Rebalancing ranged weapons

(Please move if in wrong forum category) Not a card idea per se, but an idea that's piqued my interest. Following Maddog's good practice, moved to a separate thread. First off - usually I keep my cards filed when not in use, but I have had a Toreador Gun Deck on hand and ready to play probably for 16 years now. I have to admit, however, that guns with magazined ammo cards and Blurs are on the munchkin-side. In the original thread , Self-Bias wrote: > > I brought this up a while ago, but do melee weapons suck because celerity/guns work so well? Would melee weapons be better if guns only minimally benefit from additional strikes? > I therefore wondered whether each gun should get X counters, where X is their base cost, and once they run out, an action (either a 'gun strike' or normal/additional strike) has to be spent reloading. So a ranged weapon that costs 1 pool can be fired once, the second strike spent reloading (should you wish to fire again), firing again on the third strike. Obviously, this doesn't affect anything should you only wish/need to fire once per combat. A 2 pool ranged weapon can be fired twice, to continue using the third action must be a reload, then can be fired another two times. And so on. Obviously this makes Ivory Bow (1 pool) and Desert Eagle (1 pool) a lot less powerful. Assuming two rounds with an additional strike in each and firing each strike: Traditional rules: Strike: 1R agg x4 / Strike: 2R x4. Suggested rules: Strike: 1R agg, [Reload], Strike: 1R agg, [Reload] / Strike: 2R, [Reload], Strike: 2R, [Reload]. A .44 (which I believe is the most used gun weapon) can only fire twice before reloading (so if Blurred, that third gun action would be a reload strike). That may shift preferences to Submachine gun, which does 3R each strike and would be fireable three times before reloading. This, to me at least, captures the "The good thing about swords? They never need reloading"-ness of combat. The effect is obviously much more noticeable in multi-strike or multi-round combat. It also makes 3, 4, 5 -pool ranged weapons that can strike multiple times per round before reloading much more valuable, seeing as they don't have to reload so much. Naturally it also complicates combat rules, but then again... would many people notice in the world's most complicated card game? The Strike: Reload would also mean that the combatant is neither attacking nor dodging, so is vulnerable, although perhaps if adopted there could be 'Dodge, reload gun behind cover' generic combat card. To be clear, it doesn't matter when you reload (you might have two shots left on a three-shot weapon, but strategically it makes sense to reload). It is early in the morning and I'm now going to have to rush off, but I quickly put together an overview of how this would affect ranged equipment in VTES as image attachments. Apologies for any errors, and feel free to tell me how much this idea sucks .

I don't think adding a new strike effect is really the way to go. If we just limited guns to their full damage on the first strike, and then 1 damage each additional strike that round. That way we can just errata some cards instead of putting yet another cornercase rule into the book. In the lore, guns are traditionally less effective than meleé weapons against kindred and do bashing damage instead of lethal. It also strains credulity that, with Celerity, one can make an automatic weapon fire more bullets. I also liked the idea of allowing meleé weapons to be dumped out during combat instead of taking the action to equip with them.

Tough one, any rebalancing to ranged equipment (guns) will simply add more complexity, not sure that's the way to go. Perhaps a simple rule/errata that you can only use a gun once each round (gun mechanism restrictions). Always found it odd some melee weapons can only be used once each round, whereas gun mechanisms are actually more restrictive. And a baseball bat (at least in the movies) does way more damage to an undead than a single bullet, you usually need to pump the undead full of lead to do some damage. -1 Strength

The problem with limiting gun use to once a round etc. is that some do that already, while other guns (e.g. Kpist /45 ) and ammos ( Caseless Rounds ) give you an additional strike, only usable to strike with the gun. Therefore, the errata would have to be that you 'cannot fire guns more than once using Celerity-based additional actions', for example. I assume that getting an additional strike via other means (e.g. Arms of Abyss ) would be fine as you're only firing once.

Additional strikes aren't the problem, it's the built-in maneuver. The maneuver counters hit-back and avoids most steal or destroy equipment effects. See: countless intercept decks that use .44 Magnum and Sniper Rifle without celerity.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Additional strikes aren't the problem, it's the built-in maneuver. The maneuver counters hit-back and avoids most steal or destroy equipment effects. See: countless intercept decks that use .44 Magnum and Sniper Rifle without celerity. > I also think restricting celerity is not the answer. I agree the (free) maneuver some range weapons can provide an issue, giving the built-in protection from nasty close range strikes (example: agg poke, entombment, potence hands, coma ect ect) that do not have a maneuver or need a way to maneuver every combat with minion with gun. Range weapons also have the advantage of doing the same amount of damage at close range as they do at long range (all be it more risk at close). If there was a ruling that damage from ranged weapons was halved at close range, and/or take away the built in maneuver, this maybe could bring more balance, and encourage players to but maneuvers in their deck, even generic maneuvers such as High Ground, backstep, Fake out ect. Or range weapons with a built in maneuver only do half the amount of damage at close and damage can never go below 1 example: Saturday-Night Special). It is a tricky thing to fix without strings being attached. I agree with Chrisn statement regarding vtes- "the world's most complicated card game." However I hope "the powers that-be" can make this game far less complicated so it is not overwhelming for new or old school returning players. with out dumb-ing it down too much.

> Dorrinal wrote: > I agree the (free) maneuver some range weapons provide is an issue, ... > It really isn't. *disclaimer* I don't play gun decks */disclaimer* If I play a combat deck, I pack maneuvers to go to close range and I'm fine sometimes losing to celerity gun decks. Ranged combat should be a counter to close combat. What I feel is a teensy bit overpowered are the additional strikes + target vitals + magazine/aim cards and the occasional extra Carrion Crows finished off with a taste. If I don't play a combat deck, I pack S:CE and ranged combat is not that much of a problem, I rarely see Sanguine Entrapment or Thoughts Betrayed played. If I don't have access with S:CE in a deck, I play dodges and then only additional strikes hurt me bad, not the maneuvers. I'm not really interested in being able to hand strike for 1. In fact, the only gun decks that are really annoying are the ones that pack 10+ Second Traditions + Eyes of Argus + Additional Strikes. Anything else can be suffered with minor discomfort really. Even with all that said, I'm not convinced guns need rebalancing. Gun decks are not dominant, there are decks that easily beat gun decks and more. I'm growing rather weary about balancing threads that super focus on a single aspect. Yeah, guns do ranged combat really well, except in games where combat is avoided with S:CE, Change of Target, Elder Impersonation/Seduction etc etc. which is nearly most of the time... There are many rocks to this scissor strategy. Weakening one aspect of VTES strengthens other aspects. Meaning you really do get actual balance issues. Celerity guns annoy the crap out of me when I am the target, but sometimes they are required at the table to beat another deck that have even less rocks to their scissors. A simple weenie stealth/bleed deck is can be way more powerful for example... In a 5 player game, I can turn someone else's gun deck to my advantage (often overlooked factor in rebalancing threads). Now with melee weapons, even those don't have a balance issue, they simply do not get played much (sticks excluded) and that fact doesn't break the game at all. The question here is "Do the designers want players to actually play with melee weapons?" If the answer is no, then proceed, do not make new melee weapons. If the answer is yes; then either fix melee weapons or make new melee weapons that are actually worth playing. -1 Strength

I was thinking about what did the original designers wanted to achieve when designing the .44 Magnum for instance. I suppose that they wanted to translate the fact that with a gun, you can keep the opponent at bay (long range). The trouble is that it doesn't work well with the fact that range is close by default. Maybe something like this would have been more balanced compared to melee weapons: ".44 Magnum Strike: 2R. Once each combat, you can cancel a maneuver to close range used by the opposing minion." Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Maybe something like this would have been more balanced compared to melee weapons: > > ".44 Magnum > Strike: 2R. Once each combat, you can cancel a maneuver to close range used by the opposing minion." > I like it.

> Ankha wrote: > ".44 Magnum > Strike: 2R. Once each combat, you can cancel a maneuver to close range used by the opposing minion." > Seconded. Next local VTES night is next week - will see if I can arrange a gun deck battle match and see how this works out (assuming this is meant to apply to all ranged weapons with an in-built manoeuvre). Pro: Would be a straightforward clarification of existing cards; doesn't significantly change current play. Con: Lots of cards already printed with text that doesn't say that.

> Ankha wrote: > I was thinking about what did the original designers wanted to achieve when designing the .44 Magnum for instance. > > I suppose that they wanted to translate the fact that with a gun, you can keep the opponent at bay (long range). > The trouble is that it doesn't work well with the fact that range is close by default. > I think they wanted to translate a default starting range of long for some kinds of gun combat. I don't agree that the problem is the maneuver. The maneuver correctly translates the intended idea of a vampire wielding a weapon with a long range and using the opportunity to do so. (Really should say "only useable to go to long range") Guns deal too much damage to the undead compared to the source material, and the guns' firing mechanism shouldn't be responsive enough to allow additional strikes. Meanwhile, melee weapons, which are superior in the source material for damaging vampires, are inferior in many ways in the game. Ranged weapons should inherently only be useable once per round, except to use additional strikes granted by the weapon itself. Only two guns already have this limitation - Combat Shotgun and Mark V - and they're wallpaper anyway. Equip multiple guns if you want to Blur. Press if you want to use your gun more. Additionally, Bastard Sword, Meat Cleaver, Bang Nakh, Blade of Enoch, and Brass Knuckles should have "optional maneuver, only useable to go to close".

Aaron, back to the OP which tried to answer this question: > > I brought this up a while ago, but do melee weapons suck because celerity/guns work so well? Would melee weapons be better if guns only minimally benefit from additional strikes? > I've reduced this question to: Why is a gun better than a melee weapon? Guns don't do any more damage than melee weapons. They aren't any more... blurrable? Their damage is ranged and come with a maneuver, and it's those differences that make them better than melee weapons.

Just saying it again. Guns should come with a maneuver (no change). Melee Weapons should come with a built in Concealed Weapon effect. Add some new cards to make melee weapons more deadly and you're done. It's just fine to pack maneuver cards in your deck to try and out maneuver guns, there are plenty double utility maneuver cards. > chrisn101 wrote: > Next local VTES night is next week - will see if I can arrange a gun deck battle match and see how this works out (assuming this is meant to apply to all ranged weapons with an in-built manoeuvre). > Can you also do a round with melee weapons with a concealed weapon effect? Bastard Sword +1 strength each strike, a vampire can equip this weapon at the start of combat (pay cost as normal). -1 Strength

> Melee Weapons should come with a built in Concealed Weapon effect. > > Bastard Sword > +1 strength each strike, a vampire can equip this weapon at the start of combat (pay cost as normal). > This already exists. Weighted Walking Stick. Only usable before range is determined on the first round. Put this card on this minion and put 5 counters on this card. While in play, this card represents a melee weapon (equipment) that does strength+1 damage each strike. For each point of damage inflicted by this strike (even if prevented), remove a counter from this card. Burn this card when it has no counters. A minion can have only one Weighted Walking Stick.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > This already exists. > I think the point that he's trying to make is that Weighted Walking Stick should become a model for how all melee weapons work. So looking at Bastard Sword versus WWS, the difference would be that the former costs 1 pool but is permanent, whereas the WWS is free but temporary. I'm not honestly sure how much I agree with the idea, but it is certainly an interesting way to power up melee weapons without trying to write a bunch of awkward cards that cancel grapples and get around Combat Ends. You equip for free, but there are still a bunch of strategies that trump yours and you are more vulnerable to hit back. Very interesting idea to think about. If anybody play tests this idea, please write up what happens! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> I think the point that he's trying to make is that Weighted Walking Stick should become a model for how all melee weapons work. So looking at Bastard Sword versus WWS, the difference would be that the former costs 1 pool but is permanent, whereas the WWS is free but temporary. > How about just use Weighted Walking Stick instead of changing the game to shoehorn in a bunch of over-costed Weighted Walking Sticks? > I'm not honestly sure how much I agree with the idea, but it is certainly an interesting way to power up melee weapons without trying to write a bunch of awkward cards that cancel grapples and get around Combat Ends. > Those cards already exist. They've been written long ago and are part of the game whether you like it or not. > You equip for free... > You're not equipping for free. That's precisely what makes WWS still the superior option.

I not sure if you disagree with the idea posted (if so, no problem!), or if you are asking for clarification. If the former, then no need to read on. Glad you are enjoying the game as it is. But if you are asking for clarification on the idea that was suggested and is being discussed, then the essential concept is that guns (usually) save you cards by having a maneuver built into them and that melee weapons (usually) save you cards or actions because they can be equipped for free during the pre-range step of combat. Of course, the creator of this idea should step in and correct me if I've stated the idea incorrectly. Glad people are talking about it, I'll be very curious to see what the VEKN designers have in mind (or if they reasonably decide to side step melee weapons for now)! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Melee Weapons should come with a built in Concealed Weapon effect. > > > > Bastard Sword > > +1 strength each strike, a vampire can equip this weapon at the start of combat (pay cost as normal). > > > This already exists. > > Weighted Walking Stick. > > Only usable before range is determined on the first round. Put this card on this minion and put 5 counters on this card. While in play, this card represents a melee weapon (equipment) that does strength+1 damage each strike. For each point of damage inflicted by this strike (even if prevented), remove a counter from this card. Burn this card when it has no counters. A minion can have only one Weighted Walking Stick. > WWS served at the basis of this idea, so I'm pretty well informed on the existence of WWS. Main difference is, a bastard sword is more permanent and doesn't poof after 1 blur, meaning you can put in less bastard swords in your deck than WWS (card management is often an overlooked factor). By no means is this THE answer to melee weapon problems, I also stated to add some nifty melee cards to empower the fact that melee weapons are more deadly in source material than guns. Adding a passive concealed weapon effect is just step 1. My aim is NOT to make melee weapons equal to guns, but different and powerful in other circumstances. Guns SHOULD have a maneuver edge and melee weapons should have something different. If melee weapons have a concealed effect, then potence (amongst others) cards that enhance melee strikes become more interesting, something that WWS does not do (since it will be gone after the first strike). You could be done with 4-5 Bang Nakh Claws instead of 10+ WWS. If you address maneuvers on guns and melee weapons, all you do is replace one for the other. We'll see celerity/melee weapon decks and complaints on how guns suck. Concerning fisty melee weapons like Brass Knuckles and Bang Nakh Claws, these should be both hand and melee strikes as well. And sword like weapons could synergise with cards that avoid grapple (sword mastery/martial arts) and minor prevent (blocking/riposte). All I am proposing is more for backwards balancing errata or new standard weapons for when VTES sees print again. I personally see no other way to "fix" melee vs. guns. Having the debate is good though, but please realise that many small increment ideas are equally good if not better than a single silver bullet fix -1 Strength

Actually melee weapons have the edge over guns in damage. They do more damage, like in background material. If you compare weapons with same pool costs and no additional effects you will see that guns have built in maneuver but melee weapons do more damage, f.e. magnum does 2R damage, bang nakh does strenght +2 which is at least 3 and more if vampire has more strenght than 1. For me it's balanced: maneuver vs. extra damage. There is no need to fix it.

> chrisn101 wrote: > In the original thread , Self-Bias wrote: > > > > I brought this up a while ago, but do melee weapons suck because celerity/guns work so well? Would melee weapons be better if guns only minimally benefit from additional strikes? > > My basic answer is "not so much", to pretty much all of the suggestions that involve making guns worse - whether that's making guns limited in duration, making them do less damage in some circumstances (e.g. close range), making them only usable once per round / not usable with Celerity additional strikes etc. The basic situation is that there are various pretty decent combat strategies in V:TES at the moment, whether for aggressive combat as the main string of your deck, short-chain combat, different favours of bruise-bleed / combat as a toolbox element, a handful combat cards as a surprise in your deck (e.g. the !Malk deck including 2 copies of Coma) etc. Picking some at random, these might include: - pot/cel Immortal Grapple - ...and various other forms of Immortal Grapple (e.g. weenie POT, Blood Brothers) - Stick men - weenie Fortitude or weenie Animalism - Tzimisce using some Vicissitude (e.g. Tzimisce walls, Tzimisce bruise bleed) - flung junk (I think Crimethinc: Bolachas Maria from October last year is hilariously awesome) - various multi-rush decks, such as Tariq Rowan Ring - Celerity guns and/or Auspex wall guns - various wall decks that don't use guns, such as Howler walls with a chunk of Animalism Possibly think of some interesting and fun decks, but which probably aren't super-competitive too: - some amusing/precarious Ravnos Horrid Reality decks (which can use big guns, but might instead use Flamethrowers etc.) - a variety of mild bruise strategies, such as including a small clutch of WWS and/or Targets to upset people who block you expecting to take 1 hand damage who are now taking three - some Protean-based decks (although aggro-poke is tricky to carry off well). Now, some guns are certainly very good now. But it's not at all clear that if you make guns worse that melee weapons will suddenly shoot up in popularity - because there are are a whole bunch of non-melee weapon strategies that will carry on working pretty decently. If Aus/Cel Magnums stops being a strong deck, it seems far more likely that the people playing it will switch to a different deck altogether than that they'll switch to an Aus/Cel Baseball Bat deck - because generic melee weapons will still suck compared to Immortal Grapple, to Stickmen, to weenie Fortitude, to weenie Animalism etc., and all the other strategies that are better than them right now. On the specific point of limiting guns to once per round (particularly with Celerity), I'd also point to superior Psyche! Against a lot of decks (without incidental presses), guns won't mind much if their 'additional strike' comes from an actual additional strike or from reaching the press step, playing Psyche!, getting their maneuver back, and going again. Additionally, on a point of "not making the game less fun for people" - if people currently enjoy their gun decks and those guns decks aren't themselves problematic in some way, torpedo-ing the gun decks is a good way to piss people off. There's almost certainly no problem with significant changes to cards/strategies if those cards and strategies are broken (e.g. some unstoppable bleed deck) or horrifically problematic for the game, but gun decks at their current strength do well without in general dominating the entire combat scene. It's just that they're generally better than any non-WWS melee weapon strategy - but probably pretty competitive compared to a bunch of other viable combat strategies. If you want melee weapons to see more play, the better option is to make melee weapons better somehow. Maybe it's a generic rule tied to the "melee weapon" keyword. Maybe it's new cards. Guns get a maneuver, which - amongst other things - limits the vampire's ability to take damage somewhat. Perhaps, for example, melee weapons could do something similar but in a different way: Moulinet Combat Requires a melee weapon that costs 1 or more pool(*) Strike: make a melee weapon strike with +some damage, and prevent up to 2 damage from your opponent's strike this strike resolution phase. (*) Find a better wording for "...which is not a Weighted Walking Stick..." if you prefer. Perhaps there could be an interesting option for melee weapons for decks that lack Celerity for the additional strike: Flurry Combat This vampire gains an additional strike, only usable to strike with a melee weapon this vampire possesses. I'm not suggesting that either card would make melee weapons into a NAC-winning sensation overnight - but it strikes me as a better way to go than making guns worse.

> alek wrote: > Actually melee weapons have the edge over guns in damage. They do more damage, like in background material. If you compare weapons with same pool costs and no additional effects you will see that guns have built in maneuver but melee weapons do more damage, f.e. magnum does 2R damage, bang nakh does strenght +2 which is at least 3 and more if vampire has more strenght than 1. For me it's balanced: maneuver vs. extra damage. There is no need to fix it. > Guns do 1 less damage, but the maneuver by default saves you from taking the opposing minion's hand strike damage. For instance, a sample combat between A (melee weapon for +2 damage) and B results in A taking 1 damage, and B taking 3 damage. A sample combat between C (range weapon for 2r damage) and B results in C taking 0 damage, and B taking 2 damage. So the damage difference is the same, except that if B is striking for more than 1, the gun becomes strictly better. Put another way: if A had 0 blood and B 1 blood, they would both go to torpor, whereas C with 0 blood would stay ready. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> brettscho wrote: > I not sure if you disagree with the idea posted (if so, no problem!), or if you are asking for clarification. If the former, then no need to read on. Glad you are enjoying the game as it is. But if you are asking for clarification on the idea that was suggested and is being discussed, then the essential concept is that guns (usually) save you cards by having a maneuver built into them and that melee weapons (usually) save you cards or actions because they can be equipped for free during the pre-range step of combat. Of course, the creator of this idea should step in and correct me if I've stated the idea incorrectly. > > Glad people are talking about it, I'll be very curious to see what the VEKN designers have in mind (or if they reasonably decide to side step melee weapons for now)! > I get what is being discussed, it's just an inane discussion in my opinion. Would you rather pay zero blood/pool to get trumped by S:CE and Immortal Grapple, or pay >= 1 pool/blood to get trumped by S:CE and Immortal Grapple? The concealed weapon effect is not going to accomplish anything because most melee weapons are just too costly. Now, if the ideas was to give Bastard Sword a concealed weapon effect and also make it cost zero blood/pool, we'd be on to something...

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Now, if the ideas was to give Bastard Sword a concealed weapon effect and also make it cost zero blood/pool, we'd be on to something... > (Argh, misclicked. Retyping.) Weighted Walking Stick already does basically that and is already very good. It most obviously turns up in Stickmen decks, but is found in a variety of other places too. It's already pretty good. This would just be a direct upgrade for such decks - instead of getting a temporary card for free, they get a permanent card for free. That doesn't, to me, seem to be doing much to make the game more interesting, diverse etc., nor does Stickmen (in particular) seem in need of an upgrade like this. For effects like this, I'd much rather see something go via library-based tech that can be tuned towards particular clans, sects, disciplines, keywords. e.g. a !Salubri/Valeren card that helps out, a card shared by the Nos and !Nos make use of their underworld information and contacts etc.