Keywords and eliminating redundancy

self wrote:

yet we still see questions about how a Bleed action can be successful, yet the bleed be unsuccessful, which is also confusing.

Provide better explanations in a more accessible way? Number of cards rewritten: zero.

self wrote:

Cards have been retconned throughout the history of the game: Immortal Grapple was given the Grapple keyword. Most recently Wake was added to several cards to describe that effect.

Well, if you're going to compare apples with oranges.

Apparently, you find "Bleed at +1 bleed" confusing, correct? So this needs to be rewritten to be "Bleed at +1 potency" or whatever keyword you would invent.

This is completely unlike adding "Grapple" to Immortal Grapple. The word "Grapple" wasn't added to Immortal Grapple to make the card less confusing. The card functions in the same way.

self wrote:

it's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation:

It really isn't. Setting up false dichotomies like that is irrelevant.

self wrote:

When I was getting into V:tes with a new group of friends back in 2002, we all bought the newer cards, despite knowing that we could buy jyhad collections for cheap. We bought the new cards because we knew they had updated card text and didn't want to confuse ourselves with the old cards. Anecdotes aren't data, though, so other people's mileage may vary.

Not only does other people's mileage vary, your anecdote is irrelevant. You can buy new cards. If you ever play with any other player outside your group, such as attending a tournament, they may be using old cards. So even if you've decided to remove all the confusing terminology so that you start a bleed escapade(*) at +1 potency(**) against your prey which then turns out to be fruitful(***), the player with the old cards isn't using them. So you have to learn all the old terminology, which would now have been removed from the official rules.


(*) Can't use the word action, because it's overloaded with master phase action and discard phase action, so it would be confusing to use the same word.
(**) Bleed.
(***) Can't use 'successful' because that's used by referendums, and it would be confusing to use the same word.

Ankha wrote:

It's a trade-off between space and complexity.
Too many keywords and the game becomes horribly complex.

About bleed, how would you write "Bleed with +1 bleed and +1 stealth"?

You're right about having too many keywords, and I'm not suggesting VEKN do what MTG does and introduce 3-4 new 'keywords' every year only to never use them again. I'm trying to put forward (and I would like to see) a few keywords that are useful and ubiquitous.

I was inspired in part by FFGs L5R and ANR card games. L5R uses the word 'Restricted' much as I've used it here. VEKN/BC created the 'Limited' and 'Wake' keywords which were steps in the right direction. My only disappointment is that Limited is specific to bleed modifiers - I wonder if it could be applicable to cards like Carrion Crows or Form of Mist, both cards that say, 'You can only play one of these each action.' It seems to me like 'Limited' could mean 'You can only play one Limited card each action.' and it would cover a lot more cards without creating too many problems.

About your question though, we would follow the formatting that's already been established: the amount of stealth an action has precedes the action description.

"Bleed with +1 bleed and +1 stealth" is currently written as:
+1 stealth action. Bleed at +1 bleed.
which becomes:
"+1 stealth action. Bleed (+1)."
of course, if it were really up to me, I'd do it this way:
" Bleed (+1) at +1 stealth."
because I think the icons are best used as an indicator for timing windows and not as card types. My opinion on this is strongly influenced by the way FFG handles things.

In the case of a card like Bonding, the actual text is fine as is: "+1 bleed and +1 stealth" doesn't break anything.

________

@SelfBiased, James, & 2RR: I don't think having an action (bleed) with a corresponding value (also bleed in this case) is confusing. What it indicates to me is that certain actions have corresponding values that are only useful during specific timing windows.

I see what SelfBiased is saying though. A referendum is a type of action, but votes are a numerical value associated with that. But I've never liked the word referendum (it is too long) and the same result could be achieved with:
" Vote (+2). If successful..." i.e. "Call a vote. This acting vampire gets +2 votes.'
and if you think this is too far outside the realm of possibility, realize that
' Bleed at +1 bleed." is really saying "Make a bleed. This acting vampire gets +1 bleed."

LivesByProxy wrote:

" Vote (+2). If successful..." i.e. "Call a vote. This acting vampire gets +2 votes.'

Wait. you started the post wishing to eliminate redundant terms. Now your suggesting introducing more redundant terms (ie, changing "political action" to "vote action")?

While your suggestion would appear to make things consistent (ie, "vote" would have 2 meanings the same way "bleed" or "hunt" would), the added consistency there may actually be harmful. The difference is a bleed action resolves and can involve either a successful or unsuccessful bleed. Political actions don't function the same way: the political action has to be successful, then the referendum happens, during which polling (casting votes and ballots) happens, the result of which can be a successful or unsuccessful referendum. It's okay for Political Actions to use unique games terms and inconsistent mechanics because they resolve in a unique way that differs from bleed and hunt actions.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

" Vote (+2). If successful..." i.e. "Call a vote. This acting vampire gets +2 votes.'

Wait. you started the post wishing to eliminate redundant terms. Now your suggesting introducing more redundant terms (ie, changing "political action" to "vote action")?

The purpose of eliminating redundant terms as I called them was to save on card space and have cleaner looking cards. I still read and say: "Bleed (+1)" as "Bleed with +1 bleed." The former just saves space though. Granted, saying "Vote with +1 vote" sounds as silly as "Hunt with +1 hunt".

But for example, if KRC said: " Vote (+1). If successful, allocate four points among two or more Methuselahs. Each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned to them." It would factually be less card space than: "Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate four points blah blah blah." which is what KRC used to say, until someone thought the cards could be cleaned up without increasing the mental burden or complexity, which I'd say they were successful in doing.

You do have a point about the consistency possibly being harmful since political actions function differently than other actions.

IDK, all this is just suggestions.

Ankha wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

VEKN/BC created the 'Limited' and 'Wake' keywords which were steps in the right direction.

Wake is a keyword, Limited is not.

To avoid confusion as above, you should define keywords in the rulebook.