SCE

First, some decklist: www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=10839 For thouse, who is not in the know, idea there is to rush, play Earth Meld and untap, play psyche, beat target down, rush again because you are untapped, repeat... What I want to discuss is not this strategy, but generally the power level of SCE cards. In the Jyhad set there was three of them, all three with attached special effect - untap or continue action as unblocked with +1 stealth. I genuinely do not know why untap was added to majesty and earth meld, but (that what should be really shown with the deck example) free untap effect is worth a card even when you don't need combat to end. Superior Form of Mist without SCE part - "burn 1 blood after combat ends to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked" actually is better than superior Shadow Boxing (dual discipline card!). Superior majesty without SCE is questionable, but obviously at the Jyhad time protean was "main SCE discipline", so presence was not supposed to be so powerful in this area. One more step - what would you chose: 1)strike:dodge, or 2)no strike, receive damage, but then end combat? Suddenly the answer is interesting - against ANI, POT or CEL it's better to suffer but then stop combat, against aggro-poke it's better to dodge. So such effect is quite comparable or even better than strike:dodge, which is accepted as fine basic discipline effect. So what I'm trying to say here is that speaking in the terms of the power level original SCE cards will be quite powerful on both basic and superior level even if SCE was not happening before other strikes. Actually I'm more and more convinced that in original design of Garfield they was intended to work as such. Actually after writing this topic I even think that they just was strike:dodges - form of mist got dodge effect at basic and obviously the second one was "as above", majesty was the only presence combat card - making it also posessing one of the most powerfull effects in the game was strange. It explains why there was no way for Gangrels to fight SCE (they was fine torporising with the initial strike), cards like Drawing out the Beast, Vampiric Speed and crap load of second round strikes, which obviously are totally useless if combat are supposed to be decided at the first round. O, and melee weapons. But then at some moment (I hope at the playtesting and not just by management decision) there was a change, then it was found that SCE are too powerful, but instead of returning to design intent the IG and Pshyche was introduced, regardless of them breaking all combat structure (it really looks like dumb management decision which were widespread at the industry at the time). And than the game was unleashed on the public and the world still suffer because of it. So at first it'll be interested to know, do somebody got any information about design process of SCE cards? I've browsed rec.t.c.jyhad newsgroup and found some discussion about timing with some quite late comments (nearly VtES name change moment?) of designers when the present "sequence" was fixed. But as I undersand original rulebook already has SCE happening before strikes, somebody even played them finishing the combat at the moment SCE was played. What was interesting - the commenter was clearly a designer (he was talking about original design intent of the SCE cards), but not Garfield, so as I understand Richard was out of the project at some moment, which corresponds with the theory above. What to do with all of it is the second question. I think it lies mostly on BC view of the game's future. I, obviously, think, that we should fix mistakes of the past NC Russia

I don't understand why (at least in the title) you didn't spell "strike: combat ends" properly. Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy

> thelonius wrote: > I don't understand why (at least in the title) you didn't spell "strike: combat ends" properly. > I've written like essay length text about interesting (for me) events at the very beginning of the VtES history, and this is all you have to comment on this? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > But then at some moment (I hope at the playtesting and not just by management decision) there was a change, then it was found that SCE are too powerful, but instead of returning to design intent the IG and Pshyche was introduced, regardless of them breaking all combat structure (it really looks like dumb management decision which were widespread at the industry at the time). And than the game was unleashed on the public and the world still suffer because of it. > You forgot an important part of that story, which is the ending: "And 24 years later, the game still exists as it did then." There's a reason why the story ends this way. Are you ready for it? Here it is: Card games are random. Card games have trumps. VTES is a card game that is random and has trumps. This is an intended design feature, not an unintended design flaw. The world is not suffering. Only you are.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > The world is not suffering. > It is. Your comment, empty of any substance, but full of aggression, totally uncalled for, clearly shows your pain. When you are trying to ignore problems they not go away, they start to torture you from inside. Combat idiosyncrasies were a topic from the very beginning of the game and as we can see they still is. There were couple of moments during said 24 years when it was possible to fix the problem, but powers that be failed to do it, we have such moment now, I would prefer to use it instead of leaving it to others, who will be here after us. It all will be especially sad, if it really is a result of a one minute decision of somebody not very involved in the design of Jyhad. NC Russia

For what it is worth, I agree with you, Elotar. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > You forgot an important part of that story, which is the ending: > "And 24 years later, the game still exists as it did then." > There's a reason why the story ends this way. > Are you ready for it? > Here it is: > Card games are random. Card games have trumps. VTES is a card game that is random and has trumps. This is an intended design feature, not an unintended design flaw. > The world is not suffering. Only you are. > The game still exists on life-support thanks to die-hard fans. It is by no means thriving and healthy. There are maybe 2500 players worldwide and I think that's a generous estimate. The original company who made the game (WOTC) gave up on it, the company who adopted it (WW) went bankrupt, the company who bought out WW and the rights to Vampire had no desire in continuing the game (CCP) and the game is only now stirring from torpor after new WW gave some hardcore fans the green-light to continue printing the game they love (i.e. refuse to let die.) Saying that because something "still exists" the creators must have done something right isn't the best litmus test for long-term viability IMO. The colosseum of Rome "still exists", the pyramids of Giza "still exist", the Parthenon "still exists" but the peoples who built those things have vanished long ago, their empires collapsed, and their monuments ruined and ravaged by time. Things that don't change or rise to the occasion of change die. VTES and VTM are both sclerotic and it shows. The business world is full of companies that failed precisely because they refused to change or couldn't. At least they guys at Black Chantry are talking about changes that could better suit the viability and survivability of the game, and I hope that they take players who say "the game is fine as is" with a grain of salt. As Henry Ford said, "If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would've said, 'A faster horse!'" /rant 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, may I ask for how long have you been playing this game? Out of that, for how long, competitively? I belive you jumped really far to conclusion, almost sounding like conspiracy, that some people deliberately (or accidentally, due to stupidity) sabotaged the game at its birth, when Richard was not looking. Theory-crafting is always something I can appreciate, but that might go too far. As the game progressed, sort of bumps have to be created in order to make it diverse (or vicissitudinary or protean ), and one way of doing these surprises is to divide peculiar powers amongst other clans. At the beginning of the game, fullfilling certain stereotypes were more than satisfying (like the warrior clans fought, the noble clans voted or bled, and occaisonally a toreador grabbed a chainsaw went medieval on others). As time got by, these lines blurred and now we have malkavians using protean, gangrels using auspex, ravnos using dementation, etc etc... you just simple can't blame interactions getting stronger or wierder on any designers who started this game. It's a really diverse game, but as all games it has tiers, of cards and mechanics also. But it also has the wonders any other games lack of, to make up for it. Countless times I had to just sit and pass due to using the aforementioned OP mechanics of S:CE, because a "weak" combat deck erased my 11 vamp Some of those instances I got a VP, without having any vamps in play To sum it up, no, I don't believe we should nerf S:CE, espeically not certain cards like Earth Meld os Majesty. NC of Hungary ///

> Malachy wrote: > To sum it up, no, I don't believe we should nerf S:CE, espeically not certain cards like Earth Meld os Majesty. > You should start with it - if you got religious belief, than I obviously can't change it with rational arguments. Argument "all the game elements are fine because there are X people playing it" you and others are using countless times is not a rational one - even if we don't see the obvious (that the game is not fine and actually during past 24 years got more problematic periods than fine ones), people may be playing the game because of countless reasons, doing nothing with said game elements. Present MTG, for example, got no (or maybe just a couple) cards which was in the first set, rules have changed, art has changed, but it still is an MTG with all its good parts and with some, but less than it was, bad parts. Maybe not less - some new things are,in my opinion, terrible, but it's not important - point is that the game is a bigger entity than the sum of its parts, it will not go anywhere if we drop some broken features. There may be an argument "SCE in their present form are essential to VtES because"... I'm open to them and even make one myself into some of the other threads. The ugly part is not SCE per se, it's a whole system of SCE, counters and collateral effects to other combat strategies, timing rules and the game as a whole. May be it should be changed leaving SCE as is. History aspect is important, because I believe that Garfield was the only one who really is responsible for the "greater than the sum" part of VtES, everybody else involved are just tinkering with his ideas. Do we really have nobody here who remembers the past? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > First, some decklist: > > www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=10839 > > For thouse, who is not in the know, idea there is to rush, play Earth Meld and untap, play psyche, beat target down, rush again because you are untapped, repeat... > Nasty, great pentex target, an IG deck will certainly make minced meat out of Enkidu. It can win a tournament for sure, but also lose a lot. Enkidu on the table draws a lot of table aggro. All in all, it's nasty when you're the target of mentioned deck, but it's far from being a silver bullet deck. I fear S:CE presence weenie bleeders or even stealth bleeders more. And lets not start a religion around the great mr. Garfield... He's off VTES for quite some time now, probably sipping appletinis on a bermuda beach. -1 Strength

ps. Enkidu/S:CE/raptor/psyche/HoS deck! Lets make one soon! -1 Strength

> elotar wrote: > One more step - what would you chose: 1)strike:dodge, or 2)no strike, receive damage, but then end combat? > > Suddenly the answer is interesting - against ANI, POT or CEL it's better to suffer but then stop combat, against aggro-poke it's better to dodge. So such effect is quite comparable or even better than strike:dodge, which is accepted as fine basic discipline effect. > Your interesting answers seems dubious. Against Potence, suffering then ending combat is bad for you. Why? Because Disarm. You have taken strike damage. Combat is now ending, so the round is ending, so Disarm is playable. Whether you're tapped, untapped or anything else, you're in torpor, which is not a good outcome for you. Against aggro-poke, dodge is not great in a world with readily available additional strikes - which is what the City !Gangrel have. As do others (anyone who can access additional strikes and some agg damage), but it's what the City Gangrel have in spades, due to Cel/Pro. > elotar wrote: > So what I'm trying to say here is that speaking in the terms of the power level original SCE cards will be quite powerful on both basic and superior level even if SCE was not happening before other strikes. > If you're talking more about the original Jyhad set, Potence doesn't have Disarm, but early V:TES combat - particularly obf/pot combat with the Nosferatu - focused on being able to hit you for a lot of damage on that strike, meaning that Fists of Death saw play (which is rarely used in additional strike decks). Also, Pulled Fangs existed dealing agg damage. But if you're talking about the original set, the power level is not directly comparable to today, because a number of hugely powerful things could happen back in Jyhad, where it doesn't matter if you dodge the strike or the combat ends after the strike. The most obvious is that Zip Gun exists, can be used for multiple strikes (if you get additional strikes, obviously), and can be combined with Dragon's Breath Rounds. And if you go back to the Jyhad wording of DBR, it is played "as damage is being resolved", so it very clearly comes after you know if the other guy is dodging or ending combat or not. So suffer+end combat, play it on the that strike. If they dodge, play an additional strike (or two) and use it there. If you're blocking / being rushed, why stop there? Jyhad had Rotschreck printed to work the way it does now (it was reversed for a while, making the agg user go to torpor, despite the Jyhad text being clear). That could combine with Zip Gun and DBR to end combat immediately. It's not a strike, and you even get to keep the Zip Gun. Bottom line: the design of Jyhad combat had some glaring flaws in it, so I would not use it as a paragon of game design. > elotar wrote: > It explains why there was no way for Gangrels to fight SCE (they was fine torporising with the initial strike), cards like Drawing out the Beast, Vampiric Speed and crap load of second round strikes, which obviously are totally useless if combat are supposed to be decided at the first round. O, and melee weapons. > Vaguely kinda sorta. What we know of/can deduce of Jyhad playtesting is that although the game had been designed without card limits, they didn't really look at what happens if you ramped some of the cards up to a significantly higher number - hence a few big omissions like Presence decks being able to bleed, get blocked, and untap repeatedly until the bleed got through (because no NRA aspects to the game back then), nor did they catch Gangrel (almost-)infinite loop decks going to torpor, using Movement of the Slow Body, untapping, repeating. There's also a strong suggestion that 'combat' decks in Jyhad playtest were much more along the lines of what we would categorise as bruise-and-bleed, where a lot of combats would come from blocks (rather than rushes), and where a 'combat' deck might intimidate you into not blocking because you didn't want to lose your vampire. Yes, Haven Uncovered, Bum's Rush, Bloodhunt, Wynn etc. existed, but they seem to have been regarded as things to spice up a deck, cause surprises, not things to power the central feature of the deck. The difference in that from how the game panned out in reality would suggest that their decks had a much lower level of combat defence than many decks that happened in the real world. So getting hit with Majesty in a playtest would be a "Hah, good one!" moment, not an "Aargh, another one!" moment. > elotar wrote: > But then at some moment (I hope at the playtesting and not just by management decision) there was a change, then it was found that SCE are too powerful, but instead of returning to design intent the IG and Pshyche was introduced, regardless of them breaking all combat structure (it really looks like dumb management decision which were widespread at the industry at the time). And than the game was unleashed on the public and the world still suffer because of it. > If IG was introduced as a way of dealing with ubiquitous S:CE, making it rare (R2 in Jyhad, I think) would be an add odd way of doing that. Jyhad wasn't afraid to make cards that it thought would be very useful common - lots of bleed actions and bleed modifiers, stealth etc. are common, as are both Majesty and Earth Meld. Again, the fact that Presence block-untap-repeat combat made it through to the real world without the remotest hint of a good way of dealing with on Jyhad's release suggests strongly to me that S:CE wasn't being played heavily in the playtest, and so IG and Psyche! were seen as things that could make a combat deck more fun, rather than necessary hard counters. IG restricting you to hand strikes has obvious other applications, principally defending you from weapons. The big weapons like Assault Rifle were intended to see play - there's a comment from one of the books that says something like guns were supposed to be something of an equaliser between weenies and fatties, as a reflection of that happenign in the WoD, so being able to shut down a strike from an Assault Rifle occasionally would also be a handy thing for clans that didn't have access to damage prevention, something which wasn't easily available on in-clan disciplines for the Nosferatu or Brujah (some fatty Nosferatu have Fortitude, and Celerity had Sideslip).

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > The world is not suffering. > > > It is. Your comment, empty of any substance, but full of aggression, totally uncalled for, clearly shows your pain. > Um...it's a card game about vampires. My response is making light of how serious you are being about a card game about vampires. I ensure you there is no agression or "pain." > When you are trying to ignore problems they not go away, they start to torture you from inside. > Again, it's a card game about vampires. I do not associate the words "game" and "torture." > Combat idiosyncrasies were a topic from the very beginning of the game and as we can see they still is. There were couple of moments during said 24 years when it was possible to fix the problem, but powers that be failed to do it, we have such moment now, I would prefer to use it instead of leaving it to others, who will be here after us. > Sure. But they weren't "fixed." And the game went on with these "idiosyncrasies." That this causes you "pain" is really dramatic. Hence why I'm making light of your post. > It all will be especially sad, if it really is a result of a one minute decision of somebody not very involved in the design of Jyhad. > Oh yes, we will all be very sad about a card game about vampires that happens to have "problems" like being random and having trumps. I don't know how the world will keep turning when a card game about vampires has the huge problem of being characteristic of a card game...

> LivesByProxy wrote: > The game still exists on life-support thanks to die-hard fans. It is by no means thriving and healthy. > Nobody is arguing that. It still exists. Whether healthy or thriving is another conversation. > There are maybe 2500 players worldwide and I think that's a generous estimate. The original company who made the game (WOTC) gave up on it, the company who adopted it (WW) went bankrupt, the company who bought out WW and the rights to Vampire had no desire in continuing the game (CCP) and the game is only now stirring from torpor after new WW gave some hardcore fans the green-light to continue printing the game they love (i.e. refuse to let die.) > So it's a niche game. Niche games have a niche audiences. > Saying that because something "still exists" the creators must have done something right isn't the best litmus test for long-term viability IMO. > Who said anything about long-term viability? I said the game still exists. I didn't say it was "viable" (ie, marketable to a wide audience). The creators must have done something right if the game still exists in some form. > The colosseum of Rome "still exists", the pyramids of Giza "still exist", the Parthenon "still exists" but the peoples who built those things have vanished long ago, their empires collapsed, and their monuments ruined and ravaged by time. > So a card game about vampires is akin to historical landmarks? > Things that don't change or rise to the occasion of change die. VTES and VTM are both sclerotic and it shows. The business world is full of companies that failed precisely because they refused to change or couldn't. > Or maybe VTES is just a niche game that's not really marketable to a wide audience? > At least they guys at Black Chantry are talking about changes that could better suit the viability and survivability of the game, and I hope that they take players who say "the game is fine as is" with a grain of salt. As Henry Ford said, "If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would've said, 'A faster horse!'" > So a game about vampires is akin to cars? Is it more like a car or historical landmark? > /rant > So much hilarious drama in your rant. Thanks for the laughs. VTES is a niche game. I just find it hilarious how these posts claim everybody "failed" the game. The game just "failed." It's not marketable to a wide audience. However, it is a success in that it's a niche game that's been plugging away for 24 years, despite it being a "failure".

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > ... a card game about vampires ... > It's funny, how many people, playing the game for decades, do not get what VtES really is NC Russia

The start of this craziness was an argument about timing of sce and hypothetical "intentions " in1994, and a "what if" deal on timing, no? So, fact of original set is it was thought that Primogen, who didn't contest, were worth more pool than princes, who did contest. There was also Ante, Misdirection costed X and was quite nice, and closer to your topic, I think majesty st basic was free and a burn a blood to untap was bolted on at superior. We can safely say that in almost 2.5 decades, while we have some editorial room left, design intent from before Kurt Cobain died isn't a relevant reason to look at things. Now, sce/dodge/first strike is important as we brace for reprints, as combat structure is being discussed. Power level of certain cards (majesty, earth meld) maintain the current balance rather well, but for the sake of logic to keep them important we would make them and some dodges have first strike, make first strike relevant, and take the priority to a new place not because of antiquated and irrelevant design intent, but for streamlining, bending the learning curve Into a less steep slope, and changing for the better while acquiring new players. Elator, what's the aim? The basis started as "was this the 24 year ago Intent?" And a counter to "it worked fine so far not that way" was "just because its dated doesn't make it correct ". So I think I see what you are trying to discuss about strikes, but I could be wrong.

I tried... James tried even harder Well... Let phantasmagoria thrive! I hope you'll find what you are looking for! NC of Hungary ///

Thanks to both james and RR! Really good insight into unknown (for me) past (have been playing just for 10 years). You think that you are arguing with me, but actually you are supporting my theory. Will try to distill key points: > ...Presence block-untap-repeat... > > ...majesty st basic was free and a burn a blood to untap was bolted on at superior. > This was real gold - never thought about it together. So the story look like this: At first Form of Mist was designed: Type: Combat Requires: Protean [pro] Strike: dodge. [PRO] As above. When combat ends this vampire can continue with action with +1 stealth as if unblocked. Idea here was that block cannot stop this vampire - hi will mist throw the blocker and continue. Then Earth Meld: [pro] Strike: dodge. [PRO] Strike: combat ends immediately, opponent strike has no effect. In was the standard theme of PRO combat - two cards with close effects like Wolf Claws/Claws of the Dead or Form of the Ghost/Gleam of Red Eyes. Both defensive, but obviously both got it's uses. Then Majesty: pre Strike: dodge. PRE As above. When combat ends this vampire can continue with action as if unblocked. Idea was the same, as in Form of Mist - block is useless. Obviously no stealth because nobody is trying to hide. But then playtesting happens and it is found, that Majesty do not work as intended - Waked minions are still able to block, so untap effect was suggested instead, so vampire can continue it's action after Waked blocker will "sleep" again. bleed->block->untap->repeat was not a bug, it was a feature! And it was not broken, because dodge is not universal defense - you still can be seriously hurt doing it stupidly. But then at playtesting happened something like: > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > ... Zip Gun ... multiple strikes ... Dragon's Breath Rounds... "as damage is being resolved", so it very clearly comes after you know if the other guy is dodging or ending combat or not. ... > And because it was manager's fatty torporised by it, hell break loose and some "clever" fellow suggested to put superior Earth Meld effect to both Majesty and FoM. As then EM became suboptimal, so they have added untap effect from majesty to it, throwing under the bus the last flufbunny with his question "How the f... will we justify untap effect on a card, representing vampire sinking into the ground?" Then playtesting, SCE was broken, but manager already liked it, so they introduced counters for two main combat disciplines - POT and CEL. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > ... IG ... defending you from weapons.... > > If IG was introduced as a way of dealing with ubiquitous S:CE, making it rare (R2 in Jyhad, I think) would be an odd way of doing that. > It's not the case - to defend from weapons there was special much more effective cards at C: Canine Horde, Shattering Blow and Fast Hands. Rarity was aimed at U (counter should be obviously rarer that the card it counters), but U in Jyhad was limited for 3 per discipline/clan, CEL got a slot so Psyche! go there fine, POT was already packed, so IG has to be R. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > ... Disarm. ... > > ... aggro-poke ... with readily available additional strikes ... > > ... hit you for a lot of damage on that strike, meaning that Fists of Death saw play (which is rarely used in additional strike decks). Also, Pulled Fangs existed dealing agg damage. ... > Valid points. So I actually change my case - there was no SCE in the original intent, except superior effect of one specialized card (EM). > jamesatzephyr wrote: > ....Gangrel (almost-)infinite loop decks going to torpor, using Movement of the Slow Body, untapping, repeating. ... > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > Primogen, who didn't contest, were worth more pool than princes, who did contest. There was also Ante, Misdirection costed X and was quite nice... > You forget original text of Fame. Yeas, there was some mistakes at Jyhad which were already fixed. How should we conclude from it that other mistakes should not be fixed? > ReverendRevolver wrote: > ...sce/dodge/first strike ...we would make... for streamlining... > > ....what's the aim?... > I can give you an analogue - we got legacy computer system, where there was a bug in the core entered by some intern 24 years ago, generating errors all over the place. Trying to put layers and layers of "steamlining" will solve the consequences, but produce new problems down the line, all the while slowing the system. Look at the monstrosities presented at the combat topics! You will get many new players with such "nonantiquated design". I would prefer to just find and remove the bug. Also I'm just interested in the history of the VtES in particular, and stupidity and it's results in general. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > ... a card game about vampires ... > > > It's funny, how many people, playing the game for decades, do not get what VtES really is > I mean, all the armchair game designers trying to fix problems in VTES sure seem to forget that it is a card game. It really is astounding.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > ... a card game about vampires ... > > > > > > > > It's funny, how many people, playing the game for decades, do not get what VtES really is > > > I mean, all the armchair game designers trying to fix problems in VTES sure seem to forget that it is a card game. It really is astounding. > There is very popular in post Soviet states card game Durak. I highly recommend it to you, if you don't see the difference. NC Russia

I'm not sure what is going on here, but I just want to say that in my mind, strike:combat ends are fine as is. Political or bleeding vampires need some in-game way of keeping aggressive combatvampires in check. Currently there are in my opinion right amount of combat ends, and anti-combat end (immortal grapple, psyche, telepathic tracking). I wouldn't shed a tear if earth meld was errataed to cost blood, but Im fine with it. Threat and its counters, counters to your counters. Its all decently well balanced. Of course largecap IC vampires are better suited for playing combat ends with their many disciplines and large blood amount, but its ok. Largecaps just got nerfed with the change to villein. > elotar wrote: > Suddenly the answer is interesting - against ANI, POT or CEL it's better to suffer but then stop combat, against aggro-poke it's better to dodge. So such effect is quite comparable or even better than strike:dodge, which is accepted as fine basic discipline effect. > Against aggropoke its better to prevent, since that works when you're grappled and dodge does not. Sometimes (often times) its hard to decipher your intent from your posts.. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> elotar wrote: > There is very popular in post Soviet states card game Durak. I highly recommend it to you, if you don't see the difference. > Are you arguing that VTES combat should function more like Durak? Making VTES into Durak is not going to "fix" the more "problematic" card game in VTES. Combat functions fine in VTES. It just needs a clearer outline in the rules. That's the only problem "bad management" introduced into the game.

> elotar wrote: > And because it was manager's fatty torporised by it, hell break loose and some "clever" fellow suggested to put superior Earth Meld effect to both Majesty and FoM. > I'm not sure why you think inventing bizarre little dramas in your head is helping anything? Jyhad's design is very strong in some areas, but there are obvious mistakes in the initial execution - anything from vote push with Political Action cards from your hand being too favourable to weenies, through to Zip Gun/DBR being a workable combination, to stealth-bleed being really incredibly powerful. Mistakes happen. Just because you want to change some part of the game doesn't mean that inventing nonsense about a manager having a vampire sent to torpor means that he broke Jyhad is in any way helpful. It is just as plausible that it was a rational, considered design decision, taken calmly and reasonably, to have combat work the way it did - and that, to the extent that it is sub-optimal, people make mistakes. They are not clairvoyant or psychic. They do not know exactly how things will pan out in the real world when the game goes from a relatively small group of playtesters who only have limited time and limited options to create ideas, to hundreds and thousands of players who will try a whole heap of stuff that you have never considered. That's just the economics of game design - in any game that's got a lot of free form elements, you won't be able to test every corner case. Perspective - please get some. We know that Garfield kept a reasonably tight grip on the production of Jyhad. One of the things he notes in the White Wolf book was being asked for rulings on whether certain things stacked, where they both set a base value of 2 (e.g. vampires with 2 hand damage, and Ritual Challenge giving the vampire 2 hand damage), and that that didn't happen, for example. The move to +1 hand damage etc. happened in the V:TES set, when Garfield was peripherally involved, and then a bunch of crazy things happened in DS/AH (e.g. Return to Innoence) and Sabbat when Garfield was basically not involved at all. What else changed between Jyhad and V:TES? Notably, combat became much more brutal, because of rules changes. The rules we have now are less brutal, but still somewhat stronger than the Jyhad rules. In particular, the aggravated damage rules changed between Jyhad and V:TES in ways that made burning vampires significantly easier. The Jyhad rules functioned in a way known as 'packetization', in which each source of aggravated damage would have the first point send you to torpor. If you had a Ghoul Retainer and an Ivory Bow dealing one agg damage, and you used your hands to deal a second agg damage, that's two separate sources, so you can't burn from it. Ditto, Pulled Fangs. This was changed in V:TES to make combat much more brutal - the first point sent you to torpor but could also burn you, and packetization didn't occur. Result? A single point of agg damage could burn you if you were empty. Pulled Fangs could be played repeatedly to generate a lot of agg damage. (Note that various key combat cards of that era were also changed later, so if you are looking at card text, you need to look at Jyhad/V:TES text, not current text.) So what do we know of what WotC did to the game? They deliberately wanted to make it more brutal. If managers at WotC were weeping openly because a vampire got sent to torpor, why would they make it open season for burning vampires with much less effort? Why would they have been asking Garfield if combat damage stacked, if they wanted to keep their precious, precious vampires unharmed?

James, thanks for insight into Jyhad -> VtES transition changes. It's also very interesting, so we should discuss it sometime, obviously not now because they have nothing to do with the SCE development. Maybe except providing more material for "retardation of WotC managers and designers" case. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > It is just as plausible that it was a rational, considered design decision, taken calmly and reasonably, to have combat work the way it did... [/quote] No it was not. There were 69 combat cards in Jyhad + 17 weapons, 6 of which are melee. Combat "working the way it did" contains 3 SCE cards, IG, Psyche, ZG + DBR, CW + Magnums, 2 aggro-poke cards, Torn Signpost, TSL (+ maybe Fists of Death, if you are saying so), 5 CEL cards, SoS, PF, ToV (MoM?) = 23 -> ~quarter of all cards designed. Making 75% of printed cards useless, as well as making most important combat cards be played outside of a rules of combat, is not a rational decision. I've presented chain of events which can lead to this result from a reasonable beginning. You are trying to pick on the "dramatic part" which, obviously, is just a "fluff" to the core of the story, which is spreading the specialized effect of a one corner case card into several and then, being pressed by deadline, making a bad fix for undesired consequences with more corner case cards. I'm open to hear alternative chain of events, which can lead reasonable people into making 3 SCE cards in Jyhad the was they was. They may not be "clairvoyant or psychic" but in a game with 1/3 of cards dedicated to combat making a card, which ends combat immediately (at C rarity) and to not got a second thought about it looks quite interesting to me. PS: Some example of reasonable design: much more corner case effect - additional strikes. Even it was present on 4 cards - Renegade Garu, Acrobatics, Blur and Nimble Feet. Except Garu - all of them are in one discipline, and got clearly defined logic: for one blood you got it at inferior and at superior combining it with some other basic effect of a discipline, for free you got it at superior with weaker version (press) at inferior. Later sets managed to make countless new cards with this effect fully within this logic. PPS: Please, name any other non unique combat effect requiring inferior discipline and no blood cost which has no corresponding disciplineless combat card is Jyhad? NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Are you arguing that VTES combat should function more like Durak? > No, i'm recommending you to try this game. It seems to have all you need in a card game, you must totally like it. NC Russia

> Bloodartist wrote: > I'm not sure what is going on here, but I just want to say that in my mind, strike:combat ends are fine as is. > Actually never in this topic I'm suggesting to do anything with SCE. But somehow everybody are trying to convince me not to change them, as if I have any power to do it. Which seems to be self defeating argument - if emotions so overwhelm the person, that he can't read and understand half a page of text, than maybe his position is not a rational one. The point of this topic is just some effort, I think already successful, to restore thought process behind invention of this mechanic. What to do with this knowledge is completely other question. It seems to me, that not only in Russian schools history was taught badly, if nobody understand why it's needed and how it should be used. NC Russia

PPPS: I think, I know what fatties was in this managers deck: Anneke Masika Andreas Anson Much more powerful and coherent group than any other high caps in the set. I also see, that "story of primogens downfall" became to unravel. But this one later. NC Russia

> Actually never in this topic I'm suggesting to do anything with SCE. But somehow everybody are trying to convince me not to change them, as if I have any power to do it. > You're just suggesting the mechanic should be changed (multiple times and thank god you can't change any of this you mentioned, by yourself). English is not my native tongue, but I chewed myself through your wall of texts to find out your motives, yet you cannot answer one simple question, presented in the most polite way On top of that, somehow my reaction was labeled as "religious belief". I'm opposed to your agenda not because of anything you falsely interpreted towards my beliefs, but because out of the 14 years experience I have been actively playing this game (comeptitvely also) I've never felt changing what you are suggesting we should. Of course that doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong, it just means your yelping might be an overexaggerated conjunction, and I feel somewhat staggered that my totally good willing and mannered post just got labeled as "religious belief" when I believe my argument was sound. It also suggests you instantly branded me of being a bigoted, insensible person just because I didn't feel to counteract your "logical and rational"(talking about churchy belief) argument. It's condescending. Don't be condescending to protect your credibility and maintain your air of patronage. NC of Hungary ///

> Malachy wrote: > Stuff > To be fair, I don't think it's really worth your time trying to defend yourself too much. I'm simply astounded by the amount of hostility the OP conjures up in and from his posts. I really don't get where it's coming from. I've already lost my hopes in any reasonable and productively argumentative discussion with... some members of these forums. It's not you. Keep up the good work though. To be fair, I still don't get what the point of this thread was supposed to be from the start... Was there a point? "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

> Malachy wrote: > > > Actually never in this topic I'm suggesting to do anything with SCE. > > > You're just suggesting the mechanic should be changed... > Friend, when on my comment, that I'm not suggesting changes to SCE you are replying NO, YOU ARE SUGGESTING IT! And then continue with an wall of text with some nonsense about why it should not be done, then sorry, I can't help to not see, that some of your religious beliefs are some how on the line. I can confess, I got religion believes too. One of the main tenets of it is that there are reason for the things happening. So I've tried to find how SCE was developed. I think quite successfully - no other plausible suggestions was provided even if I've said countless times that l'm open to them. It just happened, that SCE was a result of sequence of actions of pressed by time (and, maybe, something else) not qualified people. There are nothing to be emotional about. But now the time has passed, game has changed and we can't return back in time and fix it. But this knowledge is useful in other way, for me, for example, it gave a valuable insight into why collective efforts to streamline combat structure are not working and how it should be approached. NC Russia

> Kraus wrote: > To be fair, I still don't get what the point of this thread was supposed to be from the start... > Obviously to get your extremely valuable comments! NC Russia

> Kraus wrote: > I'm simply astounded by the amount of hostility the OP conjures up in and from his posts. I really don't get where it's coming from. > Well, I mean, I think "hostility" is a little strong. I can only speak for myself, but I definitely make fun of the original poster's posts, although I don't mean it in a hostile way. I just think the poster is making super dramatic arguments that are kind of incoherent, and they contain so much hyperbole that it's funny. I mean, the poster made the point that VTES was mismanaged so badly that the world is suffering. I just find this hilarious because we are discussing pieces of cardboard with pretty pictures on them, yet somehow these things are directly related to the suffering of the world. Haha!

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > ...we are discussing pieces of cardboard with pretty pictures on them, yet somehow these things are directly related to the suffering of the world. Haha! > Dude, if it's not serious, than you won't mind, if SCE will be removed from the game? NC Russia

> Kraus wrote: > To be fair, I still don't get what the point of this thread was supposed to be from the start... Was there a point? > > elotar wrote: > What I want to discuss is not this strategy, but generally the power level of SCE cards. > > In the Jyhad set there was three of them, all three with attached special effect - untap or continue action as unblocked with +1 stealth. > > I genuinely do not know why untap was added to majesty and earth meld, but (that what should be really shown with the deck example) free untap effect is worth a card even when you don't need combat to end. > > [...] > > So what I'm trying to say here is that speaking in the terms of the power level original SCE cards will be quite powerful on both basic and superior level even if SCE was not happening before other strikes. > In other words, it seems like Elotar supports having all strikes resolve simultaneously, or at the very least S:CE doesn't need to resolve 1st, since S:CE is still powerful enough without needing to resolve first. He supposes that S:CE was made to resolve 1st by certain early designers of the game for whatever reason. We don't know. But we do know that Jyhad released in 1994 following the success of Magic in 1993, but with Magic Richie. G. had his students playtesting the game in its roughest form presumably a few years before the game was ever printed. We are to suppose that Mark Rein-Hagen and Co. approached Richie. G. later the same year, and that by the next year they had Jyhad developed and playtested. I know English isn't Elotar's 1st language, but he's not that bad at it. 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.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I mean, the poster made the point that VTES was mismanaged so badly that the world is suffering. I just find this hilarious because we are discussing pieces of cardboard with pretty pictures on them, yet somehow these things are directly related to the suffering of the world. Haha! > The world is full of suffering. VTES is not popular. Ergo, the world is full of suffering because VTES is not popular. 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.

Some more insights on the topic "Goudie: ... I imagine you were still close enough to the game to see changes made via rulings or errata that went against your original vision. Garfield: I remember that in particular and I was in there fighting the changes! Typically though I let the people responsible for the product make the changes they think they need to make with my advice remaining advice, and not becoming commandments. This way they learn firsthand, and those lessons are always more powerful, and seldom is a mistake so bad it can’t be undone later." Geniuses are so naive! Some more not quite relevant, but gold: "Goudie: What Jyhad game mechanics are you most proud of? Garfield: I really like the political cards and the voting system. It is something I haven’t been able to really use since also, so it remains – among my games – uniquely a property of Jyhad." #votepushing toasted in 98 "Goudie: Did you enjoy working with such a well-developed setting for the game? Garfield: It is always tough to work in someone elses world. On balance this was one of the best worlds I worked with, partially because White Wolf really respected my interpretation of their world in a trading card game format, and that allowed me to be more creative and, I think, provide a better game" About history of the game 4 LBP Basic part of Jyhad (prey-predator relationships, edge and politics) was developed by Garfield for some time before VTM licensing - there was MTG variant with prey-predator structure and VP, for example. Ideas about having no need for lands and more faster hand replenishment were also being developed. So when ... "Peter Adkison (Wizards of the Coast President): But at the time we never envisioned that TCGs would ever be a market that's comparable in size to RPGs. We figured that we would be the "TCG Specialist," the company that would do all these small little TCG products that the big RPG companies wouldn't get around to doing. That's why we pursued licenses to publish TCGs for various RPG properties (specifically, Vampire: The Masquerade, Cyberpunk 2020, and Battletech)." ... core of the game already was made, they just packed it into VTM flavor and do some adjustments. Maybe not so small... "Peter Adkison: I do recall that there was an earlier version of the game that Richard didn't like, which he showed me and we agreed to scrap that version altogether. But then he came up with the core mechanics for the game as you know it now and we were both really happy with it." And then comes said angry manager with a toreador deck, even not alone: "Adkison: Jyhad was criticized by some people within Wizards (and within White Wolf) for being too complex. It was felt that goths wouldn't want a game this hard." This, I think, also shows "healthy" the atmosphere during development: Adkison: ...Vindication is kind of a dark word to use--but this is a dark genre, so I guess that's okay. I guess where I feel particularly vindicated is in defending Richard Garfield's choice as a designer. There was some question as to whether Richard could design for the Vampire genre, whether he "got it" NC Russia

Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

“The twilight of the Jyhad™ project was very painful. We always knew it was going to be, and I only agreed to a Gencon release with the understanding that there would be many all-night sessions editing and laying-out cards and rules. “There were nights when at about 3 a.m. I would wander away from those doing editing to hide and play computer games, unable to concentrate any longer on cardlists. Occasionally the others, needing my input, would page the entire building to find me. I would page back, "What?' as I was unwilling to yield my position. A page would come, "If you play two Ordeals on a Gangrel should their hand damage go up to 4?" I would page back, "No — you don't get +1 hand damage, you get 2 hand damage period."" And this was also #fixed. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > And this was also #fixed by #retards. > hey man, i realize that you're from Russia and English isnt your first language, but the word 'retard' is generally considered an offensive slur against disabled people. It would be very cool of you if you could not use it, and I, for one would greatly appreciate it.

> self wrote: > It would be very cool of you if you could not use it, and I, for one would greatly appreciate it.[/i] > Sorry, meant no offense to anybody, not involved with SCE design. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > ...we are discussing pieces of cardboard with pretty pictures on them, yet somehow these things are directly related to the suffering of the world. Haha! > > > Dude, if it's not serious, than you won't mind, if SCE will be removed from the game? > Not at all. If the people that currently own the game remove S:CE, then so be it. If I don't like it, I don't have to play the game.

> elotar wrote: > > > self wrote: > > It would be very cool of you if you could not use it, and I, for one would greatly appreciate it.[/i] > > > Sorry, meant no offense to anybody, not involved with SCE design. > I'm less concerned with the use of the word, and more with the assumptions behind it. Everyone involved with this game should be assumed to trying to make the best choices possible. No one's judgement is perfect, but we should give the designers/developers the benefit of the doubt - assume they're making calls with good intentions in mind. 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.

Yeah, see, the original poster's main point is that whoever was originally involved mismanaged the game, and that's why it's not popular. A more plausible explanation of why VTES is not marketable, in my mind, is because it's just not a game that appeals to a mass audience.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > > self wrote: > > > It would be very cool of you if you could not use it, and I, for one would greatly appreciate it.[/i] > > > > > > > > Sorry, meant no offense to anybody, not involved with SCE design. > > > I'm less concerned with the use of the word, and more with the assumptions behind it. Everyone involved with this game should be assumed to trying to make the best choices possible. No one's judgement is perfect, but we should give the designers/developers the benefit of the doubt - assume they're making calls with good intentions in mind. > "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" The problem lies not in the initial mistakes, even if they look extremely stupid to me, it lies in a way the problem was handled later. It was mentioned, that in jihad -> VtES (extremely stupid idea as well) transition there was an effort to make combat "better", but they again do not touch fundamental problem. And it happening again and again for 24 years, and as we see even mentioning of it explodes community into nerd rage. Will see, how long it will take. NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Yeah, see, the original poster's main point is that whoever was originally involved mismanaged the game, and that's why it's not popular. > I understand that math, history and game design are hard topics, but reading! It should be taught in junior school! Where have you seen anything about popularity in this thread? NC Russia

I guess popularity isn't the right word. I assumed this is what you meant by the "world is suffering" stuff you wrote earlier. If I understand you, you're saying the world is suffering because the game was mismanaged and released in an inferior form. My point is, It's not that the game was mismanaged, it's that it's just inferior on its own merits. Hence why it's a niche game and no amount of "fixing problems" is going to change that. Anyway, it's really hard to understand what your point is. I could criticize your writing ability as much as you criticized my ability to read your post.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > "world is suffering" > Dude > TwoRazorReign wrote: > it's really hard to understand what your point is > My English is not so good, so I'm totally fine, if somebody do not understand me. But it seems very strange why than those who do not understand what I've written is trying to argue with me. NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > My point is, It's not that the game was mismanaged, it's that it's just inferior on its own merits. Hence why it's a niche game and no amount of "fixing problems" is going to change that. > I'm not so sure. I wonder just how much popularity and appeal VTES could garner if it were presented differently. Better art, better graphics, cleaner rules, etc. There are several instances in modern history where the idea of a product had to be sold to the people first. Deodorant was one that comes to mind. As I recall, the sellers of the product didn't have any buyers, so they went on a campaign to raise awareness about how awesome their product was (ads that convinced women that they didn't want to smell bad for their men), and it worked. It wasn't just them advertising the product existed, it was pointing out a need that they created in the minds of the masses. Obviously this isn't a direct parallel, but WW is trying to revive Vampire, and get Vampire Netflix shows and video games and movies and whatnot. VTES would benefit from that, but I have to wonder if Vampire (like VTES) suffers from too much baggage that makes it hard to consume, on top of presenting itself... not ideally. Vampires where super cool back in the 80s, 90s, and just recently with the Twilight/TrueBlood/VampDiaries crowd. People have pointed out how close WW was to getting their TV show about Vampire back in the 90s but it had low ratings in part because of the way it presented itself. It presented itself as a crime drama focused on middle-aged men. Later that year, Buffy the Vampire Slayer came out to huge success proving their was appeal but the focus was on a young girl and her life. WW should, IMO, focus on appealing to young women. As it stands, it looks like they're trying to appeal to 40 year-olds with nostalgia goggles. I know RPGs aren't super popular to young women, but imagine if the opener to VTM5E was the in-universe account of a young woman discovering the world of vampires and falling deeper into that life and so-on, rather than the 1st hand accounts of middle-aged men cursing and trying to hard to be edgy (e.g. VTM and VTR opening short-fictions.) 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'm not so sure. I wonder just how much popularity and appeal VTES could garner if it were presented differently. Better art, better graphics, cleaner rules, etc. > > ... > > I know RPGs aren't super popular to young women, but imagine if the opener to VTM5E was the in-universe account of a young woman discovering the world of vampires and falling deeper into that life and so-on, rather than the 1st hand accounts of middle-aged men cursing and trying to hard to be edgy (e.g. VTM and VTR opening short-fictions.) > In Russia VTM is extremely popular among young women, many of whom show interest it VtES also. Actually most of people I know who are interested in any forms of gaming have shown interest in VtES - there are elements to like for anybody, the core of the game is brilliant and many aspects are quite clever and unique. But then they meet all this mess, which are the rules of this game, and their enthusiasm disappears. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > "world is suffering" > > > Dude > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > it's really hard to understand what your point is > > > My English is not so good, so I'm totally fine, if somebody do not understand me. But it seems very strange why than those who do not understand what I've written is trying to argue with me. > Yes, it is super strange that someone would try to have a discussion on a discussion forum. I would really like to understand what you are trying to say, but it seems you'd rather brush off my attempts understand you at this stage. I think your English is fine, I just misinterpreted the sarcasm.

Offtopic: Sarcasm is generally lost in the internet, because there is no face-to-face contact (Doesn't prevent people from trying). If you would say these things in person, we could probably read from your voice, facial and body expressions that you are not serious. This is not possible in an internet forum, and thus such posts create more confusion than comedy. I did not find the posts funny, and was ready to assume that you have some real life issues, but so far chose to keep quiet. Out of respectfulness to other people, I always assume that the other person is serious at first unless I have some pressing evidence otherwise. Internet connects everyone and there's a great deal of different people out there. Many things are less incredible than you might think. /offtopic Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I'm not so sure. I wonder just how much popularity and appeal VTES could garner if it were presented differently. Better art, better graphics, cleaner rules, etc. > This goes for every game ever, so its simply something we should strive toward. > There are several instances in modern history where the idea of a product had to be sold to the people first. Deodorant was one that comes to mind. As I recall, the sellers of the product didn't have any buyers, so they went on a campaign to raise awareness about how awesome their product was (ads that convinced women that they didn't want to smell bad for their men), and it worked. It wasn't just them advertising the product existed, it was pointing out a need that they created in the minds of the masses. > > Obviously this isn't a direct parallel, but WW is trying to revive Vampire, and get Vampire Netflix shows and video games and movies and whatnot. VTES would benefit from that, but I have to wonder if Vampire (like VTES) suffers from too much baggage that makes it hard to consume, on top of presenting itself... not ideally. > I still think that one problem of VTES in addition to those mentioned before, is that it goes against people's expectations what a collectible card game means these days. It is a multiplayer only game, whereas most CCGs that I know of (basically all?), can be played starting at 2 players. VTES needs 4-5 to have a meaningful game. Because of this limitation, I still maintain the opinion that it would serve VTES better to be marketed as a board game. Then it would be easier to sell the idea that you need minimum 4 players and ~2 hours to play a game of VTES. Game itself wouldn't have to change, just the way it is marketed. Being able to play a 2 player game makes it much easier for a random person to "sell" the game to his friends. Its much easier for a person to find ONE friend to play the game with, rather than three(feel free to test this claim). I think this is an important aspect of any CCG's success. I don't know if we can come up with a 2-person version of the game without changing VTES significantly, but at least we could change what people expect from VTES. Related to above: we should also try to lower the barrier of entry to VTES. You shouldn't need a group of experienced VTES players to teach you the game.This is where simplifying rules and cleaning up rulebook comes into play. Imagine that a person who has never played VTES before, finds couple starter boxes at a store. Thinks "this is interesting!" Then he goes through the rulebook in an attempt to learn the game. Then he tries to teach it to his couple friends. Do you think this is a likely scenario? Do you think these people could actually play a game of VTES without misunderstanding how the game works at some point? I think not. An important aspect of this is also cards actually explaining what they do in a clear way. To play a game, you shouldn't keep looking at rulebook constantly what a card does. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> elotar wrote: > > > thelonius wrote: > > I don't understand why (at least in the title) you didn't spell "strike: combat ends" properly. > > > I've written like essay length text about interesting (for me) events at the very beginning of the VtES history, and this is all you have to comment on this? > After 9+ pages , I still think this is a pointless discussion with a wrong spelled title XD Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy

> thelonius wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > > thelonius wrote: > > > I don't understand why (at least in the title) you didn't spell "strike: combat ends" properly. > > > > > > > > I've written like essay length text about interesting (for me) events at the very beginning of the VtES history, and this is all you have to comment on this? > > > After 9+ pages , I still think this is a pointless discussion with a wrong spelled title XD > You comments are brilliant, thou! Totally worth to write 10 pages just to read so much insight! NC Russia

What I don't understand is: why would the original intent of the designers 25 years ago would matter? Why would it be better than the current system that has stood the test of time? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > What I don't understand is: why would the original intent of the designers 25 years ago would matter? Why would it be better than the current system that has stood the test of time? > The goal of my study of "original intent" of the game is not (only;) ) because I want to switch current system with the old one, but for countless other reasons. One of such reason, imo, very important for us now, is a better understanding of the current system. One of the key insight, again imo, understanded at the gut level by any capable player but rarely voiced is that it's a two completely different systems, which is complicated with a fact, that rulebook and cards are written in the language of the original one (maneuver - strike - press sequence) while real combat is (quite interesting) but completely different mini-game of SCE/counters to SCE/other combat elements. This leads to the situation, when most popular combat cards are played outside of the formal combat structure (before maneuvers, between maneuvers and strikes, between announcement of strikes and resolve of strikes, "when combat ends but not really" etc), strikes are announced at maneuver step or even before combat (Sniper rifle), resolved at nonintuitive order etc. This leads to the idea, that if we want to maintain present combat structure but have clear rulebook and card texts, we should stop trying to squeeze two different systems together, but go from completely different direction: describe combat structure as it really is, find a way how it will be best represented by the rules and then find a best way to change current system into new one with minimal loses to sanity of the current playerbase. But now I'm duplicating what I'm written in the other thread, so it's better to continue there. There are many other useful insights, which can be gained from the understanding the logic of Jyhad development even in concern with your original question (silent implication that "test of time" is the only measure of quality of the game system), but I think at first we should finish with the thought presented above NC Russia

> Bloodartist wrote: > Offtopic: > Sarcasm is generally lost in the internet, because there is no face-to-face contact (Doesn't prevent people from trying). If you would say these things in person, we could probably read from your voice, facial and body expressions that you are not serious. This is not possible in an internet forum... > I can give you a hint - written communication is not a "face-to-face minus the face", it's completely different form with completely different rules. There was several thousand years spent on development of means to translate emotions throw the medium of a written word and I think humanity quite succeeded in this endeavor. Present generation have at their disposal ability to access written information, unheard to past ones. Unfortunately, as you have shown, they are functionally illiterate - key reading skills like ability to separate text into main idea, chain of supporting arguments and aesthetic elements; using context to understand nuances of the meanings and then compare it to own observations of the discussed subject, is not only lacking, but they even don't know that such skills exist. Story even more tragic, than 24 years of playing with non meant to be SCE. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > One of the key insight, again imo, understanded at the gut level by any capable player but rarely voiced is that it's a two completely different systems, which is complicated with a fact, that rulebook and cards are written in the language of the original one (maneuver - strike - press sequence) while real combat is (quite interesting) but completely different mini-game of SCE/counters to SCE/other combat elements. > So, your argument is the "S:CE mini-game" is a bad thing? I know I am repeating myself, but I think you need to understand that in a lot of people's eyes, that whole "S:CE mini-game" is not a bad thing. This is actually how a lot of card games work (ie, card A trumps card B ), and VTES is one such card game that works this way. If I understand correctly, you're arguing from the standpoint that the current combat system is deeply flawed and needs an overhaul. I would not agree with this assessment. My standpoint is the current combat system functions like a separate card game within a larger card game. I would argue the "S:CE mini-game" and all other facets of combat is quite fun. One point we may agree on (again, it's hard to tell) is that there's something wrong with how combat is outlined in the rulebook. I think where our opinions diverge is that you see a problem with cards being played between the main phases of combat. My standpoint is once all the "sub-phases" are outlined in the rulebook, and it's crystal clear when all cards should be played within that outline, this ceases to be a problem, as those "sub-phases" now become official. But we can certainly agree to disagree on that.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > ... while real combat is (quite interesting) but completely different > > > So, your argument is the "S:CE mini-game" is a bad thing? > Dude, look at my comment to BA. You seriously should do something with your reading skills. In what reality "interesting" and "different" means "bad"? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > This leads to the idea, that if we want to maintain present combat structure but have clear rulebook and card texts, we should stop trying to squeeze two different systems together, but go from completely different direction: describe combat structure as it really is, find a way how it will be best represented by the rules and then find a best way to change current system into new one with minimal loses to sanity of the current playerbase. But now I'm duplicating what I'm written in the other thread, so it's better to continue there. > All right, another insight I had a moment ago. I realized that one reason why VTES combat has evolved into the complex thing it is today, is the idea that cards must be played in a sequence. A is playable, then B, then C and so on. Strict adherence to this idea while designing cards has created all these wonky wordings and poorly defined timing windows. Designers wanted a card to use an idea, which forced it to be inserted between B and C, thus creating the extra timing windows. It was a layer cake that people kept adding layers on, or inserting them between existing layers. If we could find a wording or ruleset that allowed cards to be played within the same timing window while maintaining their function - ie. having a sequence that is interchangeable - it might clear away a large portion of the unnecessary complexity. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > So, your argument is the "S:CE mini-game" is a bad thing [...] a lot of card games work (ie, card A trumps card B ), and VTES is one such card game that works this way. > I think what Elotar is saying that the way combat is warped around S:CE is not ideal. The combat mini-game should be about Maneuvers-Strikes-Presses but in reality it's "I've got a S:CE card, do you have IG or Psyche! or Telepathic Tracking?" There are all these cards that interact and enable cool combats to happen, but one prominent effect on a few cards undoes all of that (S:CE) and people have to rely on a handful of hard-counters for it. > If I understand correctly, you're arguing from the standpoint that the current combat system is deeply flawed and needs an overhaul [...] I would argue the "S:CE mini-game" and all other facets of combat is quite fun. > Elotar said, "So what I'm trying to say here is that speaking in the terms of the power level original SCE cards will be quite powerful on both basic and superior level even if SCE was not happening before other strikes." I think that's it. S:CE is already so powerful, and comes with additional effects (untap on Majesty for example) that it can afford to be resolved simultaneously instead of before all other strike effects. I would agree. > One point we may agree on (again, it's hard to tell) is that there's something wrong with how combat is outlined in the rulebook. [...] My standpoint is once all the "sub-phases" are outlined in the rulebook, and it's crystal clear when all cards should be played within that outline, this ceases to be a problem, as those "sub-phases" now become official. > Even if the rule-book were to outline all the steps and sub-steps of combat, that would not solve the overarching problem of players having to go through 8+ steps each combat round: "OK, any pre-range / beginning of the round stuff?" "OK, now we are going to use maneuvers." "Now any after-maneuvers-before-strikes-are-chosen cards?" "Now choose strikes." "Now strike resolution - play damage prevention effects." "Any additional strikes?" "OK, now we play presses to end or continue combat." "OK, now we can play 'end of round' cards like Taste or Psyche!." That's ONE ROUND. We can have multiple rounds per vampire, per player. Compare that to Magic's: Begin Combat. (Tell your opponent you're attacking them.) Declare Attackers. (Pick your attackers.) Declare Blockers. (Pick intercepters.) Resolve Damage. (Do basic math.) End Combat. (Effects that say 'at end of combat' or 'until end of combat' expire, creatures that died in combat are discarded.) And as mentioned elsewhere on the Forum, Magic's cards don't specify timing windows, giving players a lot of freedom to use cards in varied and interesting ways. And it only happens once per player. 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.

> Bloodartist wrote: > I realized that one reason why VTES combat has evolved into the complex thing it is today, is the idea that cards must be played in a sequence. A is playable, then B, then C and so on. Strict adherence to this idea while designing cards has created all these wonky wordings and poorly defined timing windows. Designers wanted a card to use an idea, which forced it to be inserted between B and C, thus creating the extra timing windows. > Bingo! NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > I think what Elotar is saying that the way combat is warped around S:CE is not ideal. The combat mini-game should be about Maneuvers-Strikes-Presses but in reality it's "I've got a S:CE card, do you have IG or Psyche! or Telepathic Tracking?" There are all these cards that interact and enable cool combats to happen, but one prominent effect on a few cards undoes all of that (S:CE) and people have to rely on a handful of hard-counters for it. > Not quite that. There are several different theses in this thread: 1) Current system is fine in their own way, but has nothing to do with the "rulebook combat" and to be understandable without "VtES PhD" should be completely "translated" into "language", more suitable to it. 2) Current system is a consequence of a quite interesting chain of events, no way intended by anyone involved on any step of it. 3) There is a logic in the original system, which has never been really implemented or tested. As Garfield is, imo, a better designer than all of us (combined), as well as all other guys involved in the design of VtES during the years, there is a possibility that by implementing it we will achieve in the long run(!) better results, than we may achieve with the current system. By mixing them together you losing the point of each, they are better be discussed separately. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > elotar wrote: > > > ... while real combat is (quite interesting) but completely different > > > > > > > > So, your argument is the "S:CE mini-game" is a bad thing? > > > Dude, look at my comment to BA. You seriously should do something with your reading skills. In what reality "interesting" and "different" means "bad"? > This is why I was asking you the question you quoted. I wasn't sure if that's what you meant or not. It's very difficult to understand your point and I was looking for you to clarify. > LivesByProxy wrote: > > I think what Elotar is saying that the way combat is warped around S:CE is not ideal. > Apparently that's not it. > elotar wrote: > Not quite that. There are several different theses in this thread: > > 1) Current system is fine in their own way, but has nothing to do with the "rulebook combat" and to be understandable without "VtES PhD" should be completely "translated" into "language", more suitable to it. > So it's the current system is fine, it just needs clarity in the rulebook. Gotcha. > 2) Current system is a consequence of a quite interesting chain of events, no way intended by anyone involved on any step of it. > You had previously referred to the "interesting" chain of events as "mismanagement." Are you backing off this assessment? > 3) There is a logic in the original system, which has never been really implemented or tested. As Garfield is, imo, a better designer than all of us (combined), as well as all other guys involved in the design of VtES during the years, there is a possibility that by implementing it we will achieve in the long run(!) better results, than we may achieve with the current system. > See, here's where i'm getting confused. While you say the current combat system is "fine" and "interesting," you are also suggesting that it should incorporate the logic intended by the original designer to get "better results. This implies there is something wrong with the current combat system. So which is it? Is it "fine," or does it need to change to get "better results"? Or is it both fine and could be tweaked to get better results? Again, i'm asking you to clarify because I'm just trying to get your point before I respond.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > While you say the current combat system is "fine" and "interesting," you are also suggesting that it should incorporate the logic intended by the original designer to get "better results. > NO! See my last suggestion in the "Option B" thread. Current system is completely different than original one - so to go forward meaningfully we should either chose new one and drop old baggage (m-s-p round structure) or go full "old ways" and drop SCE and its counters. NC Russia

So help me comprehend. You like the M-S-P model of combat (I do, I think it is simple and clean) but the important 'steps' of combat as actually played in VTES have less to do with that model, and more to do with the cards played 'between' the M-S-P model, including PreRound and EndRound cards like TSP and ToV, right? And you say this is like two separate systems being mixed together, or parallel to each other. And that the rule-book should be updated to reflect the steps we have presently (the 'mixed system'), but that going forward we should either focus combat on one system (the M-S-P) or the other (PreRound-BeforeStrikes-EndRound), is this correct? 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: > So help me comprehend. You like the M-S-P model of combat (I do, I think it is simple and clean) but the important 'steps' of combat as actually played in VTES have less to do with that model, and more to do with the cards played 'between' the M-S-P model, including PreRound and EndRound cards like TSP and ToV, right? And you say this is like two separate systems being mixed together, or parallel to each other. > > And that the rule-book should be updated to reflect the steps we have presently (the 'mixed system'), but that going forward we should either focus combat on one system (the M-S-P) or the other (PreRound-BeforeStrikes-EndRound), is this correct? > "going forward we should either focus combat on one system (the M-S-P) or the other" - correct. I've already described new system as I see it in the "Option B" thread. "rule-book should be updated to reflect" the system we decide to keep. Having information at hand about BC policy it seems to me that the current one will stay. So m-s-p structure should go. NC Russia

I like strike:combat ends. I like their interaction with the other combat cards and the game as a whole. They definitely have a place in fluff as well. Existence of combat ends have to be accounted for when you build a combat deck. It poses interesting deckbuilding challenges. I don't like S:CE resolving separately from other strikes and the excessive number of combat steps. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > They definitely have a place in fluff as well. > In the VTM you spent a point of willpower, which everybody got plenty off, to ignore effect of presence for a round, then crush dork trying to be awesome, with your two splits and three additional strikes. And even without this (if we go with a notion, that VTM as a ruleset suck at representing fluff of VTM), majesty was a power, accessible only to the elders, not any dork having basic presence (there was kind of a combat power Dread Gaze thou, which in VtES was somehow moved to completely irrelevant card). But you are right, that they pose an interesting deckbuilding challenge, so if we want to embrace it in a reasonable way, we should stop pretending that we care about m-s-p. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > In the VTM you spent a point of willpower, which everybody got plenty off, to ignore effect of presence for a round, then crush dork trying to be awesome, with your two splits and three additional strikes. And even without this (if we go with a notion, that VTM as a ruleset suck at representing fluff of VTM), majesty was a power, accessible only to the elders, not any dork having basic presence (there was kind of a combat power Dread Gaze thou, which in VtES was somehow moved to completely irrelevant card). > Two things I want to say: 1.) In general, I disagree with your notion that VTES sucks in representing the fluff. I think that on average it does a decent job. I think its important to maintain the atmosphere and tone of world of darkness. Its more important than strict adherence to RPG rules in my opinion. 2.) However, too many cards in VTES that are playable by young smallcap vampires, actually are the sole providence of really old and strong vampires in the lore. (Discipline technique requiring more than 5 dots in a discipline in the RPG books). This is pretty much solely of a naming issue however, someone named the card wrong. Another issue is disciplineless cards actually requiring a discipline in the lore. Example: Wake with evenings freshness is a disciplineless reaction card, while in the lore its actually a Tremere ritual. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > 1.) In general, I disagree with your notion that VTES sucks in representing the fluff. > Where have you find such notion? Actually I'm always saying that VtES better represents fluff, than VTM mechanics (which, in my opinion, mostly do not work at all). Fluff of presence is questionable, but it's obviously meant to be a social power, used when you are trying to win arguments, not fights. Clans with possess combat disciplines for a reason. > Bloodartist wrote: > 2.) However, too many cards in VTES that are playable by young smallcap vampires, actually are the sole providence of really old and strong vampires in the lore. (Discipline technique requiring more than 5 dots in a discipline in the RPG books). This is pretty much solely of a naming issue however, someone named the card wrong. Another issue is disciplineless cards actually requiring a discipline in the lore. Example: Wake with evenings freshness is a disciplineless reaction card, while in the lore its actually a Tremere ritual. > WwEF, obviously, in the "Alpha" was a Thaumaturgy card, but then it was moved to general when it was found, that wake effect is of key importance to the game. I think, that they should have changed the name (or maybe not them, keeping in mind that they was pressed by time), but WW who have more that a decade to do it. Obviously, we can't avoid having names of the disciplines on a cards and no ability of neonates play them, but it can be executed differently. Having each dork with trowing Majesty's left and right as a main and highly effective answer to any threat is not flavorful. Original Majesty (as I think it was): Press, only usable to end combat. As above, and burn one blood to untap was imo much better - yea, neonate can play it, but for very basic effect, for elder vampires, tho, it gives one of the most valuable effect in the game (ability to act again) quite understandable lorewise (blocking this vampire will not stop him from doing it's thing - remember, repeatable actions were allowed at the time). It helps in combat, but you are better packing some more combat defense. So as a result - it will be mostly used by bigger vampires and mostly when it has valuable action coming. I was asked earlier about positive aspects of the old system. Obviously we can't compare them in terms of balance or strategy debts, but it was much easier to interpret in the terms of the logic of the World of Darkness. NC Russia