|
Post by davester64 on Apr 16, 2008 13:26:36 GMT -5
Are there any plans to errata the 1E crystals so they play like the 2E ones?
For example, you could play 'Terpsichore' in your pre-game without having 'Euterpe' in play.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Apr 16, 2008 14:41:41 GMT -5
We named them the same, so you can fill in the gaps you need from 1st Ed Crystals with 2nd Ed Crystals.
|
|
|
Post by davester64 on Apr 16, 2008 17:17:11 GMT -5
Well, I myself have all 6 1E Crystals. I was mainly asking if errata had been done.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by scottr on Apr 16, 2008 17:35:28 GMT -5
When I started playing the the current A to Z group, I was told by Dallis and Prowler that the 1e crystals had been errata'd - but I'm not sure of the original source, and don't see it among the handbook entries linked from WatcherDatabase.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 16, 2008 21:05:21 GMT -5
Are there any plans to errata the 1E crystals so they play like the 2E ones? For example, you could play 'Terpsichore' in your pre-game without having 'Euterpe' in play. Dave If you note in the Handbook, it states that any entry that is in bold red is an errataed card. All of the Crystals are listed in bold red and in that text change they took out the "you must have X card to play Y card". Hope it helps.
|
|
|
Post by davester64 on Apr 16, 2008 22:42:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the info; I had missed that. Dave Are there any plans to errata the 1E crystals so they play like the 2E ones? For example, you could play 'Terpsichore' in your pre-game without having 'Euterpe' in play. Dave If you note in the Handbook, it states that any entry that is in bold red is an errataed card. All of the Crystals are listed in bold red and in that text change they took out the "you must have X card to play Y card". Hope it helps.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 17, 2008 8:05:01 GMT -5
Glad to help.
|
|
|
Post by scottr on Apr 17, 2008 10:43:33 GMT -5
Is there a link for that? Is there a newer official handbook version than the WatcherDB link? Player's Handbook, as linked from Watcher's database on right: www.stilldesigning.com/highlander/handbook.htmSearch for "Calliope", and it does not appear that it has been errata'd to remove the chaining - there are other text changes, but the 2nd and 3rd crystals of each set still have that text. I also don't see anything about the crystals (searching for 'crystal' or their individual names) in the Player Handbook Addendum.
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Apr 17, 2008 10:54:37 GMT -5
Calliope isn;t the name of the card.. the name of the card is Crystal. You'll find 6 entries there.
And youa re right, there is no removal of the dependencies. I am not sure of the source of the person who posted that.
|
|
|
Post by scottr on Apr 17, 2008 12:28:31 GMT -5
I know, but if you search for the word 'Calliope', you will find the entry as the first result.
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer it was the entry name - just trying to provide a pointer to what I was looking at.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 18, 2008 9:03:56 GMT -5
Calliope isn;t the name of the card.. the name of the card is Crystal. You'll find 6 entries there. And youa re right, there is no removal of the dependencies. I am not sure of the source of the person who posted that. Human error Thorr. Sorry Dave, after you asked your question and no one responded I looked in the Handbook and was scrolling down. Once I read the first couple I saw what appeared to be the issue, and responded. My mistake for not continuing to scroll for a look at the others. I had heard somewhere that they were errataed to the effect that it wasn't an issue, which makes perfect sense IMO, however it has not been put into text apparently. I have never voiced my opinion on the issue since I have six and it didn't effect me, but do remember a time when some groups dropped the rule because they were so hard to get a hold of. To me it is a minuscule issue since most anyone that runs crystals has six, it is not an issue, but I can see the frivolousness of this text to someone who only has one or two. Who knows maybe it is something LM will include in their Rulebook under the errata section.
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Apr 18, 2008 9:38:05 GMT -5
I think the dependency is a bit ridiculous as well. "Oh look, I finally got a Crystal! But wait, I can't use it because I nedd BOTH of the other Crystals to include it. Poopy!"
|
|
|
Post by scottr on Apr 18, 2008 13:00:13 GMT -5
Agreed completely - this seems like a good common sense errata, and I'm glad the 2e crystals did away with it.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 18, 2008 15:48:11 GMT -5
We named them the same, so you can fill in the gaps you need from 1st Ed Crystals with 2nd Ed Crystals. Personally I could have sworn that with the arrival of the 2ed crystals, the 1ed crystals were errated to do the same thing. At least thats what my addled brain remembers from well over a year ago. Perhaps this errata will make it into the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 19, 2008 1:15:29 GMT -5
That was the first house rule we made for building decks. One of the stupidest things you can do to a guy that just bought a case of your product is make his super ultra rare a card he can't use.
|
|