Let's Chat About Rules We Want Changed Or Wish Were Different (ARKHAM TOWN HALL)

[@brady9592]

I would very immediately spend 20-30 bucks on a clarifying reprint of the most ill-worded cards. Would never have spent so fast.

[@acstein5914]

Yes please, take the time to make the templating easier to understand as intended and release reprints.

[@fredfredrickson5436]

​​@acstein5914 A rolling second edition has to be the way to go.

[@camipco]

Now we've had ten campaigns, I'd like to see an 'advanced base set' It would include these clarifying reprints as well as all the taboos. Also, a set of modular encounter sets, perhaps the best-of the first 10 campaigns plus some new ones that could be used in campaigns going forward. Campaigns 11-20 would require the advanced base set as well as the regular base set.

[@fredfredrickson5436]

@camipco That would be a big entry barrier. But I like the idea of reusing encounter sets. I keep saying they should reuse the card stock by taking a more ambitious run at a Return To style product, but instead of throwing in just a few tweaks, provide a whole new campaign guide for each cycle that mutates and restructures the plot and the individual scenarios in a much more radical way. The design team could revise weak and poorly templated cards, solidify taboos, and include hard copies of parallel investigators within the package as a strategy to steadily recalibrate the game. In this way, such a project could pivot into a rolling second edition revision that established a consolidated new entry point edition a couple of years down the line, fully embracing the spirit of a persistent living game. This would be a groundbreaking game design approach, of course. But Arkham is less a game and more a proper hobby. And a big enough hobby, with a dedicated enough following, to pull such a coup off.

[@camipco]

@@fredfredrickson5436 Well, only an entry barrier for new campaigns, and I feel like once you've already for 10 it's past the "entry" stage...

[@patrickk861]

I started to type up a comment over how Daniel is actually wrong about how performing actions works, only to realize in the course of writing up this comment that MY understanding was wrong, and that the templating issues are SO much worse than I'd realized! So, the part that makes sense in all this is that "perform a [Move/Fight/Evade/Investigate]" and "perform an action" are two separate things. If a card says "when you perform an Investigate action" what they mean is that is has to be BOTH "perform an Investigate" AND "perform an action". And if a card says "When you Investigate" but does NOT include the word "action", it means any effect that counts as Investigating. So when you look at Haste, it requires you to spend two actions, and those actions must share a type. So anything that either does not cost an action, or does not have a matching type will not count. So far, all of this makes sense. Things only get confusing when you start talking about bold action designations, and "taking" actions. Personally, I feel there's a MASSIVE templating issue here, where the word *"Fight."* in bold COULD mean that this ability is instructing you to take a fight action, or it COULD simply mean that the following ability COUNTS as a "Fight" ability. When Cryptographic Cipher says *"Investigate."* what it means is "take an Investigate action". However, when Scout Ahead ahead says *"Move."* it does NOT mean you should take a move action in addition to resolving the rest of the card's effect. Rather it means that the action to play this card and resolve its ability COUNTS as a Move action. And this distinction is really important for cards like Frozen in Fear, and Haste! This is actually insane. And it's what makes "Get Over Here" (lvl 2) so confusing. The *"Engage."* is definitely just an action designation, but the *"Fight."* is a bit unclear. It seems the intent is for it to also simply be an action designation... but then the rest of the ability doesn't make any sense, because the phrase "attack it" doesn't actually have any meaning in the rules. I think there's a serious issue here, where they're using a word in bold to both mean "take this action" AND "this modifies this action to be this type", and you kind of just have to guess which it is from context. And the fact that cards often have templating that doesn't actually work within the rules of the game can make it incredibly difficult to figure out that context! If FFG is serious about supporting AHLCG into the future, they really need to clean up all this issues with more than just contradictory rulings. I, for one, am still appalled that Geared Up was printed with its original text - text that just doesn't work within the rules of the game at all. We need more cards to get errata like Geared Up did, and more consistent wording going forwards. Every long-running card game reaches a point where this is necessary... and as someone who WANTS to see AHLCG last for another decade, I really hope they clean this stuff up!

[@Yiroep4]

Didn't expect this to become a rant video about how the semantics and consistency but I'm here for it!

[@blankiecat9302]

I feel like this is the hell quicklerner lives in and i love it.

[@mike_howes]

Ive been saying this a lot lately but the two of you working together is fantastic. One of my favourite arkham videos ever. The way you delved into what is an action was fantastic. I thought about card resilution and interaction in a depth i havent before. I dont know how much more topics there are that you could both go into.but id love to see you both handle this type of format again soon.

[@Nerdmeetsyou]

The templating issue with the move action boils down to the following from my perspective: two things in the game that are not the same, use the same word (similar to the known issue with evade vs evade). Move can either be the act of moving, meaning your standee (or an enemy) gets moved to a different location, or it can mean: the move action. I believe Arkham would have better templating if the move action would be called something different. Like "Travel" or "change location".

[@dragonhawk00]

I have noticed many of these things before. People have a tendency to look at the MTG rules like "WTF, why are there so many rules?" when in reality, they are mostly necessary in order to avoid all this weirdness. For a long time, they also had amazing templating (I haven't played much recently so idk what they look like now). I was the "judge" for our playgroup and I only had to actually ask the judges/rules discord for help a few times in 5 or 6 years of playing. I'm on the Arkham discord every other week to check and make sure I am playing simple cards like shortcut right. I've been playing less than a year.

[@TheRedPharmacist]

About the things that cost more than one action: It would be intuitive if they just wrote: "As an additional cost loose x actions."

[@i_am_adje]

The whole play, perform, etc. discussion gets even crazier when you start trying to figure out Roland's Directives...! I love playing Parallel Roland, but I am convinced I play him wrong every time unintentionally

[@markzsombor6059]

A lot of this convo reminded me of a recent change in Marvel Champions where they ruled being dealt damage and taking damage were 2 separate things, and it broke some cards that were written without that distinction in mind.

[@Yrevnoc]

A couple of rules I would like to see changed: Enemies exhausting after attacking in the enemy phase, completely pointless, only ever comes up in ways that just randomly benefit the players for no reason. I would prefer if advancing the act was almost never optional. I really hate the gameyness of players completing the act but then saying "oh lets wait until the start of the next round before advancing". I wish cards like Mysterious Chanting that asked you to search the encounter deck for an enemy didn't allow the players to choose the most advantageous enemy for their situation. I think they should always discard from the top of the encounter deck until we get the first one, or ask us to draw the first eligible enemy from the deck. Also Talent should have been a slot that you have 1 of, but that's a conversation for another day.

[@Quick_Learner]

These are some good ones for discussion in the future!

[@grone1778]

This team-up is the GOAT

[@patricksullivan6988]

Templating complaint: The Fast keyword, as currently templated does not pop enough. Because there is often some stipulation about the circumstances conditioning when the card can be played, "Fast" frequently gets swallowed into the same line/paragraph of text. They should have developed a symbol or other signifier for Fast cards.

[@Trefalgr]

The effect that let's you activate an ability without paying the action cost also comes up when Rita has Dirty Fighting and wants to swing the Sledgehammer as the fight action. You still have to pay the 2 extra actions, which is very counter intuitive.

[@강현모-b8j]

I have a ruling that really bugs me to this day Remember 'Survey the Area' and the 'expert' skill card cycle? Noone use these cards except Monterey Jack maybe because, they don't work with PMP & Astronomical Atlas. According to the FAQ, 'Survey the Area' has no matching icons while it is in the deck/under Amanda Sharp/under Astronomical Atlas, and therefore cannot be committed to any test. OK, that seems fair, until I remembered another ruling: According to the FAQ for 'On your Own', you CAN trigger a *reaction* cost reduction ability even if you have not enough resources to play that card in the first place because, well, they said that every ability determining the cost of a card are triggered before the payment of the cost. Logically, reaction abilities should only be able to trigger when the condition is met *BEFORE* the trigger, not the *AFTER*. This is quite an important rule since it directly transfers to a well-used card, 'Robe of the Endless Night' and its cost reduction for spells. I argue: if a skill card requiring a matching icon to the test is a type of a 'cost' or a 'trigger condition', I should be able to still trigger it even if the condition is met only *AFTER* I commit it to the test. To phrase differently, the costs can be paid(icons can be matched) if the card is committed to the test. It's not like these expert skills are so very powerful and the developers needed a brake on them, so why not be cool with their conditions? I want to hear other players' opinions, so any replies are welcomed.

[@warbossd]

One fix for firearms would be 'Weapons with the forearms keyword use the enemies agility not combat for their test.' Its a single global rule that fixes a lot but it might make them overpowered sadly.

[@davidko9289]

Watching this made me forget what words mean.

[@syafiqmahdi2316]

Haven't finished watching the video, but: they should codify the outcome of a successful evade as "trip" or something. When you successfully Fight, you deal damage (place a damage token on the attacked enemy); when you successfully Investigate, you discover a clue at your location (move the clue from your location to your investigation card); when you successfully Evade, you trip the evaded enemy (you exhaust and disengage them). It would alleviate the confusion between "automatically evade" vs "automatic success" on an evade test

[@John-lf3iu]

Maybe elude rather than trip.

[@roguebanshee]

Automatically Evade means there is no skill test, so you can't commit cards for extra effects. Automatic Success means there _is_ a skill test and you can commit cards.

[@M-E_123]

I'd rather change the name of the test, like a Dodge or Hide test - or make it an Evade test to Escape an enemy. Not all enemies make sense to trip - Evade tests to Escape enemies probably makes the most thematic sense to me, as the word Escape suggests you're no longer Engaged. I agree it should be changed, just a question of which other word best fits.

[@RolandIronfist13]

This is a great video. More discussions like this. You can go from player cards to campaign mechanics too im sure

[@emergency.jergens]

Uses Shriveling lvl 5 Triggers Rod of Carnamagos Reveals 5 nonblurse symbols Dies

[@M-E_123]

I think they missed a chance to tidy some of these issues up with the repackaged content. Changing the language around Evade tests, templating of particular cards that are known to cause confusion, or to straight up errata some cards that are causing design issues / restrictions when working on new cards were all possible (thinking some of the cards that became Exceptional in the Taboo list - just add Exceptional to the card now it's been reprinted). It didn't need to be every card - maybe just 2-4 "problem cards" per Investigator Expansion (well, apart from changing Evade tests - I think that could mainly be in the rule book). They could also make cards restricted to specific classes ("Rogue Only" is such a simple phrase to add to cards that have been Tabood in other ways just because of how Seekers can break them). But this is all too late now & FFG seems to prefer to continue building on the foundations they have - for better or worse.

[@moooseman3]

I wouldn't want to change Rod of Carnamagos to trigger the effects of all revealed tokens. That would make it too good at fishing for Elder Sign effects. It would also kind of ruin the intended curse synergy since it would remove all the blurse tokens revealed from the bag.

[@fredfredrickson5436]

Not if you only resolved the curses revealed. And not if you returned those curses to the bag after resolving them. Just triggering a whole bunch of scenario card effects would be absolutely devastating in some scenarios.

[@mayauppstad9883]

I think they've handled agility as a stat fairly well considering how it started out. It used to be that killing was always better than evading, but with more and more investigators and player cards that reward you for keeping enemies in play combined with additional rewards for evading it's not as black and white anymore. Parley is an archetype that often requires an enemy in play and it is primarily a green archetype. Green also has many tools for putting enemies in play through cards like Kicking the Hornet's nest, Bianca "Die Katz" and now "Where's the party?". Bewitching can proc multiple times on a single enemy if you keep evading it. This would be worse if agility was another combat stat or if the standard for evade was freeze. Most of these are recent developments, but I think they're clever solutions to the identity crisis of the agility stat.

[@LittleBlueJug]

This was an awesome format. I'm left with more questions than answers about revealing/resolving tokens!

[@derdachristian1]

I really Liked having both of you. Daniel is very nitty-gritty about the rules, so having you two discuss your experience and his way of looking at the game is really nice. Also maybe with playing/discussing with others it will help with your resolution about wanting to think/play the game differently

[@matthewmacomber6278]

Welcome to "Arkham Rules Existential Crisis: The Video"! 😆😅😭

[@astutedunsparce4036]

The Shortcuts one is weird. I think it’s because the Level 0, you choose for somebody to be affected by Shortcut’s move and the Level 2, somebody chooses to be affected by Shortcut’s move (???). And playing them is fast, but then I don’t think it matters if playing Shortcut 2 is fast or not anymore when it’s already attached to a location. Idk if that makes any sense, but then you guys pull out Pathfinder and then I pull out my hair !

[@waltercardcollector]

My number 1 thing I want different isn't really a rule, but it's close: I wish they stopped making cards that require an FAQ entry to understand how they worked! And I think it's ok to have more text on the card or even more reminder text (FFG games with reminder text? No way!) as long as it helps communicate how the card is supposed to work.

[@GameDesignRaccoon]

Please DO a whole video about Evade in this game! (1:02:14) That was very interesting 🙂 Take/perform/resolve/spend is such a mess... it makes me sad ^^'

[@clemos1845]

A solve for the evade mess could be: When you successfully evade an enemy you "shake of" that emeny. (so: shaking off being the equivalent of dealing damage or discovering clues)

[@marcelpalmieri7467]

They should have used dodge, evade the action, dodge the result.

[@M-E_123]

I prefer Evade actions to Escape an engaged enemy.

[@Edweird2w1]

The "Performing" nuance always flashes me back to CCG L5R, where it indicates an additional targeting cost that requires a character to actually be at the same location. I know this dosent help, just brings me back to good times translating L5R-ese.

[@snafu964]

I've been harping on the templating issue with FFG games forever and have always wished they'd invest in a templating team, for me it is one of the reasons their LCGs haven't had the same success as other card games. The problem with Rod, in addition to all the issues with resolve/reveal/ignore, is that they took what has traditionally been an encounter/mythos effect of using the token bag to determine a random outcome and put it on a player card instead AND made it possible to use in a skill test.

[@Jilluminum]

This is going to sound a little strange, but the slight sloppiness with the card text and rules is almost a plus for me with this game? Theres something really satisfying having all these weird unintuitive edge cases to wade through

[@izzet513]

Daniel’s topic is a lot more of what I expected when I clicked this video lol

[@fredfredrickson5436]

I think the game has reached the stage where it's crying out for a comprehensive, well considered 2nd edition rulebook to redefine and solidify what had become a very nebulous rule-set. This would probably be best achieved by the accompaniment of legacy exceptions, explained on a card by card basis, in frank acknowledgement of the uncertain and mutating nature of the living card game (rather than attempting to maintain the conceit that the rule-set is part of a precisely preconsidered rolling master plan.) It would also be nice if such a rulebook contained a preface to each scenario, containing comprehensive errata and refined descriptions. The ten campaign mark feels like some kind of benchmark in the game's life where it should feel confident in reasserting its gravitas.

[@sarfus3006]

My personal preference for distinguishing between melee vs firearms would be something simple like melee always requiring the investigator to be engaged with the enemy in order to make an attack. It might not be a large enough distinction to tip the scale [machete is a good card after all] so it might need something like firearms ignoring retaliate as well, but I like it because it seems straightfoward, thematic and I think works relatively well with the current cardpool as guardians have a bunch of cards that give free engages and benefits for tanking hits, whereas the rogue fighters [excluding tony] tend towards evade -> attack and avoiding engagement. Some cards would be disproportionately impacted by this or have current text that's confusing / completely useless in this case [eg. blackjack], but I think it's a good starting point and I've been considering introducing it as a house rule to test.

[@MyAlex528]

Feels like e.g original Rex’s Curse, FFG would rather goes on and accept the card does what it means than to correct the card texts. And this leads to more and more inconsistencies because this introduces more unique cases for cards than actually keeping everything consistent.

[@Casey093]

When they released cyclopean hammer, I knew that firearms would forever be inferior to melee weapons.

[@FlyingCable98]

I wonder how much it would change the game if when you evade exhausted enemies by default they remain exhausted for an extra round

[@camipco]

On multiple actions, the templating on sledgehammer could be the same as the hemlock vale double events ->: as an additional cost spend 2 actions, hit extra hard

[@ollie67584]

I've said this before but they could change the rules for Retaliate e.g. This enemy attacks who fails a skill test against it if that test was a basic attack or an attack using a melee asset

[@skipper8745]

Im confused by the reveal vs resolve problem. If a token is pulled out of the bag then it is revealed, but if a card affect tells you to ignore it, then it makes sense that the ignored token can not trigger any effects like shrivelling, since you must ignore it when checking which tokens were revealed. On the other hand, the rod of carnamagos is revealing the tokens without ignoring them or resolving them, so it naturally WOULD trigger any reveal affects.

[@PlayingBoardGames]

@@skipper8745 It doesn't though. You don't resolve the when revealed effects of symbol tokens.

[@Hybridtheory2007]

QL/PBG elite duo

[@mattycool]

In the Spanish version, they translated both "perform" and "take" as the same word; and I have no idea how I should be interpreting anything now.

[@ShunyValdez]

52:17. Hehe. Rule "bag"gage on tokens. Nice pun

[@roguebanshee]

For Hand-Eye Coordination and similar cards, the text should definitely be "Resolve an ability on a Tool or Weapon asset you control, reducing the cost by one ."

[@rupert7565]

Did you know that technically according the rules during a test in normal cases you don't resolve tokes drawn? From the rules when pulling a single token from the bag during a test you trigger the chaos symbol effect and modifier based on a token being _revealed,_ and from the faq when resolving multiple you only handle those that are _resolved._, rather then those that are revealed.

[@DrDifra]

Tell me this isn't real

[@rupert7565]

@@DrDifra From what I can tell it is. It clearly isn't intended that why, but I guess the mentioned core set shrivelling uses revealed: because that is what the rules from that time use.

[@patricksullivan6988]

Wait. Did you guys just say that abilities with multiple action-trigger arrows only provoke one attack of opportunity!? I may have been grim-ruling both of my playgroups for a while.

[@joesnrub6949]

OMG! evade, disengage, reengage, aloof…. I’ve been trying to make sense of all of it for a while now

[@markdanielbronozo2187]

Agree on the firearms using foot instead of fist but then Roland would become bad with his signature being a foot weapon if those were the rules (unless it was an exception?)

[@kingcole5977]

Cool video. Never noticed that Shriveling used the "reveal" keyword instead of "resolve".

[@BlackStarsRiseGaming]

Part 3 video devoted entirely to Evade, please. You guys rock!

[@DasGothTeilchen]

That's crazy - I mostly play (true) solo and therefore was very unaware of all these issues (I played more intuitively than precisely, I guess?). That's a huge burden to me to need to go dig these rules up.

[@emergency.jergens]

I truly think they can make a global templating errata kind of like yugioh but it’s probably a lot of work for little pay off

[@exesemas]

Firearms could be more realistic. Like: if you succeed by X or more +1 damage, if you succeed by Y or more, +2 damage etc. Which translates to "you aimed better so the bullet did more damage". Simple.

[@Krvsrnko]

I'm wondering if intent behind the reveal / resolve Curse tokens difference was that you can "cheat" Eye of Chaos witht eh cards that let you cancel / ignore Curse tokens, and Grimoire only fires if you actually engage with those tokens. I don't know why this would be the case (thematic reasons? Your guess is as good as mine...) but I feel like the intent could have been that.

[@TheMaskedHero]

Great video. FFG templating really gets me sometimes. Even small nitpicks like the use of "one" vs "1" on cards across the same game. I wish wording could be updated in a reprint space, because i would much rather play cards as written, especially with new players.

[@framona95120]

Now imagine playing the game in a other language. In addition to understanding the rules you have to think about whether or not the transalation take into account those templating detail.

[@MattCrawley_Music]

Oh wow. So true in the first point. Of course, physical strength has nothing to do with being good at using guns

[@thomad4]

I really enjoyed this Town Hall 👍

[@Cartkun]

Great video! I very much think it's enjoyable to play the game (fav game) but yes the rules are 80% there.... I'm following the rules to my best and that's it!

[@Frankie-the-Tankie]

Great video! Similar to this video but a, " if I was designing AHLCG 2.O, I would do X, Y, Z, etc) would be a fun watch.

[@Kuncoss]

Feels a bit like it got into being a support group session for FFG templeting half way through. Great for a bit of a laugh and healthy venting/good discussion😅 Also, if the "Evade" thing gets to be video. Be sure to include Impromptu Barrier - the card that include all three (3!) variations of Evade on a single card (Action-type/Enemy Stat/Automatic Evade procc).

[@Spanner1971B]

1) Firearms - I feel like attempts to give Firearms tricks with a slew of events is a fail due to cost/restriction issues. They are making strides to improves them but it feels too little too late. 2) If I play Shortcut, I've played an Event called Shortcut. I actually do not care what they say. 3) Just ugly ugly templating. Should be something like "Reduce Action cost by one Action". Or multi-action cards should be "As an additional cost, spend an additional action." 4a) The word "Revelation" on Weaknesses/Treacheries is actually my most hated pet peeve thing from day one. 4b) Rex's Curse - wow never noticed that before. Yikes. 4c) Rod + Eye = dumb dumb. Rod really should be "~ not during a test"

[@joeykhashab8151]

Awesome video! My top pet peeves that drives me crazy for rules 1. Can't do damage to aloof enemies after you evade them. It's silly and having to remember to engage them after evading them is annoying. 2. Learned this from Quick Learner at Bustercon, you can't You Handle This One to a Mystic for level 0 Ward of Protection. Because of timings. That's insane. 3. The fact that Zoey's ability doesn't work with Massive. To me it's arbitrary and counterintuitive.

[@dozensofdonuts8695]

It’s a shame I’m in the minority of players who couldn’t care less about the intricacies and inconsistencies of rulings. Once you have a solid understanding of the game, almost every situation, while playing a scenario, you can use common sense to deduce the intent of a card. Just do whatever makes the most sense, whether good or bad, because that is almost always the intent. Hyper-analyzing the rules for inevitable circumstances (because there’s over a thousand player cards and god knows how many campaign cards) just takes the fun out of the game for me

[@wanderingpaladin37]

If you buy the stand alone character packs do you get cards that you don't have if you bought all the other investigator packs?

[@henribcosta]

I'm still watching the video, but Daniel's first rule is something I gave up understanding at all lol when it comes up in our table I'll try to figure it out, but i gave up the meaning of it. Pay Day is the card that made my mind around it...

[@amagrude]

When is the next one?!

[@waltercardcollector]

About Hand-Eye Coordination and Pushed to the Limit - what do they do that's different from what they say they do?

[@PlayingBoardGames]

Hand-Eye Coordination reduces the action cost of the triple Sledgehammer by 1, Pushed to the Limit reduces it by 3.

[@waltercardcollector]

@ Ah thank you!

[@benwillingham6823]

Loved this. Please do one on evade. I could listen to you guys discuss this for hours.

[@Shoggunik]

Would you guys discuss a possibility and what would you like to see for Arham LCG 2. What I mean is a new game that draws upon current one but with new card pool, updated rules and without all the baggage that current game has. I know that it would be a tough sell for many people due to amount of investment that went into the game but what do you guys think about it?

[@camipco]

This is a silly one, but boots and headgear should have slots!

[@necrotoaster94]

This was great! 😊

[@hmonglord]

I wonder if giving melee weapons higher fight boost and then giving gun more dmg boost would had help thing out.Gun are already restricted by their ammo count so giving then more dmg could of had make players make the choice between constant hitting but lower dmg or having a gun thay does more dmg but you have to choose when to use then because of their ammo

[@M-E_123]

I like this, with maybe some Melee weapons or Action cards giving extra attack actions (like Exhaust Weapon to take an extra Attack as a Free Action) - so you can still get extra damage from them, but you need to take more tests to get there. Another option would be to give all Melee weapons a chance to break - so it's a choice between a Random Chance of your weapons breaking Vs a guaranteed number of Attacks with Firearms.

[@mayauppstad9883]

Dawn Star: "Ignore the modifiers of each curse token ignored..." Also Dawn Star: "For each curse token ignored..." What!? Am I ignoring the whole token or just the modifier?! With Agatha coming out we'll hopefully get an answer, but like why is it written like this? Makes my blood boil. I absolutely adore Arkham though. Notes, but no notes.

[@Shin_Y]

one of the best videos!

[@n.kirkevans6256]

I really wish firearms were better. I'm trying to play Tommy with Custom Modifications rn. When you count the XP and cards required to make this deck work v. a Runic Axe or even Cyclopean Hammer... He's so much less efficient and I have to run 6-7 cards to make the package work rather than two and he is still less effective as a fighter than if he swung the hammer. It's sad.

[@robertthurman9866]

The fact the investigators do not start with their signature card/ weapon in play or at least in hand.

[@kayosiiii]

With the melee vs ranged weapon thing making the distinction be on the enemy cards would have worked if those encounter sets were in the core set. I think this could be fixed with an expanded core set (+ upgrade pack for those of us who already have collections). The two encounter sets I would add is a set of armored enemies that take 1 damage no matter how much damage the weapon does and a set that automatically does damage every time they are attacked with a melee weapon. The easy way to fix hand eye coordination would be to put a colon after the 🠊. This would prohibit you from doing 🠊🠊: & 🠊🠊🠊: actions but it would be a lot more intuitive and closer to the intention.

[@John-lf3iu]

Really insightful video - learned somethings and made my go gosh that’s annoying!

[@halforange1]

TIL to not RTFC