It wasn’t a “scam”, it was a genuine correction - Agile is strictly more powerful than Perceptive (defence against Grievous is better than defence against Light) so should be associated with Fine rather than Average treasure.

I maybe should have highlighted it as a change but didn’t as I didn’t really think it would be controversial.

I don’t care much either way but think that the way it is now makes more narrative sense.

I think it’s controversial: Grievous is more powerful than Light, so in order to give Light any real use at all, it should be harder to defend against. I assumed the original list was an intentional balancing choice to give some use to Light Injury squares, and (as someone who has a Light Injury square on the board already) I feel quite hard-done by that you slipped a change that makes my squares weaker and the leaders’ squares more powerful into what’s meant to be a non-gamestate changing cleanup proposal, and one that’s far too long to realistically review all the changes of.

Okay, well, change it then! I have no problem with that; but accusing me directly of “scamming” might be a bit much under the circumstances.

Happy to have clarified my reasons and equally happy to let the group make a decision on this.

Anyway, I’m on this one as well.

At least in Agora, slipping in a gamestate-affecting change into a very large list of otherwise gamestate-neutral actions is a classic scam that’s very frequently attempted (to the extent that any long list of information will generally be given the equivalent of against-votes purely to guard against the possibility that someone slipped a game action into it). So I thought I recognised the same pattern here.

In a sense, whether something’s a scam or not can be up to how it’s perceived by the other players, rather than the intention of the person who posted it.

All well and good for Agora; in BN it is my belief that “scam” implies intention, and the idea of a scamming, partisan Emperor is heavily frowned upon.

one consequence of the feather/figurine switch (which i do like, i thought it was a bit odd that they were the way they were before) is that the chest contents set in the ancient vault aren’t valid chest contents anymore? not sure if that makes them illegal tho– it may well be that they only have to be a valid value when being put into the chest, not taken out

oh im a silly goose, that’s in the flavour text!

Fractional weights felt like a pain for Josh to deal with hence why I didn’t word it that way

@Clucky: It’s completely equivalent to your version, and leads to simpler rule wording. Josh can randomize the two possibilities the same way as each other (i.e. put all four ¼-weight items into one “slot” in the dice roll, then randomize which if that slot is rolled).

Not really. If add an item that just randomly has weight 1/3 and another that has weight 2, it suddenly becomes a lot more complicated to figure out how to do the random distribution. Groups means you always just two one or two rolls.

Grateful for the defs; fractional weights are excel’s problem more than they are mine; I’m still not inclined to vote on this.