read what's written. Will consider the rewording suggested.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 6:25 pm

I thought you could insert polls. It was a bit of an odd way of doing it, but it worked for me. No idea whether that was to do with me having odd privileges or not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Teowulff
Villager


Posts : 81
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 6:37 pm

Voice of Olympus wrote:
I thought you could insert polls. It was a bit of an odd way of doing it, but it worked for me. No idea whether that was to do with me having odd privileges or not.
*
Yes,we discussed it in the off-topic thread. It's a privilege we don't have (and you do Wink )!
The unofficial forums work exactly the same as this one, and there I can make polls.

Further reading: http://agoodplace.forumactif.com/t163-no-polls-on-this-forum


Last edited by Teowulff on 6th January 2017, 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
skies
Villager


Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-12-31

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 7:41 pm

Voice of Olympus wrote:


@skies - you're thinking up the whole life story of the units Smile

I appreciate your story-telling and immersion, but I'm not sure how many others would be similarly confused. As written, I still find the rule unambiguous - as long as you read what's written. Will consider the rewording suggested.


Upon reading my first thoughts were along the lines of: 'wait, what happens when they aren't in the same zone? which zone is it? Maybe this ability only appears on melee units so it's never come up, but there is still the possibility of getting a ranged melee attack when attacking into a full zone.'

You say it makes sense because when there is an unspecified relationship we should refer back to the subject. I've never heard of this as a rule. Seriously. Where I live people don't say things that way unless there is a well established context. As this rule is separated I was grasping for context. Now that I know it's a thing understanding the rules will probably be a lot easier for me though...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pseudonyme
Villager


Posts : 84
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Paris

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 8:36 pm

I have several remarks and suggestions, but as I am not a native English speaker, you'll have to take those with a grain of salt.

First of all, I think that "Keywords are written in bold, like this: draw." should be the first sentence in the Appearnce section.

I'll have more time tomorrow, but for the moment, I preferred the first version of the drafting sequence.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
TontonFranz
Villager


Posts : 19
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   5th January 2017, 10:56 pm

Hi QW,
Some questions:
1) are the Manœuvres allowed once per turn or once per round? If it's one per turn in a 4 players games, I can Search for a card 4 times?
2) the Evade action is once per turn, so in a 3-4 players game, if I Evade once for an attack, I'm still vulnerable to attacks from other players. It diminishes the life span of the flyers (good bye Icarus)
3) To make things simpler (and the flyers nicer) you could count t Evade action as substracting 1 to the Range. If so, a Range 1+ will be able to attack him from the same area, range 2+ from an adjacent area, range 3+ from 2 areas, etc...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Biel
Villager


Posts : 96
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 2:03 am

1. The description of the Mighty throw talent should say if the damage are taken by the target before the throwing or after (important for the Gorgon, Sysiphus and Phoenix) (thanks Garshell).

2. Chapter "Limit of activations" page 10 : "In addition, in games with 3 or more players, the Leader talent may allow a player the option of activating further units from friendly armies."
I think you can remove this sentence. Firstly, the Leader description is enough, redondant with this sentence. Secondly, a friendly unit is my own or thoose owned by a player of my side. Dishonest gamers may say a friendly armie is my own or thoose from my side.

3. Chapter "Art of War Cards & Manoeuvres" page 11 : A player “buys” a manoeuvre by discarding 1 or more Art of War cards from
their hand => A player can perform a manoeuvre by discarding 1 or more Art of War cards from their hand ?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 12:53 pm

@Pseudonyme - I've got plenty of salt ready. You comment away Smile

The revised version of the drafting is closer to the original. What bit do you think was better?

@TontonFranz - once per turn, as it says.

Evade can be done once per turn, and lasts for the rest of the turn, so I can't see the vulnerability.

@Biel -

1) OK, I'll clarify MT.

2) Good point. I'll read that again. As you say, it might be best taken out, though I did add it for a reason. Maybe I can clarify it.

3) I really don't like the word perform, which is why I've removed it. It feels vague and difficult to nail down in comparison to buying something.





Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 12:53 pm

Which brings me to the notion of examples. I've intentionally left examples out to see what was confusing. if I don't need them, then that's better because the rulebook is shorter. However, maybe I do.

Are there any sections of the current file which any of you think need examples to clarify?


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pseudonyme
Villager


Posts : 84
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Paris

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 1:00 pm

If I say "diagrams when possible", will you hit me? Wink

I'll try during my lunch to post some remarks about the draft sequence
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 1:01 pm

No. But diagrams are just unnecessary for some things. Archer, for example.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 1:01 pm

Oh, and did you notice that I'd updated the draft in this last version?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Peps
Villager


Posts : 65
Join date : 2016-12-31
Age : 41
Location : South of France

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 1:30 pm

Yes I did!

And as you can imagine, I'm happier with that one Smile

I would like to thank you, Quirkworthy, for this process of rules revision. My first thinking about spreading the beta rules and asking for a feedback from the community was "waow, it will go in all directions, everybody will comment the wording and the core of the rules itself, or propose some rules changing; not a good idea", but the way you proceed (spreading the rules point by point, chapter by chapter), and the way people there comment it is very pleasant and constructive.

My feeling is that many terms of the glossary are useless, but I guess I am not the best guy to "test" this part of the rules, as I already played the game and read many versions of the rules for one year now...
And I also feel that you write the rules as accurately as possible in order to have a very solid base for the organized play (the only place where I think people couldn't find an agreement, because of competition), with the lesser space to find some "ruling tricks".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pseudonyme
Villager


Posts : 84
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Paris

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 2:58 pm

Some remarks and remember english is not my native language.

Appearance (reordering of bullet-points)

"Keywords are written in bold, like this: draw." should be the first bullet-point

Rules Hierarchy (deletion of the first sentence, because I think that the priority of rules is quite common in boardgames, addition of an example)

"During a game, when two rules contradict each other, the rule with the highest priority is correct prevails (is that correct in english?).
The order of priority is as follow:
1) Scenario special rule
2) Power description
3) Talent description
4) Core rules in this book
5) Game aid
6) Starting guide

<Example>

If two rules of equal priority…"


Setting up a game (wording)
Not a fan of the numbers.
Surprised you use Recruit and not Draft and that Draft is not a keyword in the previous section (I might have not read earlier comments on this point since you published beta rules 2.0)


Recruit an army (I prefered the first beta rules explanation that I am too lazy to seek, but I think that there is too much explanation. Maybe you should refer to the FAQ (put diagrams in the FAQ so that you save some space in the rulebook) like you did for the Rules Hierarchy section)

"Every player must recruit their own army.
The scenario and number of players determines how many Recruitment Points (RP) are available for each player. For example for standard skirmish mode: 1v1: 12 RP, 1v1v1: 10 RP, 1v1v1v1 and 2v2: 8 RP"  (I think it's a good thing that the standard skirmish mode RP is shown as an example)

"1) Draft preparation: Lay out the dashboards and troop cards of the available units on the table.

2) Divinity draft:  Starting with the lead player , each player takes turns choosing only 1 divinity for their army.
a. When every player has chosen 1 divinity, any remaining divinities are removed.
b. An army may never include more than 1 divinity.
"
from my point of view it's implied as "don't drink a boiling cofee" and the addition of "only", I will replace by the free for all and team drafting sequence. Something like that:
"a. If its a standard free for all game (1v1, 1v1v1, 1v1v1,v1), each player chooses a divinity moving clockwise around the table
b. If its a standard team game (2v1, 2v2, 3v1), alterning teams, each player chooses a divinity moving clockwise around the table" (not sure about the 2v1 and 3v1 draft sequence)

3) Units draft: Starting with the last player who drafted a divinity to the right of the lead player (who was last to choose his divinity) and moving in the reverse order of the Divinity draft anticlockwise round the table, players choose the remainder of their army until they have no RP left.
a. Each time a player gets a turn to choose, they must select a single unit to recruit, decrease their total RP by the RP cost of the unit and take the corresponding dashboard or troop card.
c. If a player cannot afford any of the remaining units, then all their remaining RP are converted to omphalos cards: 1 card for each unspent RP.
d. If a player has no Recruitment Points left, the other players continue choosing units in order, skipping the player whose recruitment has ended.
e. Continue until each player has no RP left anticlockwise around the table in as many times as are needed for all players to spend all their RP.
f. Any units that were not recruited are removed.from my point of view: implied, common sens…


Turn sequence
not really fond of the hierarchy and "got to ref.", but don't have really improving ideas neither, and I have work to do Wink

Art of War Cards & Manoeuvres
i did not get that Invoke power is a Maneouvre and not a special action. Ok then, I learned somthing today Smile
Naturally I would have put Evade in the same section of retaliation attacks but using an AoW card instead of an activation card. But OK
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Olympus
Herald


Posts : 358
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 4:05 pm

@Peps - thanks Smile

I'd rather err on the side of defining things that don't really need it, than miss something that does. And what needs defining is different for everyone...

@Pseudonyme - some very good detailed points.

I decided to use recruit rather than draft as that is the term Benoit uses. It's also recruitment points and recruitment cards. Keeping to one term where possible makes things easier.

Overall, the reason for most of the wording, and all of the sentences you think can be deleted, is to explain things to people who are unfamiliar with game conventions. There are always some, and rules need to be clear to the least experienced gamers. Writing on the assumption that the reader will be familiar with conventions is a recipe for a very long FAQ Smile

Whilst I agree that things like inserting "only" allows the removal of later sentences for reasonable people, this leaves rules as being implied rather than clearly stated, and I've found over the years that this is exactly the sort of thing which will end up as debates, FAQs and arguments in a tourney setting. Stating explicitly, in a single sentence, that "An army may never include more than 1 divinity" is great for avoiding debate.

Rules debates never cannot invoke common sense - they must be clearly stated.

So for clarity's sake in future games, I prefer the slightly longer version. If we were not wanting to do Organised Play. I might choose a shorter route.

The turn sequence will have a diagram which I think will be slicker.

I've not changed the manoeuvres. I believe that this is how Benoit always intended them, and how I understood them before. I've just put them all in one table because it's clearer. The list on the last player aid is the same as the one in my table.

Evade and Retaliate could be listed in the same place, and will both be included if we do a diagram of combat steps, which seems like a good idea.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Biel
Villager


Posts : 96
Join date : 2016-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 4:11 pm

Peps wrote:
My feeling is that many terms of the glossary are useless, but I guess I am not the best guy to "test" this part of the rules, as I already played the game and read many versions of the rules for one year now...
I quite agree Peps. Not "many terms are useless" for me but few of them. And with so many Keywords in bold, rules are really less pleasant to read. May you let them in normal character and if players have doubt, they can read the glossary.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pseudonyme
Villager


Posts : 84
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Paris

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 4:43 pm

I totally understand what you say on "implied rules" and "common sense" because I have faced it many times in my job over the years (I am an IT consultant), and even almost beat the crap out of a colleague who once told me "it's largely implied" about a very structuring rule which was completly missing and this absence put our planning at risk (I must confess it did not lessen my hatred for the guy Wink ).

But in that particular case, I strongly think that "each player chooses only 1 Divinity" is quite explicit. If I did not used "implied" and "common sense", would have you give me the same answer?
But I understand your point and you have far more experience on the subject of boardgame rules Wink
Maybe the official FAQ on the web site should also give every examples we can all think of. (with lots of diagrams and statististics!!!!).

Concerning the Manoeuvres, I guess I never read them properly before, and my supposition about Powers is not very relevant at the end, being a core rule of the game that I did not "grasp".

Concerning Recuit and draft, I only made the remark because in all discussions (here, on BGG or back during the KS) we talk about "draft" and not much about "Recruitment". I think Benoit use "Recrutement" in french because I don't think we have a litteral translation of the draft concept in french (as the draft method/period/concept of the NBA for example).
As far as you use the best and most common term in the english, I think my remark does not matter.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Can
Villager


Posts : 41
Join date : 2016-12-31

PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   6th January 2017, 4:50 pm

I don't know if by now everything's set in stone for the "Sequence of Play" but I'd like to pitch my ideas.

As a programmer, here's what I don't like about it:
- The two action phases look too repetitive. Duplication is bad!
- The "jump to"s are not too intuitive, they break the flow of your read.
- There's some text, I find out of context, that doesn't actually explain the steps that a player can take but more like serves as side notes.

Here's how I'd write it out (Note, I edited a little since my first post):

Preparation Phase
.   - Draw 1 card from deck
.   - Decide whether to pass turn. If passed, draw a second card from deck and move on to the Wrap-up Phase.

Activation Phase
.   - Perform up to 2 Activations.

Recall Phase
.   - Decide whether to discard 1 AoW card to recall 1 unit of troops.

Wrap-up Phase
.   - Pass turn to player on the left.


What an Activation is would be explained separately so as to keep the main loop concise and easier to read.


Activation
. - Pick and discard a unit's activation card from hand.
. - For that unit, pick one of the following options:
.       A. Perform a Simple Action sequence:
.                Resolve any powers that trigger at the start of the unit’s activation.
.                Resolve up to 2 different Simple Actions with the unit.
.                Resolve any powers that trigger at the end of the unit’s activation.
.       B. Perform a Complex Action sequence:
.                Resolve 1 Complex Action with the unit.


There are two points I want to stress here.

1) You might have noticed that I removed the following:
  A1) Effects of powers that were triggered in your previous turn and last for 1 round end now.
  B7) During their activation, a unit that is taking a complex action is treated as having no talents at all, and only permanent powers.

These statements are not actual steps that a player takes but rather game rules that apply in those particular steps. I think it would be more concise and clean if they were kept separate from the explanation of turn flow. They could be made a part of text that explains rules in greater detail later on, or placed as a boxed side note on the same page, or maybe linked to this chart via use of asterisks.


2) You might, also, have noticed that I replaced
  D2) Active player status passes to the player on the left of the current active player. The new active player starts their turn at A1.

with

  Pass turn to player on the left.

The definition of an Active Player is clearly provided in the glossary. I don't think there is need to further clutter this section with how Active Player works. Simply stating that turn is passed to next player implies the active player has changed, methinks.


Last edited by Can on 8th January 2017, 2:30 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Beta version 2.4   

Back to top Go down
 
Beta version 2.4
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Version Select Kouki Aero w/ Kouki wing
» Beta 400RR for sale - £2500
» TEAMSPEAK Beta 17
» Mobile version needs work
» Callaway Diablo Edge Tour Version Driver for Beginner/High Handicapper

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
A GOOD PLACE :: Mythic Battles: Pantheon :: Gameplay-
Jump to: