Pre-Range

This has very likely been brought up before, but reading the rules it would appear the following is true : If Player A Plays a Maneuver and no Pre-Range Card, Player B cannot play a Pre-Range Card under the current rules. Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase. In addition, what phase are you technically playing Immortal Grapple in? Until reading this combat section I never realized how badly worded the ability to play these Pre-Cards really is. I think it would makes a lot more sense to simply make these steps instead of having some arbitrary and badly worded NOTE:. It would also simplify things to be able to simply stamp Pre-Range or Pre-Strike on a card to tell people the step it is played in and new players could stop trying to grapple before range. Please keep in mind these are just opinions and I could easily be missing something simple about this, but I feel that anyone reading the rules would immediately tell me that there is no place to play some of these cards.

> TheLich wrote: > This has very likely been brought up before, but reading the rules it would appear the following is true : > > If Player A Plays a Maneuver and no Pre-Range Card, Player B cannot play a Pre-Range Card under the current rules. > No, and your next bit explains it quite clearly > TheLich wrote: > > Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase. > Impulse as determined above is as follows 1) Combat starts, impulse is with acting player (AP) to play pre range effects 2.1) AP plays a pre range effect; GOTO 2.1 OR 2.2) AP passes pre range impulse 3) Once 2.2 is TRUE, reacting Player (RP) impulses has impulse to: 3.1) Play any pre range cards GOTO 2.1 3.2) passes impulse to AP, GOTO 4.1 4.1) AP has impulse to play manuevers, GOTO 4.1 etc.etc > TheLich wrote: > In addition, what phase are you technically playing Immortal Grapple in? Until reading this combat section I never realized how badly worded the ability to play these Pre-Cards really is. > > I think it would makes a lot more sense to simply make these steps instead of having some arbitrary and badly worded NOTE:. > Immortal grapple is in prestrike, which is in between maneuvers and strikes, following same impulse sequencing as above > TheLich wrote: > It would also simplify things to be able to simply stamp Pre-Range or Pre-Strike on a card to tell people the step it is played in and new players could stop trying to grapple before range. > > Please keep in mind these are just opinions and I could easily be missing something simple about this, but I feel that anyone reading the rules would immediately tell me that there is no place to play some of these cards. > Agree, pre range and pre strike would make a lot of sense, syntactically

That wording is not actually very clear though, because Pre-Range is not a step. The wording listed there implies in very specific English that you have a time requirement to play Pre-Range cards before the acting player chooses to play a maneuver. This does not indicate that there is a step in between. It implies a contrary idea that Pre-Range cards can only be played if the Active Player has not yet played a maneuver. > Impulse as determined above is as follows > 1) Combat starts, impulse is with acting player (AP) to play pre range effects > 2.1) AP plays a pre range effect; GOTO 2.1 > OR > 2.2) AP passes pre range impulse > 3) Once 2.2 is TRUE, reacting Player (RP) impulses has impulse to: > 3.1) Play any pre range cards GOTO 2.1 > 3.2) passes impulse to AP, GOTO 4.1 > 4.1) AP has impulse to play manuevers, GOTO 4.1 > etc.etc > This text is not in the rules as written. Making this more rational would take 4 lines of text. Unless the rules are also not open to changes due to some crazy random secret society copyright. Clear indication of steps is what has aided every tcg ever printed in it's ease of drawing in new players with more clear and comprehensive rules. If the plan for a remarketeering of this game is going to occur, this is an area I would recommend for need of a change.

> TheLich wrote: > Clear indication of steps is what has aided every tcg ever printed in it's ease of drawing in new players with more clear and comprehensive rules. If the plan for a remarketeering of this game is going to occur, this is an area I would recommend for need of a change. > Welcome to Vtes! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> TheLich wrote: > That wording is not actually very clear though, because Pre-Range is not a step. The wording listed there implies in very specific English that you have a time requirement to play Pre-Range cards before the acting player chooses to play a maneuver. > The basic rule, which is more pervasive than just Pre-Range, comes as a result of the Sequencing rules, 1.6.1.5. Leaving the details aside, the basic rule is that I can't deny you the opportunity to play a card just by jumping ahead and playing a card that would come at a later step. So say I'm acting. I play Govern the Unaligned as an action card and then immediately say I'm playing seduction as the action is announced. You wanted to play Direct Intervention on Govern. What happens? Well, DI goes as the card is played, and I can't stop you doing that just by hurriedly playing Seduction. Same with Pre-Range - I can't just skip it by playing a maneuver. Of course, we don't always announce every single possible timing phase. So players should try to be helpful. If you know another player might use Enkil Cog or Madness Network to act, ask before going into your influence phase. If you're thinking of playing Sudden Reversal on my Villein, ask me to pause a moment before I try to play Ventrue HQ or go into my minion phase. If you want to use Heidelberg Castle between my actions, jump in and grab my attention so I don't finish one action and roll straight into the next.

> TheLich wrote: > This has very likely been brought up before, but reading the rules it would appear the following is true : > > If Player A Plays a Maneuver and no Pre-Range Card, Player B cannot play a Pre-Range Card under the current rules. > > Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase. > You're quoting only part of the rules: > Rulebook wrote: > 6.4.1. Combat Sequence > > Combat occurs in a series of one or more rounds. Each round of combat has three steps: > Determine Range. Use maneuvers to set the range to close or long. > Strike. Announce and resolve strikes. > Press. Use presses to continue into another round or to end combat. > As usual, the acting minion always gets first opportunity to use a card or effect before the opposing minion at every stage of combat. > Note the use of "stage of combat" (not "step") to indicate that the rule is valid each time someone wants to play a card at the same moment (= in the same "window") A card that is played "in combat" (=combat card) "before range is determined" (=before the determine range step) can only be played at that stage. If the acting player doesn't have a card to play at that time, the impulse goes to the opposing player as indicated in the part I highlighted in white. The number of windows created by the card text is too large to be put explicitely in the rulebook (even if "before range is determined" is pretty common). The rules describe the backbone of the combat sequence, cards can insert themselves at any point using their cardtext, and the order of play obeys the "acting first" rule. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> The number of windows created by the card text is too large to be put explicitely in the rulebook (even if "before range is determined" is pretty common). The rules describe the backbone of the combat sequence, cards can insert themselves at any point using their cardtext, and the order of play obeys the "acting first" rule. > Okay. But the quoted text still intimates that a player can skip the "before range is determined" stage by "deciding" to play a maneuver. This is sloppy text that could easily be interpreted as contradicting the sequencing rule.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > The number of windows created by the card text is too large to be put explicitely in the rulebook (even if "before range is determined" is pretty common). The rules describe the backbone of the combat sequence, cards can insert themselves at any point using their cardtext, and the order of play obeys the "acting first" rule. > > > Okay. But the quoted text still intimates that a player can skip the "before range is determined" stage by "deciding" to play a maneuver. > Uh, no. There's no such intimation. > "Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase." > I'm player B. I want to play a card "before range is determined". It "MUST" be done before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver. It doesn't mean that the window can be skipped by the acting player. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > The number of windows created by the card text is too large to be put explicitely in the rulebook (even if "before range is determined" is pretty common). The rules describe the backbone of the combat sequence, cards can insert themselves at any point using their cardtext, and the order of play obeys the "acting first" rule. > > > Okay. But the quoted text still intimates that a player can skip the "before range is determined" stage by "deciding" to play a maneuver. > Uh, no. There's no such intimation. > "Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase." > I'm player B. I want to play a card "before range is determined". It "MUST" be done before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver. It doesn't mean that the window can be skipped by the acting player. There's no such thing as a race between who plays his card first neither. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The original poster interpreted it one way. I interpreted it another way. You interpreted it the correct way. Do you see a problem here? I see a problem with sloppy text.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > The original poster interpreted it one way. I interpreted it another way. You interpreted it the correct way. Do you see a problem here? I see a problem with sloppy text. > You interpreted it one way, another person interpreted it a second way, the overwhelming majority of people who read it interpret it the correct way. Do you see a problem here? I see a problem with difficulty in parsing logical rules.

The overwhelming majority have been playing this game for a very long time and can parse the rules logically. The same cannot be said for the few who are new to the game and need clearer text in the rulebook.

The text is totally clear. you chose to take a piece of text out of context, making it hard to understand

Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect. (emphasis mine) A minion in combat can use a maneuver to get to long range, or he can maneuver to get back to close range if his opponent maneuvers to long. The two combatants can continue playing maneuvers (to keep offsetting the effects of their opponent's last maneuver) for as long as they wish. A minion cannot play two maneuvers in a row (which would effectively cancel each other). Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase. (emphasis mine) where is the hard to understand bit?

So do you want to do me a favor and show me the "stages" of combat list? Someone else said that would be too long. Really? 6 lines of text... here's what it could say. Stages of Combat Pre-Range Determine Range Pre-Strike Strike Declaration Strike Resolution Press Or even easier we can do this in the traditional formatting of implicit priority. I.e. A sequence of priority must be passed to all players following the declaration of any card being played or stage being entered. This allows for D.I. integration on a more intelligent level. Pre-Range-Strikes-Press-EOC to all be settled in a very logical way. While I understand that the existing Methuselah's of V:TES are the type that abhor clarity and change, it is time to recognize that rules like this make it hard to hand out a rule book and not have someone come back with the phrase, "I think you taught me how to play this wrong." Every other game on the market is constantly evolving it's rules to make them easier to comprehend. Not to numb the game or to devolve it, but simple because it makes disputes and arguments melt away. The current rules are an epoxied mess of FAQ or LSJ referencing. If you believe that a post where multiple people have responded with different ideas of how this one mechanic is supposed to be inferred, how can you excuse it with "well the experienced players know and that makes it ok" or "where is the hard to understand bit. If you take that Note to several people and ask them how it reads in just that context they will give you a bunch of different answers. It would take 20 minutes to rework this and it would enhance education of the game dramatically.

You actually missed some stages of combat. After Strike Resolution there should be "Declare Additional Strikes". After Press there should be "End of Round/End of Combat". The rules resource lists "End of Round" as being before "End of Combat", but Pascal has been changing card texts so that "End of Round" happens at the same time as "End of Combat". Lots of stuff happens at the end of the round or end of combat. I'm probably missing some. Different cards may create their very own stage of combat. Ammo cards, for instance: "before resolution of a gun's strike" has a very specific timing. Rotschreck? You are right that the rules as written are inadequate with regards to timing. They were left that way to 1: preserve the notion that the game wasn't particularly complicated, 2: avoid the cost of rewriting and reprinting the rules, and 3: to allow designers to not be pinned down by strict timing guidelines. At least, that's my take.

I agree with the likelihood that all three of what you said is true, now what I am saying is we simplify things even further by applying a simple template... > Or even easier we can do this in the traditional formatting of implicit priority. I.e. A sequence of priority must be passed to all players following the declaration of any card being played or stage being entered. This allows for D.I. integration on a more intelligent level. Pre-Range-Strikes-Press-EOC to all be settled in a very logical way. > Strike Resolution would then have a step of priority to each player that would occur, allowing them to play a card during that step and Rotschreck would also very easily fall into that clarification (by allowing priority to pass around once the card creating the aggravated damage is played or any time prior to actual strike resolution. I know this seems minor to most of the people here, but this post makes so many things so much simpler to explain to players when they ask the inevitable, "When exactly can I play this card?"

> Blooded wrote: > Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect. > (emphasis mine) > > A minion in combat can use a maneuver to get to long range, or he can maneuver to get back to close range if his opponent maneuvers to long. The two combatants can continue playing maneuvers (to keep offsetting the effects of their opponent's last maneuver) for as long as they wish. A minion cannot play two maneuvers in a row (which would effectively cancel each other). > > Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase. > (emphasis mine) > where is the hard to understand bit? > In the first two paragraphs, the phrase "decides whether or not" does not appear anywhere. Why does it appear in the text you bolded? This is inconsistent, sloppy, and, for some of us, causes confusion. Similar language needs to be used throughout all of the text you quoted. "Effects that are played "before range is determined" are played before this step" is much better way to state the offending sentence.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > In the first two paragraphs, the phrase "decides whether or not" does not appear anywhere. > Because "If two or more players want to play a card or effect," indicates that the player decided to play an effect. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Why does it appear in the text you bolded? > Because it's the same as "enters the maneuver step" in that context, but from a practical point of view, you play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > This is inconsistent, sloppy, and, for some of us, causes confusion. Similar language needs to be used throughout all of the text you quoted. "Effects that are played "before range is determined" are played before this step" is much better way to state the offending sentence. > Inconsistent: not really, it's written differently to cover the practical case of "before range" (that is more specific than the general sequencing rule) Sloppy: no. Maybe for the occasional few that will read it using weird logic. "Similar language needs to be used throughout all of the text you quoted.": I agree for card text, but not for rules. It's always good to have the same thing explained more than once (that is the case) in a different manner. Maybe a link to the "Sequencing" could emphasize that it's the direct application of the sequencing rule in that "pre-maneuver" context. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Because it's the same as "enters the maneuver step" in that context, but from a practical point of view, you play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver. > According to the rulebook, you don't "play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver." You play them before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver. The way you state it in your post is much, much clearer.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Because it's the same as "enters the maneuver step" in that context, but from a practical point of view, you play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver. > > > According to the rulebook, you don't "play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver." You play them before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver. The way you state it in your post is much, much clearer. > You know, there is an amazing thing you should try, it is called context. you are taking a rule out of context (said context being the holistic nature of the rules) and saying one rule doesn't work because it doesn't explain everything. Well, duh? Of course it doesn't, you need the other rules as context. Again, using an ad hominem of "old time vtes players are stuck on using the rules as they are and are not willing to change" is not going to make you any friends. Especially as most of us discussing this with you have actually been involved in changing a few of the rules for clarity's sake. The fact that YOU don't get it does NOT indicate a general misapprehension. Your problem is that you seem to not understand formal logic, which, tbh, is your problem, and not those who codified the rule book.

> Blooded wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > Because it's the same as "enters the maneuver step" in that context, but from a practical point of view, you play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver. > > > > > > > > According to the rulebook, you don't "play "before range" cards typically before the acting Meth plays a maneuver." You play them before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver. The way you state it in your post is much, much clearer. > > > You know, there is an amazing thing you should try, it is called context. > you are taking a rule out of context (said context being the holistic nature of the rules) and saying one rule doesn't work because it doesn't explain everything. Well, duh? Of course it doesn't, you need the other rules as context. Again, using an ad hominem of "old time vtes players are stuck on using the rules as they are and are not willing to change" is not going to make you any friends. Especially as most of us discussing this with you have actually been involved in changing a few of the rules for clarity's sake. The fact that YOU don't get it does NOT indicate a general misapprehension. Your problem is that you seem to not understand formal logic, which, tbh, is your problem, and not those who codified the rule book. > Easy. I assure you I do not intend to do anything that you are accusing above. I am just pointing out that the rulebook doesn't consider a potential audience of new players.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Easy. I assure you I do not intend to do anything that you are accusing above. I am just pointing out that the rulebook doesn't consider a potential audience of new players. > I wish I had a panel of "new" players, because there's no typical new player. Some may have played other TCG, some not. Some may be at ease with logic, some not. Some may be nit-picking, some not. How can one tell if the rules are unclear because of one person reading it another way? Maybe 99 other new players would find the rule perfectly clear. Or the reverse, but none of us can tell. We all have our prefered way of explaining things or being taught things. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > How can one tell if the rules are unclear because of one person reading it another way? Maybe 99 other new players would find the rule perfectly clear. Or the reverse, but none of us can tell. > I guess that means you haven't taught the game to a completely new player for some time? I got the impression from Lich's post that he was describing his actual difficulty with teaching new players. If we never teach new players, then updating the rulebook to make it a comprehensive teaching tool is a waste of time, it's true. The rulebook says there are three phases to combat, but all experienced players know that that is incorrect. Ideally the rules would tell all the stages of combat, and then every card would be played in one of those stages. Cards that are played in the same stage by different players would follow the ordering rules.

> AaronC wrote: > I guess that means you haven't taught the game to a completely new player for some time? I got the impression from Lich's post that he was describing his actual difficulty with teaching new players. > We've had quite a few new players in New Zealand recently (Auckland now has 8 fairly active players — which is insane). We've not involved the rule book at all in terms of teaching the game. The printed version is a joke in terms of font-size and complexity and is likely to scare off players as opposed to help them. The online version is better as you can at least search it. New players been using the new player guide predominately for the referencing the phases of a turn and more frequently the phases / steps of combat: Whilst it's not 100% the same as what's listed in 6.4.1. Combat Sequence, they are grouped appropriately and represent a simplified version of the sequencing flow. Determine Range = A Strike = B + C Press = D + E New players have gotten to grips with combat reasonably quickly when using this guide. Normally after 2 - 3 games they no longer need to reference the sheet. This is great when you have someone to introduce you to the game — less so if trying to teach yourself and your friends. In this area I think the rules could be improved, I see no harm in mentioning in the 6.4.3. Strike step that any pre-strike cards must be played before any strikes are declared. A similar thing can be added to 6.4.2. Determine Range, ie. any "Before range cards should be played before range is determined". I understand that it seems redundant due to card text to experienced players, however for new players these extra few words would really help clarifying things. Hopefully the PDF redesign of rules will help here. On a similar note the definition for Combat Ends really does need updating as it is plainly incorrect: "Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately." We all know that combat does not end immediately, so why mislead in the rules? Perhaps it should say something like: "Combat Ends. This effect ends combat. Skip damage resolution and proceed to the end of the round. Presses have no effect and can not be played." Or something along those lines... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

As soon as I sent my post, I realized I could have mentioned your player guide, which addressed this issue. Your guide is great, and I'm glad VEKN seems to be promoting it. So many cards are played during pre-range that it really feels like pre-range should just be an official step in the combat sequence, doesn't it? I really like your definition of Combat Ends. The CRR goes into this detail, but the official description is too murky. I hope you are on the rules committee!

> Ankha wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Easy. I assure you I do not intend to do anything that you are accusing above. I am just pointing out that the rulebook doesn't consider a potential audience of new players. > > > I wish I had a panel of "new" players, because there's no typical new player. > Some may have played other TCG, some not. Some may be at ease with logic, some not. Some may be nit-picking, some not. > > How can one tell if the rules are unclear because of one person reading it another way? Maybe 99 other new players would find the rule perfectly clear. Or the reverse, but none of us can tell. > > We all have our prefered way of explaining things or being taught things. > The rulebook should assume the reader knows nothing about the game. All new players have that in common.

I agree that this guide is great. The problem is that it isn't reflected by the rules, so when a new player goes back and reads the rules they ask, "Why is this guide different than the rules?" If the rules stated what the guide did, then I wouldn't even be having this conversation. > The rulebook should assume the reader knows nothing about the game. All new players have that in common. > And amen to this statement, I feel it quantifies everything I was trying to imply at the beginning of my post.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Easy. I assure you I do not intend to do anything that you are accusing above. I am just pointing out that the rulebook doesn't consider a potential audience of new players. > > > > > I wish I had a panel of "new" players, because there's no typical new player. > > Some may have played other TCG, some not. Some may be at ease with logic, some not. Some may be nit-picking, some not. > > > > How can one tell if the rules are unclear because of one person reading it another way? Maybe 99 other new players would find the rule perfectly clear. Or the reverse, but none of us can tell. > > > > We all have our prefered way of explaining things or being taught things. > > > The rulebook should assume the reader knows nothing about the game. All new players have that in common. > Sure, but that doesn't contradict what I say. Changing "before range is determined" to something else doesn't solve the issue. I've seen plenty of new players playing Taste of Vitae before using presses. Taste of Vitae says "at the end of the round". Maybe it would be clearer for them if it stated "after the press step". Do you see the issue? Players get confused if we use before step X (such as "before range is determined"). But players get confused too if we don't use "after step X". Furthermore, there's a contradiction between having more detailed rules and having more simple rules. The longer the rules, the harder it is for new players to remember everything. > AaronC wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > How can one tell if the rules are unclear because of one person reading it another way? Maybe 99 other new players would find the rule perfectly clear. Or the reverse, but none of us can tell. > > > I guess that means you haven't taught the game to a completely new player for some time? I got the impression from Lich's post that he was describing his actual difficulty with teaching new players. If we never teach new players, then updating the rulebook to make it a comprehensive teaching tool is a waste of time, it's true. > > The rulebook says there are three phases to combat, but all experienced players know that that is incorrect. Ideally the rules would tell all the stages of combat, and then every card would be played in one of those stages. Cards that are played in the same stage by different players would follow the ordering rules. > I do teach new players, but I don't use the rulebook to teach brand new players. I'd rather use my initiation decks and iterative explanations. But that's off topic. The rulebook describes the rules of a complex game. It's hard to handle for new players, but it's not its purpose. The issue here is: if the rulebook wrong (see original post)? > TheLich wrote: > I agree that this guide is great. The problem is that it isn't reflected by the rules, so when a new player goes back and reads the rules they ask, "Why is this guide different than the rules?" > The rules doesn't change between the rulebook and the guide (or it means the guide is wrong). It's different because it's written differently, but they describe the same thing (the guide is maybe less accurate for simplicity). > TheLich wrote: > If the rules stated what the guide did, then I wouldn't even be having this conversation. > It means you need the guide to teach new players, not the rulebook that serves as the official reference. > TheLich wrote: > The rulebook should assume the reader knows nothing about the game. All new players have that in common. > It does. But it's not the easiest way for new players to learn the game. There are some projects in progress that address new players. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Changing "before range is determined" to something else doesn't solve the issue. > I've seen plenty of new players playing Taste of Vitae before using presses. > Taste of Vitae says "at the end of the round". Maybe it would be clearer for them if it stated "after the press step". > Please note this is getting away a little form what I am arguing. I am generally fine with the combat steps because they are outlined clearly in the Detailed Play Summary. My issue is the language used in the rulebook that seems to contradict how the combat steps actually work. There is a clear difference between playing something and deciding whether or not to play something. If the rulebook said "Note: Effects that are played "at the end of the round" must be played after the acting minion decides whether or not to play a press," I would have an issue. Since this text does not exist, I don't have an issue. > Do you see the issue? Players get confused if we use before step X (such as "before range is determined"). But players get confused too if we don't use "after step X". > Yeah, but at least there is no contradictory text in the rulebook about deciding whether or not to play something for end of round effect. > Furthermore, there's a contradiction between having more detailed rules and having more simple rules. The longer the rules, the harder it is for new players to remember everything. > That's what the Detailed Play Sumary and rulings are for. Those should be written for people who know how to play the game.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Easy. I assure you I do not intend to do anything that you are accusing above. I am just pointing out that the rulebook doesn't consider a potential audience of new players. > From the grammar used, and language, above, I a now fairly certain that either a) you are definitely NOT a native nor fluent speaker of English. OR b) you have a sloppy approach to logic and strictness of grammatical usage Either of those would lead to you making errors in interpretation when reading the rules. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > If the rulebook said "Note: Effects that are played "at the end of the round" must be played after the acting minion decides whether or not to play a press," I would have an issue. Since this text does not exist, I don't have an issue. > The problem here is not with the rule, but with you most likely not understanding the meaning of the words involved. Decide, as used here, means to make a choice from a number of alternatives. "Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect." Again, I cannot stress the emphasised text enough, read the determine range rule with that foremost in your mind. "Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a manuever at the start of this phase." In other words, after the acting player has DECIDED to not play any pre range effects, he HAS to, according to 1.6.1.5, pass the other player the opportunity to play pre range cards, as per the rules. Which is clear, and explicit. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Yeah, but at least there is no contradictory text in the rulebook about deciding whether or not to play something for end of round effect. > There is no contradiction regarding it, you are simply choosing to ignore 1.6.1.5 Again, using the rulebook to teach anyone any game is usually a bad idea, especially for more complex games. Lastly, my apologis, it was TheLich that used an ad hominem attack, not you

> From the grammar used, and language, above, I a now fairly certain that either > a) you are definitely NOT a native nor fluent speaker of English. > OR > b) you have a sloppy approach to logic and strictness of grammatical usage > Either of those would lead to you making errors in interpretation when reading the rules. > Actually, I'm a native English speaker and I make a living in publishing as an editor. My employer would disagree with you on both points. What is happening is I have very little experience with the game, whereas you seem to have a lot of experience. I therefore am going to read the rulebook more literally than you would. For example, you have no problem connnecting the offending text to how sequencing works. I did not make that connection immediately. My reading is likely more in line with how a newer player will read the rulebook. > The problem here is not with the rule, but with you most likely not understanding the meaning of the words involved. > Correct. That is what I am arguing. The words should change. > In other words, after the acting player has DECIDED to not play any pre range effects, he HAS to, according to 1.6.1.5, pass the other player the opportunity to play pre range cards, as per the rules. Which is clear, and explicit. > This is all fine. I don't have an issue with the sequencing section in the rulebook. My issue is with the text in the combat section that may be interpreted by some as contradicting it. > There is no contradiction regarding it, you are simply choosing to ignore 1.6.1.5 Again, using the rulebook to teach anyone any game is usually a bad idea, especially for more complex games. > Fair enough. But, I assure you I am not ignoring the rule. I am just reading the offending text more literally than you are. In my reading of it, there is a contradiction in that the text intimates that the acting player can decide something to stop something else form happening, which contradicts the sequencing rules you cited. Because other people besides myeself has interpreted it this way, I am confident there is likely a problem with how the text is wordrd. We can change 4 words make it clearer. I am not arguing that the rules need changing or anything. > Lastly, my apologis, it was TheLich that used an ad hominem attack, not you > Cool. Thanks for having this discussion with me!

> May, yes, but is not, by most. > That is a problem. It should be understood by everybody. > And once again, you are deciding to take rule 6.4 in a vacuum, without the context provided by 1.6.1.5 > If you try and take any single rule in a vacuum, I guarantee it will seem contradictory. It is only when you take them as a whole, in sequence, that they make sense. > That's because newer players will do (and have done) exactly this when reading the rulebook. They will take that sentence in a vaccuum. So why leave it open to interpretation? Just clarify it.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > That's because newer players will do (and have done) exactly this when reading the rulebook. They will take that sentence in a vaccuum. So why leave it open to interpretation? Just clarify it. > Some newer players, not all, by any means. So because SOME people choose to use bicycles to drive over cliffs, I should ban all bicycles? Because some people are incapable of comprehending logic, logic should be discarded as a tool? If you are, frankly, silly enough to take a single rule in a rulebook out of context, you are playing the wrong game, and should become a politician instead. Or maybe an anti-vax campaigner

So basically you agree that the rule is badly written, but that it is good because it weeds out stupid people from playing VTES?

> Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase. > This does not say anything about it being a stage. In fact this doesn't even refer to determine range as a stage. Even though it is inferred in 6.4.1 to be one. It doesn't event reference it as if it is a separate staged process. According to 1.6.1.5 it is still part of the Determine Range step which is where I am allowed to decide whether or not I wish to maneuver. If I read these rules I will see the game tell me to start combat at 6.4.2, I am then given the option as the acting player to play a maneuver and a special note lets me know that if I play a maneuver I will not be able to play a before range is determined card before I play my first maneuver, using the sequencing rules (1.6.1.5) I play all my prerange and then a maneuver because I am in the Determine Range step and am instructed to play a maneuver if I wish to play one. Sequencing then requires me to allow other players to play cards including the opponent in combat who now cannot play Prerange cards because I have played a maneuver. In fact according to 6.4.3 can you tell me at what stage you play Immortal Grapple? There isn't even a note for that one. Do I know that's not the way it is meant to work. Yes. Do I think you can spend a bunch of time on a forum or in person explaining to a player how it is supposed to be meant? Yes. Do I want to do that for any purpose other than improving the long term plans for the game? No. What is so fundamentally wrong with just making these actual steps? Almost every other card game steps out their combats to make sure that people understand where cards go.

> TheLich wrote: > What is so fundamentally wrong with just making these actual steps? Almost every other card game steps out their combats to make sure that people understand where cards go. > There's nothing fundamentally wrong, except that you make the rules longer. It's a choice. You trade short implicit rules (implicit doesn't mean ambiguous) for long explicit rules (potentially incomplete) but they both describe the same thing*. Some people prefer short rules, other prefer long rules. That's why the detailed play summary can help. Or a beginner guide for new players. * Having Step A, Step B and Step C and cards that are played before Step A is the same as: Having Step Pre-A, Step A, Step Pre-B, Step B, Step Pre-C, Step C, Step Post-C and cards being played in step Pre-A. Except that in the latter case, we are probably missing some steps because some cards create their own unique window. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Okay, I think I can better understand the 1.6.1.5 rhetoric here enough to accept a little bit of what is actually happening here. Combat really goes like this... 1.6.1.5 trigger Combat Begins 1.6.1.5 trigger Manuever 1.6.1.5 trigger Declare Strikes 1.6.1.5 trigger Resolve Damage 1.6.1.5 trigger Additional Strike 1.6.1.5 trigger Declare Strike 1.6.1.5 trigger Resolve Damage 1.6.1.5 trigger Press 1.6.1.5 trigger End Combat or Repeat round I was making the incorrect assumption that 1.6.1.5 explained how to play the cards from each step, but Determine Range and Stealth / Intercept use the same rhetoric, implying that they are not part of 1.6.1.5 and are in fact the way the step is actually supposed to be executed. I apologize that I had such a misunderstanding of such an important rule and I appreciate the clarification. If this is correct that should be the last thing I needed to explain what I need to. For those of you that were patient and polite, I thank you.

> TheLich wrote: > Okay, I think I can better understand the 1.6.1.5 rhetoric here enough to accept a little bit of what is actually happening here. Combat really goes like this... > > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Combat Begins > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Manuever > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Declare Strikes > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Resolve Damage > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Additional Strike > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Declare Strike > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Resolve Damage > 1.6.1.5 trigger > Press > 1.6.1.5 trigger > End Combat or Repeat round > That's it. Calling it impulse and viewing it as moving in between players every time a card or effect is played for any timing phase of the game, not just combat, is the best way to understand it. > TheLich wrote: > I was making the incorrect assumption that 1.6.1.5 explained how to play the cards from each step, but Determine Range and Stealth / Intercept use the same rhetoric, implying that they are not part of 1.6.1.5 and are in fact the way the step is actually supposed to be executed. I apologize that I had such a misunderstanding of such an important rule and I appreciate the clarification. If this is correct that should be the last thing I needed to explain what I need to. For those of you that were patient and polite, I thank you. > Sorry, but you started with Ad Hominem attacks. Help will always be friendly, patient, and polite. Unless YOU start out by being antagonistic and rude. In which case it wont be as nice and polite, but will still try to help. Of course, you went and edited that bit out, but that is just a way to make yourself seem nicer and mroe polite than you actually are, a spectacularly fake way of acting.

I have only edited one post in the entire line of posts and it was to correct a typo. It was my third post in this chain. I do not understand where you think I was trying to attack anyone. I can maybe see how my rhetoric in my fifth post could be condsidered agressive (an unedited post), but looking at the posting history I don't feel I was attacking anyone even by proxy. If you can point it out to me and want to post it here or pm me so I can avoid these kinds of miscommunications that would be great. In addition, if I did so then I am sorry.

Thanks to everyone. As I said, the VEKN team and volunteers are working on new material to introduce the game to new players and to explain the rules differently. I hope this will clear up future issues. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TheLich wrote: > I have only edited one post in the entire line of posts and it was to correct a typo. It was my third post in this chain. I do not understand where you think I was trying to attack anyone. > > I can maybe see how my rhetoric in my fifth post could be condsidered agressive (an unedited post), but looking at the posting history I don't feel I was attacking anyone even by proxy. If you can point it out to me and want to post it here or pm me so I can avoid these kinds of miscommunications that would be great. In addition, if I did so then I am sorry. > OK i took that to strongly then, no worries, thanks mate. Glad its clear now. I do (and have since the start of the thread) agreed it could be clearer, but it is not unclear nor ambiguous in its current form

> Some newer players, not all, by any means. So because SOME people choose to use bicycles to drive over cliffs, I should ban all bicycles? Because some people are incapable of comprehending logic, logic should be discarded as a tool? > Haha! I like this response. Funny! > If you are, frankly, silly enough to take a single rule in a rulebook out of context, you are playing the wrong game, and should become a politician instead. Or maybe an anti-vax campaigner > Well, I like to be a little more fair to newer players than that. I don't think newer players are misinterpreting rules because they are silly and are unable to follow logic. They misinterpret rules because they haven't fully absorbed the extremely complex rules to this extremely complex game yet. And I would argue that in certain places, the rulebook could use clearer language to help them absorb the rules better.

> Ankha wrote: > Thanks to everyone. As I said, the VEKN team and volunteers are working on new material to introduce the game to new players and to explain the rules differently. I hope this will clear up future issues. > Thank you! As an aside, I believe it would be a good idea to condense and add this post from 2011 to the detailed play summary. www.vekn.net/forum/6-rules-questions/10649-impulse-the-as-played-window-and-you It really clears up how passing the impulse works. I know the current thread was specifically about combat, but there should be a better overall illustration of sequencing, and the linked thread is fantastic.