New round structure - OPTION A - we'd like your feedback!

In order to simplify the round structure, we are considering the following: Round structure: 1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects) 2. Maneuver step 2.a Start ( = At the start of the maneuver step = before range is determined for set range effects) 2.b Maneuver ( = During the maneuver step) 2.c End 3. Strike step 3.a Start ( = At the start of the strike step, = before strikes are chosen) 3.b Choose strike 3.c Resolve strike 3.d End 4. Press step 4.a Start 4.b Press ( = During the press step) 4.c End 5. End ( = At the end of the round) Torn Signpost: Only usable at the start of the round. Immortal Grapple: Only usable at close range, at the start of the strike step. Shadow Step: Only usable at the start of the maneuver step. Burn 2 blood to set the range for this round and end the maneuver step. The idea is to remove self-defined (or implicit) steps such as "Before range is determined". Also the "Determine Range" step would be named "Maneuver step" for consistency. The goal is not to design a new combat system. Thoughts? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Oh, hell yes. "Before range is determined" was vague, shitty, and counterintuitive. I very much like how clear and concise this process is. Now cue the usual howlers griping about how this will only confuse the new people.

This new system seems fine, but I'm really more happy about outline provided by Ankha (easy to follow, makes it clear what gets played when). It would be helpful if this makes its way into the rulebook eventually. Even if keeping how combat currently works, that section of the rulebook needs to be revised.

This would enable a "starter set" to have a graphically defined combat guide. (A line with each window color coded and shading for the card in question, enabling new players to not need guided through combat) I'm in favor.

That's quite clear, but I think you need to add something between 3 and 4 to cover additional strikes. You have no step currently to gain or use them.

> Ankha wrote: > In order to simplify the round structure, we are considering the following: > > Round structure: 1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects) 2. Maneuver step 2.a Start ( = At the start of the maneuver step = before range is determined for set range effects) 2.b Maneuver ( = During the maneuver step) 2.c End 3. Strike step 3.a Start ( = At the start of the strike step, = before strikes are chosen) 3.b Choose strike 3.c Resolve strike 3.d End 4. Press step 4.a Start 4.b Press ( = During the press step) 4.c End 5. End ( = At the end of the round) > > Torn Signpost: Only usable at the beginning of the round. > Immortal Grapple: Only usable at close range, at the beginning of the strike step. > Shadow Step: Only usable at the beginning of the maneuver step. Burn 2 blood to set the range for this round and end the maneuver step. > > The idea is to remove self-defined (or implicit) steps such as "Before range is determined". Also the "Determine Range" step would be named "Maneuver step" for consistency. > > The goal is not to design a new combat system. > > Thoughts? > If possible I would try to use the exact same wording that appears on the cards for the steps in the rulebook. For example, if Torn Signpost says "only usable at the beginning of the round," then part 1 should read "Beginning of the round." I don't see a point in using different verbiage if you're trying to avoid unnecessary complication. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

Appears to be good for me. The clearer the rules could be, the best would be. Priest of Rio de Janeiro My blog: Portal Distant Kingdoms Facebook: Distant Kingdoms Youtube: Distant Shore

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > If possible I would try to use the exact same wording that appears on the cards for the steps in the rulebook. > > For example, if Torn Signpost says "only usable at the beginning of the round," then part 1 should read "Beginning of the round." I don't see a point in using different verbiage if you're trying to avoid unnecessary complication. > Yes! I agree 100%. As would most copy editors.

> Ankha wrote: > Round structure: > 1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects) > > Torn Signpost: Only usable at the beginning of the round. > If you want to codify combat into a series of steps (somewhat like the Detailed Play Summary), that's sensible. However, I would strongly favour codifying it using the dominant existing text for each step. Why? Because if you change to totally different text, new players have to learn two combat systems: the one in the rulebook, and the one that exists on all the cards other people are playing with. Old players are unlikely to buy 9 sets of Desperate Housevampires when it's released in 2019 to get enough Carrion Crows to replace their existing copies, so new players will need to understand it. So where possible, just stick to the dominant old wording. V:TES is regularly (and understandably) criticised for having too many keywords to get on top of, so doubling the number of terms for phases of combat you have to understand is a step in the wrong direction. In particular, splitting out "before range is determined" into two separate phases depending on the rest of the card is the sort of thing that will make a new player's head explode.

> The idea is to remove self-defined (or implicit) steps such as "Before range is determined". Also the "Determine Range" step would be named "Maneuver step" for consistency. > I'm TOTALLY behind this. I've meant to suggest something like this myself for a long while, but didn't find the time to go through all possible cards and their possible erratas. Great idea! B) Lets keep in mind that rulebook only needs to specify the steps themselves, the cards can have text like "at the beginning of step X" and it will be clear once you know the steps. People intuitively know where "beginning of a step" is. You don't have to specify it in the structure guide imo. People know that beginning is the beginning and end is the end. If you absolutely HAVE to mention them in the round structure guide, we should probably just use the word "beginning" instead of "start". Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > Lets keep in mind that rulebook only needs to specify the steps themselves, the cards can have text like "at the beginning of step X" and it will be clear once you know the steps. People intuitively know where "beginning of a step" is. You don't have to specify it in the structure guide imo. People know that beginning is the beginning and end is the end. > I would argue the opposite. The rulebook does need to specify "at the beginning of step x". By not including those distinct steps where cards could be played in the rulebook, it makes it seem like those steps only exist if a player has a card to play in that step. This is not the case: players need to decline playing cards in those steps. By including these "at the beginning of step x" steps in the rulebook, it ensures players will sequence effectively through those steps, and will help players understand when they may play certain cards.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Round structure: > > 1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects) > > > > Torn Signpost: Only usable at the beginning of the round. > > > If you want to codify combat into a series of steps (somewhat like the Detailed Play Summary), that's sensible. > > However, I would strongly favour codifying it using the dominant existing text for each step. > > Why? Because if you change to totally different text, new players have to learn two combat systems: the one in the rulebook, and the one that exists on all the cards other people are playing with. Old players are unlikely to buy 9 sets of Desperate Housevampires when it's released in 2019 to get enough Carrion Crows to replace their existing copies, so new players will need to understand it. So where possible, just stick to the dominant old wording. V:TES is regularly (and understandably) criticised for having too many keywords to get on top of, so doubling the number of terms for phases of combat you have to understand is a step in the wrong direction. > > In particular, splitting out "before range is determined" into two separate phases depending on the rest of the card is the sort of thing that will make a new player's head explode. > For the sake of new players I would argue the opposite. If they are getting cards from Black Chantry they should have the clearest, most modern wording possible. The game has morphed through a series of erratas and the addition of new, implicit, timing windows to the point where it is hard to follow and, dare I say, annoying at times. If we don't update the rules and card rulings, then the game is basically just catering to the existing (dwindling) player base. Catering to current (legacy?) players is ok, but we know what direction the player base has been headed with that strategy. I don't envision some mass exodus of VTES players based on their Torn Signposts doing the same exact thing that they used to, but where some cards say it differently. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> Ankha wrote: > > 4. Press step 4.a Start 4.b Press ( = During the press step) 4.c End > Should superior Drawing out the Beast be errated to resolve in 4.a rather than 4b? That would follow the general guidelines of resolving mandatory effects first. Drawing Out the Beast Combat Animalism [...] As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round.

> Non-existant user wrote: > As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round. > Would that then be: As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 unpreventable damage at the start of the press step each round. ? Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Basically, the proposed system is what our playgroup is de facto already using, just with other labels for the "new" steps. So yes, I do agree to this proposal. Like some other players here noted: We should not use "start" in the rules, and then "beginning" on cards; there needs to be one wording only. "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

> hardyrange wrote: > Like some other players here noted: We should not use "start" in the rules, and then "beginning" on cards; there needs to be one wording only. > Dang. I changed "beginning" for "start" and forgot to update the cards. I've edited the first post. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > 4. Press step 4.a Start 4.b Press ( = During the press step) 4.c End > > > Should superior Drawing out the Beast be errated to resolve in 4.a rather than 4b? That would follow the general guidelines of resolving mandatory effects first. > > Drawing Out the Beast > Combat > Animalism > [...] > As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round. > Yes, it seems sensible. 4.b should only be used to play presses. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > For the sake of new players I would argue the opposite. If they are getting cards from Black Chantry they should have the clearest, most modern wording possible. The game has morphed through a series of erratas and the addition of new, implicit, timing windows to the point where it is hard to follow and, dare I say, annoying at times. > > If we don't update the rules and card rulings, then the game is basically just catering to the existing (dwindling) player base. Catering to current (legacy?) players is ok, but we know what direction the player base has been headed with that strategy. I don't envision some mass exodus of VTES players based on their Torn Signposts doing the same exact thing that they used to, but where some cards say it differently. > But I'm not arguing for not updating the rules. I'm arguing for updating the rules to codify the steps of combat, but not inventing new terminology where it isn't required. If the rulebook says: "Here are the steps of combat. They go in the following order: a).... b)...", then there is nothing inherently better about calling a step "Start of maneuvers" vs "Before range is determined", or even just "play before range" or something if you prefer to make it shorter. If you spell out what the steps are and in which order they go, it's completely unambiguous as to when it happens - and new players will have to learn both sets of terminology unless Black Chantry proposes banning old cards. "Start of maneuvers" (or whatever) would only be 'the most modern wording possible' because a change had been made. The point is whether that change is actually necessary.

I have a similar question about Darkness Within. It says it moves a blood 'during strike resolution', so I guess it doesn't affect (for example) a situation where it is played against a vampire with one blood who wants to play Majesty. And how does it work with damage? Would this be changed to "after" strike resolution then, or something something to make explicit when the blood moves? Loving this by the way. I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable. > The concern I have with "start" is that the word "start" is used multiple time in the other steps. Beginning (or similar would avoid this and subsequent confusion). Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I'm not sure I understand you - or, rather, identify those 'other steps'. Outside of a combat outline? If 'start' is used exclusively to mark a beginning of any given whatever, in the whole game, I think it's fine. As long as the 'starting' of a step/phase works similarly across the rules set. I can't think where it doesn't though. For example, the starts of "Unlock phase", "Combat" and "Strike step" are similar - it's the first timing window of that given phase/step. Right? Krausedit\\ I used to propose in another thread that the Start of (round of) combat would be called a Preparation step, to give it a name. "Start of combat" or "Start of Round" names the step too, however. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I would argue the opposite. The rulebook does need to specify "at the beginning of step x". By not including those distinct steps where cards could be played in the rulebook, it makes it seem like those steps only exist if a player has a card to play in that step. This is not the case: players need to decline playing cards in those steps. By including these "at the beginning of step x" steps in the rulebook, it ensures players will sequence effectively through those steps, and will help players understand when they may play certain cards. > Well, this touches another issue. In Magic "beginning of step X" is reserved mainly for triggered abilities. Something that is in game and only does something once you reach step X (example from VTES: removing a counter from Palla Grande). Cards played by players (spells) don't have that wording as far as I know. Sequencing is handled by having active player play cards first, responding rules, and that both players have to pass(do nothing) in order to move forward from a phase/step. VTES seems different, and I'm not sure in a good way. Rather than having "responses" for sequencing, it has tried to force a timing structure by having cards "playable only after X/before Y". This wording creates the aforementioned arbitrary timing steps that can be unique to cards (cough immortal grapple), and it also creates obtuse wordings on some cards that require specific timing. Much of the weird timing rules stem from this wording. I'd love if we could figure out a cleaner, more concise alternative. I ask, does it matter when a card is playable within a step/phase that much? Could we not have cards say for example "playable in maneuver step"? In practice it does not matter (afaik) WHEN you play torn signpost, as long as it happens before you strike? There are certain specific cards that require a more precise timing (immortal grapple, et al.) but in my opinion most cards don't need it. Several cards are done in response to something (stealth, intercept, vote push, action modifiers usually) The timing between presses and taste of vitae is an example of an unnecessary complication in my opinion, as an example. In my opinion the sequence between these should not matter, it only serves to allow players make mistakes. Rules shouldn't exist just to make playing the game correctly harder. Taste vs Press is such an unintuitive thing that people who have played for decades still occasionally have to remind themselves how it works in my local games. Regarding having stuff in the rulebook: We preferably need a comprehensive rulebook for judges reference, that spells out every minute detail as accurately and explicitly as possible. This rulebook would be referenced whenever there is a rules issue and should be available online for everyone. However, the detailed rulebook shouldn't be the one that standard players use. In the "normal" rulebook you only need to mention steps themselves, to keep the text concise and easy to understand. You don't need to spell everything out in order to get beginners play a game of VTES. This is where having things intuitive becomes important, and where the new step structure shines. We can cut down on unnecessarily verbose text on EDIT: I remembered that despite good intentions, we still can't clean it all, since we have cards that are practically combat cards, played before we're in combat even (Obedience, mental maze, day operation..). VTES, sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

A similar timing without 'responses' is used in A:NR, where you just have steps, and the priority starts from the active player. No responses. It works fine. The complication in VtES comes in other players chiming in, sort of breaking the impulse structure, but I'm not really sure if having a response mechanic would offer any better solutions to this. > In practice it does not matter (afaik) WHEN you play torn signpost, as long as it happens before you strike? > The info given before manouvers are played plays a humongous role. We most definitely need a Start of Combat / Preparation step. That timing gives people an amount of information to base their next moves on. Instead of trying to guess if I should be close or long before the Signpost, I can plan accordingly. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > I'm not sure I understand you - or, rather, identify those 'other steps'. > Round structure: 1. Start 2. Maneuver step 2.a Start 2.b Maneuver 2.c End 3. Strike step ..snip... "Start" is both a main step (1.) and sub steps (2.a, 3.a & 4.a) — this was the concern. Perhaps it should just be referred to as "1. Start of round" to be clear. The same logic applies to step "5. End" perhaps that should be clearly labelled "5. End of round". Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Sure. Should we have a Start of Combat and Starts of every independent Round then? Some cards are usable only "on the first round of a combat", like Trap. Or are those combat cards so few and far between there's no real reason for that? I'd just like to have "Start combat" and "End combat" and have independent Rounds in between, since stuff also happens at "End combat", like starting new combats or rounds or what have you. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > That timing gives people an amount of information to base their next moves on. Instead of trying to guess if I should be close or long before the Signpost, I can plan accordingly. > I suppose you are thinking about maneuvering to long range only if opponent plays torn signpost? But this is a thing mainly because maneuvers are also fixed to specific time in maneuver step. What if torn signpost is played in maneuver step, and you could play your maneuver to long afterwards regardless whether it happens at the beginning, middle or end of the maneuver step or whatever. There is certain elegance to "responding" to what the opponent does, even though this isn't exactly what responding means in magic. "Do you maneuver?" "no." "then I play torn signpost" "Oh, then I maneuver to long". (And then we arrive to issues with Grapple. Sigh. Should we errata the card so that it is playable always, but it only does something if the range is close?) ps. Personally I prefer "beginning" more than "start". I don't know why. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > The timing between presses and taste of vitae is an example of an unnecessary complication in my opinion, as an example. > I think it's important to consider the balancing effects of timing, decision making and play testing. The before range part of a card like Torn Sign Post lets the opponent know that they should really try and manoeuvre to long — this may have been a balancing decision. A similar thing could be said with Taste of Vitae — it only being playable after presses affects the risk / reward decision making. If it could be played at any point in the press step it would introduce a new dynamic (in this case not necessarily a bad one). The overall point is that timing does have a fairly major impact on the effect, player behaviour and power level. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > The overall point is that timing does have a fairly major impact on the effect, player behaviour and power level. > Yes it does, but the way VTES handles this is that it forces a set timing structure, which in my opinion LESSENS the dynamic of the game. People have less options. It also adds a lot of "oops I forgot that" situations. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Good stuff; streamlining perhaps the most complicated part of the game is a huge plus! Especially as it seems that not much will be cut off in the process. However, I like Ankha's other suggestion even more. It is even more clear and easy. And so many combat cards have precious small timing window/phase where you are able to play them and giving them a bit more leeway is good. And it ain't like combat decks are dominating the scene right now (or ever...) so if you make playing them a bit more easy since you are not so strictly restricted when you play certain cards it should help the cardflow and thus the combat decks a bit. www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76615-new-round-structure-option-b-we-d-like-your-feedback#86960 Finnish Politics!

> Taste vs Press is such an unintuitive thing that people who have played for decades still occasionally have to remind themselves how it works in my local games. > I don't think it's necessarily unintuitive. I think that's a function of an outline of all combat steps never being included in the main rulebook. Had something like this been included, perhaps people would know how to handle combat, ie, that the "end of round" step exists even if there are no cards played in that step (players have to actively decline playing cards in that step). > Regarding having stuff in the rulebook: > We preferably need a comprehensive rulebook for judges reference, that spells out every minute detail as accurately and explicitly as possible. This rulebook would be referenced whenever there is a rules issue and should be available online for everyone. > > However, the detailed rulebook shouldn't be the one that standard players use. In the "normal" rulebook you only need to mention steps themselves, to keep the text concise and easy to understand. You don't need to spell everything out in order to get beginners play a game of VTES. This is where having things intuitive becomes important, and where the new step structure shines. We can cut down on unnecessarily verbose text on > I agree with this in one sense, but disagree in another sense. First, VTES already tried this, with the rulebook and a separate complete rules reference (later renamed the detailed play summary). All steps in combat were clearly outlined in the detailed play summary. The problem is, few bothered to look at it. Therefore, I'm not sure it's a great idea to have a streamlined rulebook that most players are using as a reference, and a more detailed rules reference meant only for a few judges. Now, I do think there should be two rulebooks, but for different reasons than you stated. There should be one rulebook in print that comes with the cards, and another that exists online. The print rulebook should look like a smaller version of the current rulebook and be a very basic description of the rules and only serve as an introduction to the game. The online rulebook should be super comprehensive and be regarded as the main rulebook for VTES. The print rulebook should guide players to the online rulebook wherever more information may be needed. The idea would be to have 2-5 new players be able to sit and play a game of VTES using the print rulebook. Then, for any questions that come up, these players can access the online rulebook. In this day and age, with browsers including a text search function, having the main rulebook be super comprehensive and electronic is the way to go, especially given how complex VTES is. That's how I would do it.

Thinking about new players, this is just perfect, because it makes way simpler to explain the combat steps.

I prefer option A to option B. Combat works just fine now, it's just that the timing rules are not intuitive and transparent enough. The word "beginning" is good for the first sub-step of a step, because it's a perfectly fine word that is already being used that way on cards. A different word (i.e. not "beginning") should be probably be used for the first step of combat, in order to distinguish the hierarchy. I think having "start" and "end" as formal words for steps (or substeps) is problematic for two reasons. First, they are as much verbs as nouns. Second, turning them into formal terms makes them not as available for other uses (e.g. the "End combat" step vs "Strike: combat ends"). Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

None of this is necessary.

> talonz wrote: > None of this is necessary. > Thank you for your constructive feedback. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Looks a bit bloated but very precise and clear. Maybe if it could be a little less bloated? Prince of Magdeburg VEKN-ID: 5850005 Prince-ID: 615

> Ankha wrote: > > > talonz wrote: > > None of this is necessary. > > > Thank you for your constructive feedback. > No problem. Prove your case before coming up with a solution.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Taste vs Press is such an unintuitive thing that people who have played for decades still occasionally have to remind themselves how it works in my local games. > > > I don't think it's necessarily unintuitive. I think that's a function of an outline of all combat steps never being included in the main rulebook. Had something like this been included, perhaps people would know how to handle combat, ie, that the "end of round" step exists even if there are no cards played in that step (players have to actively decline playing cards in that step). > What is unintuitive in my opinion, is that taste should happen immediately afterward you have dealt damage, since taste is a reward for dealing damage. The press step in between sort of 'doesn't belong'. Instead, choice of continuing combat should be the last part of a round of combat in my opinion. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > What is unintuitive in my opinion, is that taste should happen immediately afterward you have dealt damage, since taste is a reward for dealing damage. The press step in between sort of 'doesn't belong'. Instead, choice of continuing combat should be the last part of a round of combat in my opinion. > I hear you, but playing Taste of Vitae after presses allows for nuanced strategy that would be lost if it were played elsewhere. For example, perhaps one may decide to hang onto their Taste of Vitae and save it for a later combat if it was known combat was not going to continue via a press. I think the perceived non-intuitiveness is a small a price to pay for the strategic potential in this case.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I hear you, but playing Taste of Vitae after presses allows for nuanced strategy that would be lost if it were played elsewhere. For example, perhaps one may decide to hang onto their Taste of Vitae and save it for a later combat if it was known combat was not going to continue via a press. I think the perceived non-intuitiveness is a small a price to pay for the strategic potential in this case. > You need to elaborate this a bit, I don't understand what you are getting at. Example? Almost always, if I play taste of vitae, I'm playing a combat deck and it is me, not the opponent, who decides whether or not to continue to next round. Whatever you are trying to get at sounds like a real fringe scenario.. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

He seems be saying that he plays through the round, maybe draws enough extra cards to deal more damage in subsequent rounds (like draws a Blur off of playing pursuit for an additional strike with guns, or prevents hands for one with and draws a slam with ) and his opponent is either another combat deck or a "soft target" that can generate presses to end (kindred spirits with Deny). So if they press to end, he plays taste. They don't, he holds it. Now, I could argue that it should be played after the last opportunity for damage. So, end of strike resolution or beginning of press step (disarm, taste, DOTB damage) then presses can get played. Then round ends. Because that's simpler than current setup, gains the same opportunities it loses, etc.

I did this flow chart with some new keywords for steps that already exists in the game but is addressed as before/after something Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

I prefere that choice, because will set specificly each step between the combats fases.

If you want more clarity then update the text on some cards: taste of vitae, telepathic tracking, but don't change the wording for the whole combat round.

The game already has a great combat system, changing it in order to just launch new cards to sell will take away old players and deeply sink our beloved game deeply. I say NO to these changes. Reprint the old cards the way it was and work on new content with two game modes as the elder "Sydnelson" offered is the solution. Mauro Ramos Prince Of Fortaleza.

Basically, we need to clean and define the damn system. That's what option A is supposed to be. Combine I'll defined it undefined parts into specific windows, with 4 parts, and make the ambiguity have a definitive place inside of : Beginning Manuevers Strikes End. Carve them up. Pres go in beginning, etc. Maneuver in manuever, with the grapple timing st the end, and any "skip range step" bypass only the part where manuever get played. Strikes in whatever order, I'm not typing it all again, you know selecting, resolving, sce,dodge,environmental and effects, standard, resolution, additional, etc. End becomes taste, dotb damage, disarm, and subsequently the part where you can press, which becomes nullified if the round ends in a state where presses cannot be played (one or more minions no longer ready, combat ended as strike, etc). The obvious bookends are Psyche and damage from Cat Fear, since they are defined by outside of regular timing, but will still be defined. Little to nothing will change, presses need separate window from taste, disarm, et al, and I would like to see a redesign on strike order to make first strike not third strike, but that's another argument. (Basically, add first strike to many dodge and sce, but not all, and make it go first strike (impulse owner) first strike (other player) sce, dodge, normal strikes and environmental. ) I'll start a thread on it, but does anybody disagree with it, for reasons other than nerfing wallpaper sce cards and maintaining power of normal ones?

> talonz wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > talonz wrote: > > > None of this is necessary. > > > > > Thank you for your constructive feedback. > > > No problem. > > Prove your case before coming up with a solution. > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Ankha wrote: > In order to simplify the round structure, we are considering the following: > > Round structure: 1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects) 2. Maneuver step 2.a Start ( = At the start of the maneuver step = before range is determined for set range effects) 2.b Maneuver ( = During the maneuver step) 2.c End 3. Strike step 3.a Start ( = At the start of the strike step, = before strikes are chosen) 3.b Choose strike [u]3.c.1 resolve sce 3.c.2 resolve dodges 3.c.3 resolve first strike strikes 3.c.4 resolve strikeeffects 3.c.5 resolve damage from strikes and environmental damage 3.c.6 generate additional strikes 3.c.7 choose additional strikes 3.c.8 resolve additional strikes. For multiple additional strikes, resolve one at a time until all are resolved or a minion is no longer ready.[/u] 3.d End 4. Press step 4.a Start 4.b Press ( = During the press step) 4.c End 5. End ( = At the end of the round) > > Torn Signpost: Only usable at the start of the round. > Immortal Grapple: Only usable at close range, at the start of the strike step. > Shadow Step: Only usable at the start of the maneuver step. Burn 2 blood to set the range for this round and end the maneuver step. > > The idea is to remove self-defined (or implicit) steps such as "Before range is determined". Also the "Determine Range" step would be named "Maneuver step" for consistency. > > The goal is not to design a new combat system. > > Thoughts? > The underline(could not made color work...) is mine, carving out each tiny window. But my question is couldn't combat end at the end of press step once no more "end" of press step cards are played? This is combat as we know it, but better defined. Frankly, option b isn't as different if it's got clearly defined beginning middle and end, which is needed. I know we aren't after a new system, but can we rename first strike to early strike? Its small but unintuitive. Or we could call it fast strike and gain a letter back from the word.....