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

brandonsantacruz wrote:

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.

But I'm not arguing for not updating the rules. I'm arguing for updating the rules to codify the steps of combat, but not inventing new terminology where it isn't required.

If the rulebook says: "Here are the steps of combat. They go in the following order: a).... b)...", then there is nothing inherently better about calling a step "Start of maneuvers" vs "Before range is determined", or even just "play before range" or something if you prefer to make it shorter. If you spell out what the steps are and in which order they go, it's completely unambiguous as to when it happens - and new players will have to learn both sets of terminology unless Black Chantry proposes banning old cards.

"Start of maneuvers" (or whatever) would only be 'the most modern wording possible' because a change had been made. The point is whether that change is actually necessary.

I have a similar question about Darkness Within. It says it moves a blood 'during strike resolution', so I guess it doesn't affect (for example) a situation where it is played against a vampire with one blood who wants to play Majesty. And how does it work with damage?

Would this be changed to "after" strike resolution then, or something something to make explicit when the blood moves?

Loving this by the way. I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable.

Kraus wrote:

I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable.

The concern I have with "start" is that the word "start" is used multiple time in the other steps. Beginning (or similar would avoid this and subsequent confusion).

I'm not sure I understand you - or, rather, identify those 'other steps'.

Outside of a combat outline?

If 'start' is used exclusively to mark a beginning of any given whatever, in the whole game, I think it's fine. As long as the 'starting' of a step/phase works similarly across the rules set. I can't think where it doesn't though.

For example, the starts of "Unlock phase", "Combat" and "Strike step" are similar - it's the first timing window of that given phase/step. Right?

Krausedit\\ I used to propose in another thread that the Start of (round of) combat would be called a Preparation step, to give it a name. "Start of combat" or "Start of Round" names the step too, however.