i was talking to a good friend of mine and fellow games enthusiast the other day and he was thumbing through some crypts i was working on as he's vaguely familiar with the rules. He did ask me an interesting question though:
"Why aren't the keywords in bold on these cards like their sect and title? This one says it's 'infernal,' but only says it at the end of the card. What's that do again?"
"uh, you have to pay one pool to untap an infernal minion."
"wow. What about this one: Scarce?"
"costs three pool per vampire of that clan already in play when it hits the ready region"
"That seems like it would be a big deal. When does this Jaroslav guy get +1 intercept?"
"all the time."
"huh. you'd think they'd call more attention to it. same with these other dudes that are +1 and +2 bleed. why do they bold Red List, Black Hand and not Scarce and Infernal?"
"STOP ASKING SO MANY GOOD QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER!"
so what say y'all? I personally feel that beyond titles, the one-off keywords or other traits of interest (+stealth, +intercept, +bleed, &c.) would be best incorporated in the main line, Bolded along with sect and title.
Discuss.
> Dorrinal wrote:
>
> > self wrote:
> > so what say y'all?
> >
> Using italics everywhere makes your posts difficult to read.
>
would anyone like to actually contribute to the thread and not whinge about font?
Why: Then most of the vampire's text would be in bold.
Sect and Title have always been bold because those keywords are usually linked (I'm raging on about the problem with one keyword/trait not being linked to the sect but that's another issue).
There are a number of keywords, and to be honest with your new guy, start with the 'mainstream clans' and just let him worry about the Bloodlines guys later. Get used to the main stuff and dabble later in the additional complexities.
Other keywording in VTES should be better done, but its presentation suits me just fine.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> self wrote:
>
> > Dorrinal wrote:
> >
> > > self wrote:
> > > so what say y'all?
> > >
> > Using italics everywhere makes your posts difficult to read.
> >
> would anyone like to actually contribute to the thread and not whinge about font?
>
It's a matter of etiquette. Please make your posts as readable as possible - it will help with communication.
I'd just like to acknowledge that the alternating normal and italic fonts made self biased's post look more like a re-cap of a real conversation. Carry on.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> self wrote:
>
> > Dorrinal wrote:
> >
> > > self wrote:
> > > so what say y'all?
> > >
> > Using italics everywhere makes your posts difficult to read.
> >
> would anyone like to actually contribute to the thread and not whinge about font?
>
Funny... you were talking about altering the fonts of cards... and Dorrinal mentioned the fact that your posts are in "italics." It truly is "on topic."
You use bold or italics in order to add emphasis or to distinguish parts of text. When you use italics for an entire paragraph it is difficult to read.
There is no real need to emphasis every keyword. It would be best to avoid using italics for keywords because convention is that less important text is italicized (such as flavor text.)
You find in some of the older cards that (Blood Cursed) is in parentheses. Visually, I think that works for the keywords that might appear at the end of a vampire's card text, or are kinda clan specific. I.E. (Blood Cursed) (Infernal) (Sterile) (Cold Iron Vulnerable) etc.
Also, "+1 intercept" and "+1 bleed" are not keywords. They are simply card text. If you were to make those bold then vampires with a sect and a title and +1 bleed would have all of the text in bold, and therefore indistinguishable from each other.
What is easier to read?
EDIT: it's not a very good test on a computer monitor.
Camarilla Prince of Houston. +1 bleed.
or
Camarilla Prince of Houston. +1 bleed.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
If your friend read the rulebook and looked at a decent sample of cards, he'd not have had to ask any of these questions, I don't think.
It's also quite clear that VTES cards are formatted in a certain way, esp. the fact that they are term-dense and designed for adults, in an older-CCG text-based style, and not the "modern" symbol-based "at a glance, I know everything" style.
If his intent was simply to compare VTES to some other CCG, he's missing the point entirely. One should consider a game's quality for its own sake, not in comparison to other games.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
But it's true you have a lot of rules to assimilate before being able to play vtes correctly. Maybe a little reminder on card texts would be good too, but playing with a rulebook by your side is wiser !
(kudos to the admin who removed the mess btw )
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
While I believe that the rulebook is complex because the game is complex, I think that we could take some hints on a better card GUI from that other game that has a Pro Tour and millions of players worldwide.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Why: Then most of the vampire's text would be in bold.
>
> Sect and Title have always been bold because those keywords are usually linked (I'm raging on about the problem with one keyword/trait not being linked to the sect but that's another issue).
>
> There are a number of keywords, and to be honest with your new guy, start with the 'mainstream clans' and just let him worry about the Bloodlines guys later. Get used to the main stuff and dabble later in the additional complexities.
>
> Other keywording in VTES should be better done, but its presentation suits me just fine.
>
my friend and i have been playing periodically since '94 (I've been considerably more involved). He's also got the uncanny ability to casually thumb through the rules of a new game and somehow know how to play. He also served as my warhammer 40k group's Rules Junta for a number of years. To provide some greater insight, we were discussing the use of defined game terms in several games when i brought up the inconsistent approach that Vtes has.
> direwolf wrote:
> There is no real need to emphasis every keyword. It would be best to avoid using italics for keywords because convention is that less important text is italicized (such as flavor text.)
>
> You find in some of the older cards that (Blood Cursed) is in parentheses. Visually, I think that works for the keywords that might appear at the end of a vampire's card text, or are kinda clan specific. I.E. (Blood Cursed) (Infernal) (Sterile) (Cold Iron Vulnerable) etc.
>
> ***
>
> What is easier to read?
>
I would agree with you on the use of italics to emphasize on crypt cards, and I cannot recall a single vampire that has flavor text on it. However I don't like the inconsistency that some keywords are bold and others not. Parenthesis encapsulating keywords and concepts at the end of the text would also be acceptable provided there would be some consistency (eg. only sect and title would be bold), but I feel that bold keywords is just the better way to go.
Take this, for example:
versus this:
> direwolf wrote:
> Also, "+1 intercept" and "+1 bleed" are not keywords. They are simply card text. If you were to make those bold then vampires with a sect and a title and +1 bleed would have all of the text in bold, and therefore indistinguishable from each other.
>
Indeed you are correct, but +intercept/stealth/bleed modifiers are found on numerous vampires; some in addition to other abilities (like Jaroslav Pascek). These 'semi-common' abilities could also be treated as keywords a sense, to no detriment of play. I'm not sure I understand the second issue you're bringing up. There are numerous, numerous vampires that have only a sect and title, and many more that have +1 Bleed as their card text. They're all perfectly distinguishable from each other as far as I can tell. Perhaps you could help me better understand what you were going for?
> KevinM wrote:
> If your friend read the rulebook and looked at a decent sample of cards, he'd not have had to ask any of these questions, I don't think.
>
> It's also quite clear that VTES cards are formatted in a certain way, esp. the fact that they are term-dense and designed for adults, in an older-CCG text-based style, and not the "modern" symbol-based "at a glance, I know everything" style.
>
> If his intent was simply to compare VTES to some other CCG, he's missing the point entirely. One should consider a game's quality for its own sake, not in comparison to other games.
>
again, we were discussing defined game terms and how they were used and presented, and there are inconsistencies in the way Vtes has done it over the years. My friend isn't a big fan of the setting, but he does enjoy how intricate the game is and how well the game flows.
> KevinM wrote:
> While I believe that the rulebook is complex because the game is complex, I think that we could take some hints on a better card GUI from that other game that has a Pro Tour and millions of players worldwide.
>
that's all I'm really trying to do is see what the community at large feels is acceptable.
@Selfbiased:
I am actually all for using keywords and keyphrases.
+x intercept
+x stealth
+x bleed
(even the conditional variants) are just fine with me.
But I'd want to expand the keywording until it was actually closer to the usage of Strikes.
"Strike: Combat Ends" is a clear functional keyphrase. It tells you that it is a strike, it does not have any particular effects on other minions at range, it does not constitute a hand-strike, weapon-strike or strength-based strike. Simple, elegant.
"Strike: Hands"
"Strike: Dodge"
"Strike: Weapon"
"Strike: Ranged"
"Strike: X"
"Strike: XR"
Then to add descriptors: aggravated, environmental, unpreventable, undodgeable. It then makes the functionality of other cards simpler.
For example:
Immortal Grapple
Combat
Only usable at Close Range before Strikes have been declared. Grapple.
Minions may only choose Strike:Hands strikes. Only one Immortal Grapple may be played each round.
As above, with an optional press. If there is another round of combat it will be Close Range.
This should be transported across to ideas like "Immunity". If a minion cannot be affected by a card (e.g. Reactions), a strike (e.g. S:D), a type of card (e.g. Frenzy, Grapple, etc), a type of action (e.g. diablerie, enter combat actions, etc) and so on then they should be "immune to X".
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> self wrote:
> so what say y'all? I personally feel that beyond titles, the one-off keywords or other traits of interest (+stealth, +intercept, +bleed, &c.) would be best incorporated in the main line, Bolded along with sect and title.
>
> Discuss.
>
When teaching a new player, I feel one of the biggest strengths of the game is the relatively small number of keywords that need to be memorized. The hardest part is explaining titles, almost everything else in a given vampire's text box is a) self-evident or b) a trait which doesn't imply extra rules, e.g. Black Hand, Camarilla and so on.
As for the suggested re-formatting, I doubt that it's worth the effort.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> This should be transported across to ideas like "Immunity". If a minion cannot be affected by a card (e.g. Reactions), a strike (e.g. S:D), a type of card (e.g. Frenzy, Grapple, etc), a type of action (e.g. diablerie, enter combat actions, etc) and so on then they should be "immune to X".
>
Most of what you say about keyword is good, but this one stick as a bad idea, because neither on your blog or here you are able to define properly what is an immunity ; I do frankly believe you hide widely different mechanism behing the same "immunity" keyword, which is very bad.
For example, you say that immune to damage make damage not affect you, and immune to bloodhunt that bloodhunt cannot be called on you. It is two completely different thing ; if immunity worked the same, then either it would be impossible to inflict damage to a damage immune target (meaning you can't even play strike card), or that bloodhunt referendum does happen but do nothing to your vampire (including not being tapped by a Scalpel tongue played in the bloodhunt referendum and such).
There is keyword that are easy to do. Let's stick to that and don't try to make immunity too wide.
Ohlmann:
Immunity is actually a simple idea. If it will not affect the minion, then they are immune. Immune to non-aggravated damage, immune to aggravated damage, immune to grapples, immune to actions, and so on. It's actually must easier than you seem to think it should be.
You can declare a damaging strike against a target that is immune, but it will have no effect.
You can try declare a action on a minion that is immune to actions, but it will resolve unsuccessfully.
And so on. It's not that complex at all...
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> It's actually must easier than you seem to think it should be.
>
You alway say that and alway have conflicting examples. Your repeated unability to show it is easy is a proof for me that it isn't
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> You can declare a damaging strike against a target that is immune, but it will have no effect.
>
> You can try declare a action on a minion that is immune to actions, but it will resolve unsuccessfully.
>
If it was the same thing, it should resolve successfully and have no effect. Also, what about action modifier on the action ?
Your example for Immortal Grapple is also problematic, not on a pure rule sense, but because it mean you can grapple an immune for the press. Which mean your vampire will be grappled, while the other isn't.
And neither do you don't resolve the inherent bloodhunt immunity issues.
For me, immunity should be only to damage, because damage immunity is well defined. The rest is on very shaky ground.
"Immunity to Grapple" would mean the Grapple has no effect when you use it with the other minion. So any card with the Grapple keyword will unsuccessfully resolve (meaning neither vampire is bound by the Grapple, there will be no press AND the next round of combat is NOT automatically close range).
"Immunity to bloodhunts" means that the vampire is immune to the results of the referendum. So the result of the referendum is redundant, if they would be burned it has no effect. If they would survive, that has no effect. It is as if the bloodhunt referendum never occurred.
If you choose to play action modifiers on an action that will not resolve successfully, then that's your own foolishness, just like declaring the action in the first place.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> self wrote:
> Take this, for example:
>
It's not the bold that makes your card easier to read, it is moving all the standard effects to the beginning so that the brain is not busy trying to understand the previous sentence when it comes to reading them. That, and go to the next line between two different effects if card space allows it.
Infernal is a keyword, though (i.e. it is used as a requirement or trigger by other cards in the game), so it should be in bold. +2 bleed is not.
> Suoli wrote:
> As for the suggested re-formatting, I doubt that it's worth the effort.
>
I'm actually beginning to warm up to it.
The new Nergal example above was much niftier than the old one.
Then again, I donät know if there are some cards that would end up having several lines worth of Keywords which would feel kinda clunky.
Also, even if currently this is purely academical right now with the absence of publisher, this wouldn't be the first time cards have been reformatted.
In olden days essential info (such as restictions when the cards could be played etc) might've been located as the last sentence of the cardtext.
And before LSJ started to do the card text layouts himself, some nitwit graphic designer at WW thought it would be a Very Nifty Idea TM to use the same miniscule font size in all cards no matter if the card was full of text or just 4 words (say, cards like Ex Nihilo vs simple [inf] +1 bleed, +2 bleed).
Finnish Politics!
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> "Immunity to Grapple" would mean the Grapple has no effect when you use it with the other minion. So any card with the Grapple keyword will unsuccessfully resolve (meaning neither vampire is bound by the Grapple, there will be no press AND the next round of combat is NOT automatically close range).
>
When I Burst of sunlight a damage immune people, I still take the part of the burst that don't concern me. So, it's different from damage immunity. On the same token, Jaroslav entire action is unsuccessful if even one sabbat vampire is immune to action, which seem completely counter-intuitive and certainly will attract an ad-hoc ruling from you, like for the Immortal Grapple.
That's why it is confusing. You make every immunity different with specific set of rule. I can't predict what your "immunity" will do, while I can mostly predict the current rule. Given how complex they are, I suppose you understand why I believe you should drop that idea.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> If you choose to play action modifiers on an action that will not resolve successfully, then that's your own foolishness, just like declaring the action in the first place.
>
It's not the question. The question is, if I play an action modifier that will affect immediatly the immune vampire, should he be "immune" to it ?
> Lönkka wrote:
> The new Nergal example above was much niftier than the old one.
>
What are you talking about? I can't see any Nergal example.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
@Ankha: About 6 posts up there should be two images. The main difference is that Nergal's static abilities (i.e. +2 bleed, Infernal) are listed in the top line of the text rather than the end. It's not a huge change, but they don't need to be bold to get the effect. I suppose we've all become used to looking for +bleed, +intercept, etc at the end.
@Ohlmann:
What new idea doesn't have bugs? I never claimed to have perfected it. I do however, think that creating new keywords or extending keywords will create a situation which is easier for new players to understand and won't require giant long cardtexts which can be 'rules laywered' out of existence.
And if you're going to quote examples to me, then what action modifiers are you thinking about?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> "Immunity to Grapple" would mean the Grapple has no effect when you use it with the other minion. So any card with the Grapple keyword will unsuccessfully resolve (meaning neither vampire is bound by the Grapple, there will be no press AND the next round of combat is NOT automatically close range).
>
But the minion playing the grapple would be affected by it, be only be able to play hand strikes and the press would still apply since it does affect the "immune" minion directly — seems like shaky ground to me. Maybe grapple wasn't the best example?
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @Ankha: About 6 posts up there should be two images. The main difference is that Nergal's static abilities (i.e. +2 bleed, Infernal) are listed in the top line of the text rather than the end. It's not a huge change, but they don't need to be bold to get the effect. I suppose we've all become used to looking for +bleed, +intercept, etc at the end.
>
Thanks, I deactivated the images so I didn't saw them.
Talking about the Nergal example, I'm torn between the two options that both have pros and cons.
Talking about the keywords, you also have two philosophies with pros and cons: either use keywords that express the same thing with fewer words but require extra knowledge from the player, or use the current system which is more explicit (and lenghtier).
I think cards are already complicated. Reducing the card text by using keywords don't make the cards more simple because they require more implicit knowledge.
(It can be dangerous also when designing cards because designers will tend to accumulate keywords and effects since they have more space.)
Using the same templates for the same effects is a better way to go in my opinion, and templating is totally independant of using keywords or not.
For example:
Masochism: Whenever this vampire plays a card, you may remove X rush counters from this card to reduce that card's blood cost by X.
Fatuus Mastery: The counters on this card may be used to pay some or all of this vampire's blood cost to play cards <snip>
Though they have exactly the same effect, they are formulated ("templated") a different way. It's not worth creating a keyword for that, but using the same pattern reduces confusion and improves the learning curve.
(A more common example will be Bum's Rush and Charge of the Buffalo. "Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah." vs "Enter combat with a <tapped> minion.". If you except the "tapped" in Charge of the Buffalo, there are the same but Charge of the Buffalo implies many things such as: the target must be ready and controlled by another Methuselah. In that case, a new keyword such as "Rush" could be even introduced, but it has drawbacks as explained above).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I'd reform the 'enter combat' cards to be "Choose a <conditions> minion and begin a combat with that minion". It then gives the general structure of "Choose X and then Do Y on X". This makes it similar to Horseshoes, and other directed actions which choose minions.
I do think that the "other Methuselah" part is redundant since you can't combat between your own minions.
Ambush
Choose a ready tapped minion and enter combat. This acting minion gains a maneuver during this combat.
Big Game
Do not replace until the end of the action. Choose a ready minion and enter combat. If the chosen minion is Red List, this minion gains a maneuver and a press and untaps at the end of the action if this minion is still ready.
Bum's Rush
Do not replace until the end of the action. Choose a ready minion and enter combat. The acting minion gains an optional maneuver during this combat.
Charge of the Buffalo
Choose a tapped minion and enter combat.
Choose a minion and enter combat. The first round of combat is Close Range and this minion must Strike: Hands Strength + 1 damage.
As above, but Strike: Hands Strength + 2 damage.
And so forth.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I'd reform the 'enter combat' cards to be "Choose a <conditions> minion and begin a combat with that minion". It then gives the general structure of "Choose X and then Do Y on X". This makes it similar to Horseshoes, and other directed actions which choose minions.
>
100% agree (because sometime it have to be said that I can actually find your idea good )
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I do think that the "other Methuselah" part is redundant since you can't combat between your own minions.
>
It is redundant, but worth putting it on the card as reminder, if only to be sure people don't try it to use it with "Taking the skin: minion"
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> It then gives the general structure of
> "Choose X and then Do Y on X". This makes it similar to Horseshoes, and other directed actions which choose minions.
>
The "choose X and" is redundant.
Incidentally, Horseshoes doesn't use that template, I don't see how it would make it similar to it.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I do think that the "other Methuselah" part is redundant since you can't combat between your own minions.
>
Redundant with the rules. Can be left as reminder. Your template on the other hand is redundant with itself, within the same sentence.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Ambush
> Choose a ready tapped minion and enter combat.
>
Original text: " Enter combat with a ready tapped minion controlled by another Methuselah."
"Choose X and then Do Y on X" is quite cumbersome and brings nothing. Ambush could be written (as Charge of the Buffalo):
" Enter combat with a ready tapped minion". There's no use to introduce a new pattern that's not better than the current one.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Horseshoes is "Do X to Y" (semantically identical to "Choose Y and do X"). It reinforces the targeting concept by placing it at the front(i.e. are you targeting a minion, a card on a minion or something else) and can set the game up for consistency across all actions in the future.
"Choose X and do Y" clearly identifies targets at the beginning of the text and the effect.
You don't need to make it "Choose X and do Y to X" that is cumbersome.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Horseshoes is "Do X to Y" (semantically identical to "Choose Y and do X").
>
Wrong. It is "semantically identical" to "Choose Y and do X to it/him/her"
Otherwise, you'd write: "Choose a ready minion and inflict 1 unpreventable damage." which is clearly wrong semantically. Correct form would be "Choose a ready minion and inflict 1 unpreventable damage to him or her." which is redundant.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> It reinforces the targeting concept by placing it at the front(i.e. are you targeting a minion, a card on a minion or something else) and can set the game up for consistency across all actions in the future.
>
Theorical blabla. I can't see why the game would be better doing that way. Currently, the action and the target of the actions are a simple as a verb and its direct object can be.
"Eat an apple" is more simple than "Choose an apple and eat it."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Ambush
> Choose a ready tapped minion and enter combat. This acting minion gains a maneuver during this combat.
>
> Big Game
> Do not replace until the end of the action. Choose a ready minion and enter combat. If the chosen minion is Red List, this minion gains a maneuver and a press and untaps at the end of the action if this minion is still ready.
>
> Bum's Rush
> Do not replace until the end of the action. Choose a ready minion and enter combat. The acting minion gains an optional maneuver during this combat.
>
> (...)
> And so forth.
>
the change is minor and irrelevant.
what next, "choose a methuselah and bleed" for kindred spirits ? :/
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> the change is minor and irrelevant.
> what next, "choose a methuselah and bleed" for kindred spirits ? :/
>
while i agree with you, I do see what Juggernaut is getting at, re: templating. He is, however really going far beyond the scope of what I was hoping to discuss, though this discussion is not without merit. I really just want keywords and common modifiers bold on crypt cards.
But while we're on the subject, I'd like to see "Cold Iron Vulnerability" go away entirely. It's a very cool, flavorful rule, but appallingly limited in its scope. if more had been done with the vulnerability rule, then it might be a different story, but as it stands you could give Kyasid vampires the 'changeling' keyword, or give some other keyword to changelings and kyasids and just have poker and that other thing do aggravated damage to one or the other; i trust y'all see what i'm getting at.
In general, I would like to see MOAR OF keywords like Black Hand, which does nothing in and of itself that i'm aware of, but less rules directly associated with a particular keyword, like Red List.
Sure, I think Cold Iron Vulnerability is a fairly redundant negative (and hopefully it will just vanish from Kiasyd in the future, despite its clear reference in Canon).
Regarding Red List:
It seems to be a reasonable idea, but the problem has been the fact that it has produced no broad Tier 1 strategies. There are some impressive Decks (like the G2 Tor Trophy Breeder) but in general it is a rule clutter.
On the flipside, I do think like "Blood Cursed" was actually well structured. It is an abbreviation for "This vampire cannot attempt diablerie of any kind".
I doubt that 'bolding' standard modifiers is of massive advantage, but I do see a value in moving it behind Sect & Title.
Sect and sect related keywords +x bleed/stealth/intercept/strength.
Fancy-pants cardtext
Example:
Current Cock Robin
Cock Robin
Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: ANI OBF POT aus for
Camarilla Nosferatu Justicar. Once per turn, when Cock Robin successfully performs an action that requires Animalism, he untaps at the end of the action. +1 strength.
Modified Cock Robin
Cock Robin
Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: ANI OBF POT aus for
Camarilla Nosferatu Justicar. +1 strength. Once per turn, when Cock Robin successfully performs an action that requires Animalism, he untaps at the end of the action.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Cock Robin
> Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
> Capacity: 10
> Disciplines: ANI OBF POT aus for
> Camarilla Nosferatu Justicar. +1 strength. Once per turn, when Cock Robin successfully performs an action that requires Animalism, he untaps at the end of the action.
>
Or even better:
Cock Robin
Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: ANI OBF POT aus for
Camarilla Nosferatu Justicar. +1 strength.
Once per turn, when Cock Robin successfully performs an action that requires Animalism, he untaps at the end of the action.
Boris hit the nail on the head, but with some text intense vamps unfortunately there isnät room for this.
But that certainly is no reason not to use this format as it'll work in vast majority of vampires.
With the few more text heavy vamps just use the one Juggernaut suggested.
Finnish Politics!
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > Cock Robin
> > Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
> > Capacity: 10
> > Disciplines: ANI OBF POT aus for
> > Camarilla Nosferatu Justicar. +1 strength. Once per turn, when Cock Robin successfully performs an action that requires Animalism, he untaps at the end of the action.
> >
> Or even better:
>
> Cock Robin
> Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
> Capacity: 10
> Disciplines: ANI OBF POT aus for
> Camarilla Nosferatu Justicar. +1 strength.
> Once per turn, when Cock Robin successfully performs an action that requires Animalism, he untaps at the end of the action.
>
A false good idea.
Adding a carriage return leads to catastrophic results on the printed card.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Care to elaborate?
If the text is too long, the solution is shorten it, not to cram as many characters in the card as possible.
"Once per turn Cock Robin untaps after performing a successful action." has exactly the same meaning for almost half the words.
Sidenote: Cock Robin's special is not optional? That's weird.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Care to elaborate?
>
You're planning to introduce carriage return in the crypt card text. Crypt card text blocks are very small and you'd lose lots of space, require maybe an extra line which would reduce more the font size.
Cock Robin isn't the best exemple, but consider Josef von Bauren.
It can get worse with longer card texts.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> If the text is too long, the solution is shorten it, not to cram as many characters in the card as possible.
>
It is not always possible, or desired (if the card text becomes to subtle).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Adding a carriage return leads to catastrophic results on the printed card
>
not always. I'm sure there are other great examples like Josef von Bauren where the typesetting problems run amok with pants on their heads when you add the extra return. But that's why there are graphic design people to solve that problem and dick around with the spacing an kearning.
In most cases the carriage return would lead into clearer and easier to read/play cards. Which IMO would be good and beneficial.
With more text heavy cards the current format could always be used. No need to turn down an improvemet for some few problamatic cases that can still remain as they currently are.
Finnish Politics!
I also suspect that you could trim down that ability as well.
"Use a discard phase action to make your predator or prey randomly discard 1 card."
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> self wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Adding a carriage return leads to catastrophic results on the printed card
> >
> not always. I'm sure there are other great examples like Josef von Bauren where the typesetting problems run amok with pants on their heads when you add the extra return. But that's why there are graphic design people to solve that problem and dick around with the spacing an kearning.
>
No, you can't rely on manual design (too much work and worry for a result that will please 50% people anyway). And it will break the overall look and feel.
> Lönkka wrote:
> In most cases the carriage return would lead into clearer and easier to read/play cards. Which IMO would be good and beneficial.
>
Wrong. In the worst case, it will introduce a new line, which leads to lost space, smaller characters. It the best case (such as Cock Robin), you won't notice any difference since the text on the next line will naturally be on the next line because the previous line is full.
Trust me, I've done *a lot* of testing and it's a bad idea to add new lines on crypt cards.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Trust me, I've done *a lot* of testing and it's a bad idea to add new lines on crypt cards.
>
Wrong.
Never trust a Frenchie...
Finnish Politics!
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I also suspect that you could trim down that ability as well.
>
> "Use a discard phase action to make your predator or prey randomly discard 1 card."
>
That would make his ability obligatory instead of optional.
I agree with Ankha here on the carriage return issue. I also agree that it would be ideal to go back and change the text templating across cards like Ambush/Charge of the Buffalo, but I don't think it's worth the effort, let alone possible. VTES is a text-heavy game and demands that players be capable of parsing variations across English sentences. That's okay. Going forward, the design team should follow the better text templates available. Obviously.
@DeathinaBottle
"Use..." in this sense is not an 'imperative'. It does not imply that there is no alternative. We can potentially remove the many "You may"s that turn up through VTES to reinforce the non-imperative nature of the statements.
"Your prey or predator randomly discards 1 card in your discard phase" would be imperative; either your prey or predator will discard a card.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @DeathinaBottle
> "Use..." in this sense is not an 'imperative'.
>
that's your opinion.
some other reader can state it is imperative, and there would be no way to say who's right or wrong, unless there is some kind of ruling.
Just sayin'...
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @DeathinaBottle
> "Use..." in this sense is not an 'imperative'. It does not imply that there is no alternative. We can potentially remove the many "You may"s that turn up through VTES to reinforce the non-imperative nature of the statements.
>
> "Your prey or predator randomly discards 1 card in your discard phase" would be imperative; either your prey or predator will discard a card.
>
Well, VTES certainly could redefine standard grammar in order to save a few characters on a card, but I think that it would be much less confusing to just write "You may."
@Reyda & DeathInABottle
Grammatically "Use a ..." is not an imperative statement; it does not have an implied directive. Unlike if I said "Sit down" or "Leave here". "Use a DPA to..." may not be 'polite speech' but it is not an implied directive.
If it was phrased as "Your prey or predator..." there is no alternative given, it does not have an implied permission to not do it.
It seems really interesting that many of you, Reyda included, want to "change VTES without changing VTES". You would like it to be easier, or briefer, or similar but every time a suggestion is made on how to change it your immediate response is "Oh but we can't change that..." Hopefully the irony isn't lost on everyone. I'm not saying that every change I advocate is the one that must be done. I'm just saying that if you plan to change VTES for the better (by whatever means), will actually require CHANGES.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Grammatically "Use a ..." is not an imperative statement; it does not have an implied directive. Unlike if I said "Sit down" or "Leave here". "Use a DPA to..." may not be 'polite speech' but it is not an implied directive.
>
> If it was phrased as "Your prey or predator..." there is no alternative given, it does not have an implied permission to not do it.
>
I don't know where you're getting that from. I agree that "Your prey or predators discards x" removes all ambiguity, but I don't agree that "Use y" can be understood in anything but an imperative sense. Even if you could point me to a grammar book that suggests something different, I think that the majority of people would interpret the phrase as a non-optional order.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> It seems really interesting that many of you, Reyda included, want to "change VTES without changing VTES". You would like it to be easier, or briefer, or similar but every time a suggestion is made on how to change it your immediate response is "Oh but we can't change that..." Hopefully the irony isn't lost on everyone. I'm not saying that every change I advocate is the one that must be done. I'm just saying that if you plan to change VTES for the better (by whatever means), will actually require CHANGES.
>
Fair point, but I'm actually not in the "We need to change a whole bunch of things!" camp. Whenever there are polls about changing text or banning cards, I've almost always voted for the status quo. I think that the game is unfortunately complicated, but I don't think that there's any way to really change that at this point. Writing errata means that existing cards no longer work the way that a casual player thinks they do, which I personally find more off-putting than issues in wordiness (which LSJ and previous designers generally, but not always, managed to avoid), inconsistency across cards that have similar effects (which can be parsed), or card balance (which can be addressed by introducing new cards). Changing the rules is a slightly more viable approach, but I don't see a lot of places where global changes are necessary; the only exception that comes immediately to mind is turning trophies into trifles.
Don't get me wrong: if I could go back and rewrite the game to make it simpler and more consistent, I would do it, but at this stage, I think that we're facing four thousand cards, dozens of rules (and hundreds of official rulings), and nearly twenty years of collective memory. There's a lot of inertia preventing changes. If we want to improve the game, then - and by this, I mean if we want to attract new players and retain old ones - I think that we need to look to less juridical approaches.
Your grammar related mistakes make me a conservative v:tes wise.
Cool story !
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
@DeathInABottle:
There is an unprecedented opportunity.
We are entering a phase when we can potentially reprint EVERY card.
This gives us the opportunity to rewrite EVERY card. That's a non-trivial event in the life of VTES. There is scope to seriously restructure the text on VTES cards.
Are there things you think should be changed on card texts? The next year or two possibly represents the BEST chance to make those changes.
Are there rulebook changes you think should be made? This complete reprint is possibly the BEST chance to make that change.
@Reyda:
Your ever useful, constructive and productive advice is always welcomed.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @DeathInABottle:
> There is an unprecedented opportunity.
> We are entering a phase when we can potentially reprint EVERY card.
>
> This gives us the opportunity to rewrite EVERY card. That's a non-trivial event in the life of VTES. There is scope to seriously restructure the text on VTES cards.
>
> Are there things you think should be changed on card texts? The next year or two possibly represents the BEST chance to make those changes.
>
> Are there rulebook changes you think should be made? This complete reprint is possibly the BEST chance to make that change.
>
You're right about it being a great opportunity to make large changes, provided that it comes to pass, but, as I said, I'm still not sure that it would be a good idea to do so. I don't like the idea of issuing errata to hundreds of cards: it would make it difficult for new players to pick up anything printed before 2012 (the same way that new players who get their hands on Jyhad-era Majesties and Forms of the Mist are often confused and irritated, but on a much larger scale).
...But this probably isn't the right venue to be discussing such major changes. If the VEKN reprints EVERYTHING, we'll no doubt have the chance to weigh in on the possibility of errata.
@DeathInABottle:
Being able to 'reprint' every card ever created for VTES, means that 'errata' becomes a non-problem. It becomes a 'future' problem because all of the 'older print' cards can be edited, printed 'new' and if/when the changes get made to the game the card texts can reflect this. The problem of 'old cards' already exists (this is a legacy of the game). IF PoD is cheap ENOUGH, then this does become trivial, but most of the experienced players already have enough practice in teaching new players around that issue.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @DeathInABottle:
>
> Being able to 'reprint' every card ever created for VTES, means that 'errata' becomes a non-problem. It becomes a 'future' problem because all of the 'older print' cards can be edited, printed 'new' and if/when the changes get made to the game the card texts can reflect this. The problem of 'old cards' already exists (this is a legacy of the game). IF PoD is cheap ENOUGH, then this does become trivial, but most of the experienced players already have enough practice in teaching new players around that issue.
>
That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the problem of the continued existence of old cards with old, now-incorrect text. This is a problem that grows in severity as the scope of changes grows. For this reason, my preference is to preserve the vast majority of the existing cards and rules and instead focus efforts on creating new cards that are consistent, comparatively simple, and easy to access so that we can retain old players and attract new ones.
Anyway, this is all highly speculative at this point, since I'm pretty skeptical that the VEKN intends to reprint everything that came before. If that happens, and if the idea of large scale changes gets floated, I'll happily take this debate to that forum. Until then, I wouldn't mind dropping it.