Jump to content



Photo

Specializations Duplicated from other Products


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#41 awayputurwpn

awayputurwpn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,074 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:26 AM

Wanting the game to have clear rules isn't a flaw, guys!Excusing a lack of clarity because "someone dealt with it on a podcast" is, at best, counterproductive, and at worst, asinine. The goal of playtesting is to figure out what isn't obvious and needs fixing.A one-line or two line addition to the rules text solves it. And solves it far better than any podcast musings of the design team member.

I don't think anyone here would say they didn't want errata (though I suppose I could be very wrong on that. Many times I presume to know the intentions of people, I am proved wrong). My apologies if I came across as not wanting errata. My intention was to give a quick, official-as-possible answer to the conundrum. I think the general consensus on this board is that, "yeah it'll be in the final release, definitely." And we will all be happy to see it.

What podcasts and emails are useful for is pre-errata answers. You aren't gonna get an errata release every time someone in the community notices something in the rules can be read funny. I'm sure they are taking their time and making sure they're being as thorough as possible before putting out a quality errata document that answers the questions people are asking and looks fabulous while doing it.

Meantime, after decades of only having the phone and snail mail to rely on, you now have access to a fantastic global community of like-minded gamers who are here with the intention of helping other gamers out, and who all have different hooks in the water: some listen to podcasts, some look around for fan-made resources, some make the resources, some know how to Ask a Rules Question (I apparently have an aversion to such things), and some make memes.

I digress.

None of us gamers here can publish an official errata document, so we're giving the best answers from the best sources we've got.

One could just take that back to their table and run with it until further notice. What we've done here is established what the devs have clearly stated as their design intent and give very good contextual reasons as to why this should be the case. It. Just. Makes. Sense. One could just tell one's rules lawyers that "this is how it's gonna be in my game."

Edited by awayputurwpn, 12 October 2013 - 09:26 AM.

  • FangGrip likes this

#42 syrath

syrath

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:11 PM

I understand that people want official rules definitivelh stated, however, it was not only mentioned in the podcast that you cannot do it as it stands, it also stated the reason why there is no rule for it, in fact there are no rules currently in AOR beta for combining with EOTE at all. This was also stated in the podcast as being by design. The final product however will have a chapter for how to work with EOTE.


Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put one into a fruit salad


#43 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,527 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:10 AM

Millandson,

Thanks, was hoping someone would do that :)

 

As for the issue of "well it was stated on a podcast but those don't count because I don't listen," the fact still remains it's an official statement right from the mouths of the designers, whether you listen or not.  Since the design team doesn't post on these forums (not that I blame them one bit), a podcast appearance is probably one of the more expedient methods to discuss rules concepts.

 

Besides, if you're going to call podcast appearances into question, why not call into question people who post saying "well I got this e-mail response from Sam Stewart that says..."  After all, it's not directly posted on the forum by a member of the design team, it's not on the website, so therefor it must be must as invalid as something said on a podcast, since you only have that person's word that Sam or Jay or Andy or whomever gave that particularly response. ;)


Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#44 aramis

aramis

    Member

  • Members
  • 996 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:39 AM

 

Besides, if you're going to call podcast appearances into question, why not call into question people who post saying "well I got this e-mail response from Sam Stewart that says..."  After all, it's not directly posted on the forum by a member of the design team, it's not on the website, so therefor it must be must as invalid as something said on a podcast, since you only have that person's word that Sam or Jay or Andy or whomever gave that particularly response. ;)

You haven't been paying attention: people (including me) HAVE BEEN extremely dubious about the leaked via various means rather than properly published by the company as errata clarifications and corrections.



#45 syrath

syrath

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:30 PM

However given that this was an interview with the lead developer AOE and he gave the reason why there isnt an official rule yet. What you choose to do with the information is up to you , but since it doesnt specifically say in the game that you cant take the same spec twice(afaik), why not just rule it that for an extra 20 points you can just take the same spec a second time, thst way you save 10 points from having to choose the same spec from a different career.


Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put one into a fruit salad





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS