First of all I´d like to say that CoT has turned into a real pearl of a game in my collection. Fun and easy to learn it has skyrocketed on my gaming groups cool´o´meter.

One point however is that I cannot quite wrap my head around an aspect of the movement rules. Namely the rule stating that no character can pass through another character unless he is fleeing. This essentially means that your own gang bars your progress, unless of course you´re in a hurry in which case they´ll gladly let you pass. That part just doesnt make alot of sense to me. Not only do you have to take the other gangs into account when moving around but also your own gang, which kinda makes moving around a bit clunky when you have to move 1 figure a square just to be able to move past him.

Am I the only one puzzled by this?

This is why you really need to give some thought to where you place your gang at the start, if they are all going to come in next to each other they will get in the way, I place a gang member at each side of the board.

using militia to bloke your opponent is great, espesh when they are trying to get out after the alarm .

As Niv says - it makes it more tactical.

Think about what the characters are, they are thieves and mercinaries creeping around a city district. Two or more in one room is going to draw a bit more attention than just one shadow. Especially with those peskey militia men snooping about.

The fleeing thing is more representative of the fact that they are running away and are not really looking to see who else is in the area and are not in it long enough for them to really be classed as 'occupying' it.

In addition it stops you from being able to 'prevent' a friendly character from being pushed away which I think is more important in games terms.

As Niv says, he had great fun in continuously beating one of my characters into a portculassed dead end last night, she escaped in the end but only with a single gem and one ducat!

It still doesn't make much sense. I just posted a House Rules thread that explains why we dropped this rule. It's tactical enough not being able to move by other gangs' members or the militia. My experience is thieves that won't attack each other let each other pass in the night—it really has nothing to do with their being "no honor amongst thieves." It's just a practical issue. I don't mind light rules, just rules that subtract noticeably from the realism of the game and therefore from the ability to stay enrapt in it.

By the way, your character wasn't carrying that ducat, was it, McFonz?

Pulsar said:

Made sense to me. Its just a rationalization and an interpretation for why a rule works as it does after all. Its all subjective.

Nerdmeister, turns out we're right. Check my OFFICIAL RULES CLARIFICATIONS thread.

Hate to break it to you, but your still wrong. The rulebook didn't magically change to make you right. You can hoist your houserules on the highest pedestal...and it still wouldn't be anything more than a houserule .

Wow, dude, you really have a problem with me. Or is it GrimWizard is the perfect example of the Rules-Lawyer mindset. All right, I give up. I combed through this forum, sorted the real from the unresearched, and presented them with explanations of house fixes to the game's designer , who said, in his native tongue, that if he had more time he would have made passing your own gang members permissible. That's the clearest possible hallelujah from the sky proof that this rule is unnecessary and you still ... wow... I guess some people you just can't reach.

I myself am kind of finding it hard to take you seriously right now. You have gone through each section of this forum spamming each with the exact same post in nearly all cases.

It's pretty apparent that this is spamming, especially when you hit games that haven't been released yet while asking for house rules with a copy paste question. They are now finally gone after users have reported the offense.

Methinks you are being too sensitive in the current case of designer's intent regarding movement.

Yes, the designer said that if he could have more time that he would change this. (By the way, a game is done when the publisher demands it to go to print, not when the game designers says its done. The game designer will never say it is done because there is always something to do to tweak it. Fact.)

But the rules do not say this. The rules say the exact opposite.

When you say: "Nerdmeister, turns out we're right.", as Grimwizard actually pointed out, you are in fact wrong.

Not everyone uses the internet to make sure their games are played correctly (whatever that means). Most folk just open the box and use whats inside and go no further. There is nothing 'ruleslawyer' about that. For all intents and purposes the rules disagree with how you would like to houserule it.

Whether the designer himself changes this down the road or not, it is in fact a house rule until he makes an ERRATA.

Again, I assert you are the one being far too sensitive and taking this far too seriously.

Pulsar said:

No, your the one who is reaching. Your twisting his words to mean what you want them to mean. Yes, He said he would have liked to remove that rule. H e did not say that the rule was trivial and removing it would have no effect on the original gameplay he desired. I imagine that removing the rule would necessitate different rules that, while allowing teammates to pass each other, still have the gameplay effect he wanted from the rules as they stand now.

I'm taking it personally because there is a presumption my intentions were to "spam" or, I think, get more little points on my little points ticker. Since joining I've stayed up most nights reading through the forums trying to learn the games. What the h- does spam mean in this case? Does it mean ask people to start a thread that would bring helpful information to one place, instead of making manics like me read through everything and cross-correlate. I care a lot about the basic integrity of the rules of a game, call it an obsession, and I can only assume that people reported my attempt to start such a thread for every board game as "an offense" because it quite ironically garnered a ton of points. I mean, really, please tell me, how on earth is that an offense?

Yes, I get on here at night, insomniacal, and spend my mind's energy ingesting opinion in every direction because I want to get into this company's games and I'm excited about the company and what they're doing for a couple of my favorites, so no my tone is not serious, not in the slightest. Is it supposed to be? Do you really think I care if I am at a certain level of raffle that I might, maybe , win a random game? Well believe it or not, I am not in the slightest bit interested in winning a random game. I am interested in very specific games, study games, and love unique high-integrity systems. Had you read my multiple explanations for why I posted those "spams"... okay I just have to stop again: how is that spam? Really please explain your points of view. Because from here it looks like a bunch of close-minded folk who can't imagine someone genuinely wants to consolidate veteran opinions on game glitches, because, if I may surmise, they themselves are chomping at the bit to gather points and got hot when I got a bunch of them. Please explain how I'm wrong.

And there is NOTHING wrong with posting that thread in games that aren't out yet. The thread is to collect such opinions in one place so people like me didn't have to read a dozen pages of threads and cross-correlate for themselves. That's the POINT! Viewed through a hater's lens though, I can really see how blind one could be to that intent. If it's point envy it's truly ridiculous to me (and what else could it be?) So pardon my flippant attitude. I just have to ask: does my going to Pouchain to translate (and much better than the initial Babelfish attempt I might add) his answers to questions other posters had here not point to my general intent here? I guess I just don't know the proper gamer courtesy, or I stepped on gamer toes. I even saw how such comments as these ruined other posters use of that thread I tried to post, as they were using it for the intended purpose. I always thought people who played games were of above-average intellect, but it's quite apparent that there is a wide range of intelligence, and certain forms can seem good at crunching numbers, while being completely shortsighted and uncreative.

You know what's really funny: I've been playtesting new systems since the Battletech Center opened at North Pier in Chicago. You remember that major moment in what is now the multi-player video game world? No, you probably don't. I was one of the first two people in there pods. And those people would have laughed and applauded me for accidentally discovering how to get high points. I'm sure right now the FFG guys are going, "Huh, we gotta change that point mechanic in our forum boards." (Quick suggestion guys: if someone posts a thread that a lot of people use, that should be worth a lot more points than just posting thread, which any newbie with a rules question can do.) But I think all these words are wasted on you. I think I get what kind of minds I'm being forced to talk to here. Anyway, thank you, HellFury one last time for redirecting my chronic complaint to where it could be answered, it really did help us enjoy my new favorite game more. I guess I'm not serious enough ha! in my love of games for you folks, so I'll research my games the old-fashioned way and stay out of your way to the top. I'm also sorry for trying to help, really. You can go back to your closed circle now and not worry about hearing from a spammer like me again. This forum should have more such spam.

FFG, I love your look. Hope I wasn't too critical in tone but I'm sure you don't care. I'm sure you started these forums to help your games. Ha, I'm also sure reading that a game goes to press when the publisher says so as "Fact" (which was such a powerful revelation for me, thank you) isn't what you want guiding your final call. You guys seem successful enough now and take your time doing a good job. I worked for TSR when their only base was in Wisconsin and the old guys were constantly saying it's important to meet the tolerate-the-errors test, not the deadline. So I just wanted to say I think running all the text by more newbie readers is the only step you guys might be missing (small things like teleport spaces don't have images in Cadwallon—it's your product on this continent after all, and this game's gonna be big—to big things like, well, you know) Oh, Pouchain mentioned she thought the Collector miniatures were being taken out of the mold too early. I'm sure it's just by a few seconds. Maybe you could make a call.

(I meant teleport spaces didn't have images in the Cadwallon manual, like everything else does)

(and I didn't mean to call Laurent a she)

(Pulsar out.)

Lol, the people that play these games. hey pulsar? You and city of thieves thinking about tying the knot soon?

Pulsar said:

The use of the word spam may have been a bit strong, but I've only been in this forum for about five minutes and I already find myself wondering why you're so gung-ho to promote your one thread there. Calm down, take a breath.

Just because the designer said your house rules are reasonable and that he might have done the same given more time to playtest does not mean your ideas are suddenly equivalent to Word from On High. They are still house rules, just ones that the designer happens to like. In particular, I notice in your own thread that at no point did the designer say "you're right, the rulebook is wrong." All he said was "your ideas are good too, please take a look at the official House Rules Forum for more ideas like these." He's not rewriting the rules based on your questions, he's just being polite.

If he publishes these changes as suggested errata in an official FAQ document, then we're talking real changes.

None of this is to suggest you need to stop using your own house rules, mind you. By all means, continue playing the game in the way that makes you happy. Personally I don't have a big issue with gang members being unable to walk through each other. The idea that they're all thieves and want to avoid being seen together makes perfect sense to me. It also increases the tactical value of the game if I have to watch my own figs as well as other people's. Sure it's plenty tactical either way, but this is an extra dimension that adds something new to the game, IMHO.

At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If some people want to change thing sto "make sense to them" that's fine. If others want to stick to what's actually written in the rulebook , that's their perogative. As long as everyone at your table agrees to how you want to play, that's all that really matters. Try not to get too worked up about the fact that other people on the internet have their own ideas.