I have read those rules and would like to know what you think of it.
It looks to me a very in depth job, quite ambitious (director's cut!) and not respectful to Kevin W. and Dan C. . Am I wrong?
I mean, every rule has been changed and that makes the game hardly comparable to the original.
I think that a lot of rules were not understood in their philosophy and that's why someone has felt the need to change them.
For example, the placing of evidence is a lottery? Well, that's what happens every day when the defending counsel is trying to get pieces of evidence totally different from the prosecutor and they found who was right just when in front of the jury. and one can see what the other has found (physical and documental), but not what witnesses could say. So it is very similar to the game.
Twilight cards and karma. Well, I think that it makes sense to keep players playing cards against each others. And to keep it free and simple. I mean, if I want to keep on attacking the same investigator, that's my choice. Poor or smart that could be.
Why karma changes when I play a card against someone else? that's a rule to keep things working and balanced. that's all! you need a reason? Well, think that sometimes we do bad karmic actions and don't know that. And most of time we don't know either who has sustained that.
Conspirancy. Ok, that's a bit weird I get 4 VPs because of a row of 5 pieces, but that's just a way to give player a reason to resolve the conspirancy. They could use another way, I agree, but that won't mean I feel to change every single piece of the rules.
That's my humble opinion and would like to share with all of us.
thank you for your attention.