by mic_al
Born-of-Ashes wrote:
I can see the confusion with this being the first fighter to have two move values. The rules only mention a single move value and saying “your move value” links it to the player and not the fighter. Perhaps in the next version of the core rulebook they can say “up to that fighter’s move value”.
Nope.
In the little pamphlet provided by Restoration Games (they started providing these pamphlets around the time of Unmatched: Sun's Origin- instead of separately dedicated rulebooks with their own art/examplse like we see in Cobble & Fog (including explanations of set specific rules- like fog tokens in C&F, traps and one way passages in JP, doors in LR&Beowulf, etc... they standardized a "Core Rulebook" and starting providing both lore and rules specific to sets in the little pamphlets):
"Unlike most heroes, the Ancient Leshen has a different move value than its sidekicks, the Wolves. If you BOOST your move, add the boost value to your fighters' respective moves as normal. For example if you BOOST your move by 2, you could move the Ancient Leshen up to 3 spaces and each of your wolves up to 5 spaces."
This is written clear as day on the 3rd page of the pamphlet under Ancient Leshen: Heart of the Forest.
There is an epidemic of laziness and blame game out there. I am tired of people not checking their rulebooks and then claiming that rulebooks are badly written.
The following sentence: "Yeah that is not clear in the rule book AT ALL. " seems angry and disrespectful. The rulebook IS clearly written, and it goes into specific detail about the edge case scenario of the Leshen in the provided pamphlet. Just the other day I saw someone claiming that Pax Pamir: Second Edition has a poorly organized rulebook. (Not so. It's clear and well written.) If a rulebook was actually poorly written then I could see say someone making a claim like that and calling it out... but people are often just not reading carefully. (The expectation seems to be come to game night with a half assed memory of how to play after scanning the rulebook once a few months back... and expecting the instant gratification of the game being somehow known to you perfectly. If you tried getting me to play one of your games and it became obvious during the teach that it's a learning game for you, I'd politely excuse myself and join another table.)
Upon reflection, I would change the example in the corebook, however. They use Merlin and Arthur... but perhaps they should illustrate every fine point of rules instance: They could Medusa and show Medusa boosting, moving her full movement allotment, then a harpie moving the full amount (to show it's not limited to "movement points" and each fghter gets to move the full movement), and another Harpie moving 1 space, and a last Harpie choosing not to move (to emphasize the "up to X" point and showing that even zero is allowed). They could even show one fighter moving through friendly fighters and another fighter being blocked by enemy fighters... and emphasize that it's one a t a time.)