SCE

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.