Hello.
I put here my list of reason why VtES is considered hard to learn, and for each the (often very problematic and often harmful to the game) it could be fixed. It's of course subjective, but I hope to put into light the fact that VtES will not be easy to "fix" and should not be "fixed"
Problem 1 : Vampire (and card in play in general) abilities are abilities and behave wildy differently from the same effect from a regular card. Example : Maris Streck (which can be used multiple time on one action unlike a reaction), Heidelberg (can be performed before mandatory action unlike actions)
Solution : streamline everything into action modifier / reaction / action / combat. Which will lead to a lot of card errated and having a lot of card suddently useless.
Problem 2 : card require to be "needed" to be played. You can't use intercept without stealth or untap a ready vampire. Which don't seem too bad until someone point out that you can't do sup' Read the wind with an untapped vampire or play Spirit touch to get a maneuver. And it is hard to make understand you can use Bewitching oration despite already having every vote on the table, but not Forgotten Labyrinth before somebody try to block. Also, it is the opposite of how work every single other CCG.
Solution : Well, aligning on other CCG. Which mean less deck construction problems, less card jam, less strategy, and a game easier to understand but easier to master.
Problem 3 : Deferendum. "But, it is a diablerie action. Why do you say me there is no action to play the action modifier in while there is an action when I call a KRC ?". I know, I know, there is an internal logic to that, but good luck explaining this. Also, reaction / action modifier and referendum are another big problem. Why can't my other vampire help the one who called the referendum with Dread Gaze, while he can for the referendum of my cross table friend ?
Solution : referendum specific card becoming their own category of card, with specific text (Bewitching being playable only by the one who called the vote, etc ..). And of course, a lot of function in the game change dramatically.
Problem 4 : +1 stealth, +1 strength, and the like. Also, it is not at all shown in the same way on vampire and allies.
Solution : make a new vampire template, with icon for strength (1 most of the time), bleed (1 most of the time), intercept (0 most of the time), stealth (0 most of the time). Torn signpost would be changed or would need an errata.
Problem 5 : Imbued are extremely different.
Solution : streamline them. It need a lot of errata of course. To be honest, the power formatting they use is way better than the vampire one, if only because they are shown as reaction, action modifier, etc ...
Problem 6, partially included in most of the precedent : there is way too much implicit on the card. For example, Dread gaze being a reaction is an implicit way to say "it's only for vote defense" but is pretty hard to catch. Serenading the Kami is a less well known example. Sudden Reversal, Direct Intervention and Rotschreck not being playable during your turn being in my opinion the three worst one, since it's very easy to miss and change fundamentally how thoses cards are used.
Solution : apart from the above mentionned referendum tweak, remove from the rulebook all non obvious restriction (like the OoT master one), and make sure that card have text showing obviously how it is used (Serenading the Kami with "playable only when the action is declared") and more importantly stop create, or even ban, cards that try to be tricky like that.
Please note that thoses are not problem for experienced player or for anyone who take the time to actually learn the game ; but they are the bulk of the issue that make VtES so hard to grasp without significant commitment.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Solution : streamline everything into action modifier / reaction / action / combat. Which will lead to a lot of card errated and having a lot of card suddently useless.
>
Couldn't agree more.
>
> Solution : Well, aligning on other CCG. Which mean less deck construction problems, less card jam, less strategy, and a game easier to understand but easier to master.
>
That makes weenies much stronger, maybe too much for the game.
>
> Solution : referendum specific card becoming their own category of card, with specific text (Bewitching being playable only by the one who called the vote, etc ..). And of course, a lot of function in the game change dramatically.
>
+1.
> Problem 4 : +1 stealth, +1 strength, and the like. Also, it is not at all shown in the same way on vampire and allies.
>
> Solution : make a new vampire template, with icon for strength (1 most of the time), bleed (1 most of the time), intercept (0 most of the time), stealth (0 most of the time). Torn signpost would be changed or would need an errata.
>
Don't think it is really a problem, but why not. Torn Signpost would be much less confusing with a standard "once per combat" template than its weird stacking rule anyway.
> Problem 5 : Imbued are extremely different.
>
> Solution : streamline them. It need a lot of errata of course. To be honest, the power formatting they use is way better than the vampire one, if only because they are shown as reaction, action modifier, etc ...
>
By "streamline" do you mean "nuke"?
> Problem 6, partially included in most of the precedent : there is way too much implicit on the card. For example, Dread gaze being a reaction is an implicit way to say "it's only for vote defense" but is pretty hard to catch. Serenading the Kami is a less well known example. Sudden Reversal, Direct Intervention and Rotschreck not being playable during your turn being in my opinion the three worst one, since it's very easy to miss and change fundamentally how thoses cards are used.
>
> Solution : apart from the above mentionned referendum tweak, remove from the rulebook all non obvious restriction (like the OoT master one), and make sure that card have text showing obviously how it is used (Serenading the Kami with "playable only when the action is declared") and more importantly stop create, or even ban, cards that try to be tricky like that.
>
Not sure what is your problem with Serenading the Kami: it is already written on the card, at least on Secret Library. If you are going to give a timing to every effect, OoT masters should get it too: combat for Rötschreck/Frenzy, reaction for Brujah Frenzy/Archon Investigationn reflex for Sudden/DI (all the cards that cancel other cards should be Reflex),...
It's hard for me to relate to someone new to the game. What I find annoying about the complexity of the game is not likely to be what a new player finds annoying, but here's a shot at it, anyway.
New Player
1. Stealth and intercept as a core mechanic.
2. Directed vs. undirected actions and which actions have +0 stealth vs. which have +1 stealth.
3. Action modifiers and reactions - limit of one of each card, timing of when to play action modifiers (as announce, before or after blocks for optimal play, etc.).
4. Combat is far more involved than the rulebook suggests, even the basic rules are not straightforward. For instance, combat ends, dodge, first strike, normal strike, during strike resolution (e.g. Carrion Crows) all constantly trip up players. I know players who have played for 5+ years who don't remember that dodge protects you from combat ends. The prerange timing is poorly defined. When the Bloodform/Weather Control deck came out, I couldn't understand at all why the timing was what it was. Weather Control, by itself, when you could play multiples made no sense where you could WC bomb anyone to oblivion with a 1 cap. If certain cards didn't exist, combat would be much easier, namely Immortal Grapple and Rotschreck, though combat ends just gets that much dumber. Too many other examples to name.
5. No Repeat Action? I haven't seen too many complain about this.
6. How voting works with your vote card being your one card, with there being no set order to voting, with effects like Delaying Tactics messing with votes.
7. No card limits. I'm not going to argue for card limits for this game, but I would never design a CCG with no card limits after playing with and without for various CCGs for many years. At the deck construction level, NCL makes deckbuilding far, far more challenging. At the acquisition level, it makes acquiring the cards you want far, far more challenging (in my experience). V:TES isn't the only CCG to go without card limits, but I'm not aware of any great success for those other games.
For Ongoing Players
1. Mostly irrelevant mechanics that still require explanation - red list/trophy, sterile, withdrawing, blood curse, slave, etc.
2. Exceptions to things people are comfortable with. Breaking the rules is what CCGs are about. Breaking the rules for Bundi was incredibly offensive. I got so tired of explaining that melee weapons didn't work under IG because people just didn't want to believe that IG prevented weapon strikes. Now, the explanation isn't as clean, of course, Stutter-Step getting errata to not work under IG already caused similar problems.
3. Rulings with unclear bases. I don't play Mask of a Thousand Faces anymore because I don't have any sense of what the basis for how it works is. I was incredibly annoyed with LSJ making up the "you must decline to block" bleed bounce rule as all it did was make DI stronger for no other benefit and with no basis I could see.
4. Rules that require a great deal of memory. Can't queue combats. Imbued. "End of ...", "After ...", and maybe some other timing rules, such as when Freak Drive is played in different situations. Etc.
5. Cards with excessive amounts of text, counterintuitive text, or both. I built a Mind of a Killer deck recently ...
Traveller Card Game
> For Ongoing Players
> 1. Mostly irrelevant mechanics that still require explanation - red list/trophy, sterile, withdrawing, blood curse, slave, etc.
> 2. Exceptions to things people are comfortable with. Breaking the rules is what CCGs are about. Breaking the rules for Bundi was incredibly offensive. I got so tired of explaining that melee weapons didn't work under IG because people just didn't want to believe that IG prevented weapon strikes. Now, the explanation isn't as clean, of course, Stutter-Step getting errata to not work under IG already caused similar problems.
> 3. Rulings with unclear bases. I don't play Mask of a Thousand Faces anymore because I don't have any sense of what the basis for how it works is. I was incredibly annoyed with LSJ making up the "you must decline to block" bleed bounce rule as all it did was make DI stronger for no other benefit and with no basis I could see.
> 4. Rules that require a great deal of memory. Can't queue combats. Imbued. "End of ...", "After ...", and maybe some other timing rules, such as when Freak Drive is played in different situations. Etc.
> 5. Cards with excessive amounts of text, counterintuitive text, or both. I built a Mind of a Killer deck recently ...
>
This! So many times! I've been playing since forever and these things STILL annoy me. *Especially* #4
> ICL wrote:
> I was incredibly annoyed with LSJ making up the "you must decline to block" bleed bounce rule...
>
Nitpick: LSJ didn't make that up; it was always the rule. However, since it wasn't explicit, many players (including me) played it wrong for years. You made your point regardless, carry on.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Problem 2 : card require to be "needed" to be played. You can't use intercept without stealth or untap a ready vampire. Which don't seem too bad until someone point out that you can't do sup' Read the wind with an untapped vampire or play Spirit touch to get a maneuver. And it is hard to make understand you can use Bewitching oration despite already having every vote on the table, but not Forgotten Labyrinth before somebody try to block. Also, it is the opposite of how work every single other CCG.
>
> Solution : Well, aligning on other CCG. Which mean less deck construction problems, less card jam, less strategy, and a game easier to understand but easier to master.
>
the whole game was built around the idea of playing a card to draw a new card. there have to be limits on playing cards or else everybody just has a permanent Heart of Cheating and finds whatever card they want.
it's not that hard for new players to understand when you explain it like this. the only confusing part is learning all the loopholes of cards you can play for no effect just to cycle. but usually that's just about everything besides stealth, intercept, and damage prevention.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a cool unique game than a copy of every other CCG
> Haze wrote:
> I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a cool unique game than a copy of every other CCG
>
Exactly none of thoses fix are actually supported by me. But when people say "we must get new player",then thoses fix are more or less mandatory. You will not easily find people ready to learn rules that complex, unintuitive and against common CCG conventions.
The goal here is to show that making the rule simple and easy to explain is actually a gigantic amount of work that will have very deep and unpleasant effect on the game.
> ICL wrote:
> 4. Combat is far more involved than the rulebook suggests, even the basic rules are not straightforward. For instance, combat ends, dodge, first strike, normal strike, during strike resolution (e.g. Carrion Crows) all constantly trip up players. I know players who have played for 5+ years who don't remember that dodge protects you from combat ends. The prerange timing is poorly defined. When the Bloodform/Weather Control deck came out, I couldn't understand at all why the timing was what it was. Weather Control, by itself, when you could play multiples made no sense where you could WC bomb anyone to oblivion with a 1 cap. If certain cards didn't exist, combat would be much easier, namely Immortal Grapple and Rotschreck, though combat ends just gets that much dumber. Too many other examples to name.
>
Combat is poorly described in the rules because most of the important combat cads are played between identifed phases: Torn Signpost before range, Grapple before strikes, Taste after press. Identify the beginning of round and end of round phases as such in the rules and on cards would not solve everyting, but it would already make the rules much clearer.
After countless debates about things that seem to have only existed in the mind of LSJ (and never been clearly spelled out in the Google Group, let alone actually in the rules or CRR!)... I sat down and tried to rebuild the section on the rules of combat.
juggernaut1981.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/how-would-you-change-vtes-part-3-combat.html
There are 3 phases in the Rules. 6 Phases in the CRR and when I tried to boil it down using the rulings I know and the way the cards are played, I got to 9 phases.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Beginning of combat and end of combat are redundant: the beginning of the combat is the beginning of the first round and the end of the combat is the end of the round if there is no press. Besides your examples are wrong: nothing prevents both Mariel and the arboretums from ending combat after the first round. OTOH, Weather Control can only be played on the first round.
Agree with most of ICL's points, and here's what I observed in my myriad attempts to teach my friends this game. Some of my points are also heavily tied to how enjoyable is the game, since if they aren't having fun, they're not going to play the game again.
1) Too much card text
Disarm, Taste of Vitae, On the Qui Vive. Most times, there's 1 line that says what it does, and 5 lines of restrictions. Players get overwhelmed trying to understand the use of the cards while in the already convoluted VTES system.
2) Cards with very narrow uses
I love cards like Iron Glare, Perfect Paragon, Forced March. While typically weaker than their focused counterparts, flexibility makes them a lot easier to play. You want new players to DO things and play cards. Mind you, these cards are still straightforward in explaining what they do.
3) Combat combat combat
This is beating a dead horse, but it needs to be repeated. My players often complain that it's a game all to itself. Why must I hold on to a Disengage and No Trace? Oh to cancel Immortal Grapple which prevents my S:CE which avoids his strikes. Why can't I additional strike my agg. damage on a minion already headed to torpor to burn him? I have to Press before I Taste, and I can't Taste against allies? Combat feel less like a flurry of supernatural combat and more like chess with obscure and obscured pieces.
4) Early game is too unstable and less than optimal play can get you shafted
And even so, optimal play can still result in you bled out by a stealth bleeder by turn 6. Poolgain is a serious undertaking and oftentimes you'll have to discard furiously to get the Villein that buys you a couple turns.
5) Overly Aggressive and overly Defensive decks have to be considered
There's hardly any breathing room to play your game and develop your controlled region if a Tzimisce wall deck is your prey or a Malk'94 is your predator. Sure, them whaling all-out on you would probably not win them the game,but doesn't matter. You didn't have fun and have hardly a better clue on dealing with them.
6) VTES is unforgiving in cardplay and procedures
There's a whole litany of procedures to do anything remotely interesting like voting and combat. And you need to have the right cards in hand to get from one step to the next. Oh want to damage your prey with KRC? First have enough stealth to bypass blockers. Next ask around for votes, better have transient votes to fight off transient votes like Wrong and Cross-wise, then actually set the terms. Finally Voter Cap to gain blood/pool 'cause titled vampires don't come cheap. And its too easy to stop this at each step of the way. Get enough intercept, transient votes and finally good ole Delaying Tactics. Not to mention DI.
7) Unintuitive game state understanding
When players make choices about what to do, they need to know what their minions and others' minions can do. There are so many disciplines and traits to track in what they can do; and most of it is implicit knowledge. Vets will know that AUS and SPI can allow unrestricted blocking, that Rachel Brandywine with Madness Network is bad news, that Ventrue Lawfirms suck at stealth but rock at multi-acting. But new players don't. They look at the developed table and struggle to get information from it, resulting in unsuccessful activities that leave them frustrated. You want them to DO things and do flashy things, so that they can get excited about playing.
> ShadowCat wrote:
> 1) Too much card text
> Disarm, Taste of Vitae, On the Qui Vive. Most times, there's 1 line that says what it does, and 5 lines of restrictions. Players get overwhelmed trying to understand the use of the cards while in the already convoluted VTES system.
>
That sounds like a templating problem: better separate the effect from the restrictions and put more emphasize on the former.
>
> 2) Cards with very narrow uses
> I love cards like Iron Glare, Perfect Paragon, Forced March. While typically weaker than their focused counterparts, flexibility makes them a lot easier to play. You want new players to DO things and play cards. Mind you, these cards are still straightforward in explaining what they do.
>
What is the problem exactly? No one forces you to play cards you don't like.
>
> 4) Early game is too unstable and less than optimal play can get you shafted
> And even so, optimal play can still result in you bled out by a stealth bleeder by turn 6. Poolgain is a serious undertaking and oftentimes you'll have to discard furiously to get the Villein that buys you a couple turns.
>
> 5) Overly Aggressive and overly Defensive decks have to be considered
> There's hardly any breathing room to play your game and develop your controlled region if a Tzimisce wall deck is your prey or a Malk'94 is your predator. Sure, them whaling all-out on you would probably not win them the game,but doesn't matter. You didn't have fun and have hardly a better clue on dealing with them.
>
Those have little to do with the game itself and more with which decks you choose for a demo.
>
> 7) Unintuitive game state understanding
> When players make choices about what to do, they need to know what their minions and others' minions can do. There are so many disciplines and traits to track in what they can do; and most of it is implicit knowledge. Vets will know that AUS and SPI can allow unrestricted blocking, that Rachel Brandywine with Madness Network is bad news, that Ventrue Lawfirms suck at stealth but rock at multi-acting. But new players don't. They look at the developed table and struggle to get information from it, resulting in unsuccessful activities that leave them frustrated. You want them to DO things and do flashy things, so that they can get excited about playing.
>
That is common to every CCG: knowing the cards and guessing what is in your opponent's deck is part of the game. At least in VTES, someone else at the table is likely to point important facts.
The biggest problems for most cards with giant texts has been two-fold:
1) Rules-lawyering
2) Keywording
On Keywording
Very little proper keywording was done in the early days of VTES. As time went on, that then resulted in basically "blocks of text". There were no commonly understood words with certain effects. Hence you can't just print a card which is:
Haha tricked you
Action Modifier
1 blood
+1 stealth
Block attempt fails.
We could easily recast almost all of VTES with simpler texts by creating strong keywording. However, it does increase the 'terminology' curve BUT does have less of an intimidation factor. "What does block attempt fails mean? The minion trying to block the action fails to block and cannot attempt to block again."
On Rules-Lawyering
Since there were no keywords, every card is open for interpretation. There are no 'baselines' to compare a text to. In the above example, without the creation of the keyphrase "Block attempt fails" you need to make the text:
Only playable when a minion is attempting to block. That block attempt fails (do not tap the blocking minion)and that minion cannot attempt to block again this action. This action continues as if unblocked.
Now unless that text is iron clad, then players can agitate for it to be read in a certain way. Notice the cards with the most keywording are the least argued, because they tend to have a briefer text and less places for semantic or grammatical arguments. This leads to rulings (which aren't on cards) and windows which don't seem to exist other than to fit a single card into them (e.g. Direct Intervention) and changes to how the card functions based on the prevailing viewpoints of the Rulesmonger and those he holds as most reliable advisers about how to make a Ruling.
Regarding the "Beginning of Combat" and "End of Combat" phases from my blog post.
There are actually cards that can only be played at the beginning of the first round of combat; they are actually attempting to use a window that exists at the beginning of the combat and at no other time. So it seems simpler to change their requirement to "Only playable at the beginning of a combat". There are cards, such as Telepathic Tracking and Psyche, which must be played when the combat is ending. The combat ends after the round ends (because Psyche is not played at the same time as Taste of Vitae) and only if the combat will head to another round. So yes, both of those windows need to exist if you are going to concretely describe Combat AND have it closely adhere to current rulings AND do so without having to vastly errata cards such as Psyche.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
I think that the biggest problem I have teaching the game is just how byzantine the entire turn is: Master phase actions, Minion actions, modifying actions, reactions, combat, &c. It's like games within games, and there are a lot of completely different components that make up the greater game.
another problem I have is that there are a smattering of rules that were introduced that while very flavorful, like cold iron vulnerability on kyasid, for example. they don't really add a whole lot of depth to the game, and could probably be done without.
> ShadowCat wrote:
> 6) VTES is unforgiving in cardplay and procedures
> There's a whole litany of procedures to do anything remotely interesting like voting and combat. And you need to have the right cards in hand to get from one step to the next. Oh want to damage your prey with KRC? First have enough stealth to bypass blockers. Next ask around for votes, better have transient votes to fight off transient votes like Wrong and Cross-wise, then actually set the terms. Finally Voter Cap to gain blood/pool 'cause titled vampires don't come cheap. And its too easy to stop this at each step of the way. Get enough intercept, transient votes and finally good ole Delaying Tactics. Not to mention DI.
>
> 7) Unintuitive game state understanding
> When players make choices about what to do, they need to know what their minions and others' minions can do. There are so many disciplines and traits to track in what they can do; and most of it is implicit knowledge. Vets will know that AUS and SPI can allow unrestricted blocking, that Rachel Brandywine with Madness Network is bad news, that Ventrue Lawfirms suck at stealth but rock at multi-acting. But new players don't. They look at the developed table and struggle to get information from it, resulting in unsuccessful activities that leave them frustrated. You want them to DO things and do flashy things, so that they can get excited about playing.
>
4) and 5) are not uncommon for other CCGs, but 6) and 7) bring up something I hadn't thought about before.
V:TES is largely a game of small effects. Often, I would think of this as a good thing. I like the idea of being able to develop a strategy. I like the idea that card interactions aren't extreme. But, what your post got me to thinking about is how a player can feel like they aren't really doing anything even when what they are doing or not doing is important.
One of the most punishing mistakes a player can make is to block a combat deck's bleed of 1. I'm usually bewildered when players do it. But, as you say, that player may not understand strategies well enough to realize the impact combat can have on one's game, nevermind overvaluing the loss of 1 pool.
I can see how some players will feel like their minion phase is unappealing or that they can't interact with what others do. For instance, sit two new players down at a table and give one a Malk bleed deck and the other a Gangrel combat deck. The player of the former bleeds for 5 repeatedly. The latter doesn't get blocked, can't block due to not having drawn any Raven Spys, and even with combat occurring runs into No Trace or Obedience or whatever. While the game at the competitive level can be played with either deck, one can seem far more fun than the other. Maybe this is why I've always enjoyed stealth bleed decks - you always feel like you can do something relevant to the game, assuming you have ready minions.
With other games, including many CCGs, you may be horribly outclassed by another deck, but your activity seems more impactful.
On a separate topic, I just recalled a problem that has been far more of an issue in recent years than in the past. The amount of time spent not interacting has gone way up, largely due to administrative functions. In designing my own card game, I was struck by how important it is to minimize "administrative time". We can see this in V:TES with the massive increase in how many things happen during untap, how much more involved the master phase is, with more effects occurring on other people's turns (burn option, Enkil Cog increasing the likelihood of out of turn actions, etc.) that force play to be more precise. Not that this really fits into the hard to learn category, it's more of a "painful to play" category.
By the way, I demoed a dead CCG I hadn't played in ages a couple of months back, and, when I finished explaining how the game worked, I was just stunned by how few things I had to explain in order to play the game. Not a simple game, not a game I dislike, just a CCG with a more reasonable level of mechanics complexity. Actually, being involved in wording the rules of the game, explaining one of the most important elements of the games in writing was vastly harder than explaining with an example.
Speaking of examples, all games should have far more examples of mechanics.
Traveller Card Game
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Combat is poorly described in the rules because most of the important combat cads are played between identifed phases: Torn Signpost before range, Grapple before strikes, Taste after press. Identify the beginning of round and end of round phases as such in the rules and on cards would not solve everyting, but it would already make the rules much clearer.
>
Certainly the rules could and should be updated to take into account the additional phases of combat.
The Complete Rules Reference lists 6 main phases of combat:
A. Round begins
B. Determine range
C. Strike
D. Presses
E. Round ends
F. Combat ends
I think the reference was drafted under LSJ's supervision. I'm not sure. Certainly the rulebook could have been updated to take into account these 6 phases, minimum. As Juggernaut mentioned, there are really more than 6 timing phases. Combat begins and strike resolution, for example. Many cards and card types such as Ammo create a timing window all of their own. (Ammo is played after all strikes are declared but before damage is resolved, per ruling.)
It would probably be better to allow the official combat rules to be more complex, and then insist that all combat cards be clearly played at a particular phase of combat in a particular order - no exceptions, no new phases created by card text.
I was thinking about cards that are played before strikes are declared, Immortal Grapple being the important one. I find it painful to have to ask for pre-strikes as an additional phase. I think it would be more stream-lined for any card or effect that alters a strike to be declared immediately after the strike, including cards such as Immortal Grapple and Wolf Claws. Those kinds of cards might have to changed or re-examined: "Acting player: My strike is 3R with Sawed-Off Shotgun. I play Dragon's Breath Rounds. Reacting player: My strike is hands for 1. I play Immortal Grapple. I play Wolf Claws." It seems a lot easier, although it puts more power into the hands of the reacting minion. I'm just trying to think of what that might look like.
Also
-Maybe cards that are played at the beginning of cound should be changed to be played at the beginning of combat so there is just a beginning of combat phase.
-Maybe cards that are played at the end of a round could be changed to be played at the end of combat so the end of round phase could be eliminated. Right now there are about 6 cards that are played at the end of the round.
@AaronC
My fix for Immortal Grapple is simpler. Remove it from the strikes step and put it at the very end of the Range Step. That is "Immortal Grapple is only playable when the range is close and before the end of the determine range step".
There are cards that can be played "before range is determined" and those that are played "Before the range is determined on the first round of combat" (which is equivalent to 'At the Beginning of Combat').
I also really do think that all strike modifiers should be played concurrently with the strike (i.e. DBR when you declare the strike, Wolf Claws for Agg when you declare the strike, Target: XYZ when you declare the strike) rather than each player declaring strikes and then modifying them one after the other. Sure it will take out some of the "Surprise" actions of disciplines like Protean, but really most people fighting against Protean combat expect this sort of thing to be happening.
I am all for forcing card to exist within a preset list of windows (but allowing 'before' and 'after' and 'at the beginning' and 'at the end' qualifiers on each)
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @AaronC
> My fix for Immortal Grapple is simpler. Remove it from the strikes step and put it at the very end of the Range Step. That is "Immortal Grapple is only playable when the range is close and before the end of the determine range step".
>
That means that instead of a pre-strike window, you have a post-manuever window. "Before the end of the determine range step" is practically identical to "Before strikes are declared". I see that you're trying to streamline the already complicated "Strikes" phase of combat, but I don't think that you are in favor of keeping additional steps. Right now, when my group plays combat in which grapples seem possible, we ask "manuever? no. manuever? no. grapple? no, no. What's your strike?", etc. Grouping IG to the previous adjoining window wouldn't change that.
There were five basic subunits of combat, and rules writers started placing effects before and after those subunits, thus creating new subunits. I see the subunits as Combat, Round, Set Range, Strikes, and Presses.
I think that it might be a good idea to go to these phases:
1. Before Combat (no more before range or before round)
2. Set Range (no before or after range cards)
3. Declare Strikes
4. Modify Strikes (IG, agg hands, ammo, targets, etc.)
5. Resolve Strikes (has its own sub-phases. One should address "going to torpor" cards like Amaranth and Reform Body."
6. Presses
7. End of Combat (no more end of round)
With my idea, every combat card would have to fit in own of those phases, and all coards played during that phase could be clearly order between acting/reacting player. This idea is simply an attempt to find a streamlined combat system that's easier to learn, and it would involve somewhat extensive errata to implement.
The problem with moving IG to post strikes changes the way it works currently. It should be somewhere, and it should be before players declare strikes. It must sit inside a phase, and I think it is more logical to have it exist at the end of the Range step.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> There are actually cards that can only be played at the beginning of the first round of combat;
>
Never said otherwise, only that your examples were wrong.
>
> they are actually attempting to use a window that exists at the beginning of the combat and at no other time. So it seems simpler to change their requirement to "Only playable at the beginning of a combat".
>
Adding phases does not make the game simpler. Besides you are changing the rules if you force a weighted walking stick to be played before a Concealed Weapon, and adding more useless timing to remember.
>
> There are cards, such as Telepathic Tracking and Psyche, which must be played when the combat is ending. The combat ends after the round ends (because Psyche is not played at the same time as Taste of Vitae)
>
Psyche! IS played at the same time as Taste of Vitae. Pascal finally dealt with the weird "it's a combat card played out of combat" thing. Of course there is an end of combat, but it is not not a phase when you play anything, just a cleanup phase when all combat-long effects end, similar to the end of turn.
>
> AaronC wrote:
> 1. Before Combat (no more before range or before round)
>
1) That name is already taken: before combat is not combat yet, it is still time to play action modifiers/reactions such as Obedience.
2) You cannot get rid of the beginning of round because some cards have an effect on the current round only and need to be played every round, the Typhonic Beast press for example.
>
> 7. End of Combat (no more end of round)
>
So you cannot Taste or Disarm if you have pressed? That doesn't work.
@Boris:
Taste of Vitae is played at the end of a round.
Psyche is played at the end of a combat.
These are not the same times in the combat. You Taste of Vitae before your Psyche. It's not played 'out of combat', it's basically the last card playable in a combat.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The problem with moving IG to post strikes changes the way it works currently. It should be somewhere, and it should be before players declare strikes. It must sit inside a phase, and I think it is more logical to have it exist at the end of the Range step.
>
I may be more logical, but it doesn't change the problem of an added phase to combat. Do you not agree that that is the problem?
Additionally, if superior IG is played during the determine range step, you would not be able to play IG the following round because there would be no determine range step.
My proposition would require that IG be rewritten. Here are a couple of options for eliminating the "grapple phase":
As a strike modifier:
Grapple. Play when declaring a hand strike at close range.
Strikes that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round. If the opposing minion has already chosen a strike that is not a hand strike, that minion's controller may return any strike and strike modifier cards played this round to his or her hand and discard down to handsize. The opposing minion must declare a new strike, which must be a hand strike.
As above, with an optional press. If another round of combat occurs, that round is at close range; skip the determine range step for that round.
(For the purpose of balance, I changed it so that an acting minions can take back their already-played strike cards.)
As a pre-combat:
Grapple. Play at the beginning of combat.
If range is close during this combat, strikes that are not hand strikes may not be chosen (by either combatant).
As above, with an optional press the first round of combat.
Wow! That's pretty darn streamlined, isn't it? For the purpose of balance, I changed it so that range is not automatically set to close the second round of combat since that would also mean that hand strikes would also have to be chosen.
From a flavor perspective, why shouldn't the grapple be played at the beginning of combat? It is before strikes are declared, which is something you think is important.
@AaronC: No there would be a determine range step, but no maneuvers could be played because it is forced to be close.
Unless you 'rewrite' Immortal Grapple entirely, you will be forced to have to place it somewhere in the combat. And I would propose that no steps of combat can be skipped, but only made redundant.
S:CE would still require Strike Resolution (otherwise the S:CE could not work). That also means it is the End of the Round (because the combat is ending) and that the press-step is forced to be "Not continuing" because of the S:CE (this does give players the chance to cycle Taste of Vitae if they want, but I find that this 'change' to the rules would not be significant). Then the combat reaches the "End of Combat" step and this allows either player to play Psyche. Telepathic Tracking would be played at the End of Round window (at the same point as Taste of Vitae).
Regarding Immortal Grapple v2: Why should I be able to play a card to grab hold of someone if I am nowhere near them? I prefer the structure of Immortal Grapple only being playable IF the minions are at Close Range at the end of the determine range step. And it doesn't matter if a the range of a given round is forced to be either long or close, the step still exists but has its outcome pre-determined.
I would prefer to edit Selective Silence to read (deleting the Skip phrase):
Selective Silence
Type: Combat
Requires: Quietus
[qui] Only usable in the first round of combat. Maneuver.
[QUI] Only playable at the beginning of combat. This vampire burns 1 blood to set range for this round. Other effects cannot change the range.
This would be similarly changed on the other "set range" cards such as:
Cold Aura
High Ground
Neebi
Omael Kuman
Shadow Step
Sniper Rifle
Target Head
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> @Boris:
> Taste of Vitae is played at the end of a round.
> Psyche is played at the end of a combat.
>
See Pascal's post:
>
> Pascal wrote:
> (...)
> Errata:
> =======
> (...)
> Combat cards are played inside combat:
> Psyche! and Coordinate Attacks have had their cardtexts changed to match the fact that they are combat cards, and should be played inside combat. These cards are now playable at the end of a round with no next round. They are treated as normal combat cards.
>
and the updated Psyche! that reflects this:
>
> Name: Psyche!
> [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, FN:PA2, CE:U/PB, KMW:PAl2, Third:U, KoT:U/PB3/PT3]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Discipline: Celerity
> [cel] Press.
> [CEL] Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. After this round, begin another combat with the opposing minion.
> Artist: Jeff Menges; Eric Lofgre
>
and Taste of Vitae for comparison:
>
> Name: Taste of Vitae
> [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, SW:PB, CE:U/PB2/PN, BH:PN2, KMW:PAn2, LoB:PO2, Third:PB2, LotN:PG2, KoT:U/PB3/PT3]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor.
> This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to the amount lost by the opposing vampire to damage during this round. A vampire may play only one Taste of Vitae each round.
> Artist: Pete Venters; Brian LeBlanc
>
Yes, as I said Boris...
End of a round =/= End of the Combat.
First you reach the end of the round (which will either have a "continue combat" OR "end combat"). This is when Taste of Vitae is played. After determining if the next round of combat will occur. Telepathic Tracking (at AUS) is played here (when the press step will resolve to "end of combat" and changes that to "continue combat"). Players have to have agreed that the round of combat has ended for Taste of Vitae to be played.
Psyche can only be played as the combat would end. You have the leave the "End of Round" step (where you could play Taste of Vitae) and enter the "End Combat" step (where all sorts of other "End of a Combat" cards are played). Psyche and Haven Hunting share a window. Coordinate Attacks shares the window with Psyche (again both say "at the end of combat" or "as the combat is about to end" which is not "end of round"). Apparently the Rules Team did not decide to use identical phrases, but since Coordinate Attacks has been edited to share a window with Psyche, then the longer phrase on Psyche must be equivalent to the one on Coordinate Attacks and also equivalent to the prior text of Psyche.
Coordinate Attacks
:Combat: Combat
Sanguinus
Requires a ready untapped Blood Brother of the same circle as another one you control in combat.
[san] Only usable at the end of combat if the minion opposing the Blood Brother you control is still ready. This Blood Brother taps and enters combat with the opposing minion. The first round of combat, the opposing minion cannot play any strike cards.
[SAN] As [san] above, and this Blood Brother gets an optional maneuver on the first round of combat.
(Sourced from Secret Library, which based on the "Rules" section on the left should contain the current text.)
Psyche!
Type: Combat
Requires: Celerity
[cel] Press.
[CEL] Only usable at the end of combat when both combatants are still ready. Begin another combat with the opposing minion.
(Sourced from ARDB, which was the previous edition and which would have been solved by explicitly creating an "end of combat" window inside the combat to be the combat equivalent of the "Freak Drive/Voter Cap" window for actions).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Yes, but psyche and taste of vitae are played in the same window — so in theory you could psyche and then then taste of vitae as it's still the end of a round even if combat is about to end (or a new one start in this case). Just like you can play taste of vitae after SCE.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> End of a round =/= End of the Combat.
>
> Psyche can only be played as the combat would end. You have the leave the "End of Round" step (where you could play Taste of Vitae) and enter the "End Combat" step (where all sorts of other "End of a Combat" cards are played). Psyche and Haven Hunting share a window. Coordinate Attacks shares the window with Psyche (again both say "at the end of combat" or "as the combat is about to end" which is not "end of round").
>
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> End of a round =/= End of the Combat.
> <snip>
> You have the leave the "End of Round" step (where you could play Taste of Vitae) and enter the "End Combat" step (where all sorts of other "End of a Combat" cards are played).
>
Maybe under your imaginary rules, but not under the current rules. End of round and end of combat effects happen during the same step, that's why for example you can play a Taste of Vitae after someone has played a Strike: Combat Ends.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I think Juggernaut is confusing the actual game rules (which are by no means clear and sensible and are certainly not perfect or even good for that matter) with his personal version of the rulebook that can be found on his Blog.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> (Sourced from Secret Library, which based on the "Rules" section on the left should contain the current text.)
>
It doesn't, at least it does not contain the last batch of errata. The .txt (from which I quoted) and .csv files on the site are up to date because Pascal maintains them. Synchronisation with the Secret Library does not depend on him.
EDIT:
PMed jhattara about it.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Psyche!
> Type: Combat
> Requires: Celerity
> [cel] Press.
> [CEL] Only usable at the end of combat when both combatants are still ready. Begin another combat with the opposing minion.
>
You need to update your ARDB's DB:
Psyche!
[CEL] Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. After this round, begin another combat with the opposing minion.
Coordinate Attacks
[san] Only usable at the end of a round if the minion opposing the Blood Brother you control is still ready and combat is about to end.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > End of a round =/= End of the Combat.
> > <snip>
> > You have the leave the "End of Round" step (where you could play Taste of Vitae) and enter the "End Combat" step (where all sorts of other "End of a Combat" cards are played).
> >
> Maybe under your imaginary rules, but not under the current rules. End of round and end of combat effects happen during the same step, that's why for example you can play a Taste of Vitae after someone has played a Strike: Combat Ends.
>
No, Juggernaut is correct. End of round and end of combat are two different steps. It is not specified in the rulebook, but it is specified in the complete rules reference.
www.vekn.net/index.php/complete-rules-reference
Section 6, "How to Resolve a Combat" says that Round Ends is letter E and Combat Ends is letter F in sequence.
Taste of Vitae is played before superior Psyche! You can play both in the same round because a Combat Ends effect takes you to the Round Ends step first before you move on to the Combat Ends step. See Complete Rules Reference section VI.C.2.a.i.
I don't know why this point isn't made in the rulebook, but it isn't. When I pointed this part of the rules reference out to Pascal in a previous thread some time ago, he made some noise about changing it so that both happen in the same timing window. I believe he wanted to change it so that Taste of Vitae can be played after superior Psyche! However, no change has occurred.
I'm not sure that there is an elegant way to do that, though. The game has to be structured this way because there are cards that say "end of a round", thus making a distinction with "end of combat". "End of a round" and "end of combat" are not the same thing, at least from a design perspective. I understand that there is not a "flavor" reason for "end of round" and "end of combat" effects to be ordered. However, from a game design perspective, card text refers to them as distinct steps and so it is more effective design to keep them distinct, IMO.
Both Psyche and Taste of Vitae are played in step VI.E. [6.4.4] — Round Ends.
Yes, overall things may have been easier to pick up if combat was simpler — but like watering down the clans, combat without the complex interactions, additional stikes, preventions and rock, scissors, paper meta would just be less rich and VTES poorer for it.
> AaronC wrote:
> You can play both in the same round because a Combat Ends effect takes you to the Round Ends step first before you move on to the Combat Ends step. See Complete Rules Reference section VI.C.2.a.i.
>
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> AaronC wrote:
> When I pointed this part of the rules reference out to Pascal in a previous thread some time ago, he made some noise about changing it so that both happen in the same timing window. I believe he wants to change it so that Taste of Vitae can be changed to be played after superior Psyche! However, no change has occurred. I'm not sure that there is an elegant way to do that, though.
>
That change happened nearly a year ago:
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/16769-rules-team-rulings-02-dec-11
All the relevant parts have already been quoted in this very thread.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > When I pointed this part of the rules reference out to Pascal in a previous thread some time ago, he made some noise about changing it so that both happen in the same timing window. I believe he wants to change it so that Taste of Vitae can be changed to be played after superior Psyche! However, no change has occurred. I'm not sure that there is an elegant way to do that, though.
> >
> That change happened nearly a year ago:
> www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/16769-rules-team-rulings-02-dec-11
> All the relevant parts have already been quoted in this very thread.
>
Wow, you're right. I had just assumed that he had rewritten the errata on those cards so that they took place in the "Combat Ends" step, in other words, as they were originally printed.
There are still some effects that take place during the "Combat Ends" step such as the damage from Yawp Court or the burning of the weapon from Horrid Reality. Until those kinds of cards get rewritten, there is still a discrete "Combat Ends" step and a discrete "Round Ends" step.
"Only usable at the end of a round ... and combat is about to end" - Wow. I'm really reading it for the first time. It's a convoluted way to get around having a discrete "Combat Ends" timing window. He's going to have to rewrite all other cards and effects that take place when combat ends so that they take place "at the end of a round when combat is about to end." "About to end" is not that precise, either. Meh.
The fact is that in the CRR there is an "End of Round" and "End of Combat" step and that based on the comparable card (Coordinate Attacks) they actually don't have identical wording. Coordinate Attacks has the same text as the old version of Psyche (at the end of combat). The easiest ruling (and without needing errata) would have been to make Coordinate Attacks and Psyche be played in combat "at the end".
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Of course Coordinate Attacks was errated at the same time as Psyche! Ke has already cited the updated text in this very thread. If you intend to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, can you please make the effort of checking your facts before writing, or at least read other people's posts before answering them?
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> The fact is that in the CRR there is an "End of Round" and "End of Combat" step and that based on the comparable card (Coordinate Attacks) they actually don't have identical wording. Coordinate Attacks has the same text as the old version of Psyche (at the end of combat). The easiest ruling (and without needing errata) would have been to make Coordinate Attacks and Psyche be played in combat "at the end".
>
Again, you need to update your card text:
Coordinate Attacks
[san] Only usable at the end of a round if the minion opposing the Blood Brother you control is still ready and combat is about to end. After this round, this Blood Brother taps and enters combat with the opposing minion. The first round of combat, the opposing minion cannot play any strike cards.
[SAN] As [san] above, and this Blood Brother gets an optional maneuver on the first round of combat.
Rarity: BL:C2 LoB:C
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
I also used a 'credible' source for the text. Secret Library. Apparently there are discrepancies about the text.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Credible yes, but as others have pointed out in this thread — in need of updating.
The current card texts are available here:
www.vekn.net/index.php/card-lists
Or directly:
www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt
There's no point blindly ignoring that the card text has changed — you're just adding to the confusion.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
When I have demoed the game I found that people get the basic mechanics by the end of the first game. As long as they look at their hand when deciding what they want to do and understand what the symbols mean, they can basically follow along.
Learning the more complex interactions in the game, which can even just be remembering to account for some card someone might play. That may require an extensive knowledge of the cards that exist (and there are many). If you keep and open mind and understand the various abilities that exist (block fails, unblockable actions, re-starting combat, etc), then you can slowly associate those with disciplines and specific cards eventually.
New players could play with a more limited collection of cards (theirs and their opponents) to begin with, then open up to the broader VTES card base when ready if that helps.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
I was looking through someone's direct-to-player L5R box recently. It was beautifully made and had these sweet plastic dividers with art on them to separate cards. In all there was 20 dividers: 9 for the clans +1 for the unaligned, and another 10 for each of the other card types (which do have keyword distinctions within, but generally isn't as immediately obvious like disciplines).
I got to thinking how many dividers it'd take for my VTES collection to do the same. I got somewhere around 92 dividers. Possibly I could consolidate, but clans alone, ignoring imbued creeds, still leave 35 dividers alone. This revelation was impressive and made me proud to be a VTES player. It's an agglutinating CCG.
Here, I'll share my breakdown!:
Clans - 7 original Camarilla +1 for Caitiff, 4 original Independents, 9 original Sabbat (7 of which are antitribu) +1 for Pander, 10 Bloodlines, 4 Laibon, and Abomination. If you consolidated Antitribru + Pander with their counterpart that still is at 27. And then there's 7 Creeds.
There's 28 disciplines, plus two un-disciplines (looks like the real thing, but none of the caffeine!) - Jyhad big 10, Indie 4, Sabbat 3, Bloodlines 10, Abombwe, + Maleficia and Striga (the un-colas). And then there's the Imbued 7 Virtues.
10 Primary card types (to sort the discipline-less stuff) +2 Imbued (Conviction + Power). I guess you could mix all the disciplines in a singular, oh so very large division, but well... yeah, no. Perhaps subdividers!
And since all together it's so close, might as well find space for Sect cards. That's 3 + Anarch.
So all together it's enough dividers for a max size VTES deck! Please oh please don't get rid of all this legacy stuff. It's the little things that stuck upon the game, like Katamari Damacy, that makes it awesome. In fact, we should add KotE, because explosions!
> Azel wrote:
>
> It's the little things that stuck upon the game, like Katamari Damacy, that makes it awesome.
>
Spot On.
and kudos for the Katamari reference
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
Perhaps it's not exactly best for the long term wellbeing and popularity of the game, but some of us like it how it is!
In terms of initial complexity of what you need to know, maybe this is Magic: The Gathering:
and this is V:TES.
Once you get there, though, it makes for an amazing game.
I personally think that Vtes is hard to pick up on your own, but not so hard when you are taught with the right tools.
Years back, when I did Vtes demos during a local convention, I found it relatively easy to teach the game. What was difficult was sitting down to decide what goes into the demo decks and what doesn't. At the end of the day, we decided to leave out politics, diablerie and combat cards with weird timings. We did have a smattering of cards with more complex mechanics just to show that there's more to the game than the demo version.
We net 5+ new semi-regular players from that one event (although we lost some over the years), and no one complained about the game's complexity during the demo, so I think that was a good idea (that we unfortunately never did do again)
Suaku
Inceptor Asian Continental Championship
興っ
www.youtube.com/SuakuOz
> the1andonlime wrote:
> We net 5+ new semi-regular players from that one event (although we lost some over the years), and no one complained about the game's complexity during the demo, so I think that was a good idea (that we unfortunately never did do again)
>
We've had reasonable success at getting people to try the game and play it a few times with various demos locally, but we do have a problem with getting players to stay in the game after a few months. The past couple years, we've had 3 or 4 new players start and play for a while, but at least 2 have dropped out within 6 months each year.
Partly it's complexity - once they start playing with the regular crowd, they do get hit by a whole bunch of new stuff quite quickly.
Partly I think it's competiveness. A new player will likely only have 1 decent deck, and, if the meta-game shifts, suddenly the new player is losing a lot more often and doesn't have the resources to react well. We try to mitigate this by maintaing a pool of cards new players can buy cheaply and so forth, but the players need to also put in the time working on deck ideas.
I keep feeling that this is something we could manage better, although I'm not quite sure how. Does anyone have any advice on methods for easing new players into the core player group?
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
Allow proxies in your casual games? Lend new players your decks instead of cards? Show them Secret library to netdeck?
Deckbuilding is harshly punishing in VTES because a bad deck not only doesn't win, it jams. Losing is acceptable for a new player, sitting at the table doing nothing is not.
With games with many sets, you run into a quick information overload issue. New players could play in some sort of sealed league for a while to be on a level playing field with veterans, then move on to constructed play. But, what I find is that groups that have played a long time don't have a lot of patience. "Been there, done that" leads to boredom when trying to dumb down deck construction or when playing with limited card pools. And, veteran players often forget what it was like to try to learn unfamiliar concepts to where the attitude of the group turns off prospective players.
One thing to consider is making a list of the 50 cards that are the most important to understand what they do in an effort to cut down on info overload. Then, an unknown card can be compared to a known card.
I also like the idea that some use who haven't played throughout the game's history of playing cards only from certain sets as that's how people like me were introduced to those sets. That, of course, runs into the problem of opponents not doing the same and having to learn what other cards do anyway, but it's some help.
Traveller Card Game
> ICL wrote:
> One thing to consider is making a list of the 50 cards that are the most important to understand what they do in an effort to cut down on info overload. Then, an unknown card can be compared to a known card.
>
Interesting idea... brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/2012/11/50-cards-every-vtes-player-should-know.html
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
>
> > ICL wrote:
> > One thing to consider is making a list of the 50 cards that are the most important to understand what they do in an effort to cut down on info overload. Then, an unknown card can be compared to a known card.
> >
> Interesting idea... brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/2012/11/50-cards-every-vtes-player-should-know.html
>
Good writeup.
i would make room for Banishment (often seen, and quite unique in effect). Perhaps instead laptop computer. Other than that, good work
Edit : also, maybe, Direct intervention instead of Confusion
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
>
> > ICL wrote:
> > One thing to consider is making a list of the 50 cards that are the most important to understand what they do in an effort to cut down on info overload. Then, an unknown card can be compared to a known card.
> >
> Interesting idea... brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/2012/11/50-cards-every-vtes-player-should-know.html
>
very good list.
I'd switch telepathic counter for obedience though.
and no voter captivation ?
but for the rest it's very good and we should try to make demo decks using only those 50 cards to teach the newbs.
kudos !
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> drnlmza wrote:
> Partly it's complexity - once they start playing with the regular crowd, they do get hit by a whole bunch of new stuff quite quickly.
>
> Partly I think it's competiveness. A new player will likely only have 1 decent deck, and, if the meta-game shifts, suddenly the new player is losing a lot more often and doesn't have the resources to react well. We try to mitigate this by maintaing a pool of cards new players can buy cheaply and so forth, but the players need to also put in the time working on deck ideas.
>
You'll need to keep staying on coaching mode. Whenever a card is played or an effect happens, take some time to throw in a condensed explanation to the new players. Make the explanation short and if possible, fun. Don't make the new player(s) feel like it is hard labour to see new cards.
It also helps to vocalise your own thought processes a bit. Comments like "Hmm... if I bleed with both my minions this turn, I might have a chance of getting a VP next turn, but I might get ousted before that if I don't leave anything for defense." or "So if I KRC for 3-1, I might not get the support I need to pass this."
It also helps to give the new player(s) small pats on the backs along the way. Praise the new player(s) for particularly insightful plays or when they voice out interesting opinions on the game state as part of their thought process.
> I keep feeling that this is something we could manage better, although I'm not quite sure how. Does anyone have any advice on methods for easing new players into the core player group?
>
We have a collection of cards donated by players who just have too many and not enough space at home to keep everything (seriously, who needs more than 30 blood dolls?) When a new player joins the group, we tell them to go nuts and swim in the card pool for whatever they may want.
Suaku
Inceptor Asian Continental Championship
興っ
www.youtube.com/SuakuOz