Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Swot

Black Crusade Errata?

Recommended Posts

signoftheserpent said:

borithan said:

 

They don't respond? Where did you get that from?

 

Me trying to get answers from them by contacting them directly.

 

It took a week for them to respond to me about my split spine on my BC book, but they were very helpful once they did reply. Maybe, just maybe, they're busy people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

 

After the errata there is one thing that I still have questions about.

Using two weapons, under the Two Weapon Weilder talent and in the Two Weapon Fighting section on p.243, it appears that using two weapons takes two half actions. Under the Swift Attack and Lightning Attack actions it appears that using multiple weapons is part of one half action. Which is it? Does this change with multiple limbs/tail?

Answer:

The Talent is the one in need of better wording - Both Attacks (one with each weapon) should count as a single Half Action (consider the second Half Action to count as Free).
It shouldn't change with multiple arms/tail.

Tim Huckelbery

 

(Note: I have had to wait minimum 3 days, maximum two weeks to get replies from these people. It helps if you are polite.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WittyDroog said:

signoftheserpent said:

 

borithan said:

 

They don't respond? Where did you get that from?

 

Me trying to get answers from them by contacting them directly.

 

 

 

It took a week for them to respond to me about my split spine on my BC book, but they were very helpful once they did reply. Maybe, just maybe, they're busy people?

They woukldn't be busy if they didn't take on more than they can handle. They compound their own problems. Why should I be sympathetic to a company that puts out an errata after 6 months that still isn't complete and makes no effort to communicate to the fans that pay their wages? FFG needs to take a good long look at how it does thing and learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having got my reply (in about 24 hours, so I certainly see no problem with the speed of their responses) I am now actually a bit puzzled by the wording of the reply. It clarifies the Delay issue entirely, but if taken to be a general statement, it has some broader implications about Reactions (though the response will have been influenced by the way I phrased it, so...). That will be a whoops on my part.

"No, you can indeed Parry/etc when someone attacks you, even if it's your turn—as long as you haven't used your Parry/etc that turn."

And I have to say that reply about two-weapon fighting is a bit of a surprise. Means that much of the utility of Multiple Arms and Tail are lost (you would still be capped at 2 attack rolls per turn), barring a Tail when you didn't have the Two Weapon Wielder Talent (you already need it to take advantage of Extra Arms, and then you have two attack rolls already).

- Whoops... misread that. So everything counts as one Half-Action in total. Obviously shouldn't be reading this forum before I have fully woken up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

borithan said:

"No, you can indeed Parry/etc when someone attacks you, even if it's your turn—as long as you haven't used your Parry/etc that turn."


Is that an exact quote from the person who responded to you? Because if it is, and it's what FFG said, it's in a direct contravention of the rules they wrote.

May I ask who gave you that answer (you don't have to tell me, if you wouldn't)? If it's Tim H, I may have to yell at him on Monday.  lengua.gif


BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i think this would all be cleared up by merely changing the wording of the "cannot spend reactions on your own turn" rule to "cannot spend reactions to evade an effect that you began on your turn". The rule was clearly there originally to stop people exploiting by, say, running in with grenades in each hand, dropping them on the floor and then "dodging" the blasts, all in the same turn.

Altering the wording so that Doge/Parry can be used against any viable attack from another character (so you can't ever dodge/parry yourself) would alleviate most of this fairly pointless debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

borithan said:

"No, you can indeed Parry/etc when someone attacks you, even if it's your turn—as long as you haven't used your Parry/etc that turn."



Is that an exact quote from the person who responded to you? Because if it is, and it's what FFG said, it's in a direct contravention of the rules they wrote.

May I ask who gave you that answer (you don't have to tell me, if you wouldn't)? If it's Tim H, I may have to yell at him on Monday.  lengua.gif


BYE

 

It is indeed a direct quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the same TIM you mentioned wrtote to me that you need a specific mechadentrite talent for every kind of mechadentrite.

So you must have a 'servo arm' mech talent, a medical mech talent, and so on.

So his answer directy contradict the mechadentrite talent description which says that there are 2 specilizations: weapon and utility.

Considering that the abovementioned talent is  2° tier it became quite xp consuming to equip your eretek with various mechadentrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The errata still doesn't clarify specifically what counts as 'carapace armour' from the Renegade starting gear.

Giving players the choice to take a weapon and then forcing them to buy the requisite training with xp is clumsy game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the way that is either. It's like with the Apostate. Can get a Power Blade as starting gear... but doesn't start with training in power weapons. That never made any sense to me.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vogue69 said:

how friggin hard can it bee to check the mail outbox and include all answers to rule questions they gave in the errata?

It isn't hard at all. That's the problem. FFG are just not up to the job. They undertake too many projects. Their writing processes are sloppy. Most of these mistakes come from a complete lack of proofreading and resorting to copy/pasting from one file to the next. You can see errors from earlier drafts that haven't been properly checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's still a little shady for me, the two weapon wielder and the swift/lightning attack thing

If I make a lightning attack (half) action (with the -10ws), then I choose the make an additional attack with my second hand as a part of that (half) action, it would count as If I used only one half action in that turn, and I can do like half move or something, with my remaining half action, right?

Can the second hand attack be an other lightning attack? so it would be 2 lightning attack in one half action.

would this second hand attack suffer the -10 for the ws from the original LA., since it's part of the same action? (so, for example a second hand standart attack would arrive to a +0, and LA. -20).

I intentionally didn't bothert with the modifiers from the offhand and two weapon fighting

-I forgot to quote some, in this matter (Nathiel reply 176)

"Question:

 

After the errata there is one thing that I still have questions about.

Using two weapons, under the Two Weapon Weilder talent and in the Two Weapon Fighting section on p.243, it appears that using two weapons takes two half actions. Under the Swift Attack and Lightning Attack actions it appears that using multiple weapons is part of one half action. Which is it? Does this change with multiple limbs/tail?

Answer:

The Talent is the one in need of better wording - Both Attacks (one with each weapon) should count as a single Half Action (consider the second Half Action to count as Free).
It shouldn't change with multiple arms/tail.

Tim Huckelbery"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I still don't understand what's so difficult to understand about Delay and Parry/Dodge, it seems like they made it clear as day. Sometimes in games certain rules will overrule basic rules, and that's what's going on here. Instead of the normal rules for using reactions, a target of a delayed attack can defend himself during his turn because the attack is out of turn. That's it, doesn't get any more complicated than that. And for a second take your head out of the game mechanics and think about how silly it would be that someone can't defend themself because an opponent spent a half second sitting there staring blankly (Delay's sole purpose is to deal with unusual timing in a structured time turn sequence). Now you might argue "oh but what if the player is using the delay action to feint the target and strike him while his guard is down?" Well that's supposedly what the "Feint" action is for' right? And as mentioned previously, this is not the only instance where a game mechanic allows a player to use a reaction out of turn.

In regards to the ambiguous equipment and training, my group has viewed it accordingly without any question, your mileage may vary: A Renegade, being a traitor guardsman, effectively, would have Light Carapace, a chest plate, and a helmet. To our group it felt like the most natural equipment for a renegade, while heavy carapace seemed to be more suited for stormtroopers. It's not like an extra point of armor on the chest or some protection for the head is that game-breaking anyway. When it comes to the Apostate a player of mine actually took the power blade despite not having training, because he viewed it as something akin to a ceremonial saber. It's a status symbol, and the Apostate is not a combat heavy character anyway so it's more for show and possible bartering. I've awarded minor bonuses when the player proudly displayed the blade on his hilt when speaking with people, and despite his penalties for not being trained with it he has stabbed quite a few people in the back when they were at a great disadvantage (and great bonus to him). It might not be the best, most optimized build, but thematically he feels very much like an insidious con man. Was this FFG's intention? I don't know but it works fine for us. If it's a huge problem for your group then try swapping a talent for power training or just give it to him gratis as a bonus. Again it's hardly game-breaking.

I know I sound like I'm being apologetic but you guys make it out like this game absolutely unplayable and it was written by chimps chained to typewriters, which is very much not the case for my group and I hope not for your groups either. Sounds to me like another case of taking something minor and blowing it out of proportion on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WittyDroog said:

And for a second take your head out of the game mechanics and think about how silly it would be that someone can't defend themself because an opponent spent a half second sitting there staring blankly

 

Sorry, but you’ve got to prove that. Or show that it somehow stops being your turn during a delayed action. Otherwise by following the FAQ you are in fact breaking the rules. I don’t like breaking the rules.

 

I’m not saying that following the rules in this instance doesn’t create a silly situation where someone is unable to defend themselves against an out-of-sequence attack – it most certainly does and I think it would be a bad idea to disallow Dodges/Parries – only that the rules say (twice, and on the same page) that Reactions cannot be used during your own turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

WittyDroog said:

And for a second take your head out of the game mechanics and think about how silly it would be that someone can't defend themself because an opponent spent a half second sitting there staring blankly


 

 

Sorry, but you’ve got to prove that. Or show that it somehow stops being your turn during a delayed action. Otherwise by following the FAQ you are in fact breaking the rules. I don’t like breaking the rules.

 

Prove what? That it's silly to think that someone can't defend themselves because their opponent takes a second of pause? I don't get what burden you want proof of?

 

As far as delayed action stopping turns when you delay your action you say "I'm delaying this action" and then it's someone elses turn. Done. That's the problem with something like delayed actions in any game that has a structured time of turn sequence, delay specifically breaks the order of things. It is a move that operates outside of standard game sequence. Do you honestly need the rules to specifically spell out every state in which a particular action is in the context of every other game mechanic or are we smart enough to get the rule as intended? I mean didn't we go over this a few pages ago where it said someone could defend themselves as normal? It's a specific case of the rules saying "This operates outside the normal structure for time". It doesn't matter if the rule for reactions say you can't use them on your turn, this specific action is granting permission to use them. Let's look at the talent Furious Assault, which reads:

"If the character successfully hits his target with an All Out Attack action, he may spend his Reaction (and thus not being able to dodge or parry until his next turn) to make an additional attack..."

But, as you said, the rules say you cannot use reactions during your turn so therefore this talent is useless, right? No, because it grants permission to ignore that rule in this particular instance (And before you make mention that it specifically mentions spending your Reaction, this is because the extra attack is not part of the usual uses for Reactions. The important thing here is that we're using Reactions out of order and "breaking the rules" as you put it).

I've been gaming for a while, maybe not as long as some people but for about two decades, and the concept of specific rules superseding more general global rules is a very common tool. That's all there is here, it's not breaking the rules because the mechanic itself supercedes the global rule. I think this is crystal clear and to argue it any other way by specific semantics is splitting the hairs over something incredibly minute. You yourself admitted it's a silly concept to prevent people from defending themselves, so why not just play it as the rule intends? Even if FFG flat out said "No, you cannot block or parry because you can't use your reaction on your turn" and it seemed silly to you and your group and breaking it wouldn't hurt the fun of the game then why not flex that Rule 0 muscle and play the game you want to play it? I mean did I miss a memo that said RPGs had to adhere to strict tournament level standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So what if it's a direct contradiction? Games do that all the time. And there's tons of examples in this very book. For example, Counter Attack allows you to attack after a successful parry even though it is not your turn. So if it's alright to attack out of sequence then why is it so hard to imagine the rules allowing blocking out of sequence via a specific mechanic. 

Pretty much all of the talents are modifications of the basic rules, and if you could argue that the basic rules are absolute then many of the talents would have no use because you could always say "But the rule on this page says...". This is because those talents supercede the basic rules. It's simple, it's very common game design, and it works. 

If you're still feeling tentative about the intention that FFG may have had, look at it this way. If the intention was that someone couldn't defend against a delayed attack, then why would they say "the target can defend as normal" (or as I believe you interpreted it, 'as per the normal rules") instead of just saying "No" or "the target cannot defend" or anything like that? I strongly, strongly believe that the intent was to allow people the chance to defend themselves, and that FFG thought saying "as normal" would be sufficient in letting you know the person is defending himself in a way that supersedes the normal rules for reactions.

The deal is there's no such thing as a perfect game system where all the rules work in harmony but also have depth and complexity unless it's a purely abstract game. Pretty much every game ever has examples of exceptions to the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WittyDroog said:

 So what if it's a direct contradiction? Games do that all the time. And there's tons of examples in this very book. For example, Counter Attack allows you to attack after a successful parry even though it is not your turn. So if it's alright to attack out of sequence then why is it so hard to imagine the rules allowing blocking out of sequence via a specific mechanic. 

Pretty much all of the talents are modifications of the basic rules, and if you could argue that the basic rules are absolute then many of the talents would have no use because you could always say "But the rule on this page says...". This is because those talents supercede the basic rules. It's simple, it's very common game design, and it works. 

If you're still feeling tentative about the intention that FFG may have had, look at it this way. If the intention was that someone couldn't defend against a delayed attack, then why would they say "the target can defend as normal" (or as I believe you interpreted it, 'as per the normal rules") instead of just saying "No" or "the target cannot defend" or anything like that? I strongly, strongly believe that the intent was to allow people the chance to defend themselves, and that FFG thought saying "as normal" would be sufficient in letting you know the person is defending himself in a way that supersedes the normal rules for reactions.

The deal is there's no such thing as a perfect game system where all the rules work in harmony but also have depth and complexity unless it's a purely abstract game. Pretty much every game ever has examples of exceptions to the rule.

Well said WittyDroog, that's the kind of positive thinking that the community could do with more of!

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...