Makers of Award-winning Role Playing Games › Forums › Arcanis: The Shattered Empires › Arcanis: Rules & Rulings › Proposed Errata/FAQ Discussion › Advanced Spell v2.2 Effects
- This topic has 32 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
- March 28, 2014 at 10:49 am #261249AnonymousInactive
On the other hand, this is not a small change for an issue that should have come up during play testing for the fast play edition. Why wasn’t this discussed then, and why are we tackling it now?The original CTN for Advanced spells in the Quicklaunch book was the 2 spell CTNs -10. It was too hard to use and would never make sense over individual adapted spells. The CTN number for how to build advanced spells changed a number of times during play test trying to find the right balance point. It was however just one aspect of the game that needed to be tested.
The core rule book is 400+ pages long and there’s a lot to cover there in terms of play testing. We’re almost exactly 3 years after the core rule book came out. There are hundreds of players finding combinations and innovating. It’s inevitable that with enough time and consideration people will find combos that make you reconsider things. If you still have a copy of the Quicklaunch rules and compare them to what’s was the released game, I think you’ll find the current game far superior.
With a sweep of his hat,
Paul
March 29, 2014 at 12:14 am #261269frootsnaxParticipantAgreed, the current version is superior to the quick start.
I didn’t remember the fast play rules as -10. I stand corrected on that, I had remembered them as -15. So that sounds more okay then…we’re still looking for the right level.
Given the ambiguity of interpreting posts I should probably also add my respect and thanks for the play testers who have helped improve the rules along the way.
March 29, 2014 at 1:38 am #261271AnonymousInactiveGiven the ambiguity of interpreting posts I should probably also add my respect and thanks for the play testers who have helped improve the rules along the way.
No one who is familiar with you in person or your frequent posts would think you meant any slightly disrespect. You are true to the good Ambassador to think otherwise.
With more eyes and insights I expect the right balance will be reached with thanks to all who’ve contributed to the discussions.
With a sweep of his hat,
Paul
- AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Proposed Errata/FAQ Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.