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

Appears to be good for me. The clearer the rules could be, the best would be.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

If possible I would try to use the exact same wording that appears on the cards for the steps in the rulebook.

For example, if Torn Signpost says "only usable at the beginning of the round," then part 1 should read "Beginning of the round." I don't see a point in using different verbiage if you're trying to avoid unnecessary complication.

Yes! I agree 100%. As would most copy editors.

Ankha wrote:

Round structure:
1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects)

Torn Signpost: Only usable at the beginning of the round.

If you want to codify combat into a series of steps (somewhat like the Detailed Play Summary), that's sensible.

However, I would strongly favour codifying it using the dominant existing text for each step.

Why? Because if you change to totally different text, new players have to learn two combat systems: the one in the rulebook, and the one that exists on all the cards other people are playing with. Old players are unlikely to buy 9 sets of Desperate Housevampires when it's released in 2019 to get enough Carrion Crows to replace their existing copies, so new players will need to understand it. So where possible, just stick to the dominant old wording. V:TES is regularly (and understandably) criticised for having too many keywords to get on top of, so doubling the number of terms for phases of combat you have to understand is a step in the wrong direction.

In particular, splitting out "before range is determined" into two separate phases depending on the rest of the card is the sort of thing that will make a new player's head explode.

The idea is to remove self-defined (or implicit) steps such as "Before range is determined". Also the "Determine Range" step would be named "Maneuver step" for consistency.

I'm TOTALLY behind this. I've meant to suggest something like this myself for a long while, but didn't find the time to go through all possible cards and their possible erratas.

Great idea! B)

Lets keep in mind that rulebook only needs to specify the steps themselves, the cards can have text like "at the beginning of step X" and it will be clear once you know the steps. People intuitively know where "beginning of a step" is. You don't have to specify it in the structure guide imo. People know that beginning is the beginning and end is the end.

If you absolutely HAVE to mention them in the round structure guide, we should probably just use the word "beginning" instead of "start".

Bloodartist wrote:

Lets keep in mind that rulebook only needs to specify the steps themselves, the cards can have text like "at the beginning of step X" and it will be clear once you know the steps. People intuitively know where "beginning of a step" is. You don't have to specify it in the structure guide imo. People know that beginning is the beginning and end is the end.

I would argue the opposite. The rulebook does need to specify "at the beginning of step x". By not including those distinct steps where cards could be played in the rulebook, it makes it seem like those steps only exist if a player has a card to play in that step. This is not the case: players need to decline playing cards in those steps. By including these "at the beginning of step x" steps in the rulebook, it ensures players will sequence effectively through those steps, and will help players understand when they may play certain cards.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Ankha wrote:

Round structure:
1. Start ( = At the start of the round = before range is determined for non-set range effects)

Torn Signpost: Only usable at the beginning of the round.

If you want to codify combat into a series of steps (somewhat like the Detailed Play Summary), that's sensible.

However, I would strongly favour codifying it using the dominant existing text for each step.

Why? Because if you change to totally different text, new players have to learn two combat systems: the one in the rulebook, and the one that exists on all the cards other people are playing with. Old players are unlikely to buy 9 sets of Desperate Housevampires when it's released in 2019 to get enough Carrion Crows to replace their existing copies, so new players will need to understand it. So where possible, just stick to the dominant old wording. V:TES is regularly (and understandably) criticised for having too many keywords to get on top of, so doubling the number of terms for phases of combat you have to understand is a step in the wrong direction.

In particular, splitting out "before range is determined" into two separate phases depending on the rest of the card is the sort of thing that will make a new player's head explode.

For the sake of new players I would argue the opposite. If they are getting cards from Black Chantry they should have the clearest, most modern wording possible. The game has morphed through a series of erratas and the addition of new, implicit, timing windows to the point where it is hard to follow and, dare I say, annoying at times.

If we don't update the rules and card rulings, then the game is basically just catering to the existing (dwindling) player base. Catering to current (legacy?) players is ok, but we know what direction the player base has been headed with that strategy. I don't envision some mass exodus of VTES players based on their Torn Signposts doing the same exact thing that they used to, but where some cards say it differently.