Puzzle Strike rulebooks, final print version2

Discussion in 'Puzzle-Strike: Bag of Chips' started by Sirlin, Mar 11, 2012.

  1. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Here are the proposed final rulebooks for print:

    EDIT, updated version to 7.0 based on comments below.

    Base game rulebook.
    Expansion rulebook.

    These are updated with everyone's suggestions from the last thread. On a couple suggestions I went with my version on purpose, but for the most part you guys found a lot of errors, so that was pretty awesome.
     
  2. rabid_schnauzer

    rabid_schnauzer Well-Known Member

    Well, if there is one thing that us anonymous jerks on the internet excel at, that would be pointing out others' mistakes. ;)

    On page 14 of the expansion rulebook: it looks like you're missing a line space between Punch, Punch, Kick and Repeated Jabs - those two entries are closer together than the rest.

    On page 14 of the expansion rulebook, Option Select and Onimaru's Wartime Tactics use different wording to say that neither can copy an empty bank stack, those should probably use consistent language.

    On page 15 of the expansion rulebook, the second sentence of Saving Grace needs to be amended. It currently says "If you do have actions left, playing Saving Grace wouldn't cost an action if you trashed a wound this turn" It should say "If you do have actions left, playing Saving Grace doesn't cost an action if anyone trashed a wound this turn" Alternately, I'd rewrite the whole thing as "If anyone (you or another player) trashes a wound on your turn (due to Radiant Healing or any other effect) you may play the main without using an action to play it. Thus you can play it with no actions left or you can play it before using your action(s) to play other chips."

    On page 15 of the expansion rulebook Zane's Max Anarchy could maybe use a clarification for who gains the arrows when if it's played out-of-turn (via Improv or Mistresses Command). I bring it up as MC MA is bugged on the server currently (neither player gets any arrows on their current or next turn) but from those rules it looks like the bug is mainly correct (Zane gets the arrows on opponent's turn when he can't use them, and opponent should get them on following rather than current turn)

    This is uber-nitpicky, but It seems just a tad odd that One Two Punch and One of Each entries have pointers to the page where symbols are explained, while other similar chips like Axe Kick, Roundhouse, Button Mashing and It's Combo Time and just have "simple!" or "enjoy" type descriptions. I would think that either:
    A> all such chip entries should contain a page reference
    B>no such chip entries should contain the page reference - it is earlier in the book and in a big diagram
    or C>Only the first entry in each index to use each symbol should contain the page reference
     
  3. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    SteeelCoil has 3 e's. I don't think that's on purpose, but it might be.
     
  4. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    FAQ entries:
    Grave's Reversal still has text related to Stone Wall that doesn't apply anymore.
    Thinking Ahead says top of deck and probably mean top of bag.
    Mix Master says "You still get
    to combine gems in your pile even if the
    opposing piles have all 1-gems, and thus
    nothing to split."

    I would propose adding "You still get
    to combine gems in your pile <and opponents still get to react>
    even if the opposing piles have all 1-gems, and thus
    nothing to split."
     
  5. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    With HFF, should it explicitly state that it triggers, even if the <Red Fist> chip doesn't end up attacking (like Gwen's Shadow storm or Jaina's Burning Vigor with no wound to trash)?
     
  6. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    You *can't* react if Mix-master would do nothing to you though. That's a general thing in Puzzle Strike, that attacks that don't affect you can't be reacted to.
     
  7. MarvinPA

    MarvinPA Member

    I asked about the server implementation of this a bunch of times and was told that it was splitting a 1-gem into one 1-gems, so you do in fact get to react. Which to me seems absurd and not at all what the word "split" could ever be construed to mean, but that's how it's been on the server since forever at least.
     
  8. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yeah that is not what split means to any normal person. That behind the scenes the programming might do that is not relevant in deciding whether it actually should be counted as "affecting" someone. I don't think "splitting" (aka doing nothing with) a 1-gem counts as affecting you.
     
  9. CrystalChaos

    CrystalChaos Moderator Staff Member

    I thought allowing reacts on only 1 gems was the interpretation that was agreed upon.
     
  10. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I never heard anyone ask, and that makes no sense to me. It's long been the rule that you can't react if it doesn't affect you. Seems self-evident that this doesn't affect you in this case as it does literally nothing to you. You don't split a 1-gem. A 1-gem is indivisible.
     
  11. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    If you say that Mixmaster isn't affecting someone with a 1-gem in their pile, you should also clarify whether discarding 2 wounds from Arg hex is reactable.
     
  12. Drinkdrawers

    Drinkdrawers Active Member

    Base rulebook:

    Page 8 says +gem power, should it use the green icon instead, or have it in parentheses after? I don't think gem power is defined before this point in the rulebook.

    So, I don't know if you want to do this, but you could shorten the paragraph about winning the game by taking out all the language about 2p, 3p, and 4p. Because even in a 2p game, when one person loses, the player with the lowest remaining total wins.

    Love, love, love the buying tips. Teaching the game is a fine line between letting people figure out how to play and telling them how not to suck.

    Page 10: countercrashing in turn order. I think it's unclear if it's in turn order from the crasher or from the target.

    Page 10: In 2 v 2 you refer to crashing as an "event" and later on the same page as a "send."

    Page 11: Maybe clarify that you can't [purple shield] an ante effect. I notice you clarify this in the FAQ entry for G2G, but if people want to find it quick, they probably won't look there.

    It's a Trap: Maybe clarify that people use their own markers for traps, unless this version will include them.

    Knockdown: In 2v2 and FFA, can other people react for the knocked down player?

    I don't see immunity defined anywhere. I know a lot of people have questions about that term.
     
  13. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    Also unclear: can I react if you...

    Combo Practice/PyP when my hand size is 0.
    Color Panic/Stolen Purples/Pilebunker when my hand is already revealed and the attack doesn't affect me.
    Really Annoying when all the wounds are gone.
     
  14. Drinkdrawers

    Drinkdrawers Active Member

    Shadows rulebook:

    I will skip all the first stuff, since it's the same.

    Page 14, if you can bump column 2 down one row, that will get PyP at the top instead of all by itself at the bottom of column 1.

    And that's all!
     
  15. Aesa

    Aesa Well-Known Member

    Nitpicks, but might as well say it since someone will anyway:

    For the first one, of course you can't react if your hand size is 0, since your hand size is 0.
    Pilebunker affects you no matter what.
     
  16. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I actually think all this junk about reacting to stuff that doesn't affect you is too edge case even to bloat the faq with. I'd rather not add any of it. If it doesn't affect you, you can't react. If you have some weirdo edge case, play the online game or post on a forum about it imo. And viva, yes discarding wounds to hex affected you. It was a choice you had to make, you made it, you discarded some stuff, it's not even close to the line of "did that affect you" or not. That you would even ask shows we're way on different pages about what "not affecting" you means though.

    As for all the other things mentioned, yeah that's great, I will start working incorporating all that. Thanks for posting the stuff you found everyone.
     
  17. Delha

    Delha Active Member

    Does it ever explicitly say in the rules that red fists cannot be blue shielded if the attack targets you but does nothing?I don't recall seeing that, and didn't find it in a quick once-over either. The icon description says that you can only react to attacks that affect you, but that's easily interpreted as "I can't react to one of my opponents attacking another opponent".

    Even if excluding the case-by-case stuff, it's probably worth mentioning the general case rule.
     
  18. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yes it says "Each player can react once to each (fist) that would affect him or her" in the big blue box that says what a blue shield is. So the general note has been there for a really long time.

    I'll leave Grave's Reversal faq as it is for the moment, in case we change Stone Wall to reflect one gem. Or if we don't then remind me to change Grave's Reversal in the faq still.

    I actually decline to change most of what Drinkdrawers said. +gem power in text is on purpose. The explicit stating of win condition in 2p compared to 3p and 4p is super on purpose and would be less clear if condensed into one thought. Counter-crashing in turn order is probably enough, and a lot words that don't really fit and breaking the flow to say stuff like (starting with the person who would take their turn after you). Probably most people get that anyway. The use of "event" is actually more correct than "send" because you can't react multiple times to things that aren't "sends" either (hence the more general "event.") The later use of "send" is correct because it's specifically talking about a send. The knockdown question is actually too dumb of a question to include. "Bob can't use purple shield reacts" and then someone is asking if Charlie can? Uh it says Bob can't so of course Charlie can, no need to even say that. I don't think it's worth any words to define immune, as it's a normal English word. Immune to X means X doesn't affect you of course.

    The note about ante being not purple shieldable is great. I didn't think of that, but it should be there, I agree. Same with a note on the trap token.
     
  19. Aesa

    Aesa Well-Known Member

    I think a lot of the confusion is due to server implementation being different, but yea "if the attack doesn't affect you in any way, then you can't react" seems pretty simple.
     
  20. Drinkdrawers

    Drinkdrawers Active Member

    The question that has been asked of me multiple times is does it make you immune to that chip for the rest of the game. That may seem ridiculous, but there you go.
     
  21. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Oh immune for the rest of the game, ha. I didn't think of that. Um...maybe we'll leave that out, it seems overkill to put in every entry that mentions immune, heh.
     
  22. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    I asked about that Mix Master thing like a month ago and someone said that thing about it breaking my one gem apart into one one gem so it affected me which sounded pretty bonkers. So I'm glad that's straightened out in a way that makes sense.
     
  23. rabid_schnauzer

    rabid_schnauzer Well-Known Member

    The server implementation currently allows you to react to a Mixmaster that splits a [1] into a [1] but does not allow you to react to a Mixmaster when you have no gems in your pile.
     
  24. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Ok I updated the rulebooks again, linked in the original post. Not sure if it's easier to do it that way or post a new thread, hmm. Anyway, I incorporated several of your comments (though not all). I did go ahead with adding a note about FFA counter-crashinging for someone else starting with the person after you in turn order, btw.
     
  25. Star Slayer

    Star Slayer Well-Known Member

    I didn't read every single sentence this time, but looked at every page (in both books) and all the formatting mistakes seem to be gone.

    While the "if a red fist affects you" part has some grey areas, in 99% of the situations it should be clear what this means and if you can blue shield or not.

    Do you actually think about making Rook's Stone Wall "Reflect one gem sent to a player back to the sender and trash the rest"? To give Rook a buff? That would be fine by me.
     
  26. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yes we discussed it in chat and some are for, some against. But it seems that Rook is considered pretty ok power, even though he is maybe bottom 5, which just means all characters are pretty close. Though reflecting 1 could be ok, it could also somehow be way stronger than you'd think (you might not reflect 2s or 3s much anyway, so soomewhat similar to the old really powerful one). It might be too risky at this point. I mean I'd consider it but people were kind of saying maybe don't risk it if we rae trying to be done.
     
  27. Star Slayer

    Star Slayer Well-Known Member

    I agree that the characters are pretty close in power level, even if there are better ones and weaker ones. But getting 20 characters to the point where they have exactly the same power level seems impossible anyway. So it's fine as long as they are close enough together and everyone has a chance to win. Changing a character - that is absolutely playable, if a bit weak - at this point is just asking for trouble.
    On the other hand, the mean thing of pre-nerf, post-Combine-change Stone Wall was that reflecting 2s and 3s could absolutely break your neck. You could basically only crash at Rook if Stone Wall was in his discard pile or if you crashed a 4. Reflecting a 1 was much fairer.
     
  28. rabid_schnauzer

    rabid_schnauzer Well-Known Member

    Or if you had a counter-countercrash or were in Dragon Form. Currently we also have a version of Knockdown that prevents Stone Wall's reaction.

    As for crashing counterable non-[1]s, the expansion and revision adds Double Slash, Deathstrike Dragon and the more recent versions of One True Style, and Mixmaster (where if the opponent also has it you often want to crash the [2] it mixed as a defense) so it probably will happen more than it did in the old set.

    I would like to see it tried out, but I also would like to be done, so my suggestion is that we maybe try a handful of games to test it in ruleless over the next day or three.
     
  29. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    If you really think it's a good idea, try to test in ruleless asap.
     
  30. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    The X-copy/Iron Defense interaction needs to be in the FAQ.

    Incidentally, is anything wrong with this simpler wording for X-Copy: "Play a [puzzle] chip, Crash Gem, or Double Crash Gem from your hand twice."
     
  31. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    What do you want it to say for the X-copy/Iron Defense interaction?
     
  32. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    Idk whether you are asking what the confusion is or what I think the interaction should be, so I'll answer both.

    1. The question is whether I can xcopy a crash in my gempile.
    2. Based on what the chips say, I have no clue. My head explodes every time I read the chips. Based on gameplay, xcopying a crash in your gempile seems unbeatable, so I would prefer the interaction didn't work.
     
  33. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    X-copy says to play a thing and ID crash gem says it can be played as if it were in hand, which is why it works. Though it's kind of weird and could be interpreted the other way too. So uh, I don't know. We could change it to not work or something, but I guess we need to figure that out right now.
     
  34. NidoKing

    NidoKing Active Member

    Tested and works. I suggested this change a while back, and since then have been using it in the physical copy because we don't like either the new blander one, or the original that basically forces you to do one strategy on Rook. It's a good compromise

    I highly recommend this change
     
  35. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    Why is the ability to x-copy a crash out of pile unbeatable?
     
  36. Delha

    Delha Active Member

    I don't think your testing is a very good metric, since you have clearly stated in the past that you change chips to match what your group likes better. If you're not testing in the same environment (ie official chip text), then the impact of this change is necessarily different from that when using the official set.

    Stone Wall reflecting one gem back sounds good to me too, and I hope it pans out. Unless you've changed your ways though, I don't believe your tabletop experience is a viable justification for implementing.
     
  37. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    Obviously you can beat it if you can outecon them (for instance Xcopy DCG is probably a better plan!), so I shouldn't say "unbeatable." But the plan seems extremely hard to beat if you are trying to rush down.
     
  38. matt.lashof

    matt.lashof Active Member

    Well, Iron Defense should be really hard to rush down. Defense beats rushdown after all, and a defense that is iron is a very strong defense indeed. We don't want to turn Iron Defense into Wooden Defense or something.
     
  39. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    Also, if the opp managed to buy an Iron Defense, use it and also got an x-copy, you probably either shouldn't have been rushing the first place or weren't rushing hard enough (unless it's Setsuki :-P).
     
  40. Star Slayer

    Star Slayer Well-Known Member

    I am completely fine with the good X-Copy / Iron Defense interaction. Pulling off awesome combos with puzzle chips is fun and part of the game.
     
  41. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    Iron Defense already is hard for rushdown. X-copy just makes it crazy. Simply saying that a chip is defensive isn't really a good argument. For instance I could propose an Ouch! that anted 3 instead of 1. Imagine your same argument applied to that. Ouch! should be good for rushing down. We wouldn't want to turn it into Slightly Painful or something.

    3-ante Ouch! would own econ chars so hard that it would be problematic. I am saying that X-Copy Iron D is similarly difficult to beat for rushdown chars. It's not like this is a huge issue, because it's a 2 chip combo and won't pop up that much. But if I had a choice between it existing and not existing, I would pick it not existing.

    Also Iron D + X-Copy isn't some difficult thing to set up, like what ApolloAndy is implying. You can buy Iron Defense first cycle, and then most Econ chars can get 6 buy second cycle pretty easy. People get 6-buys all the time against me when I am playing rushdown. Picture Combos Are Hard, and how that is usually bad news for rushdown. OK, now picture that you get to use your Double Crash Gem the turn you play it.
     
  42. Star Slayer

    Star Slayer Well-Known Member

    And that is why your Super Ouch! example isn't that fitting: You're proposing a single ridiculous chip that will unbalance every game where it is in the bank, while the ID/X-C combo (which is spread over base set and expansion, btw) needs to have both chips in the bank to work.

    Just had a dozen games with Persephone agains Rook. He doesn't seem that bad in his current form.
     
  43. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    We want the best possible game at all times. A bad degenerate state that rarely happens is still bad and should be removed if it is easy to do so. I mean, there is a reason Combos are Hard can't get MP.
     
  44. Star Slayer

    Star Slayer Well-Known Member

    CoH+MP isn't a fair comparison, either. Sure, ID + X-Copy is a great combination, but you need to buy two chips for it and not one that lets you win the game turn six or seven.
     
  45. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I'm wondering if the faq should intentionally not say the interaction between X-Copy and Iron Defense. The faq says a million other things, so it's understandable if every thing ever isn't in it. Maybe leaving it out would give more room to change it one way or the other later. Or we could decide like right now I guess.
     
  46. vivafringe

    vivafringe Moderator Staff Member

    Star Slayer I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of these examples. I am not saying Iron D + X-Copy are as degenerate as 3 ante Ouch! or CAH fetching MP. They were responses to specific arguments that I thought were bad. These arguments were:

    - The interaction is OK because Iron Defense is supposed to be a defensive chip.
    - The interaction is OK because it's rare.

    I think both of these are bad reasons to let a bad interaction exist, and I gave examples of why they don't hold.
     
  47. rabid_schnauzer

    rabid_schnauzer Well-Known Member

    Well X-Copying Iron Defense just to have a pair of Crash Gems on hand is already really strong defense, so it's not like disallowing X-Copy of a Crash Gem not completely actually in hand renders the X-Copy Iron Defense combo worthless.
     
  48. rabid_schnauzer

    rabid_schnauzer Well-Known Member

    But back to rulebook issues rather than rules balance issues,

    There are a couple of formatting nitpicks in the Special Thanks name list: Some of the entries have spaces around the quotation marks, some don't, some of us get slanty quotation marks while others get straight quotes and SteelCoil gets an ending apostrophe instead of a proper ending quote. Also, with the split up of the sites, should we be listed as the "sirlin.net crew" or the "fantasystrike.com crew" ?
     
  49. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Actually every single space in the credits section for playtesters is exactly correct. I checked each and every space in that entire section. It's possible your pdf viewer does weird things at different levels of zoom. Not sure on straight quotes vs slanted, I'll look into that.

    EDIT: yeah ok the straight/slanted quotes were messed up in general. Fixed on my end now.
     
  50. Delha

    Delha Active Member

    No opinion on X-Copy + ID, but if the final decision is to eliminate the interaction with crashes in pile, here's my suggested retemplating:

    Put a Crash Gem from the bank into your gem pile. You may play it at any time you could normally play a [purple orb] or [purple shield].

    Whether X-Copy works with the gem pile Crash or not, I'd agree it's a good idea to explicity cover the interaction.
     

Share This Page