The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of [+1 Stealth Action] on a card it was just [1 Stealth Action] and the + was removed?
another thing i see that seems to be fairly common is that during combat, managing the flow is pretty tough, particularly Maneuvers and when certain strikes resolve.
what sort of things have you seen your new players stumble over?
> self wrote:
> The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of [+1 Stealth Action] on a card it was just [1 Stealth Action] and the + was removed?
>
> another thing i see that seems to be fairly common is that during combat, managing the flow is pretty tough, particularly Maneuvers and when certain strikes resolve.
>
> what sort of things have you seen your new players stumble over?
>
This is indeed a mistake I have observed too during initiations.
Originally (Jyhad), actions were written: "+1 stealth. Blah blah" and the rulebook stated "Stealth and intercept are opposed characteristics of minions, represented by a number. Stealth is a measure of a minion's ability to avoid detection and/or pursuit and intercept is a measure of the minion's ability to detect and/or pursue. Normally minions have a 0 stealth number and a 0 intercept number."
(emphasis mine)
So I guess that the designers had in mind that the minion, not the action, carried a stealth value and that's why some actions were giving "+1 stealth".
Current rulebook says:
" Stealth and Intercept. Conceptually, stealth represents the measures that the acting minion is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the attention of those who would oppose him. Intercept represents the blocking minion's efforts to discover the plans of the acting minion and to stalk or chase him in order to detain him (by fighting with him) before he can accomplish his goal.
To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. The action is blocked if the blocker's intercept is equal to or greater than the acting minion's stealth. By default, minions have 0 stealth and 0 intercept. So a block attempt will normally succeed unless the action has inherent stealth (such as hunting) or a card or effect is used to increase the acting minion's stealth.
Some actions have an inherent stealth, as noted in the action list (sec. 6.1) and on some action cards. The minion taking such an action starts with greater stealth than normal. Additionally, some cards and other effects can be used to increase a minion's stealth or intercept, as noted on card text."
I think there's a clever way to eliminate all ambiguity, but I haven't found a satisfying one yet.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Common mistakes:
1. Trying to tell too much at once. Try to have a strict plan, that introduces stuff in some logical order. I´ll post one that is kind of like that below, don´t remember where I stole it.
2. Having the wrong demodecks. There are two schools concerning this - either having 1) specially designed "demo decks" that are simple, or having 2) normal, competitive decks. I propose a mix: Use your least complicated yet competitive decks. For example various stealth-bleeders, Ventrue lawfirm, stealth-voters, grinders. Ideally these are decks with a straight focus and not a lot of complicated exceptions to general rules. Avoid rush-combat, walls, combo-decks, etc. But don´t get me wrong, those are important to introduce within shortly to show the diversity of the game, but try to wait at least a couple of games or so, if possible.
3. Being too many "tutors" at once. If you are more than one experienced player at the table, try to not talk in eachothers mouths. The risk is there are mixed messages and general confusion. Let one person be the primary teacher, at least in the beginning.
4. Not starting to play soon enough. Don´t lecture for more than say 10 minutes - begin playing instead, and take breaks when things come up.
Here´s the list I use:
1. Setup
- Key concepts: Library, crypt, pool (influence, pay), blood, zones
- Explain the significance of the 30 pool that the methuselah starts with
- Show difference in crypt cards and library cards
2. How to Win
3. How to play a master card (introducing concept of pool cost)
4. How to influence vampires
- Bring a vampire into play
- Describe parts of a vampire
- Briefly explain normal and superior abilities
5. Explain the turn sequence
6. How to take, and resolve, an action (first a simple bleed)
- Demonstrate a bleed
- Explain the edge
- Explain directed actions / prey / predator
7. Other actions; equip, rush, retainers, etc.)
- Perform a hunting action
- Explain action cards
- Equip weapons (1 vampire equips a ranged weapon that gives a maneuver, and other equips short range weapon)
- Explain why weapons are paid for from the methuselah’s pool
8. How to block
- Demonstrate blocking a bleed
9. How to resolve a simple combat (no maneuvers, strikes for hand damage)
- Demonstrate 1 round basic hand to hand combat
10. Stealth/intercept concept
- Explain stealth/intercept
- Demonstrate using stealth to prevent a bleed from being blocked
11. Action modifiers and reaction concept(s).
- Explain action modifier cards and why they are paid for from the vampire’s blood capacity
12. The absolute VTES timing rules (ie. there is no 'interrupting' another person's card play)
After this is clear (possibly during play):
Advanced combat
- Demonstrate combat at range
- Explain maneuvers/range/presses
- Explain torpor / getting out / diablerie
- Explain master cards / out-of-turn master cards
- Explain using master abilities cards and gaining blood capacity
- Employ a retainer
- Recruit an ally
- Explain the difference in retainers and allies
- Explain unique / contested cards
- Explain titles
- Demonstrate a vote
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
> Common mistakes:
> 1. Trying to tell too much at once. Try to have a strict plan, that introduces stuff in some logical order. I´ll post one that is kind of like that below, don´t remember where I stole it.
> 2. Having the wrong demodecks. There are two schools concerning this - either having 1) specially designed "demo decks" that are simple, or having 2) normal, competitive decks. I propose a mix: Use your least complicated yet competitive decks. For example various stealth-bleeders, Ventrue lawfirm, stealth-voters, grinders. Ideally these are decks with a straight focus and not a lot of complicated exceptions to general rules. Avoid rush-combat, walls, combo-decks, etc. But don´t get me wrong, those are important to introduce within shortly to show the diversity of the game, but try to wait at least a couple of games or so, if possible.
> 3. Being too many "tutors" at once. If you are more than one experienced player at the table, try to not talk in eachothers mouths. The risk is there are mixed messages and general confusion. Let one person be the primary teacher, at least in the beginning.
> 4. Not starting to play soon enough. Don´t lecture for more than say 10 minutes - begin playing instead, and take breaks when things come up.
>
> Here´s the list I use:
> 1. Setup
> - Key concepts: Library, crypt, pool (influence, pay), blood, zones
> - Explain the significance of the 30 pool that the methuselah starts with
> - Show difference in crypt cards and library cards
> 2. How to Win
> 3. How to play a master card (introducing concept of pool cost)
> 4. How to influence vampires
> - Bring a vampire into play
> - Describe parts of a vampire
> - Briefly explain normal and superior abilities
> 5. Explain the turn sequence
> 6. How to take, and resolve, an action (first a simple bleed)
> - Demonstrate a bleed
> - Explain the edge
> - Explain directed actions / prey / predator
> 7. Other actions; equip, rush, retainers, etc.)
> - Perform a hunting action
> - Explain action cards
> - Equip weapons (1 vampire equips a ranged weapon that gives a maneuver, and other equips short range weapon)
> - Explain why weapons are paid for from the methuselah’s pool
> 8. How to block
> - Demonstrate blocking a bleed
> 9. How to resolve a simple combat (no maneuvers, strikes for hand damage)
> - Demonstrate 1 round basic hand to hand combat
> 10. Stealth/intercept concept
> - Explain stealth/intercept
> - Demonstrate using stealth to prevent a bleed from being blocked
> 11. Action modifiers and reaction concept(s).
> - Explain action modifier cards and why they are paid for from the vampire’s blood capacity
> 12. The absolute VTES timing rules (ie. there is no 'interrupting' another person's card play)
>
> After this is clear (possibly during play):
> Advanced combat
> - Demonstrate combat at range
> - Explain maneuvers/range/presses
> - Explain torpor / getting out / diablerie
> - Explain master cards / out-of-turn master cards
> - Explain using master abilities cards and gaining blood capacity
> - Employ a retainer
> - Recruit an ally
> - Explain the difference in retainers and allies
> - Explain unique / contested cards
> - Explain titles
> - Demonstrate a vote
>
This makes an awesome checklist to find out if a new player has learned everything necessary to stand on his own feet. Thanks, Henrik!
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
1) Information overload
2) The 'extra stealth' and 'no repeat play' rules
3) Play-Replace
4) The Path of 9000 Steps (aka Combat)
Remedies:
1) Dirt simple decks. Hand them some seriously one-dimensional Malk Cheese Bleed with about 8 different library cards and every library card can be played by basically every last Vampire. Combat is all super simple and usually strikes or weapons (say .44s or Deer Rifles)
2) Start mostly with stealthy decks, then try more wall-ish decks.
3) Try toolboxes
4) **DON'T PLAY TRUMPY COMBAT** If it's going to torpor vampires every second time you interact with it... it will just make the experience crap.
5) Have an older player 'sit out' and guide them through when you can.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
I have 4 DEMO decks that deal with mechanics. One for vote, one for bleed , one for combat and one for stealth. I normally start people with the stealth deck and then let them try another.
What i have noticed the problem they have is the timing of when to play cards like stealth and reaction etc.
I also agree with Ashur in don't take alot of time trying to explain the cards. I basically tell people to match symbols up Minion cards with Vampires.
James D Burns
Prince of Dupont(wilkes Barre)PA
> self wrote:
> The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of [+1 Stealth Action] on a card it was just [1 Stealth Action] and the + was removed?
>
I stumbled upon this old thread and thought I'd reply. So, the new player sees the "+1 stealth" at the top of the text box and thinks "I need stealth! I'm going to play this," and thus confuses the action card for an action modifier. I believe this happens because some common action modifiers, such as Lost in Crowds, contain the same "+1 stealth" text.
This problem seems to have been addressed (possibly inadvertently) in later sets specifically on political actions, where "+1 stealth" was changed to "called by [fill in the blank] at +1 stealth." I'm willing to bet that a new player would not try to play a political action for stealth. The added instruction coupled with a consistent template on political actions that is different than how text is presented action modifiers like Lost in Crowds is one way to help new players discern the different card types and how they work.
I've thought a lot about it, and couldn't find a clever, satisfying way to "fix" this. you can't put the stealth in a dedicated place on the card because some actions have a different stealth depending on the discipline or level used, or some cards are actions and another type (eg. Draba) the card is an action (action symbol). Actions are taken by default at 0 stealth. All bonuses (+bleed, +strength, +votes) are expressed as "+" modifiers. So you end up needing to write "+1 stealth" and "action". That's where I can't find an elegant, non-confusing way to express that (no, "This is a +1 stealth action" is neither elegant nor non-confusing)
I'm opened to suggestions.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
maybe make the action modifier symbol different? there is a fair similarity between action modifier and action icons, which could lead to confusion if someone needs to have the idea reinforced. here's a few offhanded ideas using the same elements:
another idea is to make the card templates for action modifiers and actions less similar, and remove the green bar so that card type could be more easily recognized. currently, the texture is the same on Actions as they are with Action Modifiers, but with a pallate swap.
> Ankha wrote:
> I've thought a lot about it, and couldn't find a clever, satisfying way to "fix" this. you can't put the stealth in a dedicated place on the card because some actions have a different stealth depending on the discipline or level used, or some cards are actions and another type (eg. Draba) the card is an action (action symbol). Actions are taken by default at 0 stealth. All bonuses (+bleed, +strength, +votes) are expressed as "+" modifiers. So you end up needing to write "+1 stealth" and "action". That's where I can't find an elegant, non-confusing way to express that (no, "This is a +1 stealth action" is neither elegant nor non-confusing)
> I'm opened to suggestions.
>
I think what you do is get rid of the stealth modifiers in the introductory part of the card and move it in parentheses after the explanation of the action.
Example:
Abbott (current text):
+1 stealth action. Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Put this card on the acting Sabbat vampire and untap him or her...
Abbott (revised text):
Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Put this card on the acting Sabbat vampire and untap him or her (+1 stealth)...
Placement is key. With Abbot, the parenthetical can go right after the first sentence because it makes sense. For Draba, it goes after the first sentence in the inferior clause. For Govern the Unaligned, it goes after the superior clause. And for peculiar cards like Petra Resonance, it needs to go after the entire paragraph explaining what happens:
Not usable if any Methuselah's crypt is empty.
Each Methuselah reveals the top card of his or her crypt. If there is a tie for highest or lowest cost among the revealed cards, every Methuselah burns 1 pool. Otherwise, the Methuselah revealing the highest cost steals 3 pool from the Methuselah revealing the lowest cost. All Methuselahs shuffle their crypts afterward. (+1 stealth).
Note that using parentheticals in this way should be reserved for only stealth modifiers to action cards. All other modifiers given in the card text should stay as is.
Atonement
Requires a ready vampire with a capacity below 6.
Put this card on the acting vampire (+1 stealth). This vampire gets +1 intercept when attempting to block. He or she does not tap when blocking a vampire of the same age or younger. Any vampire may burn this card as a action; Followers of Set get -1 stealth when attempting that action.
I don't think that's much clearer (if not less clear) than the way Stealth is already described. that's just me though.
I plan on running some demos locally in the coming months, so I'll hopefully be able to gather some meaningful anecdotes.
I think the best way will be to add +1 stealth to all undirected actions in the rulebook and remove it from the most cards at all, just leave +/- modifiers to very few undirected actions which got other basic stealth level.
NC Russia
Yup. many a time I've taught newbies they've had problems differentiating stealth from Action Modifiers and Action cards that have built in stealth.
TwoRazorReign's suggestion sounded pretty good at a glance:
"Abbott (current text):
+1 stealth action. Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Put this card on the acting Sabbat vampire and untap him or her...
Abbott (revised text):
Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Put this card on the acting Sabbat vampire and untap him or her (+1 stealth)..."
Finnish Politics!
> self wrote:
> I don't think that's much clearer (if not less clear) than the way Stealth is already described. that's just me though.
>
So, the idea isn't necessarily to make the description of how stealth works clearer via card text. That ship has sailed long ago. It's more to remove the persistent confusion among new players who try to play action cards for stealth. With that said, you bring up a good point, and making things less clear in the process of fixing something else should definitely be avoided. In that sense, there certainly would need to be an explanation in the rulebook what the parenthetical stealth modifier on action cards means. I'd imagine it would go under 6.1.6, where it explains that unless otherwise noted, action cards are played at 0 stealth.
> Ankha wrote:
> the card is an action (action symbol). Actions are taken by default at 0 stealth. All bonuses (+bleed, +strength, +votes) are expressed as "+" modifiers. I'm opened to suggestions.
>
It does not have to be that way. Actions could define the relevant base amounts in absolute terms, and modifiers be written with +. So for example, Dominate Kine would go from:
+1 stealth action. Bleed with +1 bleed.
to
1 stealth action Bleed with 2 bleed.
Bonuses on action card are a vestige from Jyhad where the values on vampires were considered base values (e.g. 2Strength instead of +1 Strength), but that was changed long ago.
Finally, it would save card text to change the default in the rules to 0 Stealth for actions and 1 stealth for undirected. I guess this alone would remove more than half of the stealth mentions on action cards.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > the card is an action (action symbol). Actions are taken by default at 0 stealth. All bonuses (+bleed, +strength, +votes) are expressed as "+" modifiers. I'm opened to suggestions.
> >
> It does not have to be that way. Actions could define the relevant base amounts in absolute terms, and modifiers be written with +. So for example, Dominate Kine would go from:
>
> +1 stealth action. Bleed with +1 bleed.
>
> to
>
> 1 stealth action Bleed with 2 bleed.
>
> Bonuses on action card are a vestige from Jyhad where the values on vampires were considered base values (e.g. 2Strength instead of +1 Strength), but that was changed long ago.
>
> Finally, it would save card text to change the default in the rules to 0 Stealth for actions and 1 stealth for undirected. I guess this alone would remove more than half of the stealth mentions on action cards.
>
It's a good suggestion, but I don't think that goes far enough to fix the problem. The stealth modifier should not be the first thing mentioned on action cards. New players see "stealth" at the top of the text box and want to use it. I'd actually argue that the stealth modifier should go last wherever possible on action cards. Action cards, which are often complex and can contain a lot of text, should have a "inverted pyramid" structure to the text: the most important information should appear first, followed by less important information. In other words, requirements first, a description of what the card does next, and stealth modifier last.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Bonuses on action card are a vestige from Jyhad where the values on vampires were considered base values (e.g. 2Strength instead of +1 Strength), but that was changed long ago.
>
Isn't that contradictory? Jyhad vampires mentioned "2 strength" and "+1 stealth" (without action), so there's no common ground between those two.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> [So for example, Dominate Kine would go from:
>
> +1 stealth action. Bleed with +1 bleed.
>
> to
>
> 1 stealth action Bleed with 2 bleed.
>
This might also not be the clearest wording as some people might think that the "1 stealth action" would mean that you can't increase the stealth.
Finnish Politics!
lamentably, I can totally see that happening, Lönkka.
I'm conflicted. If actions are listed as "1 stealth," and modifiers are written as "+stealth" that could go a ways to differentiate where stuff comes from. I'm not really a fan of it though. I'm also on the fence with (+stealth) at the end of sentences in the action.
Ultimately, I think that making it easier to differentiate between the modifier and action cardtypes is probably the way to go.
How come you are on the fence? I ask not because I think you are wrong, but to understand why moving the stealth modifier to the end of the sentence in parentheses would be unappealing. I promote the idea of moving the stealth modifier to the end of the sentence because it uses a fundamental concept in writing, the "inverted pyramid" method of organizing information. Think of it like organizing the most important information first, followed by the less important information. In the case of action cards, this would be organized as requirements first, a description of what the card does next, and stealth modifier last. Do you think the stealth modifier has more importance than I am giving it, and therefore it should not be relegated to a parenthetical at the end of the sentence? Just curious.
Don't forget restrictions.
It is very annoying to read a full card's worth of text and only to see in the very last sentence a restrictions like "Only one X can be used during a round" etc.
Should be along there with requirements.
Not absolutely sure which should be first. Probably restrictions.
Finnish Politics!
im still wondering if action modifiers are too difficult to separate from actions in terms of icon and background. I was recently reminded by a friend about the time a new player tried to use Govern as a modifier and then proceeded to ask what's the difference after blocks were declined.
For me it's obvious for a very long time that card type icons does not work and there need to be serious layout differences between actions and modifiers.
Like making one of them horizontal or something.
NC Russia