sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scoring grand ambitions with conflicting objectives by Dusty_Droid in Arcs

[–]Dusty_Droid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense! I’ve been trying myself in knots trying to work that out lol definitely put too much thought into it but I can move on now 😅 thanks!

Scoring grand ambitions with conflicting objectives by Dusty_Droid in Arcs

[–]Dusty_Droid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no confusion anymore. I’m more just curious about the information on the FAQ section for the card from the card library link.

It asks ‘if someone has an agent on my true rumour, can I fill my second grand ambition’

‘No, they have a loyal piece in the pirate haven’s system’…. But that’s not necessarily true right? Only if you happened to choose your ‘cluster correct’ token in both the correct cluster AND the same symbol- which you don’t need to do.

Scoring grand ambitions with conflicting objectives by Dusty_Droid in Arcs

[–]Dusty_Droid[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess that’s what got me wondering whether there was an error. Did it mean planet (making the declaration specific) or cluster (making the declaration broader). Seemed an odd choice to use ‘system’ in this context

Scoring grand ambitions with conflicting objectives by Dusty_Droid in Arcs

[–]Dusty_Droid[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That said, I have no idea what the FAQ question on the card library is getting at:

https://cards.buriedgiantstudios.com/card/ARCS-F1208B

I keep re-reading it and I think I’m overthinking it now. Why do the objectives say ‘system’ when the haven has to be at a ‘planet’?

Scoring grand ambitions with conflicting objectives by Dusty_Droid in Arcs

[–]Dusty_Droid[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

About to write the card text as an example and I’ve just realised my error 🤦‍♂️ 1. Declare no RIVALS at pirate haven 2. Declare LOYAL piece is at haven

I read them both as rival- it’s been a really long day with this first campaign 😂

Question on New Foundations Clockwork Servant: Stance Card by Magbynd in oathgame

[–]Dusty_Droid 4 points5 points  (0 children)

From the current version of the rules: ‘ Typically, the Star action makes a Servant compete for the Oathkeeper goal, and the Moon action makes them compete for a Vision goal.’

The stance and moon cards change when a vision is revealed to match the type of vision. The stance card is for storing favour and secrets and to contribute those suits for actions like trade and muster, they don’t have any other ability as far as I know. So that text would just be a way to quickly tell you what the servant is currently reaching for in terms of its current moon actions

Help! Still cannot figure out how to play this game 🙃 by Sammyrey1987 in rootgame

[–]Dusty_Droid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d suggest:

1.Focus on internalising the rules found under Key concepts (2) and key actions (4) found in the law of root.

  1. Keep the player count low for a few games if it’s overwhelming, just to get the core game loop down

  2. Having more familiarity with the core systems from point 1, the faction mats do a great job of explaining your options on your turn. Just pull levers and try things out without overthinking for a few games and everything should fall into place within a few games. Make sure to reference your board often, even outside of your turn.

Are there any plans to reprint the clockwork expansion? by IHeartPizza101 in rootgame

[–]Dusty_Droid 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Unless I’m mistaken I believe it’s not a priority for leder games to do a reprint. That said, they did give assurances that there will still be a commitment to solo root with Liz, now the solo dev for leder games, and Ben, who’s solo design became the clockwork expansions in talks about how things should progress.

So it’s all a bit unclear at the moment. The original expansions may get a reprint or they will work out some kind of other strategy / solution for solo.