YB 2.1 - any questions?

[reiella]

Well any rules based inference of it is up to Wicht. Personally I am against having any actual 'real' effect for it... But I don't really care heavily one way or the other.

So currently, the existance of a named location adds no weight at all at least none beyond how 'dragon' sounds betters than 'toad' does to some judges, regardless of the day.

 

[Wicht]

I had no plans for it personally. I was under the impression the main reason for the change was to avoid confusion.

 

[reiella]

That was my intent at least .

Some people who posted on the poll had suggestions for rules based results, but that was not my goal or intent.

I would personally perfer to keep it "rules-free" too myself.

 

[MidKnight]

Wicht - Any possibility of making it so that Sneaky Trick can only be used with the fighter's current move? Several of the players at night time have major issues with it as stands, they feel it makes the Dark and Yak paths a little too powerful.

I used it once last night (much to Rathan's disgust) and managed to pretty much remove half his hand... If I could use it against any location at will, then I could easily remove his best move(s). Although Soth likes the idea, they may have a valid point.

Thanks

 

[Wicht]

I have considered the case for changing it but feel it is a legitimate way to use it. I am naturally reluctant to put a limit on powers just because a player finds a creative way to use it. When I had sneaky trick with my Wicht persona, I would often use it in strategy fights before the move I was actually boosting to try and avoid having the trick nixed.

A Holy day can be used the same way in a strategy fight to preemptively remove a good move. And with Sneaky trick, the fighter can still use their move that you preemptively weakened to win a round without actually winning points. And you have in fact made it slightly more likely that they can do this, giving them an advantage if they choose to use it that way.

If enough people actually think its a problem I will change it, but as it is, I see it as a nuisance more than anything else and why should having a power used against you not be annoying, but the fact is any power can be potentially annoying if it is successfully used against you.

 

[Vanor]

I don't see how Sneaky trick can harm someone all that much.

If your counting on the location to cary the round, then your move isn't that strong to begin with.

If I could use it against any location at will, then I could easily remove his best move(s).

Sneaky trick simply changes the location of the fight. How exactly does this negate someone elses move? All it would do, is make it so that the location in the move doesn't match up with the location of the fight anymore.

 

[Wicht]

In the context of a Dark Fighter, the sneaky trick can be used to give themselves a location of one of their opponents moves, thereby making it easier for them to ignore that move.

 

[graydoom]

Vanor, Unholy Warrior. Since locations now give extra defense, you can nullify some moves with it.

Now, one other comment. I like the idea of defense for locations. The opponent still has a chance of winning the round, just the point win from the round is less. Wicht, is there any chance that this mechanic could be used for signature styles, too? Instead of outright immunity, just a nullification or reduction of the points won in the round? IMO, this would improve the game a good deal. Rounds wouldn't be auto-lost any more, and it wouldn't be possible to be absolutey assured of a won round. Please, please consider using this mechanic fo signature styles! A won round in which you used your opponents sig style would give you no points, but you would still have a chance to win it.

 

[Vanor]

In the context of a Dark Fighter, the sneaky trick can be used to give themselves a location of one of their opponents moves, thereby making it easier for them to ignore that move.

Ok I wasn't thinking of Dark Warriors... But this is actualy no different then Holy day/Holy warrior, and in a way less potent.

Graydoom... I know Wicht saw the debate about this, and I believe that he felt that the game was better off with leaving the style immunities as they are. Myself personaly I think they should stay as is, and hope that Wicht doesn't change it.

 

[Wicht]

While I know there is a party that wants immunities removed, there is also a party of individuals who do not. (There is probably a third party who are indifferent.) Peronally I don't see the problem with them - they are going to be less of a factor than bribe judges for instance and I would be reluctant to get rid of bribe judges as well. (Though I notice there is still a reluctance to fight sashes but I think that personally this is based more on old prejudices than the actual current path.)