NEWS

Matrix Attributes vs Character Attributes Errata

  • 3 Replies
  • 2720 Views

Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« on: <06-25-17/2008:26> »
Status: Provisonal

Complex Form Clarification (P. 252, Resonance Library)
Add the following paragraph after the second paragraph.

"Certain complex forms may affect attributes. The maximum attribute boost described on page 94 applies to these complex forms."

This Errata seems to be overly disadvantageous to the infuse matrix attribute complex form. Given the very poor State TM  currently in 5th this should not continued.  My understanding of this is if you're techno increased their charisma using Spells or Drugs, which also increased their living persona attack rating, they would no longer be able to use the full +4 Infuse Matrix Attribute attack complex form, could give under this change. I think the RAW rules on Complex should stand as they are, simply b/c Complex Forms are just so weak at this time.

Further it raises a weird issue where a TM could boost a deck's Attack Attribute via the complex from, as specified (up to double the rating),  but couldn't do the same to their living Persona. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

&#24525;

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #1 on: <06-26-17/0025:05> »
Ooo fancy. What about the reverse situation? The TM has an infuse CF and its related attribute gets Increased or a drug is taken.

Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #2 on: <06-26-17/0709:11> »
Ooo fancy. What about the reverse situation? The TM has an infuse CF and its related attribute gets Increased or a drug is taken.

Given the state of TM's do you really feel like +4 to matrix attribute derived from a +4 from their highly multi-attribute dependency  is going to  break the game?
The state of the Archetype is such, any kind of Nerf seems overly harsh to me.
*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

&#24525;

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #3 on: <06-26-17/1912:21> »
No, I agree with you ;D