while teaching some new people how to play recently, i noticed there was a tendency to get confused as to what actions have stealth by default, especially with actions that say "+1 Stealth Action" they would try to use the '+1 stealth' as modifiers. Chalk it up to 'learning the game' but it did get me thinking about the way natural Stealth is displayed on the card. with "1 vote" being added to political cards in the green bar why can we not add "1 stealth" to actions that have the text "+1 stealth?" Indeed, we could also eliminate text from the rulebook describing that equipping and employing allies/retainers happens at +1 stealth, because it would be printed on the card that the action takes place at 1 stealth.
as an example, The Embrace as it is now:
and using the convention i've described cards would look like this:
that would leave just the inherrent actions like bleed, hunt, rescue, &c. to describe in the rulebook.
I see what you mean. Many beginners here as well confuse the '+1 stealth' clause of an action to an action modifier and try to use that for additional stealth during bleeds. Like Ohlmann said, the goal is good.
I don't really have an opinion on the execution though. I can't see why that shouldn't happen if it happened to votes as well, but I don't know if '0 stealth' should be added to those without any.
Anyways, here's the main reason I'm posting:
Mylan's artwork really, really, really needs to be changed to that one in POD!
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> self wrote:
> especially with actions that say "+1 Stealth Action" they would try to use the '+1 stealth' as modifiers.
>
Your template might make that worse: political action cards worth 1 vote can indeed be played to add one vote on another action.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> I find this too hard to read and too easy to miss for my taste. The goal is not bad, but I am not sure how to do it while keeping a good visibility.
>
fair enough i suppose, but is this really any worse than the way things are currently done? I mean, a more obvious icon could be done, but that would also add more clutter to the card. it's definitely a very fine line.
> Kraus wrote:
> I don't know if '0 stealth' should be added to those without any.
>
> Anyways, here's the main reason I'm posting:
>
> Mylan's artwork really, really, really needs to be changed to that one in POD!
>
On 0 stealth: I don't disagree, but if we're displaying what stealth is inherent to the action, I feel that consistency is the better way to go. Your Mileage may vary.
On Mylan: I can't take the full credit for the image. i found it on a google image search and did a little manipulation for my version.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Your template might make that worse: political action cards worth 1 vote can indeed be played to add one vote on another action.
>
i can see where you're going with your criticism, and you do have a valid point. However, the 1 vote happens only with a referendum, and a political card can only be pitched for a vote once per player per referendum. Stealth/Intercept happens WAAAAAAAY before it gets to that point. All you would need in the rulebook is a note that says something to the tune of "If an action occurs at stealth, it will say so below the action icon of the card."
> self wrote:
> fair enough i suppose, but is this really any worse than the way things are currently done? I mean, a more obvious icon could be done, but that would also add more clutter to the card. it's definitely a very fine line.
>
I think it is worse than the current thing for me, because I don't look the corner where you put the +1 stealth, while I do read the text. Having important thing up there is pretty rare in CCG and new for VtES, while reading the +1 stealth at the position where keyword are seem natural for me.
(for the same reason, I tend to guess the type of the card by its cardtext instead of by the icon, which sometime backfire)
> self wrote:
> <snip> All you would need in the rulebook is a note that says something to the tune of[/i] "If an action occurs at stealth, it will say so below the action icon of the card."
>
What about cards having stealth at superior (eg. Mind Numb)? Wouldn't be the "0 stealth" part confusing?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> self wrote:
> i can see where you're going with your criticism, and you do have a valid point. However, the 1 vote happens only with a referendum, and a political card can only be pitched for a vote once per player per referendum. Stealth/Intercept happens WAAAAAAAY before it gets to that point. All you would need in the rulebook is a note that says something to the tune of "If an action occurs at stealth, it will say so below the action icon of the card."
>
I don't think that is relevant: people who have read and understood the rules already know the difference between an action and an action modifier. It is the others who need help.
One thing that could help would be to remove the + in action cards. Actions could be written with the default value, all other effects would have a + to indicate they change that default value.
Example for a Govern:
Govern the Unaligned
1
Bleed for 3.
1 stealth action. Move 3 blood from the bank to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region.
Moving the +1 stealth text around doesn't seem to solve the problem.
A okayer who doesn't know the rules will see the +1 stealth up in the top left and make the same assumption as they would currently.
I've run into this problem teahcing a few players and explaining the rules solved the problem rather easily. It's such a minor thing that the work involved in updating all cards, and then having yet another card template in a deck (same card looks different than 2 other versions of the same card) or on the table to confuse players seems to outweigh the benefits.
> Pagan wrote:
> Moving the +1 stealth text around doesn't seem to solve the problem.
>
> A okayer who doesn't know the rules will see the +1 stealth up in the top left and make the same assumption as they would currently.
>
> I've run into this problem teahcing a few players and explaining the rules solved the problem rather easily. It's such a minor thing that the work involved in updating all cards, and then having yet another card template in a deck (same card looks different than 2 other versions of the same card) or on the table to confuse players seems to outweigh the benefits.
>
I agree. It takes a game or two to distinguish actions from action modifiers, but I've found that it's a pretty easy lesson to learn if you emphasize the function of individual cards over the function of card types. Once you've played a stealth bleeder a few times, for instance, you start to realize that Govern lets you take an action, and Faceless Night lets you get that action through. When you pick up a new deck, you can then make an analogy: Shadow Play is sort of like Faceless Night, and Public Trust is sort of like Govern. At that point the action/action modifier distinction makes perfect sense.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> I don't think that is relevant: people who have read and understood the rules already know the difference between an action and an action modifier. It is the others who need help.
>
> One thing that could help would be to remove the + in action cards. Actions could be written with the default value, all other effects would have a + to indicate they change that default value.
>
> Example for a Govern:
>
> Govern the Unaligned
>
> 1
> Bleed for 3.
> 1 stealth action. Move 3 blood from the bank to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region.
>
and that's something that i really hadn't thought of. while i think my idea is good, it appears that it really isn't feasible. not all ideas have good executions