Beta rules v2.2

Thanks guys. Loads of tricky details raised by v2.1, which I've spent a long time trying to incorporate fixes for. All good stuff.

The 2.2 beta is here: https://quirkworthy.com/2017/01/01/mythic-battles-beta-v2-2/

I've reworked the turn sequence and style for keywords, etc, as well as many of the definitions, and I'd like you to re-read these so I've not added an entirely new section today. I think this foundational stuff needs to be right first. And I think we're closer. I'm aiming to add more new things tomorrow.

Some notes on what was raised:

Divinity - still not entirely convinced.

AoW- I want to keep this separate from the turn sequence. Having to list which of the maneuvers can be used at each point would be cumbersome, and only include some of the AoW options. That would mean splitting the AoW rules again, which I think is less clear. The AoW section will explain when the various options can be used. They are, after all, a wrinkle to the actual turn sequence, not a central part of it.

Guard - wording is tricky. If people want to misconstrue things then it's really hard to avoid any possible loopholes. As I can find an equal number of quibbles with both phrases, and I don't want to make it three times as long, I've introduced a general definition of the term "this unit" which I think clarifies matters.

The standard for writing numbers is slightly muddled with rules for two reasons. Firstly, numbers turn up a lot in game values and dice rolls, neither of which feel right as words. Secondly, and more importantly, they aren't used in a prose sense, but in an explanatory sense, which needs to scan differently. There is no universal convention for this, which is why it's always a bit hit and miss. All I can really say is that I'll be trying to introduce a consistency, but that I don't believe the standard that was  mentioned is the clearest when explaining rules.

At present, there is no hand limit (though we are considering adding one).

Athena and max 3 activations. The rules hierarchy explains that powers override core rules, and as this is only one of dozens of powers that do this, I don't want to pick it out here. The commentary on Athena will mention it.

Rules hierarchy - I'm not happy with the active player solution for ties either, but haven't thought of a better solution. Adding further levels to the hierarchy doesn't solve the problem, it just kicks the can down the road

QW, you should draw as many diagrams / heuristic maps as you can / fits in the future rule book. The discussions on wording can come later I think. You can use the drawing functionalities of word/power point or a mind mapping tool like Freeplane for exemple.

Or maybe the energic community could suggest diagrams. What do you think guys!

I think the words must come first - certainly the major framework. More than happy to fit as many diagrams as I can in the final book, but I need to know what we're trying to show first. There are too many complex details and subclauses to explain with either diagrams or text alone

Plus, I can upload new versions of a word file every day while our layout guy gets on with cards, dashboards, tokens, etc. I don't really want to drag him off that to get him to do layout on beta versions which change every day. They need to settle down a bit, then we can usefully get him and his fancy diagrams involved

[As an aside, I find mind mapping utterly useless. Tried it several times, and have no interest in ever using it again. Pencil and paper's the way forward!]

Remember my 3/4 players game drafting diagrams, I am sure you could tell that I am not a "layout guy" myself
I still think that in some cases, a good diagram can be more precise and accurate.

Concerning mind mapping, Îmust admit that I don't use them often, but each time I did, it was very useful. Well enough of that, being on holidays, I don't really have the occasion to "study" your rules properly. The paradox is that I will have more occasions when I will start to work again

Good diagrams can explain a lot, and we will use more than you saw in the KS beta. I just don't expect them to do all the heavy lifting

Especially when it comes to nit-picking details, the tendency I've seen most often is to treat the text as more important/reliable/authoritative than the diagrams.

@QW

I noticed one flaw in the Leader talent. When it explains activating a friendly unit not owned by the active player, it should read that the owner of that friendly unit needs to discard the activation card. Whether the inactive player should command the decisions for the unit is unclear. Being a Leader implies giving orders. Or are we simply commanding them to act in a general fashion?

Also, your wording on the explanation of how Detriments are the only powers available to a unit which committed a complex action, this is brilliant wording!

Thanks Kalack99. I'll have another look at Leader tomorrow. Getting a bit fuzzy-headed now...

Just a minor point regarding the definition of the Titan keyword:

Titans usually reduce the amount of RP available to recruit their army.
vs
Titans usually reduce the number of RP available to recruit their army.

I'd opt for the use of "number of Recruitment Points"...

I think introducing a hand limit is a bad idea, especially considering the Battle Cycle and getting to draw your entire remaining deck into your hand when someone else runs out of cards to draw.

If that happened and then you had to discard a whole bunch of those cards you just drew, that would be terrible.

Ardrikk wrote:

I think introducing a hand limit is a bad idea, especially considering the Battle Cycle and getting to draw your entire remaining deck into your hand when someone else runs out of cards to draw.

If that happened and then you had to discard a whole bunch of those cards you just drew, that would be terrible.

+1 to that, not to mention counting your cards each turn to make sure you're not over the limit slows down play quite a bit, even more so when the turns are over so fast.

- Agree with Ardrikk, hand limit will make fast decks more (too ?) efficients, because of the Battle cycle.

- I think using Divinity keyword is not a necessity, but it could avoid some issues. Using it, if you want to create a specific rule for gods, you can't forgot to specify that this rule don't apply to titans.

Exemple :
For gods you will write : "Gods can ...",
For titans : "Titans can...",
For both : "Divinitys can...".

- For Leader talent : In 2v2 game, with Athena, if my third activation is a unit with leader talent that finish his activation in the same area than an ~allied troop, I can then make a fourth activation during the same turn ??

Biel wrote:

- For Leader talent : In 2v2 game, with Athena, if my third activation is a unit with leader talent that finish his activation in the same area than an ~allied troop, I can then make a fourth activation during the same turn ??

Leader doesn't bypass maximum activations iirc.

The description of the Mighty Throw talent says:

"If the owner discarded sufficient blanks to throw the target unit, the thrown unit drops any omphalos they were carrying, and is then moved into an area adjacent to its starting area."

It might be a good idea to explicitly state that the player who is utilizing this talent gets to choose which adjacent area to move the thrown unit to. Probably obvious, but could save rules arguments if it's stated clearly.

A suggestion about gods, titans and giving -2 RP.

Wouldn't it be easier to give gods and titans a RP value just like any other unit?

Then you could simply list the cost of a most gods as 0 RP in its dashboard and titans would cost 2 RP. AND use some kind of element (point, asterisk) to note that you can only choose ONE unit of both this kind in your army.

Or simply put:

Did you say that you plan to include a symbol for each kind of unit?

You said this for colour blind persons, isn't it? perfect, then the unit simbol for gods and titans can have in the rules the explanation:

(symbol) God: This unit is a divinity unit.

(symbol) Titan: This unit is a divinity unit.

And so you can explain the "divinity unit" in the rules as "There can be only one divinity unit in your army".

Ricardo Tapias Rios wrote:

Or simply put:

Did you say that you plan to include a symbol for each kind of unit?

You said this for colour blind persons, isn't it? perfect, then the unit simbol for gods and titans can have in the rules the explanation:

(symbol) God: This unit is a divinity unit.

(symbol) Titan: This unit is a divinity unit.

And so you can explain the "divinity unit" in the rules as "There can be only one divinity unit in your army".

I think "There can only be one god or titan in your army" works just as well and avoids the additional definition for a divinity. As for simply giving titans a points cost in stead of saying they have less RP, I had the same thought, but I think the intention here was to really distinguish titans from regular units that can be recruited. I remember seeing people ask questions about whether titans could be recruited in an army after you already chose a god, even with the current explanations in place, so perhaps keeping it as a negative value can help untangle that confusion.

MaxC wrote:

Biel wrote:

- For Leader talent : In 2v2 game, with Athena, if my third activation is a unit with leader talent that finish his activation in the same area than an ~allied troop, I can then make a fourth activation during the same turn ??

Leader doesn't bypass maximum activations iirc.

In the Beta rules v2.2, it does MaxC. Look page 9, Leader talent description, 3rd paragraph :
This Leader activation does not count towards the maximum number of unit activations allowed for the turn.

Biel wrote:

In the Beta rules v2.2, it does MaxC. Look page 9, Leader talent description, 3rd paragraph :
This Leader activation does not count towards the maximum number of unit activations allowed for the turn.

You can active a fourth unit only if that unit is an allied unit (if you play in 2v2 for example) and not if that unit is your own.

Some great points as usual.

Icons for the different unit types are being done now.

As you correctly worked out, you can activate more than 2 or even 3 units as long as you were playing more than 2 player games and activated other player's friendly units with your Leaders.

I don't think this needs changing in the rules as the answer you came to from the current wording is entirely right.

1. (mighty throw) "starting area" as defined as:
- where the unit was at the start of the throwing unit's activation;
- where the unit was at the end of its owners turn;
- other?

2. Detrimental: is it getting its own power icon (next to hand, star, hourglass, lightning)?

3. Not in favour of a hand limit. It's a stealth nerf to Pandora!

Ricardo Tapias Rios wrote:

A suggestion about gods, titans and giving -2 RP.

Wouldn't it be easier to give gods and titans a RP value just like any other unit?

4. agreed!

1) MT - I might change that wording slightly. Something like:

"If the owner discarded sufficient blanks to throw the target unit, the thrown unit first drops any omphalos they were carrying in the area they are currently in, and is then moved into an adjacent area."

2) Either an icon or some other clear way to denote it.

3) Please vote and comment on my new hand limit poll thread

"Detriment: a power that is bad for the unit. They are the only type of power that remains in effect when the unit makes a complex action."

I suggest A power that has a negative effect for the unit.

Force of Nature
If this unit is in an area containing a ruin or tree model...

Consider something like ... an area containing terrain other than immovable terrain, such as tree or ruin. I am not for bloating up the rules but this may help future proof other types of terrain in future MB.

"Monster Slayer Type abilities that let you re role
This unit may re-roll up to 2 dice when it ATTACKs a monster"
You may want to consider adding "must keep the new result"


What issues are you having with Ties?

I know we are voting on the hand limit, I do suggest putting what happens when someone runs through their deck right after the turn order as it can be part of what happens then.

I finally got the time to sit and read through all the pages. I will mention what I liked or did not like:

Voice of Olympus wrote:

Divinity - still not entirely convinced.

I suggest deity. It can be used for primordial beings such as Gaia, titans such as Kronos and gods such as Zeus. I'd suggest using deity when referring to Titans and Gods, while considering these two terms sub-categories of Deity (this is only needed because of an actual difference in terms of gameplay, not lore!).

Voice of Olympus wrote:

AoW- I want to keep this separate from the turn sequence. Having to list which of the maneuvers can be used at each point would be cumbersome, and only include some of the AoW options. That would mean splitting the AoW rules again, which I think is less clear. The AoW section will explain when the various options can be used. They are, after all, a wrinkle to the actual turn sequence, not a central part of it.

I agree.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

The standard for writing numbers is slightly muddled with rules for two reasons. Firstly, numbers turn up a lot in game values and dice rolls, neither of which feel right as words. Secondly, and more importantly, they aren't used in a prose sense, but in an explanatory sense, which needs to scan differently. There is no universal convention for this, which is why it's always a bit hit and miss. All I can really say is that I'll be trying to introduce a consistency, but that I don't believe the standard that was  mentioned is the clearest when explaining rules.

Definetely use 1, 2, 3 and such. They're quicker to read and visually clearer.

RichC wrote:

"Detriment: a power that is bad for the unit. They are the only type of power that remains in effect when the unit makes a complex action."

I suggest A power that has a negative effect for the unit.

I agree, negatively effects sounds better.

Regarding the Glossary, I can't help but think we're overcomplicating things a little bit, while also steering away from what the goal of a Glossary is:

• Adjacent area is a very good example of what the Glossary should be for: it's a word you see in the description of many powers and, since you're never sure what it means exactly, you go and search for it in the glossary. Talent, RP, Detriment, Area, Surroundings, Token, Recall, Lead Player are also very good examples of what the Glossary should be for: they're all explaining something that might not be fully understood when encountered for the first time, but that's it. I don't want the Glossary to tell me when I can activate a talent, I just want to know that it refers to that little word below the unit's name and that it does something that's written in the Talents section of the rulebook.    
  
• Complex action is a good example of how the glossary should be written: short, quick description without going too deep on things that are really not meant for a Glossary. However, I would suggest using OR instead of AND in "the actions RUN, ABSORB, and ENTER".
  
• Assault is a bad example of what should be in the Glossary: you're only gonna encounter that word when reading about how attacks work, where it will be already thoroughly explained, so I don't think we need it in the Glossary as well. Not very pragmatic. Also, for all the Glossary cares, Troops are a type of unit, nothing more: what they are and how they work in terms of gameplay should be explained in the respective section.
  
• Enemy and Friendly I'm not sure need any explanation, which I think might only overcomplicate things (do you mean friendly is not what I think it is??   ).
  
• Round can be horribly misinterpreted.
  
• Unit types should be in a separate section (one of the first ones in the rulebook), but I'm not yet sure I would remove them completely. Same goes for Stats: I would only initially explain how they are written in Italics throughout the rulebook and then have a separate section for them as well.
  

Orword wrote:

Regarding the Glossary, I can't help but think we're overcomplicating things a little bit, while also steering away from what the goal of a Glossary is:

I agree with this notion, as we have been reading through it I have been concerned about the bloat that adding too much to the Glossary would add. Although Glossarys and are less obtrusive unless you need them because they come at the end of the rules. My feeling is that this should be revisited once we have gotten through all of the rules in their entirety.

Voice of Olympus wrote:

Divinity - still not entirely convinced.

Concerning divinity, I think it is good to use a deity. But I do not know which is better sincerely (gods, divinity, or deity). In some RPGs, a deity is often used. And, a deity is used in Bulfinch’s Mythology (for example, “Vesta (the Hestia of the Greeks) was a deity presiding over …”). In either case, when I will translate it into Japanese, I'll use Kami (in Japanese, it means Gods)…lol…

By the way, I’m sorry to repeat my opinion about Range here.

When you use “range” as "the distance between an attacker and its target", it should be written as range (non-italics without a capital letter), not "Range" (italics with a capital letter). Because your definition of the Range (italics with a capital letter) is "the maximum distance (counted in number of areas) at which the unit may make an ATTACK" and/or a stat.

According to this definition and my interpretation, "Range X" does not always mean that the target unit is X zones away from an attacker. It can be interpreted that the attacker has Range X as its stat.

Therefore, "range 1+ ATTACK" is bearable, but "Range 1+ ATTACK" is not good, I think. It may incur an unnecessary misconception.

Otherwise, does “Range 1+ ATTACK” mean “ATTACK by the unit whose Range (stat) is 1 or more?” My opinion is completely irrelevance. Please do not mind. Sorry if my interpretation is wrong... but as my personal feeling, it seems to have a same problem as ATTACK/Offence definition.

Excuse me for bothering you. Thank you for your reading.