49 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

i can agree with that.

prod value: great (not star wars "fantastic" but still really good, the dices are a bit lacking in readability and it doesnt have a lot of nice full spreads in the book)

gameplay as intended: good (core ideas and concepts are solid, the intention is good)

rules are written: lacking (is a very nice way of putting it, it needs a solid pass of polishing unless you play in a very non-gamey group where rules are taken very lightly)

It's more likely that Ato's and your groups are exceptionally litigious. It's nice to see a rulebook written for people with common sense, rather than for lawyers and rules-****** munchkins. Much as with D&D 5E, the rules are imprecise so much as not written in legalese, and the people I've come to correlate "posters who have players who rules lawyer" with "posters who complain about the FFG rules writing style"...

I got rid of my rules-****** munchkin player.

And, as for Earth stance - it does NOT prevent spending opportunity to affect the target. It prevents only opportunity spent to inflict a condition and opportunity spent to inflict a critical.

• Doesn't prevent opportunity for secondary targeting for damage (as several spells do)
• doesn't prevent criticals, just prevents spending opp to get them.
  • if you're incapacitated, it's still a crit instead of damage.
  • if you're being hit with Heart Piercing strike, you still get the crit, as it doesn't take opp to do so
  • if you're compromised, either finishing blow or rising cut go straight to crit instead of damage as a primary effect
• doesn't prevent inflicting conditions by the primary effect of an action (such as Heart piercing strike
• doesn't prevent inflicting strife (fire stance) with opportunity
• doesn't prevent damage (rise, earth) with opportunity.

And it never did any other those.

6 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

It's more likely that Ato's and your groups are exceptionally litigious. It's nice to see a rulebook written for people with common sense, rather than for lawyers and rules-****** munchkins. Much as with D&D 5E, the rules are imprecise so much as not written in legalese, and the people I've come to correlate "posters who have players who rules lawyer" with "posters who complain about the FFG rules writing style"...

Back when I had oodles of time, I got to play with and GM for lots of different groups. Inconsistent interpretations between groups are an unnecessary hassle. Needing to prop up new players because their cool character class/school/talent tree/whatever's proper use eludes them entirely is a good way to lose them for the next session. Playing a boardgame wrong for an hour because the rules are unclear is annoying. Players building towards a win only to be told that what they've been working towards for three rounds doesn't work that way takes the fun out of a game.

It's not always about powergaming. Heck, to an extent I'll take rules that are not all that balanced but at least clear over a finely tweaked ruleset that players spend hours looking at trying to find those gems underneath a confusing layer of poor writing. I don't mind making ad hoc rulings for special situations - I do mind having to make ad hoc rulings for things despite them being in the rules.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

It's more likely that Ato's and your groups are exceptionally litigious. It's nice to see a rulebook written for people with common sense, rather than for lawyers and rules-****** munchkins. Much as with D&D 5E, the rules are imprecise so much as not written in legalese, and the people I've come to correlate "posters who have players who rules lawyer" with "posters who complain about the FFG rules writing style"...

I got rid of my rules-****** munchkin player.

And, as for Earth stance - it does NOT prevent spending opportunity to affect the target. It prevents only opportunity spent to inflict a condition and opportunity spent to inflict a critical.

• Doesn't prevent opportunity for secondary targeting for damage (as several spells do)
• doesn't prevent criticals, just prevents spending opp to get them.
  • if you're incapacitated, it's still a crit instead of damage.
  • if you're being hit with Heart Piercing strike, you still get the crit, as it doesn't take opp to do so
  • if you're compromised, either finishing blow or rising cut go straight to crit instead of damage as a primary effect
• doesn't prevent inflicting conditions by the primary effect of an action (such as Heart piercing strike
• doesn't prevent inflicting strife (fire stance) with opportunity
• doesn't prevent damage (rise, earth) with opportunity.

And it never did any other those.

no munchkin here. but the rules are simply in need of a lot of polish. you might say "i don't need the polish", fine. sure. but there is no reason why some stuff is a bit broken/unclear as it is. you can not care about it, fine. but you cannot say that was really intended... in most cases, I do think they missed the ball on the finishing touches.

doesn't make the game bad. doesn't make me a munchkin either. just a gamer.

and earth stance biggest issue is in duels. otherwise it is "acceptable", even if a bit unfun.

9 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

It's more likely that Ato's and your groups are exceptionally litigious.

I would be in a lot of trouble then .

I hated idea of Earth Stance back in the beta, but after playing it out quite a lot, we noticed that earth turtlers generally balance their immunity by not having access to any really amazing tools or abilities that sway the game in their favor, so while it was a good "lose slower" Stance, in many cases deciding to Earth Turtle was accepting defeat - sure, a slow defeat, but still defeat - simply because other stances had access to stronger opportunities, better techniques, and generally proactive strategies that aimed to actually win the scene, not not lose it.

16 minutes ago, WHW said:

I hated idea of Earth Stance back in the beta, but after playing it out quite a lot, we noticed that earth turtlers generally balance their immunity by not having access to any really amazing tools or abilities that sway the game in their favor, so while it was a good "lose slower" Stance, in many cases deciding to Earth Turtle was accepting defeat - sure, a slow defeat, but still defeat - simply because other stances had access to stronger opportunities, better techniques, and generally proactive strategies that aimed to actually win the scene, not not lose it.

yeah i "accept" it, outside of duels to first strike/first blood (i think it breaks them a bit).

actually, outside of duels, it is probably one of the worst stance. sure, you don't take condition (from opp spending) but you take everything else.

still prefer my version though!