Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FFGDerek

Rules Update!

Recommended Posts

Hello Beta Testers!

Thanks for all your efforts so far! The feedback so far has been extremely helpful and we’ve got an update to the Enlightenment rules this week based on that feedback. Additionally, new cards have been added to the banned list, and a new Frequently Asked Questions section has been added to the document! All of these changes are marked in red in the document for easy identification.

The biggest change rules wise with this update is concerning the honor loss a player takes when they are the defender in an unopposed conflict. This honor loss has been eliminated in the enlightenment format. This should make it a less painful if multiple players are attacking a single player with their defenses down.

Additionally small clarifications have been made to various parts of the document to add clarity or keep the base rules in line.

Look out for the next survey, which will be coming up later this week. 

Thanks for all your efforts!

-Brad Andres

Updated Rules: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/98/5b/985b43d5-41b3-41e7-b4b3-7021a5c152c4/enlightenment_rules.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial thoughts:

No honor loss: Not losing honor is not enough. We don't gang up on somone because it drains their honor; we beat up on them because it's the easiest way to collect rings. I'm still going to beat on the downed player; they don't have the resources or capability to win, so I'm just going to keep farming rings of his dead body; the game just turns into "who can farm the first kill faster". Instead of a tactical game of bluff and counter-bluff, play and counter-play, it's just 'strike first and jump on the loser like a pack of hyenas.' (This is how most of our games end up going; to the point where my group isn't even really willing to keep playing multiplayer without heavily rules modifications) There really needs to be a way to completely prevent someone from farming rings off a downed player. (Roles preventing attacks, defending characters don't bow, Can't claim contested ring against a player who's already been attacking this round, ect.) 

Ban list changes: I like it, these definitely were power cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eisenmerc said:

I think the undefended change will work great. No need to go too far and try to overcompensate. 

It's easier to farm rings off someone who's down (or just steamroll their provinces ) then it is to take collected rings off a player who is intentionally protecting them. Having a bunch of rings makes you a target, yes, but one that isn't necessarily worth going after when there's a weakened player to go after instead. I'd rather just pick on the downed player than risk my resources going after someone strong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the best solution is to only have five rings and only be able to get claimed rings from the player who has it. Players should still be able to declare attack of elements, but only off of players if they have that ring.   I.E - Can only declare a fire polital attack againt a player with the fire ring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...