Makers of Award-winning Role Playing Games › Forums › Arcanis: The Shattered Empires › Arcanis: Rules & Rulings › rulings , informal agreement
- This topic has 30 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
- February 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm #256281AnonymousInactive
the goal is to have one answer not fair representation, specifically not “this or that”, and I’m usually going to pick the more restrictive answer if its not clear.
February 4, 2014 at 4:48 pm #256285AnonymousInactivethe goal is to have one answer not fair representation, specifically not “this or that”, and I’m usually going to pick the more restrictive answer if its not clear.
That’s fine if you are picking the answers. If the option is then “Follow Josh’s answer or don’t” that’s cool too, I will pick and choose as needed and no debate is needed.
Thanks,
John
February 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm #256288AnonymousInactiveand john you are just going to avoid the entire purpose of the project, to prevent all of the individual judges from picking and choosing what ever rules they like, and thus providing an uncertain inconsistent playing field
Its not Josh’s answer, its the community’s majority OR if there isnt a majority, the more restrictive answer.
February 4, 2014 at 5:15 pm #256291AnonymousInactiveand john you are just going to avoid the entire purpose of the project, to prevent all of the individual judges from picking and choosing what ever rules they like, and thus providing an uncertain inconsistent playing field
You’ve just stated that you are using the answers you feel are more restrictive even if that’s no consensus amongst the judges. I don’t agree with that approach. If you’re not interested in presenting the ‘majority’ rules or in the case of very close discussions, then the document is not going to provide consistent playing field and becomes “Josh’s way to adjudicate”
I’m perfectly fine with adhering to ‘rulings’ that are in majority agreement on the boards by GM’s and encourage it (Which is a large part of the document and I commend you for putting it together). I’m not fine with you choosing the ruling you want to use when there’s a clear division and saying “This is how we should all do it.”
John
February 4, 2014 at 6:25 pm #256299AnonymousInactiveEnemy of My Enemy already has a +3 Discipline vs further castings so I’m assuming the intended change is that Thrall is counted as the “same” spell?
I think there’s some errors in the Advanced Spell examples.
- 15′ cone and 10′ Radius should be 10′ cone (not 15′ cone).[/*:m]
- 15′ cone and 10′ arc should be 10′ cone (not 10′ arc).[/*:m]
February 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm #256308AnonymousInactiveI don’t think Josh is saying that GM’s can’t allow things on the spur of the moment. Rather he is trying to level expectations of the player base. So, I am going to have to agree with Josh on this one. There are fewer problems to be had by taking a strict interpretation approach to the rules issues.
I would note that Josh and I had an extensive off line discussion on this very topic a few months back. I have been persuaded that the over all effect on the gaming environment is best served by being conservative in interpreting the rules. The reason is that if local GM “A” always rules to allow “Grey Area B”, then the player expects “Grey Area B” to be the standard everywhere. The effect is to raise expectations in the minds of players. These expectations are dashed when disallowed by another GM later. That creates dissention, and ruins the enjoyment of more players than it makes happy.
As Josh implied, if you want to debate a specific rule and build consensus in another directions, by all means you can start a thread and debate it. The list can be changed an consensus changes.
February 4, 2014 at 9:10 pm #256312AnonymousInactiveThank you Eric, that is well said even if I haven’t been able to say it nearly as well.
February 4, 2014 at 10:13 pm #256316AnonymousInactiveAre you looking for input on Skyward? Or have you just not gotten to it yet in the document?
February 4, 2014 at 10:42 pm #256319AnonymousInactiveSkyward has a thread on it where I described how i used it but i don’t recall anyone else giving too much feedback..
Essentially I haven’t gotten to it, because its complicated, but if you have a take I’d be happy to hear it (in a PM please or in the original thread)
February 4, 2014 at 10:54 pm #256321AnonymousInactiveSeemed Pedro approved of the “Gliding” aspect of it with Clumsy maneuverability. That’s a clear indicator in my book that it works like that on the descent.
February 5, 2014 at 10:34 pm #256373AnonymousInactiveGreetings everyone
I thought I covered this before but I have sent the latest update to the FAQ/Errata document to the team for review.
First, we will go over the errata this Friday (we have a meeting)
Then it will be sent to the campaign staff for a review
Lastly it will be posted up for review by the community for 10 days….
I hope to have the update to the errata done before the end of this month, allowing it to go into effect WAY before convention season.
So… lets put a pause to this, I know I have been absent on this front, and for that I apologize, I have re-focused my efforts, you should seeing a lot more of me…
February 5, 2014 at 10:56 pm #256378AnonymousInactivePedro we promise to play nice with you buddy
February 6, 2014 at 8:36 am #256398AnonymousInactivethe only issue i wish to bring up at this time josh is with the ruling you currently have with shield feint. in a post i initially posted (http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=157) henry indicated that he was gonna take another look at that particular move seeing as it was not quite what he had mind as far as the mechanics, i feel there was an implication that the shield was not “dropped” in the sense that you actually lost it. it seems like its more like a hinged where one strap is still attached while other end is lose and one would snap it up/out at opponent kind of like a swinging door. as such i’d think it would be better to wait on saying this is the ruling until we know for sure what henry would like to do with it. i’d be hard pressed to say that there was great majority responding to the thread, let alone justify saying that a majority thought that it was literally dropped to the ground.
now there my be another thread out there that im unaware of where this was discussed in further detail if so i’d love to know which one it is so that i can take a look at if it has been discussed in any more detail since last oct.Hello gentlemen,
The blame for this idea is mine, not Pete. Pete took the idea that I had and translated it into mechanics.
In my ill-spent youth, I did some Ren Faires as part of the Human Chess Game. One of the maneuvers I did was to turn my shield so that it was on top of my arm, then tossed it towards my opponent, letting the first strap slip off my hand, making him dodge it while I then swung at him.
I don’t have the PDF in front of me at the moment, so I don’t remember exactly how Pete wrote that up, but that was the intent.
I’ll try and review the offending text this evening and let you guys know.
February 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm #256399AnonymousInactiveI took the text that Cody posted in the last comment of that thread that I thought interprets what you quoted, but on a second reading your probably right it doesn’t follow what Henry said
I see where you are coming from and encourage you to take up that thread again and post a better revision, or send me one in a PM
February 6, 2014 at 2:15 pm #256400AnonymousInactivethe only issue i wish to bring up at this time josh is with the ruling you currently have with shield feint. in a post i initially posted………
From the upcoming FAQ/Errata document
Effect: Weapon, you gain a +3 to hit and lose any benefit of your shield until you are out of recovery.
- AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Arcanis: Rules & Rulings’ is closed to new topics and replies.