SCE

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

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.

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"?

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.

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.