The Design Team's production schedule puts us at releasing a new set in the fall each year. With the European Championships happening in the summer this year, we weren't going to have the new set ready in time for it. We're in the middle of Round Two of playtesting, and we're targeting a late-November or early-December release, depending on when the artwork is finished. However, at the EC in Warsaw, we did a "work in progress" presentation explaining the design concepts for the set and its scope, and did a sneak preview of the Round Two versions of some crypt cards that have completed artwork. Rather than be jerks, we've decided to share with the rest of you.
The scope of the set and themes:
The new set will be an Anarch-themed set. Its current working title is Anarchs Unbound, which matches the name of the recent V20 supplement book from The Onyx Path. The set presently consists (in Round Two of playtest) of 43 cards - 24 crypt cards and 19 library cards. The set was originally specced out for 50 total cards, but we designed what we wanted to in 47 cards. Some cards were cut after Round One of playtest and two more were added, so we're at 43 in Round Two. The crypt cards span Groups 1 through 5 and are mostly (but not exclusively) from traditionally Camarilla clans. The set is somewhat asymmetrical in that Brujah represent a plurality (but not a majority) of the crypt cards. The library cards include a bunch of new Anarch 3-way cards, including some that use the Keystone Kine template.
With respect to art and themes, we're looking to have more of an anarchistic and punk feel to the set. We've drawn inspiration from the Spanish Civil War, Baader-Meinhof, the Occupy Movement, Reagan Youth, Bikini Kill, The Sex Pistols, and more. World of Darkness sources include the aforementioned Anarchs Unbound, as well as Guide to the Anarchs, Los Angeles By Night, Chicago By Night, New York By Night, A World of Darkness (Second Edition), and others.
We're on track to release the set in the last week of November or the first week of December, depending on when all of the art is submitted and approved. We are strongly considering using self biased's alternate crypt layout as an additional option, and we've submitted art descriptions and instructions to the artists to better accommodate that layout. There are still some kinks to work out for that layout, so we can't guarantee it.
Design concepts:
A major issue with Anarchs in V:TES is the time and effort required to influence out a vampire and have it be an Anarch. The primary way we're addressing this issue is by having every crypt card in the set start off as an Anarch. We've spread these crypt cards across Groups 1 through 5, and we've taken advantage of the Advanced rule so as not to skew the grouping populations. Of the 24 crypt cards, 11 of them are Advanced. We've also included a couple of new library cards that help vampires become Anarchs, as well as a card that makes merging easier. The overall design intent isn't to have entire crypts that start as Anarchs, but rather to give you some Anarchs to get you started with playing V:TES while you convert the others.
The original design of the Anarch 3-way cards, as well as design in subsequent expansions, was very cautious. We spoke with L. Scott Johnson and Robert Goudie about the original design, and they said they were very concerned about power creep and Anarch 3-way cards being potentially too strong. As such, their design intent was for having only one effect per 3-way card be playable by a given vampire. In hindsight, they feel that 3-way cards could be more flexible and more synergistic without disrupting game balance.
One area where Anarch 3-way cards could use more flexibility and synergy is in the disciplines the cards require. The disciplines on existing 3-way cards are very scattered, typically with only one of a clan's "in-clan" discipline on each card. In the new set, the 3-way cards will have tighter discipline synergy, with more than one clan being able to use a given 3-way card in multiple ways.
Another problem area with 3-way cards is a lack synergy of effects. The effects on a given 3-way card tend to be very different from each other. In one sense, this is good because it helps encourage toolboxy options. However, scattered effects make it difficult to build a coherent deck concept. While we don't want each effect on the card to be the same, we are making them similar in function to allow for more coherent deckbuilding. We don't want to abandon the toolboxy concept, either, so a couple of the new 3-way cards will have more toolboxy effects.
Because the original Anarch 3-way cards were designed without discipline synergy in mind, there's a resulting crypt synergy issue as it's difficult to build a crypt that can make good use of the original 3-way cards. One way we're attempting to address this issue is by designing new vampires who can play three different existing 3-way cards in two ways each. Another way we're attempting to address this issue is by introducing a new library card that allows Anarchs to share disciplines.
We also wanted to help the existing vamps who are Anarchs: Jack Drake, Dominique, Jeremy MacNeil, Count Germaine, and Yazid Tamari. There are 3-way cards that have those vampires in mind, and there is also the aforementioned library card that makes merging easier.
As I mentioned earlier, some of the new 3-way cards use the Keystone Kine template. We've also created a new layout for that template in the interests of readability and making the text look cleaner.
Acknowledgements and previews:
There's a lot we're trying to address in this set, and it's presented a lot of design challenges and playtesting challenges. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank Pascal Bertrand and Vincent Ripoll of the Rules Team, as well as all of the playtesters, for their work, input, and feedback on this project. It's been a huge help! Many, many thanks to our artists, as well. We're thrilled with the work they've been doing, and they're really giving (un)life and attitude to this set.
Following are previews of some cards in their Round Two playtest versions. These are not all of the cards, but rather the cards for which we have received completed artwork. The text and effects of these cards are not final, as we have a third round of playtesting to go. These cards are also not tournament legal right now, and will only become so in their final, officially released forms. If you have any comments or suggestions for them, please include them in a reply to this thread. You are also welcome (and encouraged!) to test them in your local playgroups. Please send playtest game reports and deck lists to Hugh Angseesing, the Playtest Coordinator (). In particular, the one library card we're previewing - Memory Rift - uses the new Keystone Kine layout we're testing. Please let us know what you think of it!
- Ben Peal and Mike Nudd, V:EKN Design Team
I love the art as I have for all of the vekn sets and really appreciate the preview. I want to first say that I am a big fan of what the vekn team has been doing and really appreciate all of their hard work. I love VTES and am thrilled that this organization exists to breathe new life into this awesome, yet dying game.
However, I gotta admit that I think these cards seem uninspired and I was a bit disappointed. I mean, there are basically a bunch of vanilla vamps whose only interesting quality is that they start out anarch. I could've thought of that. And half the dudes are just advanced versions of existing vamps with nothing very different about them other than being anarch. Yawn. I'm totally on board with encouraging more toolboxy decks, which I agree these guys do (with the discipline spreads synergy with current 3-way anarch cards), but I hope some of the other vamps in the set actually have interesting abilities. I like Appolonius ADV a lot and would totally make a deck with him and his base, but he's really the only guy in the preview that is at all intriguing, IMO. I hope that this is just a case of you guys getting the completed art for the mid-caps first and that the rest of the set includes new vamps with interesting abilities that synergize with other new vamps in the set or existing vamps that could use another friend or 2. I am very much looking forward to new anarch library cards as well, and can't wait to see more. Very excited to see a better merging card, as I've always liked the merging mechanic.
Also, the wording on Memory Rift is very confusing, IMO. Is it supposed to be like Keystone Kine, as you mentioned in your introduction, because it doesn't read that way, and Keystone was clear and unambiguous, so why the new confusing wording? If you have obf and pre, does that mean you get +1 stealth and a s:ce if blocked? I guess so based on your intro, but the wording isn't clear to me.
I don't mean to be too harsh, as I still have much hope and excitement for the rest of the set and I thought the last set (The Unaligned) was fantastic, but I really hope the rest of the set has more inspiration and ingenuity than this preview portion does. I say this only because I think it needed to be said and a little constructive criticism never hurt anyone. You guys are awesome, but I see room for improvement in this set. Not like it matters what I think, but I felt compelled to give my two cents. That is all.
> mjvtes521 wrote:
> Also, the wording on Memory Rift is very confusing, IMO. Is it supposed to be like Keystone Kine, as you mentioned in your introduction, because it doesn't read that way, and Keystone was clear and unambiguous, so why the new confusing wording? If you have obf and pre, does that mean you get +1 stealth and a s:ce if blocked? I guess so based on your intro, but the wording isn't clear to me.
>
I don't find it confusing at all. It's a new template for functionality like Keystone Kine, but in a much more compact form. As it says, multiple disciplines can be used, so yes, with obf + pre you get +1 stealth + s:ce. I like it, myself, it's a lot easier to read than KK (less of a "wall of text" effect).
I think the new wording is much less confusing that that of keystone kine, unless I was looking at some different version of the card.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Yeah I also don't find ithe new wording confusing, I think it's much clearer than the wording on Keystone Kine.
Thank you for the preview! Art looks great and I can't wait to see the rest of the set. I've been having fun with Brunnhilde and her Valkyries so this is all rather exciting. Especially as a newish player with a limited collection.
> mjvtes521 wrote:
> Also, the wording on Memory Rift is very confusing, IMO. Is it supposed to be like Keystone Kine, as you mentioned in your introduction, because it doesn't read that way, and Keystone was clear and unambiguous, so why the new confusing wording? If you have obf and pre, does that mean you get +1 stealth and a s:ce if blocked? I guess so based on your intro, but the wording isn't clear to me.
>
From a logic point of view, Keystone Kine was a mess.
When we get the chance to reprint the game, Keyestone Kine will match this template.
Does ít (the expansion) have a name? The colors, especially of the backgrounds, seems awfully bright. Is this intentional, or because of the graphic format chosen here (cymk)? Otherwise: Well done! And thanks for all the fi..preview.
> extrala wrote:
> The colors, especially of the backgrounds, seems awfully bright. Is this intentional, or because of the graphic format chosen here (cymk)?
>
It's a graphical artifact due to the color space of the images (CMYK for printing, not RGB for screen display).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I like new template for cards like keystone kine. IMO it's more clear now.
I love new artworks. They are even better than in two prevoius sets. Great work!
As for the cards itself, my feelings are symilar as mjvtes521. I like that new vampires are anarchs from the start but don't see anything that would inspire me to build new decks. TU and DM was much better in this area. I hope orher cards will have more interesting effects
Dear designers - please consider not making Appolonius Adv a Baron. Maybe as merged, but not from the start. (Switch places of rush effect and Baron title?) It will be too ugly with Chameleon.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
> Dear designers - please consider not making Appolonius Adv a Baron. Maybe as merged, but not from the start. (Switch places of rush effect and Baron title?) It will be too ugly with Chameleon.
>
Well, he would be strong with being a Baron from the start, but in my opinion he is not stronger than e.g. Montano (and he did not show up in many a tournament, I daresay).
You risk a lot when trusting only on him plus Chameleon.
(I guess, more relevant could be, that there is a limited access to copies of Chameleon out there!)
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> (I guess, more relevant could be, that there is a limited access to copies of Chameleon out there!)
>
You probably don't need more than 7 or 8 Chameleons to make the deck. Anyone who bought a reasonable amount of Twilight Rebellion probably has at least couple of copies, and can trade with other players to get up to the required numbers. Otherwise, it's currently only $5 on Ebay. That doesn't look particularly limited to me.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
I'd like to say kudos and well done, to all the team involved in this and all the other expansions. Beautiful looking professional art work, and I couldn't be happier that there will be Anarch vampires, as opposed to having to use other tech to become an anarch including the +1 stealth action. Very excited, keep up the professional good work folks.
> Hakuron wrote:
>
> > Ashur wrote:
> > Dear designers - please consider not making Appolonius Adv a Baron. Maybe as merged, but not from the start. (Switch places of rush effect and Baron title?) It will be too ugly with Chameleon.
> >
> Well, he would be strong with being a Baron from the start, but in my opinion he is not stronger than e.g. Montano (and he did not show up in many a tournament, I daresay).
>
I suppose you meant Vlad Tepes.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I meant Montano, but it was a comparison in analogy which needs some explanation.
Montano has everything needed to play Baltimore Purge, Graverobbing and even Mind Rape with great efficiency in one turn.
Some players in Germany, Sweden and France witnessed my deck already, and were extremely scared by it for obvious reasons.
But only in rare cases I managed to dominate the table. Of course I made some minor to major mistakes, but morr relevant was seating and the playing skills of the other player.
Thus said, Appolonius adv. in the actual wording is an obvious threat, but not more, in my opinion.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> (I guess, more relevant could be, that there is a limited access to copies of Chameleon out there!)
>
No, this is never relevant. NEVER.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Hakuron wrote:
> Montano has everything needed to play Baltimore Purge, Graverobbing and even Mind Rape with great efficiency in one turn.
>
Yes, I agree, this is ugly too, but you could do this with decent efficiency before Montano too.
The problem there is Baltimore Purge, a game destroying shit card that never should have been designed in the first place. Death to all boring combo-decks - all hail the toolbox!
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
> Dear designers - please consider not making Appolonius Adv a Baron. Maybe as merged, but not from the start. (Switch places of rush effect and Baron title?) It will be too ugly with Chameleon.
>
That's at the top of my list for things to watch out for and test. The change you recommend is the likely change for Round Three if Appolonius + Chameleon turns out to be over powered/broken. It hasn't yet been demonstrated in playtesting, but one playtest group mentioned to me at the EC that they think they've demonstrated it and will submit the results and findings for the Round Two playtest report. If any of you out there can test this and report back, that'd be awesome.
It does raise the question of whether Chameleon is a "problem card". It would be nice to simply have vampires who start off as Barons, much as have that for nearly every other title, but Chameleon may get in the way of that. This isn't to say that I'm proposing a change to Chameleon or a ban (I'm not), but it does present a design concern.
Yes, it might pose a problem. But as Ankha pointed out Vlad Tepes can also play chameleon on the 1st turn. So the issue might be with chameleon.
I agree with Ashur, Baltimore purge is a crappy card.
My shalmath toolbox loves the idea of chameleon, tbh. Will update with details once i have added it to iteration 25... But i cannot see it being anything but overpowered in there. Now, what to take out?
Don't like "Anarchs Unleished" as a name for anarch set. To straitforvard.
Something like "Constant revolution" seems more interesting.
I think vampires with interesting discipline spreads > vampires with deck defying abilities. It's boring if one crypt card is more important, than 90 card in library.
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> Don't like "Anarchs Unleished" as a name for anarch set. To straitforvard.
> Something like "Constant revolution" seems more interesting.
>
> I think vampires with interesting discipline spreads > vampires with deck defying abilities. It's boring if one crypt card is more important, than 90 card in library.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "It's boring if one crypt card is more important, than 90 card in library."
Could you give an one or more examples?
> BenPeal wrote:
>
> > Ashur wrote:
> > It does raise the question of whether Chameleon is a "problem card". It would be nice to simply have vampires who start off as Barons, much as have that for nearly every other title, but Chameleon may get in the way of that.
> >
> Maybe just not make so high cap barons? Chameleon targets "younger vampire".
>
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> blackday wrote:
> Yes, it might pose a problem. But as Ankha pointed out Vlad Tepes can also play chameleon on the 1st turn. So the issue might be with chameleon.
>
Vlad's got significantly better stealth options than Appolonius does, too.
> koko wrote:
>
> > elotar wrote:
> > Don't like "Anarchs Unleished" as a name for anarch set. To straitforvard.
> > Something like "Constant revolution" seems more interesting.
> >
> > I think vampires with interesting discipline spreads > vampires with deck defying abilities. It's boring if one crypt card is more important, than 90 card in library.
> >
> I'm not sure what you mean by "It's boring if one crypt card is more important, than 90 card in library."
>
> Could you give an one or more examples?
>
Una freak show -> deck based on one crypt card, you don't have it you lose
Tzimische toolbox -> any sets of vampires are fine, they can pretty much play all 90 cards of the library as you like
IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile
> mjvtes521 wrote:
> However, I gotta admit that I think these cards seem uninspired and I was a bit disappointed. I mean, there are basically a bunch of vanilla vamps whose only interesting quality is that they start out anarch. I could've thought of that. And half the dudes are just advanced versions of existing vamps with nothing very different about them other than being anarch.
>
There are a lot of thoughts rattling around in my head about this, so hopefully I can convey them coherently:
It starts with wanting to have vampires who start as Anarchs for all groups. In order to not skew the grouping populations, we decided to take advantage of the Advanced mechanic to make Anarch versions of existing vampires. There are a lot of vampires in VTES who are Anarchs in the canon, but LSJ decided to have them be Camarilla to represent an overall theme of Anarchs in hiding. This makes thematic sense for some, but not all of these vampires - many canon Anarchs are very much open about their Anarch-itude. So, when making Anarch versions of existing vampires, we decided (for the most part, but not in all cases) to go with those who are already Anarchs in the canon.
When using the existing canon-Anarchs in V:TES as a base, there's the tricky part that most of them already have their full "points" worth of disciplines. You can see that in what we've previewed in Sundown, Boss Callihan, and Marguerite Foccart. Adding Anarch (or a minor special) on top of a full complement of disciplines treads into the territory of possible power creep. It isn't always the case, such as with Black Hand vampires and the occasional special. Still, it's something to be mindful of. Adding a cool special, or even a minor special, on top of that definitely raises eyebrows. The Medic and the Advanced version of Marguerite Foccart might be considered power-creepy by that standard, and they're of particular interest for me when the playtest reports come in.
Another factor is that canon Anarchs tend to be of younger generations. We have nine other 10th-gen (5-cap) Brujah we've designed who didn't make the cut for the set. For 6-caps and below, disciplines are especially important. Dropping a discipline or two for the sake of a special, and especially not having a discipline at superior, really hurts a mid-cap vampire and the overall crypt depth for its group. This is especially true for Anarchs, given the desire to use Anarch 3-way cards.
That said, I do feel that Sundown and Danielle Diron are a little lackluster in their Round Two versions. In Sundown's case, changing up his merged special is likely the way to go. For Danielle Diron, we might drop one of the added disciplines and come up with a suitable Anarch-themed special.
> Also, the wording on Memory Rift is very confusing, IMO. Is it supposed to be like Keystone Kine, as you mentioned in your introduction, because it doesn't read that way, and Keystone was clear and unambiguous, so why the new confusing wording? If you have obf and pre, does that mean you get +1 stealth and a s:ce if blocked? I guess so based on your intro, but the wording isn't clear to me.
>
Thanks for the feedback on this. It is supposed to be like Keystone Kine, and the intent is to make that template cleaner and take up less card text space. While others in this discussion have mentioned that they find it more clear, that doesn't change the fact that you didn't. What I'm particularly interested in is how people who haven't been told it's a Keystone-Kine-style card interpret how it works. It's one thing if we tell the players, "This is the new Keystone Kine template", and they carry on accordingly. It's another thing if someone who doesn't read these forums or simply hasn't been told in advance looks at the card and tries to interpret it.
The template currently says this:
"More than one discipline can be used to play this card."
What if it said this:
"More than one discipline can be used when playing this card."
> I don't mean to be too harsh, as I still have much hope and excitement for the rest of the set and I thought the last set (The Unaligned) was fantastic, but I really hope the rest of the set has more inspiration and ingenuity than this preview portion does. I say this only because I think it needed to be said and a little constructive criticism never hurt anyone. You guys are awesome, but I see room for improvement in this set. Not like it matters what I think, but I felt compelled to give my two cents. That is all.
>
Your thoughts and input, as well as your candor, are very much welcome and appreciated. Many thanks!
Quick note on Keystone Kine : its template ("cel and/or obf and/or nec: Bleed. If using ...") works fine for action and strike cards. It doesn't work at all for action modifiers, reaction, and regular combat cards (they would read "cel and/or obf and/or nec: [nothing]. If using ...")
> Pascal wrote:
> Quick note on Keystone Kine : its template ("cel and/or obf and/or nec: Bleed. If using ...") works fine for action and strike cards. It doesn't work at all for action modifiers, reaction, and regular combat cards (they would read "cel and/or obf and/or nec: [nothing]. If using ...")
>
Another problem with that template is the excessive use of "and/or". Most style guides for American English discourage the use of "and/or" because it is not easy to read and unecessarily wordy. Replace "and/or" with "and" in the template and it would mean the same exact thing.
> BenPeal wrote:
>
> > mjvtes521 wrote:
> >
> > The template currently says this:
> >
> > "More than one discipline can be used to play this card."
> >
> > What if it said this:
> >
> > "More than one discipline can be used when playing this card."
> >
> Why not just "More than one discipline can be used"? I think the rest of the template is unecessary. Plus, it's less text.
>
> A bigger problem is the "Only usable as the action is announced" Template. This could be interpreted as "You can only use this card because an action is announced," which would not make sense. A native English speaker would understand the intended meaning clearly ("Usable only when the action is announced"), but someone with less command of English might interpret it the other way. I realize this is already a common template used on many cards and is not likely to change. It just always bugged me.
>
I think that Ben Peal's suggested altered wording is much more clear and involves no additional words. Sounds good to me. I appreciate your response, Ben. I'm glad to have been heard.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > BenPeal wrote:
> >
> > > mjvtes521 wrote:
> > >
> > > The template currently says this:
> > >
> > > "More than one discipline can be used to play this card."
> > >
> > > What if it said this:
> > >
> > > "More than one discipline can be used when playing this card."
> > >
> > >
> > Why not just "More than one discipline can be used"? I think the rest of the template is unecessary. Plus, it's less text.
> >
The extra words are mostly about helping to stabilise the way it interacts with the rules. I'd have suggested a "You may use any or all disciplines on this card" phrase, but functionally its the same as the one Ben's written.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
"vampires in VTES who are Anarchs in the canon, but LSJ decided to have them be Camarilla to represent an overall theme of Anarchs in hiding. This makes thematic sense for some, but not all of these vampires"-BenPeal
Thanks for that insight Ben, as it always annoyed me that they released the "Anarch set of the past without the majority of the crypt cards being Anarachs in the first place. Very glad you folks have rectified that with this upcoming expansion.
There is some good discussion here and I very much look forward to anarchs being more viable.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Quick note on Keystone Kine : its template ("cel and/or obf and/or nec: Bleed. If using ...") works fine for action and strike cards. It doesn't work at all for action modifiers, reaction, and regular combat cards (they would read "cel and/or obf and/or nec: [nothing]. If using ...")
> >
> Another problem with that template is the excessive use of "and/or". Most style guides for American English discourage the use of "and/or" because it is not easy to read and unecessarily wordy. Replace "and/or" with "and" in the template and it would mean the same exact thing.
>
Although this would be true for American English-speaking players, it would totally not be the same for other players. As Ben said during the EC presentation of the set, we need to make sure we don't create ambiguities (or at least we try to reduce their chances of occurring). With that in mind, enforcing "and" to mean "and or or" on a card would make most cards unintelligible. Ben's example was the usage of semicolons, which varies from the US-English, and, for isntance, French.
Help me understand: how would changing "and/or" to "and" make this particular template unintelligible? The template later says "if using." Non-American English speakers would really be confused by that? I understand "and/or" may be necessary to use on other cards. But in this template, and with "and/or" used this excessively? It's too many characters. Also, what was the discussion about semicolons?
I understand the concern about ambiguity. But you are probobaly going to introduce the same amount of ambiguity by incorprating text that is not necessary than cutting text down to the most essential parts to understand the card. Less text on cards is better. Even better than that would be less text on cards and a refined rulebook/rulings/detailed play summary page that people can use as a resource when ambiguities do arise.
Seriously, just read Mask of 1k Faces sometime. That is way too much text on one card. The same thing can be said in about 100 fewer characters, and it will be just as confusing.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Help me understand: how would changing "and/or" to "and" make this particular template unintelligible?
>
Because some might interpret it as requiring all the disciplines that are listed there (due to the "and"), rather than any subset, from reading the first sentence.
I know I would have asked questions if the cardtext had been "A and B and C". Questions such as "The first sentence reads it's a bleed if I have A and B and C. I don't care about the rest of the card, which affects the action rather than its declaration. What happens if I don't have all three disciplines?" Such questions that weren't asked due to the "and/or" part.
I think we are yet to find someone who doesn't get how the new template works. It's a new wording, but I haven't seen a single question that was raised by ambiguity on the new cards.
Mask is something different. If you think you can fix its cardtext, I am open for suggestions. Wholeheartedly. Also keep in mind that its current cardtext covers a good share of the rulings that were made for it. I know you can simplify it to "Only usable by another vampire. Untap the acting vampire, tap this vampire. This vampire becomes the acting vampire.", but this reopens the door to all questions that were asked. Cardtext isn't simply about what a card does, it should always integrate precision to help the players (and the judges) find the answers to questions with strict reading of what is on the table, rather than require a reference to a distant source (rulings, rulebook).
Regarding the semicolon, the current state of the game is unclear (no general rule, only case-by-case effects) on how they work. Here are two examples :
+2 bleed; +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador.
Put this card in play; it becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn.
In the first example, the semicolon should only be read "or". In the second example, it should only be read "and".
That's how we know the cards work. But it does mean that ";" is very ambiguous (try replacing the semicolon in Aire of Elation with "and" ...). So we're trying to circumvent the conundrum with other wordings.
Memory rift's wording should definitely be changed to "More than one discipline can be used when playing this card," as Ben Peal suggested. It is so much clearer to all, especially newbies that don't know about keystone kine. Please listen to Ben. And give Danielle Diron a special ability and remove aus from her discipline spread. Thanks
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Help me understand: how would changing "and/or" to "and" make this particular template unintelligible?
> >
> Because some might interpret it as requiring all the disciplines that are listed there (due to the "and"), rather than any subset, from reading the first sentence.
> I know I would have asked questions if the cardtext had been "A and B and C". Questions such as "The first sentence reads it's a bleed if I have A and B and C. I don't care about the rest of the card, which affects the action rather than its declaration. What happens if I don't have all three disciplines?" Such questions that weren't asked due to the "and/or" part.
>
Fair enough. It's funny, because I feel like "and" is clear because of the next sentence, which say "if using" for all three disciplines, and I believe this makes it clear that you can use any combination of diciplines. But the new template is definitely better anyway.
> I think we are yet to find someone who doesn't get how the new template works. It's a new wording, but I haven't seen a single question that was raised by ambiguity on the new cards.
>
> Mask is something different. If you think you can fix its cardtext, I am open for suggestions. Wholeheartedly. Also keep in mind that its current cardtext covers a good share of the rulings that were made for it. I know you can simplify it to "Only usable by another vampire. Untap the acting vampire, tap this vampire. This vampire becomes the acting vampire.", but this reopens the door to all questions that were asked. Cardtext isn't simply about what a card does, it should always integrate precision to help the players (and the judges) find the answers to questions with strict reading of what is on the table, rather than require a reference to a distant source (rulings, rulebook).
>
Well, my point about mask is you can put as much text on the card as you wish, but it's still going to be a confusing effect. I think half that text can be kept on the rulings page and off the card. There are plenty of cards where the effect is not obvious unless you look at the rulings page. Mask should be no different.
> Pascal wrote:
> Regarding the semicolon, the current state of the game is unclear (no general rule, only case-by-case effects) on how they work. Here are two examples :
>
> +2 bleed; +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador.
>
> Put this card in play; it becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn.
>
> In the first example, the semicolon should only be read "or". In the second example, it should only be read "and".
> That's how we know the cards work. But it does mean that ";" is very ambiguous (try replacing the semicolon in Aire of Elation with "and" ...). So we're trying to circumvent the conundrum with other wordings.
>
Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.
"+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."
"Put this card in play. It [This card] becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn."
For me, I don't see ambiguity with the semicolon, except for changing "it" to "this card" in the second example. However, I think changing the semicolon to ", or" in the first example and "and" in the second example would work fine.
> mjvtes521 wrote:
> Memory rift's wording should definitely be changed to "More than one discipline can be used when playing this card," as Ben Peal suggested. It is so much clearer to all, especially newbies that don't know about keystone kine. Please listen to Ben. And give Danielle Diron a special ability and remove aus from her discipline spread. Thanks
>
Oh yeah, I'm not saying the new template is fundamentally wrong or anything. I just think that the less text on the card, the better.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Regarding the semicolon, the current state of the game is unclear (no general rule, only case-by-case effects) on how they work. Here are two examples :
> >
> > +2 bleed; +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador.
> >
> > Put this card in play; it becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn.
> >
> > In the first example, the semicolon should only be read "or". In the second example, it should only be read "and".
> > That's how we know the cards work. But it does mean that ";" is very ambiguous (try replacing the semicolon in Aire of Elation with "and" ...). So we're trying to circumvent the conundrum with other wordings.
> >
> Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.
>
> "+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."
>
> "Put this card in play. It [This card] becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn."
>
> For me, I don't see ambiguity with the semicolon, except for changing "it" to "this card" in the second example. However, I think changing the semicolon to ", or" in the first example and "and" in the second example would work fine.
>
Then they are clearly not working the same way, which I consider wrong.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.
>
> "+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."
>
This would not resemble the effect of "Aire of Elation" for me.
I would read it: "+2 bleed. If the acting vempire is a Toreador, the bleed is for an additional +3."
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > Regarding the semicolon, the current state of the game is unclear (no general rule, only case-by-case effects) on how they work. Here are two examples :
> > >
> > > +2 bleed; +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador.
> > >
> > > Put this card in play; it becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn.
> > >
> > > In the first example, the semicolon should only be read "or". In the second example, it should only be read "and".
> > > That's how we know the cards work. But it does mean that ";" is very ambiguous (try replacing the semicolon in Aire of Elation with "and" ...). So we're trying to circumvent the conundrum with other wordings.
> > >
> > >
> > Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.
> >
> > "+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."
> >
> > "Put this card in play. It [This card] becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn."
> >
> > For me, I don't see ambiguity with the semicolon, except for changing "it" to "this card" in the second example. However, I think changing the semicolon to ", or" in the first example and "and" in the second example would work fine.
> >
> Then they are clearly not working the same way, which I consider wrong.
>
Interesting point. Both include two clauses connected with semicolons. Changing both so they are connected by coordinating conjunctions instead may be clearer. I think that's the real issue.
> Hakuron wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.
> >
> > "+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."
> >
> This would not resemble the effect of "Aire of Elation" for me.
> I would read it: "+2 bleed. If the acting vempire is a Toreador, the bleed is for an additional +3."
>
So, grammatically, changing the semicolons to the periods does not change the meaning because they function the same exact way when separating clauses. The card has not been reworded at all. How did changing the semicolon to a period make you interpret "additional +3 bleed" in the second clause?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Hakuron wrote:
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.
> > >
> > > "+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."
> > >
> > >
> > This would not resemble the effect of "Aire of Elation" for me.
> > I would read it: "+2 bleed. If the acting vempire is a Toreador, the bleed is for an additional +3."
> >
> So, grammatically, changing the semicolons to the periods does not change the meaning because they function the same exact way when separating clauses. The card has not been reworded at all. How did changing the semicolon to a period make you interpret "additional +3 bleed" in the second clause?
>
Because in past rulings, separate effects occur in separate sentences (i.e. Rotschreck vs Psyche!).
So replacing the ";" with "." in Aire of Elation, I would rule it the same way as Hakuron. A Toreador playing Aire of Elation at would get +5 bleed not +3 bleed.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Musing on...
+2 bleed, with an additional +1 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, or +3 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, +3 instead if this vampire is Toreador.
2 is slightly ambiguous because one could think a Toreador could have the choice to play it for +2 bleed only (to avoid an Archon Investigation for instance).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Musing on...
> +2 bleed, with an additional +1 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, or +3 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, +3 instead if this vampire is Toreador.
> 2 is slightly ambiguous because one could think a Toreador could have the choice to play it for +2 bleed only (to avoid an Archon Investigation for instance).
>
I think 1 and 2 are fine, and I don't find either ambiguous. The comma is used incorrectly in 3 and needs to be a semicolon.
> Because in past rulings, separate effects occur in separate sentences (i.e. Rotschreck vs Psyche!).
>
> So replacing the ";" with "." in Aire of Elation, I would rule it the same way as Hakuron. A Toreador playing Aire of Elation at would get +5 bleed not +3 bleed.
>
Can you give an example with specific card text?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Because in past rulings, separate effects occur in separate sentences (i.e. Rotschreck vs Psyche!).
> >
> > So replacing the ";" with "." in Aire of Elation, I would rule it the same way as Hakuron. A Toreador playing Aire of Elation at would get +5 bleed not +3 bleed.
> >
> Can you give an example with specific card text?
>
Rötschreck
Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy.
Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor. This vampire does not untap as normal. During this vampire's next untap phase, burn this card.
Psyche!
Combat
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.
Taking the text of Psyche at [CEL] and Rotschreck.
Rotschreack has it's 'condition for use' at the front. Then you get the sentences "Combat Ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor."
When Psyche is played, after Rotschreck the following happens:
1) Rotschreck checks its conditions and starts applying its effects.
2) Psyche! is played and stops the sentence "This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor."
So, with two sentences separated by a "." you CAN separate the effects which would mean that they apply in order and not simultaneously. With a ";" the phrases are joined or one replacing the other.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Well-Aimed Car
[pot] Strike 4R damage; only usable at long range.
Taste of Death
[qui] Strike: 1R damage. Only usable at long range.
You would argue that Well-Aimed Car is incorrect because the card is saying you can either strike for 4R damage or only use the strike at long range?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Well-Aimed Car
>
> [pot] Strike 4R damage; only usable at long range.
>
> Taste of Death
>
> [qui] Strike: 1R damage. Only usable at long range.
>
> You would argue that Well-Aimed Car is incorrect because the card is saying you can either strike for 4R damage or only use the strike at long range?
>
Only usable at long range is a condition of use, not an effect. So it doesn't matter how they are separated.
Both are functionally equivalent to:
Only usable at long range; Strike: 4R
and
Only usable at long range. Strike: 1R
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Well-Aimed Car
> >
> > [pot] Strike 4R damage; only usable at long range.
> >
> > Taste of Death
> >
> > [qui] Strike: 1R damage. Only usable at long range.
> >
> > You would argue that Well-Aimed Car is incorrect because the card is saying you can either strike for 4R damage or only use the strike at long range?
> >
> Only usable at long range is a condition of use, not an effect. So it doesn't matter how they are separated.
>
> Both are functionally equivalent to:
>
> Only usable at long range; Strike: 4R
>
> and
>
> Only usable at long range. Strike: 1R
>
Thnaks for the responses. The punctuation is not really the issue then. It is the sentence structure on Aire of Elation.
You are confusing a 'requirement to play' with an 'effect from play'.
Aire of Elation has one requirement to play "Does this vampire have ?".
If yes, then it can be played and there are no further 'requirements'. It will give it ONE effect of +2 bleed at Superior or +3 bleed if the acting vampire is a Toreador... as it is written.
If you changed it to be two sentences, then it would have two effects.
Effect 1: +2 Bleed.
Effect 2: If you are a Toreador +3 Bleed.
This would mean Toreadors would get +5 bleed from using the card.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> You are confusing a 'requirement to play' with an 'effect from play'.
>
> Aire of Elation has one requirement to play "Does this vampire have ?".
> If yes, then it can be played and there are no further 'requirements'. It will give it ONE effect of +2 bleed at Superior or +3 bleed if the acting vampire is a Toreador... as it is written.
>
> If you changed it to be two sentences, then it would have two effects.
> Effect 1: +2 Bleed.
> Effect 2: If you are a Toreador +3 Bleed.
>
> This would mean Toreadors would get +5 bleed from using the card.
>
I understand what you are saying, but I think I'm not stating my point clearly. Normally, a semicolon and period can be used interchangably without changing meaning. You have illustrated quite nicely that previous rules teams have attributed a difference in meaning to clauses ending in semicolons and periods. People who are not well-versed in how previous rules teams used punctuation may interpret the card to mean something other than "or +3 bleed if the acting vampire is a Toreador". Aire of Elation needs to say ", or +3 bleed" instead of "; +3 bleed," which is a different (and clearer) sentence structure.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Aire of Elation needs to say ", or +3 bleed" instead of "; +3 bleed," which is a different (and clearer) sentence structure.
>
Considering the cards that should get a text edit, and haven't... I think that idea is pie-in-the-sky.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Musing on...
> > +2 bleed, with an additional +1 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, or +3 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, +3 instead if this vampire is Toreador.
> > 2 is slightly ambiguous because one could think a Toreador could have the choice to play it for +2 bleed only (to avoid an Archon Investigation for instance).
> >
> I think 1 and 2 are fine, and I don't find either ambiguous.
>
2 is ambiguous because "or" can also indicate an alternative.
For instance Virtuosa:
[mel] +1 stealth and +2 bleed, or +2 bleed.
or Angel of Berlin:
Untap an imbued, or equip a ready imbued you control with an equipment from your hand (requirements must be met; pay cost as normal).
Adding an "if" clause is not enough to make it clear that you have no choice when playing the card.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Aire of Elation needs to say ", or +3 bleed" instead of "; +3 bleed," which is a different (and clearer) sentence structure.
> >
> Considering the cards that should get a text edit, and haven't... I think that idea is pie-in-the-sky.
>
Pie in the sky indeed. I'm just being an arm chair editor, haha!
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > Musing on...
> > > +2 bleed, with an additional +1 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, or +3 bleed if this vampire is Toreador. +2 bleed, +3 instead if this vampire is Toreador.
> > > 2 is slightly ambiguous because one could think a Toreador could have the choice to play it for +2 bleed only (to avoid an Archon Investigation for instance).
> > >
> > >
> > I think 1 and 2 are fine, and I don't find either ambiguous.
> >
> 2 is ambiguous because "or" can also indicate an alternative.
>
> For instance Virtuosa:
> [mel] +1 stealth and +2 bleed, or +2 bleed.
>
> or Angel of Berlin:
> Untap an imbued, or equip a ready imbued you control with an equipment from your hand (requirements must be met; pay cost as normal).
>
> Adding an "if" clause is not enough to make it clear that you have no choice when playing the card.
>
Hmm...that's a good point. 1 is definitely ideal. I just feel like the "if" clause in 2 is restrictive enough.
> alek wrote:
> any news about upcoming set?
>
Round 3 of playtesting in progress. Still need 15 pieces of art, but we've received concept sketches or works-in-progress for all of those. Dropped a card from the set because of playtester feedback. Release likely delayed a week, but we'll see.