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

This is another options with less phases, increased flexibility in timing, but it nerfs down some cards (Immortal Grapple can now be countered by a maneuver played afterwards). Round structure 1. Approach step 2. Strike step. 2.a Choose strike 2.b Resolve strike 3. Additional strikes step 4. Leave step Torn Signpost: Only usable during the approach step. Immortal Grapple: Only usable during the approach step. [...] [pot] At close range, strikes that are not hand strikes cannot be used this round (by either combatant). Shadow Step: Only usable during the approach step. Burn 2 blood to set the range for this round. Maneuvers cannot be played anymore this round. Taste of Vitae: Only usable during the leave step. Drawing of the Beast: [ANI] As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1R unpreventable environmental damage during the leave step each round. Outside the Hourglass: [TEM] Only usable during the approach step. Inflict 2R damage on the opposing minion. A vampire can play only one Outside the Hourglass at superior each round. Blood of Acid: Only usable during the approach step. A vampire can play only one Blood of Acid each round. [vic] During each strike resolution this round at close range, the opposing minion takes environmental damage equal to the amount of damage they successfully inflicts on this vampire. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Much better! IG can be reworded into "hand strike: strength damage, opponents strikes other than hand strike has no effect" or something like it. It's very rare for non basic strikes to be used with IG. NC Russia

I already liked the other new structure and this I like even more! (now I repeat myself from the other structure thread) 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. Finnish Politics!

I think option B is fine too; however, I think the main problems with how combat currently works would be completely alleviated by simply including an outline of all steps in the rulebook. While I do think option B might be overshooting the goal of making the combat steps easier to understand, I do believe there is some additional benefit to adding more flexible timing to combat. On a technical note, the additional strikes step also needs the choose strike/resolve strike subsections.

This is BY FAR the best option I've seen so far. I just would prefer other names: Round structure 1. Distance step 2. Strike step. 2.a Choose strike 2.b Resolve strike Repeat 2a. and 2b. for every additional. 3. Leave step Combat ends be moved to 1 (yes, all of them). Immortal grapple be in 1. Yeah, Torn and everything in 1. as well. No more First Strike, please.

Again, option "A" is better, because it is much simpler to explain to new players. Option "B" will bring changes to the game that are unnecessary.

I think we need proper wordings on the strikes too, something like: Strike Priority: Preparation strikes: Combat Ends Dodge Priority strikes: First Strike Steal Blood Default strikes This can help to understand the damage handle and strikes interaction. Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

> ffiuza wrote: > Again, option "A" is better, because it is much simpler to explain to new players. Option "B" will bring changes to the game that are unnecessary. > No only necessary, they are crucial. Imagine we can reprint or edit any card. Not in 3 years. Now. This a golden opportunity to simplify the game, make it more modern and easier for new players. Why do you need all those sub-types of phases or cards out there? This is truly a golden opportunity to clean the game. It would be a pity to not use it.

> Sambomb wrote: > I think we need proper wordings on the strikes too, something like: > > Strike Priority: Preparation strikes: Combat Ends Dodge Priority strikes: First Strike Steal Blood Default strikes > This can help to understand the damage handle and strikes interaction. > You can do the exact same thing: Maneuver: Combat Ends. As above, but unlock this minion. No more first strike. Dodge by the rules, can be the same timing (it is already!) as what you call 'default strikes'. Theft of Vitae is ALSO during the 'default strikes' resolution. Remember - Strike Resolution is BEFORE Damage Resolution. Lets end the 'Strike Priority', please. We can have the same effects in the game in a MUCH easier way to understand and explain, without loosing cards. Just rewording. Old Psyches! are still legal, although it changed A LOT during the ages. Have you read Fame from Jyhad? Really, this B option looks great.

> Brum wrote: > This is truly a golden opportunity to clean the game. > It would be a pity to not use it. > While simplifying the combat sequence is a noble goal, this significantly changes a large number of cards - IG becomes easier to counter, but possibly easier to cycle, set range effects are stronger, a number of "only usable before X" cards are easier to play and so forth. This needs to be very well tested before making the change. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > > > Brum wrote: > > This is truly a golden opportunity to clean the game. > > It would be a pity to not use it. > > > While simplifying the combat sequence is a noble goal, this significantly changes a large number of cards - IG becomes easier to counter, but possibly easier to cycle, set range effects are stronger, a number of "only usable before X" cards are easier to play and so forth. > > This needs to be very well tested before making the change. > This summarizes what I call unnecessary changes. I agree it is a golden opportunity, but I would not like to see a card such IG being wallpapered. Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this: Immortal Grapple pot - only usable during the distance phase. manuever. If you end the distance phase at close range, only hand strikes can be used. POT - as above, with a press to continue. If another round occurs, distance is automatically close.

> ffiuza wrote: > Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this: > This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Brum wrote: > > Round structure > 1. Distance step > > 2. Strike step. > 2.a Choose strike > 2.b Resolve strike > Repeat 2a. and 2b. for every additional. > > 3. Leave step > > Combat ends be moved to 1 (yes, all of them). > Immortal grapple be in 1. > No, the combat is mostly about strikes, moving strikes outside the strike step is a bad idea. Furthermore, if S:CE and Immortal Grapple are played during the same step, S:CE beats IG if played first. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > ffiuza wrote: > > Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this: > > > This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist. > I think this is an attempt to solve a potential problem brought about by combat steps in option B, specifically, trying to make up for the (perceived) weaker Immortal Grapple in the proposed combat system. It's definitely pertinent discussion.

> drnlmza wrote: > While simplifying the combat sequence is a noble goal, this significantly changes a large number of cards - IG becomes easier to counter, but possibly easier to cycle, set range effects are stronger, a number of "only usable before X" cards are easier to play and so forth. > > This needs to be very well tested before making the change. > All change will have pros and cons. I agree 100% with you. This needs to be VERY well tested. Fear should not be our main driver, however. The goal should be to streamline combat, helping new players but also Judges. Nobody spoke about them yet, but these guys have it hard in this game with obscure rulings that seem to contradict cards or rules and creates attrition between players, judges, etc.. 7 hours in a tournament, tolerance is low, stress is high and the poor sobs judging have all the weight of the local community on their shoulders. Anything we can help them, the better. We can and must look forward with an open mind to a strong game with lots of new players and most of the old players coming back. I have zero issues with changes in cards because we would be able to buy new versions of the cards. If I choose not to, my old cards would still be legal.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > ffiuza wrote: > > > Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this: > > > > > This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist. > > > I think this is an attempt to solve a potential problem brought about by combat steps in option B, specifically, trying to make up for the (perceived) weaker Immortal Grapple in the proposed combat system. It's definitely pertinent discussion. > Specific cards should NEVER be taken into account in these discussions, except to explain the proposed changes. Its a Pandora's box that created noise and deviates the attention. And creates attrition. <Drama> if wallpapering Immortal Grapple saves combat, so be it.. </Drama> That was joke, for those of you not getting the tag metaphor.

> Brum wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ffiuza wrote: > > > > Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this: > > > > > > > This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist. > > > > > > > > I think this is an attempt to solve a potential problem brought about by combat steps in option B, specifically, trying to make up for the (perceived) weaker Immortal Grapple in the proposed combat system. It's definitely pertinent discussion. > > > Specific cards should NEVER be taken into account in these discussions, except to explain the proposed changes. > Its a Pandora's box that created noise and deviates the attention. > And creates attrition. > > <Drama> if wallpapering Immortal Grapple saves combat, so be it.. </Drama> > > That was joke, for those of you not getting the tag metaphor. > I understand it now. I'll keep that in mind for future reference. No drama. Nice joke.

> Ankha wrote: > This is another options with less phases, increased flexibility in timing, but it nerfs down some cards (Immortal Grapple can now be countered by a maneuver played afterwards). > > Round structure 1. Approach step 2. Strike step. 2.a Choose strike 2.b Resolve strike 3. Additional strikes step 4. Leave step > I appreciate that VEKN is taking a hard look at the rules. Some big changes could be good for the game and cut way down on (the need for) errata. I would also encourage some serious play testing before implementing changes, especially changes as far reaching as the above. Not really for this discussion (because it is a bit off topic for this thread), more to the VEKN: As a possible side note, could you also look at including icons for lock and unlock? Another side note, I played a game recently where someone used Priority Contract and Provision of Silesia. As an experienced player I understand how this works (burning is not a cost of playing Provision, it is an effect), but it is a case where, intentionally or unintentionally, there are effects that appear to compete, but in reality do not. Could wording like this please be avoided? Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> Brum wrote: > Specific cards should NEVER be taken into account in these discussions, except to explain the proposed changes. > Its a Pandora's box that created noise and deviates the attention. > And creates attrition. > Immortal Grapple is a great example of a card potentially becoming weaker under the proposed new combat system. It's one thing to say "who cares, let's weaken Immortal Grapple for the greater benefit," it's quite another to say "don't discuss certain things that may be a good argument against changing to a new combat system." Discussion about the effect rules changes may have on cards should not be stymied, in my opinion.

I really don't know. Too much to process. Needs a lot, lot, lot and lot of play testing. "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 really don't know. Too much to process. > > Needs a lot, lot, lot and lot of play testing. > I agree here. Option A just tries to clarify combat and bring it in line with how it is being played in real life alraedy. Option B, however, proposes to change the combat system, and I do not think I could judge the impact without this going through a playtesting process. "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

> Brum wrote: > You can do the exact same thing: > > Maneuver: Combat Ends. > As above, but unlock this minion. > Im trying to break down the strike resolution step, not change how cards works. > Brum wrote: > > No more first strike. > > Dodge by the rules, can be the same timing (it is already!) as what you call 'default strikes'. > Theft of Vitae is ALSO during the 'default strikes' resolution. > Remember - Strike Resolution is BEFORE Damage Resolution. > This topic is not about remove things of the game, its about turn the combat steps easier to understand. Dodge resolves after S:CE and BEFORE every other strike otherwise the opponent strike would work. Strikes that steal blood ( or equipment ) are a little different because they resolve before dmg resolution like normal strikes. Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

If you take away the Before Range step, cards will change. If you move cards from one mini phase to another mini phase, cards will change. Any change will make some cards stronger, others weaker. Combat is clunky, hard to explain and harder to rule. Also, we must not think only in the now, but years from now. We will never have another chance like this. If everyone needs S:CE like it is (why, really?), please let it work, yes, but at the same time as dodge or theft of vitae. Don't make different timings. Unify everything under the same strike resolution. Dodges make the minion immune to the opposing minion's strike. Combat Ends ends the combat. Effects like Mercy for Seth can change (bold the new text). [nec] Strike: put this card on the opposing minion during this strike's damage resolution. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action. Oh and by the way, this must be SUPER well tested, obviously. We are touching in core parts of the game, I know. I'm not trying to take nobody's favorite toys, or re-invent the game. I don't understand why there's such a resistance to ideas that are not as radical as people seem to think.

Maybe it is a good time to ask: How do we want the game to work? If we paint with a broad brush to start, it is easier to fill in the details afterwards than the other way around. For example: Should combat be very granular with lots of little steps, as it is now, or should it be simple? Stepping further back, how long should turns take? How big of a role should combat have? Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > Maybe it is a good time to ask: How do we want the game to work? If we paint with a broad brush to start, it is easier to fill in the details afterwards than the other way around. > > For example: > Should combat be very granular with lots of little steps, as it is now, or should it be simple? Stepping further back, how long should turns take? How big of a role should combat have? > This. I'm so much in agreement with this. This is what Black Chantry should be pondering. I just don't think that is possible without a few people complaining and stifling progress.

> Ankha wrote: > > Round structure 1. Approach step 2. Strike step. 2.a Choose strike 2.b Resolve strike 3. Additional strikes step 4. Leave step > I'm not at all sure why adding more random words to the game is helpful. Currently, we have a Determine Range step. Range is a word that players have to be familiar with, because combat is either at long range or short range. During the range step you play maneuvers, so a feasible alternative is "Maneuvers step" - which is fine in terms of cognitive load, though still has issues that so many cards out there say "range" or "before range" on them. In either case, you have to know both terms - range and maneuver - to play the game. So why add a third term that players have to learn? Again, V:TES is regularly criticised for making players learn lots of vocabulary to make sense of it. Adding more doesn't make it better. Requiring new players to know both, because they have to be able to read and understand old cards, makes it worse. I cannot fathom the reasoning that says "Let's take one of the problems our game suffers from and make it worse, consciously and repeatedly." Further: as terms, approach and leave only make a whole lot of sense if combat is one round, which it isn't - Trap is a thing, amongst others. I would also foresee a lot of confusion about the "Leave" step around Strike: Combat Ends. I'm playing Majesty, so I'm leaving combat, right? Since I'm leaving combat, we're in the Leave step, right? So I can play presses?

Ugh, no. The less wording changes the better.

1) I really like the merging of the press step with the end of round. It has always been a very counterintuitive idea that deciding to go to next round is not the last thing happening in a round. > Brum wrote: > No more First Strike, please. > I would go the other way: keep First Strike, and use it for Dodge and Combat Ends instead of adding special rules. Dodge effect: cancel the negative effect of the opponent's strike. Combat Ends effect: go to Leave step, presses cannot be played. Those effects do not need any special timing or resolution rule, they stand on their own. A dodge would need First Strike to negate the strike made with First Strike. Combat Ends does not prevent the opponent's current strike on its own, but that effect can be achieved by giving current Combat Ends cards First Strike. That means a First Strike always resolves against Combat Ends. Benefits: 1) Less special rules, everything follows the standard timing, 2) A counter to dodge and Combat Ends in the core rules instead of having to look for special cards. Currently, the rules fail at teaching how combat works because one cannot understand combat without knowing that Immortal Grapple and Psyche exist. 3) Make the First Strike clans great again, mainly and . 4) New design space for Combat Ends without First Strike, Dodge with First Strike, dodge + combat ends,... 5) Make Anesthetic Touch a standard card instead of an exception. Anesthetic Touch Combat Hand Strike and Combat Ends. As above, with First Strike.

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > Maybe it is a good time to ask: How do we want the game to work? If we paint with a broad brush to start, it is easier to fill in the details afterwards than the other way around. > > For example: > Should combat be very granular with lots of little steps, as it is now, or should it be simple? Stepping further back, how long should turns take? How big of a role should combat have? > IMO, combat should not entirely be vampires fist-fighting and throwing sewer lids and gates at each other. The keywords of combat (Maneuver, Strike/Dodge, Press) all work abstractly and can be used to refer to social struggles as well as physical ones. And 'social combat' is actually more harmonious with what Vampire: The Masquerade presents itself as - political intrigue, devious plots, backstabbing, and powerplays. Why would two immortals that have lived for centuries risk their eternal unlives battling with swords and guns? They would have to have some serious grievances with one another to resort to actual battle. ________________ But I agree with Brum about making all the strikes resolve simultaneously, including S:CE. I agree with James about naming the steps - don't introduce different names to call or describe the steps, please. Also, if cards could be reprinted to work within the very simple and clean Maneuver-Strike-Press framework and avoid all of the "before X" mini-steps, that would be nice. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

I'm liking how committed everyone is here, press step, end of round merging is great. "Beginning " sounds more Intuitive than adding a word because A.already referenced in pre-range cards, which are already referred to as "pres" and B. Its.the.beginning. Grapple doesn't need nerfed. However: It only needs to be good because S:CE is sooooooooooooo much better. "I have 36 cards in my deck that slowly allow me the chance to win by minion and blood denial with incredibly interactive situations catalyzing it. I play rush, I play signpost, I play crows, I play flesh of marble. I play drawing out the beast..... this is going to be such an Interesting game, I see you're running brujah, what do you play?" "Well, I'm unconcerned with anything but bleeding you at stealth with perfect paragon and resist earth's grasp, so.... I majesty and untap...." The best red card in the game (aside from scourge of the enochians) Is Earth Meld. Sce is held in check by cards like psyche, trackers mark, telepathic tracking, and most importantly immortal grapple. Balancing combat is only possible with this in mind. But, while we are here: Why bother with first strike if its never first. Its actually third. Third strike. After sce. After dodge. Then your allegedly fast minion, then other stuff. Let's make it matter. Most dodge and sce can become first strike, but not all. Like carlton but not Mylan get it. You get the idea.......

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > I'm not at all sure why adding more random words to the game is helpful. > > Currently, we have a Determine Range step. Range is a word that players have to be familiar with, because combat is either at long range or short range. During the range step you play maneuvers, so a feasible alternative is "Maneuvers step" - which is fine in terms of cognitive load, though still has issues that so many cards out there say "range" or "before range" on them. In either case, you have to know both terms - range and maneuver - to play the game. So why add a third term that players have to learn? > Technically we are replacing, rather than adding. I am also two minds on the matter; If we replace a keyword with another, it becomes immediately apparent for old returning players that there has been a change, and they will probably ask for clarification right away. (Imagine people just returning from torpor straight into a tournament or game night and then getting confused during the game). I think its potentially very confusing if we use same term for two different purposes, depending on era. Then you might receive vastly different answers to your questions depending who you ask. We should probably try to avoid that. For this purpose I am inclined toward new terms when applicable (btw, I think we might want to name the new ruleset VTES 4th edition or something) On the other hand, not all terms merit a replacement. Maneuvers don't really have any issues associated with them, and people already know how maneuvers work. I think we might potentially want to keep the term "maneuver" and use it for the same thing it has always done. Its the steps and strikes and the combat structure that we need to clean up. When I'm trying to think of how combat structure could potentially work, I keep running into this annoying thing: that strike:combat ends, theft of vitaes and normal strikes have to resolve in a specific order. Why did we need to do this I don't think there is a good way to both simplify this part and keep the strikes the way they are. We need to specify that order in some way and it feels so artificial. At the very least we should probably errata the non-standard combat ends (hand strike: combat ends, etc) so they fit into this structure better. That's even without including the criminally underused first strike which btw requires another timing step of its own. I'm not sure how to factor it into this, or even just errata the whole bloody thing away. In comparison, analyzing how Magic does things, MtG has only two strike steps, first strike and normal strike. Ignoring first strike, strikes resolve at the same time, but game state is not checked during the resolution of cards, abilities or strikes. (terminology simplified, no need to educate me on that) This means that if player would be about to receive lethal damage from opponents creatures strike, but at the same time gain life from own lifelinking creatures strike, the player would not lose the game since state of lifepoints would be checked only after everything has finished resolving. I wonder if we could learn something from this approach. I've noticed plenty of issues in both VTES and netrunner that stem from checking game state constantly, even during a cards resolution (netrunner players remember Ekomind + Levy AR lab access interaction? That was the first case the lead designer made a ruling that was in contradiction with the card text. Ie. card functioned differently from what its card text said). Maybe we could move away from checking game state constantly? It might allow us to possibly make things work without creating a rigid timing structure with strikes (imagine theft of vitae vs normal strike possibly resolving at same time) Someone pointed out earlier that we shouldn't think about specific cards when re-evaluating combat, but I don't see how we can avoid that. The cards are the cause of so much god-forsaken MESS, we sorta have to. Especially since much of the problems are caused by individual cards creating timings and rulings issues unique to themselves. If we ignore that, we are just going to end up with same problems again. ps. We do need a lot of time to process these suggested changes.. I am really hyped about the possibility of fixing soooooo many problems and simplifying combat though. I'm sure it can be done now that we have the best ever opportunity to do so. This discussion will probably make some minds explode though. ;D Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

So much these! > Non-existant user wrote: > > > Brum wrote: > > No more First Strike, please. > > > I would go the other way: keep First Strike, and use it for Dodge and Combat Ends instead of adding special rules. > > Dodge effect: cancel the negative effect of the opponent's strike. > Combat Ends effect: go to Leave step, presses cannot be played. > > Those effects do not need any special timing or resolution rule, they stand on their own. A dodge would need First Strike to negate the strike made with First Strike. Combat Ends does not prevent the opponent's current strike on its own, but that effect can be achieved by giving current Combat Ends cards First Strike. That means a First Strike always resolves against Combat Ends. > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > Why bother with first strike if its never first. Its actually third. Third strike. After sce. After dodge. Then your allegedly fast minion, then other stuff. Let's make it matter. Most dodge and sce can become first strike, but not all. Like carlton but not Mylan get it. > You get the idea....... > And before you start saying that this'll make First Strike too strong, bear in mind that damage from First Strike can be prevented. So it ain't gonna producing auto torporizations from aggropokes (well, it is if people don't take it into account and add some prevents to the deck) Finnish Politics!

I vaguely remember one guy talking for no avail about first strike some time ago... About IG/SCE "duel". I'm kind of divided - from one view point, greatly articulated by Brandon some time ago - decisive combat "I got IG - you are toast/no IG - SCE, nothing happened" looks wasted opportunity. On the other hand actually ability to pack SCE and not bother with combat is a feature - large part of player community are not interested In this "mini game". Actually what I'm starting to see is that combat decks start to leave "anti SCE" behind - they are mostly not very useful against other form's of combat, like popular sticks+for, so game divides into guys interested in combat, hitting each other "interactively", and guys perfectly fine playing the game "if I got SCE i will survive, if not, I'll be toast". Which is not so bad a game state. Except maybe all of this is happening because of combat being so complicated, and by simplifying it we can get more people interested in it. I see no problem in, for example, toreador player, to have combat plan of dodge+ press to end, if it'll be a working solution (no ig/SCE in the pool and dodge helping against environmental). Will it be too big a change? NC Russia

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > I'm not at all sure why adding more random words to the game is helpful. > Currently, we have a Determine Range step. > It's more about changing terms. Determine Range step would be removed, and "Approach step" (or whatever) would be added. In the option B scenario, I wouldn't keep "Determine Range" because playing a Torn Signpost has nothing to do with determining the range. One of the important thing I keep in mind is: how would I explain combat to a new player? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> I keep running into this annoying thing: that strike:combat ends, theft of vitaes and normal strikes have to resolve in a specific order. Why did we need to do this > There's the question, that what happens to blood stolen at max cap compared to damage. Theft of Vitae is pretty straight forward - blood moves first, then damage is done. It's a clarification and a nerf to the card, and explains how it works. I'm kind of baffled why people make such a huge fuss about it. The 'issues' with first strike are a lot more pressing. Also, just to make a statement to your choice of words: combat in VtES is not problematic, nor is a problem. It works fine, but could use cleaning up. Either options A or B presented will do this. They do not address problems. "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

I like this one too. It is very short. But I think it could be seen as unprecise. A little bit too less and undetailed Prince of Magdeburg VEKN-ID: 5850005 Prince-ID: 615

keeping tabs on both threads right now, but I'm at work and typing with my thumbs. I largely agree with Bloodartist's assessment that. Combat works but the process could be better defined. The way Strike: Combat Ends resolves (and interacts with First Strike) isnt the most intuitive thing. Also i would personally like to see the term "Before Range Is Determined" put into a cannon and shot into the sun. I realize theres a bit in the rulebook that says you play these cards before maneuvers, but with the very nature of what words actually mean it could be taken that these cards could be played at other times. So i would be in favor of establishing a clearer process for how combat works.

I prefer option A over option B. I feel that B is too clipped, while A does a good job of codifying the steps that we currently have, making the process more understandable. I don't think combat needs to be shorter, just more understandable.

> kschaefer wrote: > I don't think combat needs to be shorter... > It's not really important what you (the guy, who already knows the rules) think, catch somebody at the boardgame shop and show him two options and ask, what he thinks. NC Russia

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > I'm not at all sure why adding more random words to the game is helpful. > > Currently, we have a Determine Range step. Range is a word that players have to be familiar with, because combat is either at long range or short range. During the range step you play maneuvers, so a feasible alternative is "Maneuvers step" - which is fine in terms of cognitive load, though still has issues that so many cards out there say "range" or "before range" on them. In either case, you have to know both terms - range and maneuver - to play the game. So why add a third term that players have to learn? > > Again, V:TES is regularly criticised for making players learn lots of vocabulary to make sense of it. Adding more doesn't make it better. Requiring new players to know both, because they have to be able to read and understand old cards, makes it worse. I cannot fathom the reasoning that says "Let's take one of the problems our game suffers from and make it worse, consciously and repeatedly." > > Further: as terms, approach and leave only make a whole lot of sense if combat is one round, which it isn't - Trap is a thing, amongst others. I would also foresee a lot of confusion about the "Leave" step around Strike: Combat Ends. I'm playing Majesty, so I'm leaving combat, right? Since I'm leaving combat, we're in the Leave step, right? So I can play presses? > I agree with the above. I'd rather play with the Option B, but the wording is not the best. I'd continue to use the words we all know: 1: Range 2: Strike 3: Press 4: Round 5: Combat

> self wrote: > > Also i would personally like to see the term "Before Range Is Determined" put into a cannon and shot into the sun. I realize theres a bit in the rulebook that says you play these cards before maneuvers, but with the very nature of what words actually mean it could be taken that these cards could be played at other times. > . > I for one, when first learning, definitly thought 'before ranged is determined' meant cards could be played alongside maneuvers. 'i go long with magnum' sure - i come close with flash, and while im here grab a signpost out of the ground' Maneuvers are what are used to determine the range. Thus, if people are still playing maneuvers - the range is yet to be determined. honestly i still see it this way, the only reason i play how its meant to be is because someone somewhere told me 'thats wrong - you need to play 'before range is determined' cards before range is even talked about'

A simplified system is great in theory, but it limits design space. The original rules were actually not complicated enough to take into account all the cards that were later created. My principal problem with the game's structure is that many cards have been given unique timing windows through card text or rulings when a more robust system, combined with disciplined editorial oversight, could have accommodated them. It would be better to start off with a mildly complicated combat structure and then scrupulously prohibit any new cards from getting a unique timing window outside of that structure. I certainly am all in favor of getting rid of the "pre-strike" phase of IG and a few other cards. The fewer phases to call out, the better. However, your system should have a phase that corresponds to the text "Play this card before range is determined [on the first round]". Even though this "phase" is not listed in the current rules as such, it is an integral and discrete phase of the VTES combat system. By doing a perfunctory search on Secret Library, I find 103 library cards and 14 crypt cards that mention this phase. Please do not make this phase part of the the "Approach" step, because that would be an inauthentic result. If a card must be played before maneuvers, then it should get a separate, enumerated step. Practically, you cannot rewrite those 117 cards, and you should not deny future designers the opportunity to design "pre-range" cards. 1. Preparation/Pre-Combat/Pre-Approach 2. Approach/Maneuver/Range 3. etc.

> elotar wrote: > It's not really important what you (the guy, who already knows the rules) think, catch somebody at the boardgame shop and show him two options and ask, what he thinks. > As someone who has only been playing for a little more than a year, I didn't find the combat too much to understand. Of course I've screwed up the timing of cards since, but in no way have the current combat rounds ever put me off from playing. In fact, I enjoy how combat works in VTES. I also prefer option A over B, but it seems like I'm more of a grognard around here than the players who have been playing for 20 years...

> Cat_in_Exile wrote: > > As someone who has only been playing for a little more than a year, I didn't find the combat too much to understand. Of course I've screwed up the timing of cards since, but in no way have the current combat rounds ever put me off from playing. In fact, I enjoy how combat works in VTES. > > [/quote > > Me too. Overall, the substantial nature of combat is one of the game's strengths. > Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

> AaronC wrote: > Practically, you cannot rewrite those 117 cards, and you should not deny future designers the opportunity to design "pre-range" cards. > Which of these cards is broken by playing it together with maneuvers instead of before? Due to Impulse rules, those cards are still played before the range is known for sure because the opponent can always play a maneuver after.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > Practically, you cannot rewrite those 117 cards, and you should not deny future designers the opportunity to design "pre-range" cards. > > > Which of these cards is broken by playing it together with maneuvers instead of before? Due to Impulse rules, those cards are still played before the range is known for sure because the opponent can always play a maneuver after. > All of them that are cycled into if I control the opposing minion But seriously, 4 parts: Beginning: Player with impulse plays cards reworded to be played at "the beginning of a round of combat " such as crows, signposts, etc. Other player plays, impulse passes, etc. Maneuvers Impulse owner may maneuver to long (or close if fear the void below, etc happens). Other player gains impulse, maneuvers, it passes, etc. Strikes A. Impulse player chooses. Opponent chooses. B. Resolution B0.5 begin prevent window for damage in b1 to b1.5 B1. Dodges/sce/first strike/theftyness/effects B1.5 damage from strikes and environmental. C1 additional strikes C1.1 begin prevention window for b2. C1.2 dodges, etc C1.3damage... End Presses Taste Press timed stuff (disarm...) Effects canceling the end. Grapple is changed to "only usable at close range once the opposing minion declines to maneuver to long range. Play before strikes are chosen." It gets nothing exclusive for timing. Its played at the end of manuevers, so, just like you ask if your press blocking a bleed, you ask if they manuever to long, and grapple depending in the answer. Also, blood to water gets this wording. So its simple and most thinking happens during strikes, as it should be. It starts at beginning. It ends at end. Middle is maneuvering and striking. Simple but not invasive, aside from cards reworded, which is optimal now anyway.

Ok guys, talking about specific cards doesn't help much I think. 1. Are there good reasons to simplify Combat? I think yes. 2. In the broader sense, are there good reasons to add relevance to combat in the game, to make it coherent with the number of cards and resources it has or to make it closer to the Winning Conditions of the game? I think yes. 3. Can we simplify combat, keeping the base functionality of all cards? i think yes. Some cards might win / lose relevance. But the overall game will be better. And more fun. Imagine... if combat could actually be a valid winning strategy?

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Stuff stuff stuff... > So wait, am I missing something - isn't what you're talking about basically the option A that was suggested in another thread? It's completely valid, but doesn't really add much more to the option B discussion, other than "I prefer A". Or was there a further point I missed that makes your suggestion radically different from option A? "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

I have a question regarding this change: With putting the timing window of pre-range stuff into the same window as manuevers, how would this work: Acting vampire plays a set range effect, which would end the maneuver phase with current wording. Would the non-acting vampire be able to play other pre-range stuff like Carrion Crows? Furthermore, with putting Immortal Grapple into this timing window, would a vampire be able to play IG after setting the range to close? Prince of Bonn, Germany

Most likely the wordings would be changed to 'neither combatant can play more manouvers'. Don't know how it would work with other, opposite set-range effect. "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: > Don't know how it would work with other, opposite set-range effect. > Obviously the same as it is now. NC Russia

Yeah, "obviously", since presently the set-range cards skip the 'determine range' step where manouvers are played. You can't skip the whole 'approach' step where manouvers are also played in the B option. Or you can, but I think it was discussed in this thread that it would not be a preferred approach. So you have to rephrase them both into 'no more manouvers can be played', and make it explicit that you can't counter-set the range. Not so obviously. "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: > Yeah, "obviously", since presently the set-range cards skip the 'determine range' step where manouvers are played. You can't skip the whole 'approach' step where manouvers are also played in the B option. > > Or you can, but I think it was discussed in this thread that it would not be a preferred approach. > > So you have to rephrase them both into 'no more manouvers can be played', and make it explicit that you can't counter-set the range. > > Not so obviously. > This was a good point that I had missed myself. Set-range cards. I think simpler solution would be to write set-range cards as: "Range is automatically long. Further range-altering cards have no effect." (similarly set range to close) This means that maneuver cards could be played before or after the set-range card for card cycling, thus enabling set-range card to be played in the maneuver step (approach, whatever). Also the first set-range card (or ability) would be the one that matters mostly empowering the active player. > Yomyael wrote: > Furthermore, with putting Immortal Grapple into this timing window, would a vampire be able to play IG after setting the range to close? > Ankha had an earlier suggestion that implied that grapple could be "countered" by playing a maneuver to long afterwards, thus weakening immortal grapple a fair bit. I think this is fine, since there already is a "fight for range", it just takes place before grapple can be played. I dont think grapple was ever intended to counter maneuvers, only strikes. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I think it actually fits much better into other wordings on the rules. The acting minion is much more empowered and the reacting minion is much more "reacting". I have NO problems with people waiting to see if there's a Torn Signpost before maneuvering. Or the other way around. But please! Don't stop the progress of Combat because of 1 card. If Immortal Grapple is such a beloved part of the game, I'm sure we can think of a way to keep the functionality, via ideas and play test. Combat with 3 phases is the way to go, in my opinion. And if new texts have to be made to staple cards, so be it. Black Chantry needs to make money too.

I think option B would be too much. EVEN if we keep the current wording. Complexity is not a bad thing, we are not simpletons, neither are the beginners who are new to the game. All we need is clarifying, not simplifying. Option A is much more comprehensible, and it would be good to indeed clarify some of these shady combat windows. As I was reading this thread, I saw many silly ideas and explanations. I firmly believe that the complexity of Combat in VtES (a game in the game itself) is very characteristic and should not be dumbed down. But I also agree on that we should use this opprotunity clarify shady happenings in Combat. NC of Hungary ///

For my 5 cent I agree with Malachy

For a part that is very far from the winning condition of the game, combat has a lot of cards, a lot of rules, a lot of rulings and a lot of importance. If you want to win this game, the best combat card is Banishment. The second is the s:ce you can have access to. It's like if our human appendix was the size of our liver, with no useful functionality at all. Sure, there are a few combat decks that can be competitive. But they are rare and in those cases, combat is support. I think the less cards you need to create a competent combat (a combat that takes the opponent's minion away from the ready region), the more space you have for ousting cards and the more combat will be used as a strategy to win. Or I'm wrong and combat is on par with bleed or politics...

The current problems are with timing windows be ambiguous as hell and unofficial wording and slang being how combat flows right for experienced players. Any pres? (No) Do you manuever ? (Long) Strike with what? (I wave) Additionals? (Pursuit to cycle and wave again) Do you wish to press? (Yes) (Taste for zero to cycle...) So, renaming is relevant for new cards printed regardless of option chosen. I was unaware there were 2 threads on this until this morning, but here's my synopsis without saying AorB is better: Combat structure, wording and timing is clunky and now is the time to aim to fix it. We are focusing on structure and kicking around wording when timing has as much impact as structure in A&B, since it modifies combats effects and relevance. So, we need to be very clear on intended timing of all cards. As of now, B gives large open windows which are by nature more loosely defined but substantially less ambiguous than current system, while A by having an additional part, has everything in a less broad but more specific and defined window, which doesn't create differing Interactions like B, but does slam the door on ambiguity a lot harder. B supporters are more than willing to adopt fewer parts as long as it is defined from the start which of the broad phases certain things happen in, which will make each broad window cut into more defined subsections. They are also ok with combat being made less impactful in strategies meant to counteract combat, because timing windows will already be partitioned off substantially, and accommodating certain cards (grapple) isn't as important as the broad goal of super simplification. In this case, the problem is remedied by grapple wording stating its window clearly, as "in the manuever step" like "Only usable at close range when the opposing minion declines to play additional manuevers." Thus makes it like deflection and other bounce; you have passed the point in the action where you can block if you're playing deflection. If you've declined, you've declined, you can't say your rather block than play My Enemys Enemy when you realize that your predator is dropping conditioning which will oust your grandprey. Anyway, Option A supporters want change but in a more tightly structured sequence, not unlike B, but with more defined times and more similarities with how the current structure SHOULD be than with a new system that changes much function. I guess my big question is why are there 2 instead of 3 threads at this point, since we need to change strike order or rename first strike, which means we could add first strike to some dodges and SCE, but not all, which would add a more intuitive attack order and change some cards for the better. I would propose the BEST sce still being such, Majesty and earth meld should have first strike. But also greatly playable sce like catatonic fear and form of myst should not be at first strike. So only the first 2 get erratad, but only those 2 retain current functionality, just as in the case of "free" bleed pump and limitations. As I stated before, it would effect dodges as well, but strikes would go: First strike: Sce, then dodge, then all else Resolution of everything else. Sce Dodge Normal strike effects and environmental damage Normal damage This is important because we need to change it to this, or remove first strike, or rename first strike as part of A or B. I'm not asking if we need to ask how far is too far, I'm stating the actual task is streamline combat and maintain its relevance without making it not matter or matter too much(spoiler, nobody has made it matter too much with any suggestion. An example of such suggestions would be first strike coming before dodge and sce with none of those getting priority timing, which shakes things up but ultimately may do so too much.)

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Combat structure, wording and timing is clunky and now is the time to aim to fix it. > > We are focusing on structure and kicking around wording when timing has as much impact as structure in A&B, since it modifies combats effects and relevance. > So, we need to be very clear on intended timing of all cards. As of now, B gives large open windows which are by nature more loosely defined but substantially less ambiguous than current system, while A by having an additional part, has everything in a less broad but more specific and defined window, which doesn't create differing Interactions like B, but does slam the door on ambiguity a lot harder. > > B supporters are more than willing to adopt fewer parts as long as it is defined from the start which of the broad phases certain things happen in, which will make each broad window cut into more defined subsections. They are also ok with combat being made less impactful in strategies meant to counteract combat, because timing windows will already be partitioned off substantially, and accommodating certain cards (grapple) isn't as important as the broad goal of super simplification. In this case, the problem is remedied by grapple wording stating its window clearly, as "in the manuever step" like "Only usable at close range when the opposing minion declines to play additional manuevers." Thus makes it like deflection and other bounce; you have passed the point in the action where you can block if you're playing deflection. If you've declined, you've declined, you can't say your rather block than play My Enemys Enemy when you realize that your predator is dropping conditioning which will oust your grandprey. > > Anyway, > Option A supporters want change but in a more tightly structured sequence, not unlike B, but with more defined times and more similarities with how the current structure SHOULD be than with a new system that changes much function. > Thanks for that nice summary. > ReverendRevolver wrote: > I guess my big question is why are there 2 instead of 3 threads at this point, since we need to change strike order or rename first strike, which means we could add first strike to some dodges and SCE, but not all, which would add a more intuitive attack order and change some cards for the better. > Renaming first strike seems a better option (we're not trying to balance combat here, just trying to make it clearer for new players). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

You are very wrong there, my fellow Methuselah Combat is in a very dominant position, and this will increase even more, with the latest set. Sure, an oppressive combat section contains more cards, then the 7 Majesty vote deck, but creating a decent combat section is quite challenging. Let's bring the good ol' ANI decks... it outs and destroys with 3 cards: Deep Song, Carrion - Aid... well maybe that's an exception because there's nothing more efficient than ani combat. But it is there, and it is strong imo, even without the obvious ousting cardtext (meaning bleed and vote). I'm still not getting this First Strike - S:CE - Dodge madness... What's so confusing? Dodge and S:CE are defensive strikes... they are meant to negate the opposing minion's harmful strike effects, kinda unresolving them, regardless of time...I have never in my life had problem explaining this interaction EVER to a newbie nor they've ever had problem understanding it. Cycling Taste of Vitae against an ally... that's another story NC of Hungary ///

"When old age shall this generation waste, Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know..." Combat with dozen steps with several sub-steps for each is ugly. Obviously it can provide more precise timing, but if you want effects, timing of which result in ugly sequence, than it means that there is a problem with desired effects. Effect of IG is bad not because of timing - special timing window appeared because IG was needed to counter overpowered SCE effects. I'm still wondering, why SCE was so overpowered at Jyhad time, when there was only just three such cards (majesty, earth meld and form of mist), so it demanded two counters (IG and Psyche). If even we believe, that all of this was justified, than when moving forward we should think not about not preserving everything exactly as it is, but for design intent. IG at manuever(approach) step will still counter SCE - decks packing SCE do not use manuevers, everything else is not relevant. NC Russia

What about just name every “sub step” and merge pre and after where it’s viable? Before range -> Preparation Range -> Maneuver After maneuvers and before strike -> determined range or close/ranged step to enable certain cards to avoid “only usable at” Strikes -> define strike -> Resolve strike ( s:ce go to finish step ) -> Resolve damage -> Aditional strike ( loop to define strike ) After strike and before press -> Resolution Press step -> Press End of round -> Finish ( if press are defined loop to preparation ) End of combat -> End I know, it will be a lot of new keywords but having them in the manual and maybe at teaching playmats and reference cards will turn the combat in a more intelligible thing Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

> Sambomb wrote: > What about just name every “sub step” and merge pre and after where it’s viable? > Before range -> Preparation > Range -> Maneuver > After maneuvers and before strike -> determined range or close/ranged step to enable certain cards to avoid “only usable at” > Strikes -> define strike > -> Resolve strike ( s:ce go to finish step ) > -> Resolve damage > -> Aditional strike ( loop to define strike ) > After strike and before press -> Resolution > Press step -> Press > End of round -> Finish ( if press are defined loop to preparation ) > End of combat -> End > > I know, it will be a lot of new keywords but having them in the manual and maybe at teaching playmats and reference cards will turn the combat in a more intelligible thing > Isn't this, once again, practically option A, as per here: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76613-new-round-structure-option-a-we-d-like-your-feedback "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: > Isn't this, once again, practically option A, as per here: > www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76613-new-round-structure-option-a-we-d-like-your-feedback > Yes but without Start and End of each step. I think this as mix between both. Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

> Sambomb wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > I think this as mix between both. > > > No, it's not. The choice is between an ugly scheme (A), and Beautiful one (B or something, which B might became). There may be different kinds of ugliness but they all belong there. > NC Russia

NO! Combat in vtes is as complicated as it needs to be, do not simplify it! Combat is still very interesting and fast we just had a tournament with 1 hour time limit and a lot of wienne combat decks and the play was still super fast. With simplified combat we would gain nothing only lose the magic of the combat, please do not nerf this!

> darkmore wrote: > NO! > > ... lot of wienne combat decks ... > As I see, weenie combat methuselath are trying to overran forum. NC Russia

> Ankha wrote: > hey, wouldnt it be grand if combat were easier to navigate without changing how it actually works? > V:TES player base:

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.

> Mauro wrote: > 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. > No one is changing anything in order to sell (new) cards! I see all proposed (and implemented) recent changes valid in the process of keeping the game alive and making it more playable and accessible so you don't have to be a walking and breathing computer in order to play it. Finnish Politics!

> Bloodartist wrote: > I think simpler solution would be to write set-range cards as: > "Range is automatically long. Further range-altering cards have no effect." (similarly set range to close) > > This means that maneuver cards could be played before or after the set-range card for card cycling, thus enabling set-range card to be played in the maneuver step (approach, whatever). Also the first set-range card (or ability) would be the one that matters mostly empowering the active player. > I'm all for widening the spot where many a combat card could be played, but I'm rather much against of enabling cycling. Either in combat or anywhere else (stealth, intercept, votepushing, etc) as it encourages more sloppy deckbuilding. So, I think, that after the range has been set you should most definitely not allow any more maneuvers to be played (by making them have no effect = keep on playing them if you want to cycle). Finnish Politics!

> Malachy wrote: > You are very wrong there, my fellow Methuselah Combat is in a very dominant position, and this will increase even more, with the latest set. Sure, an oppressive combat section contains more cards, then the 7 Majesty vote deck, but creating a decent combat section is quite challenging. Let's bring the good ol' ANI decks... it outs and destroys with 3 cards: Deep Song, Carrion - Aid... well maybe that's an exception because there's nothing more efficient than ani combat. But it is there, and it is strong imo, even without the obvious ousting cardtext (meaning bleed and vote). > > I'm still not getting this First Strike - S:CE - Dodge madness... What's so confusing? Dodge and S:CE are defensive strikes... they are meant to negate the opposing minion's harmful strike effects, kinda unresolving them, regardless of time...I have never in my life had problem explaining this interaction EVER to a newbie nor they've ever had problem understanding it. Cycling Taste of Vitae against an ally... that's another story > Its not a problem by the time (most) new players are 5ish games in, but its unintuitive. We are streamlining. Bleed modifiers got un-cluttered, which was logical. Why clutter the normal "as a rule" type cards and let the less than half dozen exceptions to the rule be clean and simple? Also, ppl didn't realize it didn't count until they analyzed it when I was teaching new players, now it's clear. It reminded me of having to explain Howling Mine in MTG "but I already draw a card when my turn starts " "dude, that artifact says you get another one..." We don't have as many issues with vote. But it could use some tidying once the combat of err, combat is done. Renaming "First strike " into "Early strike" is cleaner, more intuitive, and also more mathematically correct (you know, because 1 isn't 3) you strike earlier than the other strikes. But still after speed priority 1&2. It gets stronger with my initial idea, but there's not errata with this easy fix

After dipping into history I think I got an understanding. If we are going to leave SCE as is and still want to streamline the game, than we should stop lying to others and ourselves - most important phases of combat are and always was not defined in the rulebook. So steps: > Start of the combat 1. Start of the round 2. Manuver step 3. Grapple step 4. Strike combat ends step 5. Strike step 6. Press step 7. end of the round > end of the combat Or even 1 and 2 can be merged just by clarifying "before range is chosen" into meaning the same as "blocks are declined": when both players has passed at this step without playing any cards. example: - active player passes - second player plays Torn Signpost, passes - active player plays Crows - active player plays AfB, passes - second player got no manuevers, passes, he is sad - active player wants to play Drawing out the Beast, but range already determined, so he can't. - second player little less sad 6 and 7 can also be merged - you have to play Taste before second player passes. So shorter version: > Start of the combat 1. Manuver step 2. Grapple step 3. Strike combat ends step 4. Strike step 5. Press step > end of the combat Names are intuitive and I think there will be very little to explain for a new player regardless of when which card should be played as well as what to expect from VtES combat ("yes, in this game combat can suddenly end at the middle of the round"). Formal rewording is needed for 4 grapple cards, removing "strike" from SCE cards and it's all check setting range cards - they will now end the step disallowing defender to play cards. New opportunity to design more grapple cards or to play with "step 3" somehow for those who is interested in it. NC Russia

> New opportunity to design more grapple cards or to play with "step 3" somehow for those who is interested in it. > While this is a cool design space that should get more help (maybe vampires that play grapples better), it's really more along the lines of option A. In option B there is really no reason to merge phases and then invent a new one, when all grapples can easily be specified in card text when they're played. Immortal Grapple is the only grapple anyways where the timing is wonky. It was already suggested that IG would read "If the range is close--" etc. It nerfs it a bit, but that's trivial. As was stated, worrying about single cards like IG, is moot in this discussion. As should the power level of S:CE be as well. Anyways, if your idea is that S:CE is too strong and it should be trumped with Grapples, cards like Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking, Death Seeker and the new card are better in killing Majesty decks. All IG is better at than those is that it enables Disarm. Which can be done on as well, so... Grapple isn't necessary to battle S:CE. A new step in the combat outline should not be added on a basis of any card's power level anyways. In option A I could imagine a Grapple step being fine, and should probably be suggested in that thread. All grapples should then be errated to be played in that step for it to serve a purpose. And then there could be more grapple cards designed, and grapple support cards and vampires. "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

I'm not a fan of introducing a new step in combat just because of one card. There must be a way to errata IG in some way that works with whatever combat structure we choose. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > I'm not a fan of introducing a new step in combat just because of one card. There must be a way to errata IG in some way that works with whatever combat structure we choose. > What's unique about Immortal Grapple's timing? There are other cards played after range is determined, but before strikes are chosen, including Thin Blood Blood of Acid Superior King of the Mountain inf Blissful Agony -- National Coordinator South Africa

> Bloodartist wrote: > I'm not a fan of introducing a new step in combat just because of one card. There must be a way to errata IG in some way that works with whatever combat structure we choose. > We are not introducing new step, it was there all along from the beginning. We just fixing it in the rules. Situation, that whole combat of VtES are greatly influenced by one card is stupid, I've written a lot about it. But if we want to IG remain working as is, which we should do until SCE remains as is, than we have no other way -> range should be determined, than players should ask if anybody is playing IG. NC Russia

> drnlmza wrote: > > Thin Blood > Blood of Acid > Superior King of the Mountain > inf Blissful Agony > O, thanks! Grapple step became much less empty! NC Russia

I think this whole mess about combat is being needlessly obtuse. The game has a really nice format for organizing combat. Maneuver-Strike-Press. Those are your three steps, I don't think we need an 'Approach' step or a 'Leave' step. The card text should convey to players when the optimum time to play the card is without having to explicitly say it, and when it does explicitly tell the player, it does so in as few words as possible - and VTES already has a format that does this. The format is "Strike: Do a thing / here are the details." You could minimize all this nonsense about "before range is determined" if it was simply "Maneuver: Do the thing." You play it during the maneuver step. The maneuver step is used to 'determine range' (why call the step 'determine range'? We don't call the strike step 'fighting step' or the press step 'chase sequence'.) Once both players decline to play a maneuver card, the maneuver step is over and range has been determined. Same with Immortal Grapple. The card could just read, "Strike: Hand strike, and strikes that are not hand strikes can't be made." I think Brum suggested this change in this thread and I suggested it months ago in my Revamping VTES post. If you have the Priority or 'Impulse' as its called in VTES, you already trump the opponent's S:CE card they were planning on playing, because you choose your strike before they choose theirs. What if Taste of Vitae were simply "Press: Do the ToV thing." You wouldn't need a clause about when to play it, because the card tells you in one word the exact step you can play it, the press step. If players decline to use presses or play Press: cards, then the combat is over. Also, I should point out, because I can hear the objections already: There is a difference between Strike: and Strike, Maneuver: and Manuever, and Press: and Press. In each case the former tells you the step that it can be played, the latter is the keyword/action to do the thing. Psyche! would look like, " Press." and "Press: Begin another round of combat if both minions are still ready." Shadow Step would be, " Maneuver." and " Maneuver: Burn 2 blood to set the range for this round." Outside the Hourglass, " Strike: Dodge." and " Maneuver, or dodge as a strike, with 1 optional maneuver." and " Maneuver: Do 2 environmental damage on the opposing minion. Only one OtH can be played at superior each round." Torn Signpost, " Maneuver: This vampire has strength of 2 this combat." and " Manuever: This vampire has a strength of 3 this combat." Etc.Etc.Etc. The only problem I can think of with the system this way is all the cards like Aid From Bats which say, "Strike: Do 2R damage, with 1 optional maneuver." and whatnot. The simple fix IMO would be to have the optional maneuvers only usuable on subsequent rounds, because declaring a strike before the Strike step just to use the optional maneuver the card gives is really as backwards as it gets. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > The game has a really nice format for organizing combat. Maneuver-Strike-Press. > This is a problem - rulebook got a nice format for organizing combat. The real game as is has a completely different structure somewhere in the line of: Grapple - SCE - Strikes with small percentage of not so relevant cards (compare, for example, power of maneuver and SCE effects) played "before grapple" or "after strikes" Efforts to make rulebook structure represent completely different one without "problems" are futile. NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > Same with Immortal Grapple. The card could just read, "Strike: Hand strike, and strikes that are not hand strikes can't be made." I think Brum suggested this change in this thread and I suggested it months ago in my Revamping VTES post. If you have the Priority or 'Impulse' as its called in VTES, you already trump the opponent's S:CE card they were planning on playing, because you choose your strike before they choose theirs. > Good example. Even I have suggested such change, but I do not care about maintaining present combat structure. But if you care about it, than it wont work this way - If you got priority then you just meet a problem that other strikes can't be played with it (which is still quite important for some decks), but in the situation when priority is on the other side it just fails in any possible sane rewording (both if trumping SCE played before or not). NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > The format is "Strike: Do a thing / here are the details." You could minimize all this nonsense about "before range is determined" if it was simply "Maneuver: Do the thing." You play it during the maneuver step. The maneuver step is used to 'determine range' (why call the step 'determine range'? We don't call the strike step 'fighting step' or the press step 'chase sequence'.) Once both players decline to play a maneuver card, the maneuver step is over and range has been determined. > > Same with Immortal Grapple. The card could just read, "Strike: Hand strike, and strikes that are not hand strikes can't be made." I think Brum suggested this change in this thread and I suggested it months ago in my Revamping VTES post. If you have the Priority or 'Impulse' as its called in VTES, you already trump the opponent's S:CE card they were planning on playing, because you choose your strike before they choose theirs. > I might be wrong, but if I understand this correctly, you can manevuer back and forth, then play Drawing Out The Beast? How about strikes? Currently any "Strike: do something" doesn't affect to current strike resolution regardless of who's acting (for example, the blocking minion can still play Majesty if the acting plays Withering). If immortal became something as Withering, would it work differently? NC of Hungary ///

There is no need to overly complicate keywords and change cards like that. If the round structure is to be changed it should be to something closely resembling the current game. Reasonably, you could go with three phases. Determine range, strike and press. Determine range got three sub-phases. Before maneuvers, maneuvers and post maneuvers (like IG). Strike got three as well: Chose strike, during resolution of strike (claws, prevention) and post strike (like playing additional strikes, if so, repeat chose strike). Press got two. Press and efter press (if combat is ending, such as psyche). Screwing over Immortal Grapple by moving it to the maneuver phase or making it a strike is not a good idea. There is no need to dumb down the game.

@Elotar, @Cyrus: I'd rather see the cards made to resemble the rulebook more closely, because the Maneuver-Strike-Press format is really clean and simple (it's one of the best parts of the rules of the game). It's the cards that are the problem, because the cards create 'sub-steps' only due to the way they are written. Why do these cards specify such timing detail? Will it really break the combat if you can play Torn Signpost during the Maneuver Step, as opposed to 'at the beginning of the round'? Why don't the 'Prevent damage' Fortitude cards specify 'Play only after strikes are chosen' or something similar? What service does it do for the game to have such specificity? Does that specificity really matter? Part of the options that Ankha is trying to give us is A) more clarity of the timing windows / round structure, or B] more flexible timing windows. I vote for the more flexibility in timing windows, but I think it can be done in a way that's also clear and concise and consistent (not dumbed down): just use the "Strike: ~Effect~" formatting on the cards to signal what step of combat it can be played in. It also cuts down on word text. @Elotar: > > If you got priority then you just meet a problem that other strikes can't be played with it (which is still quite important for some decks), but in the situation when priority is on the other side it just fails in any possible sane rewording (both if trumping SCE played before or not). > You're right. Hmmm... Combat Ends would seem to be a very powerful effect! Perhaps it would be better suited to the Maneuver Step: Maneuver: Grapple. Only usable at close range. Strike cards that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round. That way the effect 'happens' before the Strike Step, which is functionally what happens now, and is pretty much the exact change Ankha mentioned at the beginning of this thread. @Malachy: See my response to Elotar above. Also, the "Strike: ~Effect~" model still works as VTES currently works with each player only able to declare 1 strike each. So while there could be cards that read, "Strike: +2handsize for the rest of combat" i.e. something that doesn't affect strike resolution, but occurs within the Strike Step. The cards like Withering that read, "Strike: 2R damage" actually mean, "Strike: ranged strike for 2 damage." and the keyword strike counts towards combat resolution. Does that make sense? It is the difference between Strike: and strike. The first is the format for timing windows, the other is the keyword / action. TL;DR: Use the Strike: formatting to signal the timing window. Bold the word Strike when referring to the timing window. Lowercase 'strike' refers to the actual strike that counts toward strike resolution. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> drnlmza wrote: > There are other cards played after range is determined, but before strikes are chosen, including > > Thin Blood > Blood of Acid > Superior King of the Mountain > inf Blissful Agony > Just for thoroughness: Death of my conscience Sanguinary wind Shame Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Maneuver: Grapple. Only usable at close range. Strike cards that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round. > What "Only usable at close range" means in this context? As I've said, problem lies not in the wording, it lies in the way the combat plays. By giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG we are effectively changing the way combat works in a very fundamental way, because IG - SCE "challenge" are extremely one-sided. I'm not saying the change will be bad (maybe even the opposite - maneuvers will be usefull together with SCE) but the goal hear is not to change how the cards work. If we are not giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG, than we are back at the "grapple step square" - range should be determined, than grapples (and, as we see, several other "close range before strikes cards) should be played (or passed) by both players. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > Maneuver: Grapple. Only usable at close range. Strike cards that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round. > > > What "Only usable at close range" means in this context? > > As I've said, problem lies not in the wording, it lies in the way the combat plays. > > By giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG we are effectively changing the way combat works in a very fundamental way, because IG - SCE "challenge" are extremely one-sided. > > I'm not saying the change will be bad (maybe even the opposite - maneuvers will be usefull together with SCE) but the goal hear is not to change how the cards work. > > If we are not giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG, than we are back at the "grapple step square" - range should be determined, than grapples (and, as we see, several other "close range before strikes cards) should be played (or passed) by both players. > I imagine it would work with each player playing Maneuver cards or using maneuvers until both players decline. If we used maneuvers and I assume I got the range to close, then my opponent opted not to maneuver or play a Maneuver card, I would play IG. Then my opponent would likely maneuver to long. This is a good thing IMO. This is good interactivity. I'm in favor of minor changes to cards if we can reduce the word-count on the cards. Using the Strike:Effect format does that, and I also think the fundamental change to the game of making combat more open (as a result of that and changes like Option B Ankha proposes) are a good thing. Ankha and crew are being conservative (not a bad thing) but making combat more open ended with more relaxed windows and timings would make things more interesting and possibly more fun. Really though, would any of the cards that Drnlmza or BloodArtist mentioned be broken if they were worded to be Maneuver: or Strike: (that is, you play it within those large timing windows) instead of 'after range is determined, before strikes are chosen'? I don't think so, and I think the fundamental change to combat as a result would probably make it more exciting, etc.etc.etc. Also, Magic actually works this way. There is only 1 card that I can think of off of the top of my head that specifically states a timing window in combat. That card is Berserk and says, "Play Berserk only after blockers are declared and before combat damage is dealt." That card was printed back in 1993 and they've never gone back to specifying timing windows because 1) giving players freedom to respond to things that are played in a variety of ways makes the games more varied, exciting, interesting, etc.etc.etc. and 2) the function of the card itself conveys the optimum time it should be played, generally. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I don't think so, and I think the fundamental change to combat as a result would probably make it more exciting, etc.etc.etc. > I agree with you. Unfortunately the goal of the project, discussed here, is not to change the way how combat works in any fundamental way, just change wording. With IG it's especially important because it's an only card in a discipline, theoretically dedicated to combat, which trumps main defense strategy in the game. NC Russia

IG/SCE is a red herring. already has one reliable maneuver to come back to close, and needs it anyway against . The SCE deck would have to be able to reliably maneuver twice to be able to beat IG, and I cannot see how such a big combat package in a non-combat deck could work in a varied meta. The IG change would make a difference against guns or , but in that case, it is an advantage for the deck to be able to cycle. It is not like they were going to stay close before seeing your IG anyway... Overall, a very minor change.

> Non-existant user wrote: > IG/SCE is a red herring. already has one reliable maneuver to come back to close, and needs it anyway against . > It would be prudent to say "strike with a maneuver". I was confused for a moment since you can play as many maneuver cards as you like in a combat, therefore saying "has one/ needs it for X" is misleading. What if we introduce a maneuver card that requires merely potence? Or is this weakness to maneuvers intentional in potence design space? ps. I don't want to screw over IG. I don't want to change its function in any way! But I hate the "playable after maneuvers, before strikes are chosen" timing window. I hate timing windows that are not defined in the rulebook, unless they use the wording "beginning of" or "at the end of". I wanted to suggest changing IG's wording to "Playable at the end of maneuver step, if the range is close." I guess I never got around to doing it since other people made lots of suggestions before I did.. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Non-existant user wrote: > IG/SCE is a red herring. already has one reliable maneuver to come back to close, and needs it anyway against . The SCE deck would have to be able to reliably maneuver twice to be able to beat IG, and I cannot see how such a big combat package in a non-combat deck could work in a varied meta. > > The IG change would make a difference against guns or , but in that case, it is an advantage for the deck to be able to cycle. It is not like they were going to stay close before seeing your IG anyway... > > Overall, a very minor change. > Couldn't agree more. IG is a niche card. It's power level has diminished over years, and was replaced by many other cards that override S:CE better than it, like Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking. We really shouldn't concentrate on a single card with such a niche place in the game when considering combat as a whole. Potence is in a very bad place and has been for ages. People love it, but it needs more support in other ways. I'd argue that the whole IG timing window discussion isn't what should be had here at all, but is a problem for another time (once it is decided what to do with combat as a whole). I'd love to try this option B out, and will bring it up with our local meta. Most cards should be easy to convert. If we'll get practice games in, I'll try to write a thorough report. "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: > [IG is a niche card. It's power level has diminished over years, and was replaced by many other cards that override S:CE better than it, like Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking. > FWIIW IG and Psyche! both debuted in Jyhad. Therefore saying that IG has been _replaced_ by Psyche! is odd... Finnish Politics!

> Non-existant user wrote: > already has one reliable maneuver to come back to close, and needs it anyway against . > So to the situation we have already, where any combat is compelled to have 8+ TSP and 8+ IG you are suggesting to add requirement of 8+ Slams (or a second combat discipline) to even have an ability to deal any damage to noncombatant. Still losing to because of Terror Frenzy. It's a great way to move game forward! NC Russia

> Lönkka wrote: > FWIIW IG and Psyche! both debuted in Jyhad. > > Therefore saying that IG has been _replaced_ by Psyche! is odd... > Kraus was quite active in my topic, literally dedicated to the invention of both this cards at Jyhad. So he know it, he just does not care. NC Russia

> Kraus wrote: > IG is a niche card. It's power level has diminished over years, and was replaced by many other cards that override S:CE better than it, like Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking. > Psyche! is better than Immortal Grapple? I don't think that's the case. Regardless, those two cards exist in "niche" form for a reason. They obviously exist to thwart S:CE. But, if you have too many kinds of cards to thwart S:CE, then combat becomes too effective: people will have no minions in their controlled region way too often. I think the balance is fine as is. > I'd argue that the whole IG timing window discussion isn't what should be had here at all, but is a problem for another time (once it is decided what to do with combat as a whole). > So, maybe I missed something, but I don't think the intent with these new combat round structures was to change combat at all. They were drafted precisely to clarify the timing of cards like IG. How did we get to a point where combat as a whole needs to change?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Psyche! is better than Immortal Grapple? I don't think that's the case. > Technically psyche IS considerably better than grapple. Psyche counters S:CE regardless whether you are close or far (thus suiting other forms of combat besides melee, such as guns). Psyche counters exotic forms of combat end, such as rotschreck. IG doesn't. Instead of going to torpor, a new combat starts. Even if you don't need it for anti-SCE, psyche functions as a press that trumps pressing out of combat. You can't press out of a new combat starting. IG's press is just a normal press. Psyche has natural synergies with various cards, namely "once per combat" effects such as magnum's maneuver or flak jacket. IG doesn't really have synergies that couldn't be achieved otherwise (at least that I can think of right now.). You don't need IG to play disarm. IG does have some benefits to it, such as trumping special strikes (dodges, straight-to-torpor strikes, etc ). It is useful in this way, but since you have to plan for aggravated handstrikes anyway when you play potence combat up close, this isn't a huge boon over psyche. During past year, I've been moving toward combat-heavy decks. I've yet to build a deck that utilizes IG however... Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > During past year, I've been moving toward combat-heavy decks. I've yet to build a deck that utilizes IG however... > 1) How do you deal with S:CE? 2) Are you using guns? Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > During past year, I've been moving toward combat-heavy decks. I've yet to build a deck that utilizes IG however... > > > 1) How do you deal with S:CE? 2) Are you using guns? > Here is the direct example of an intelligent guy, who has quite thoroughly read all what is available about VtES, posses deep knowledge of other CCG games, but has no play experience. And as it seems he totally do not get the very basis of combat strategy. LBP. Main idea of combat is to equip with some permanent source of damage (weapons or some other permanent +STR), additional strikes and more Psyche!'s than possible SCE's you can see from opponent. So you are not "spending" combat cards before strike phase, if you meet SCE than you restart combat with Psyche!, when opponents runs out of SCE, you deal damage with permanent source, then use cards for additional strikes. Then restart combat if he is still breathing. No way it can be deduced from the maneuver-strike-press sequence from the rulebook NC Russia

@Elotar: I got all that though... My assumption was that he was playing some variation of Cel Guns if he wasn't using IG. Also, I have played a few games since joining VEKN but only 3-4 player games (so not 'real' VTES.) I even have a Toreador Guns deck with Psyche! and a Brujah bruise-bleed deck with IG and TSP. > No way it can be deduced from the maneuver-strike-press sequence from the rulebook. > Not sure what you mean by this. Baiting your opponent into playing cards or making a sub-optimal choices is general strategy/tactics that a rule-book can't (shouldn't) really go into. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > 1) How do you deal with S:CE? 2) Are you using guns? > 1.) Psyche or telepathic tracking, depending on combat module (whether we go with trap or not. If trap, then teletracking.). 2.) Mostly no. Most successful so far have been Tzimisce or Matasuntha. I've played both with several different combat modules (I try out a lot of stuff). I've made gun decks but they weren't as successful as my other options. Many of my decks have some amount of combat but don't emphasize winning it, ie. Not that much anti-SCE. Aforementioned Tzimi or Mata however go into combat with the intention of torporizing/burning the enemy every fight. Tzimi can play either animalism combat with crows or horrid form + trap. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > Not sure what you mean by this. Baiting your opponent into playing cards or making a sub-optimal choices is general strategy/tactics that a rule-book can't (shouldn't) really go into. > Nobody is baiting anybody and there are no choices involved - it's extremely basic scenario. I've meant that all happening there has nothing to do with m-s-p structure: A plays SCE, B psyche, A - SCE, B - psyche, A pass, B plays blur, A removes counters. Meanwhile in the actual game rounds pass and are filled with nonsense: - nothing before range - nothing - build in maneuver - nothing - build in strike - SCE - psyche - nothing before range ... Look at what BA named: Matasuntha - permanent +STR Horrid form - perm +STR/prevent Trap - practically permanent press Crows - permanent damage Aid - not permanent, but maneuver-strike-press in one card Phases are just announced, cards are played and work in "parallel reality". NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Not sure what you mean by this. Baiting your opponent into playing cards or making a sub-optimal choices is general strategy/tactics that a rule-book can't (shouldn't) really go into. > Honestly, I don't think there is much room to even attempt baiting your opponent into playing specific cards/ making poor choices. For the most part VTES rules doesn't even allow it, due to the strict sequence in which cards have to be played. For example, you cannot play additional strikes until after resolving initial strikes. If normal strike sends you to torpor, additional strike card is not "wasted" since you never could play it. You can only play taste of vitae after a 'succesful' round of combat after which you are not going to torpor. There is no way you can play these cards "poorly". For the most part combat is just a very long dance in which certain things have to happen in a certain order, but they rarely surprise anyone. Baiting opponent into blocking an action where the combat surprisingly destroys them (I pull out this concealed deer rifle with dragons breath rounds) is another thing, but that was not the topic. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

How is this still an argument over grapple? The whole point of option B was simplicity, less parts than A. Both ideas were not to redesign combat. B opens a window for "pres" wider. Inside of Bs steps, IG can still be worded to play as it is. "At the end of manuever step, once opposing minion declines to maneuver, if range is close." You decline to manuever. Impulse passes to me, I decline maneuvering and we are in the end of maneuvering. You can play blood to water, I can play grapple. It uses impulse, it works like bleed actions(decline block, you can pump, you can't retract your pump because I bounce, I can't retract my decline because I suddenly realize I can't bounce, etc...) But even if not, this argument isn't that logical; how many manuevers do we pack in dedicated S:CE vote decks? Setite stealthbleed(probably less than 5, SbtN just saying) ? So guns vs grapple? Guns don't want to be close. I don't get it, we could suggest another option afterall......

> Bloodartist wrote: > > Honestly, I don't think there is much room to even attempt baiting your opponent into playing specific cards/ making poor choices. For the most part VTES rules doesn't even allow it, due to the strict sequence in which cards have to be played. > In my !Malks I have 1 Coma. Uncle George was rushed by Stanislava with Assault Rifle, range was set to close to avoid no trace, seen played by me in numbers previously, and then I've played coma! Got, I think, just 1 VP that game, but with a stile! NC Russia

... Suggestions 1 and 2 removed. Version 3 is too good to have them. ... NC Russia

3. Goal here is both clarity and removal of dumb "pass-pass-pass-pass" sequences. Credit goes to BloodArtist for idea to remove a timing windows. Here we go: Disclaimer: I'm not insisting on exact wording of names of the phases: Three phases of the round: 1. Prelude 2. Running naked with chainsaw 3. Epilogue Strike, Maneuver and Press cards can only be played in the Running Naked phase, all other timing rules are tossed out of the window - if conditions are met than combat card can be played any time during the combat There are basic impulse rules used, when both players pass phase ends. Side positive effect - now all this "Strike with press and optional maneuver" cards are actually resolved as played! At the end of Running Naked phase strikes are resolved in the current order, if any vampire has not announced special strike than hand strike is used. For clarity I would propose announcement of additional strikes also before the resolution of the initial ones, but it's not a key issue Inbuilt maneuver in weapons (and goggles?) should be changed into "initial range in the first round of combat is long". It's quite logical, actually Prevent and press should be reworded into "press and..." IG even need not to be reworded - it can be played at any phase before strikes are announced to have an effect. You can still use a maneuver to avoid damage but you still can't use strikes other than hand strikes. NB - "Slam-IG before he has impulse" is not working on .44 user, because you now can't play IG after choosing strike. But other maneuver + IG if a fair game For clarity I would also revert ruling about optionality of equipment - so .44 would switch basic strike for 2R. It may help us to remove mandatory strike announcement - you, obviously, will need to announce strikes from card played or optional abilities used, but all other strikes will be resolved "automatically". So for basic IG combat we had: A: Torn Signpost, pass B: pass A: pass B: Er. what should I do? Where are we? A: It's maneuver phase. B: O! fine. pass A: IG B: Crap. No Charismatic Aura. Pass? A: Hand strike B: hand strike, no Claws A: fine. Pass? Should I formally pass at this stage? B: Dunnow. removed 3 counters A: Sideslip B: Shouldn't it be played before I've removed blood? A: Gaa, dunnow. I may not play it, I think this is the card I've drawn last. B: Forget it A: Fine. Blur B: ... A: ? B: You should announce your strike A: heh. hand strike B: Removed 3 counters. A: hand strike B: Removed 3 counters A: no press B: pass A: Disarm B: I'm really feeling the pain of my vampire ... Now we will have: A: Torn Signpost, IG, pass B: pass A: Blur, pass B: You are cool. pass A: sideslip B: removed 9 counters A: Disarm Second one looks much better to be me. There, obviously, will be some consequences, especially into dedicated combat vs dedicated combat interactions (thoughts about it gave me inspiration for a name of phase 2), we may accept them as is, or aim to reword some cards to get desired effect as some lasting project for a foreseeable future. We are not pressed to rush this - if SCE/counter-SCE thing works, the game will run fine. NC Russia

I think you should have kept suggestions 1 and 2, if only for posterity. They may also help your point or provide clarification. Also, while some such as myself may want combat to be more open ended with less steps, the majority of VTES players here would lose their mind if your suggestions were adopted, even if they aren't that wild in theory. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> elotar wrote: > IG even need not to be reworded - it can be played at any phase before strikes are announced to have an effect. > > You can still use a maneuver to avoid damage but you still can't use strikes other than hand strikes. > NB - "Slam-IG before he has impulse" is not working on .44 user, because you now can't play IG after choosing strike. But other maneuver + IG if a fair game > So, if the acting player plays Aid from Bats as their first card, the opponent can't play Immortal Grapple because it's too late? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > So, if the acting player plays Aid from Bats as their first card, the opponent can't play Immortal Grapple because it's too late? > player should play IG at prelude step (combat range is close by default). If he does not for some reason, than yes, it will be too late after strike declaration of his opponent. Some additional clarification - I'm fine with "beating" in such a way, even think it will be positive development for a balance of combat disciplines. If it's a problem, than Aid from Bats can be reworded into "Before range" (Prelude) card, giving initial range long, press and 1R default strike. As it's a default strike it's not declared, so player can play maneuver + IG to beat it to have nearly present balance. Nearly, obviously, because than something else will change, so as I've said, here we should aim for a continuous project NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Also, while some such as myself may want combat to be more open ended with less steps, the majority of VTES players here would lose their mind if your suggestions were adopted, even if they aren't that wild in theory. > Actually 95% of combat situations in terms of cards played and things happening will be totally the same. Most of the discrepancies will be connected with IG, because we are dropping "informal grapple step". Logic behind it will be different, obviously, but I think it will be actually return to sanity for a VtES players NC Russia

I'm really starting to lean on this option, in some form or another. Today we once again had two relatively new players (the other having played 10+ games, the other on her 4th or so). They were having fun in combat ( vs ), and it felt really bad when we just kinda had to stop them playing cards just to say that "you have to actually use that press on that Grapple before you taste..." instead of just letting them play their stuff. It would save games some minutes (always good) as well as some nit-picking (always good). The same more or less applies to the approach step. The newest player got a hang of the Grapple phase just fine, but I couldn't help but wonder if the whole thing were better if all of that was just mashed together. Now, we'd need to figure out what to do with end-of-round cards and S:CE if the end phase was merged with presses, but that could be sorted out. Just kinda wanted to bump this. We're getting more players and streamlining seems like the way to go. I really don't want to demo the game anymore with the phrase, that "okay, now you got everything, but combat is actually pretty complicated...". Which it is, as you have to traverse all those phases with nothing played in them. "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