New round structure - OPTION A - we'd like your feedback!
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).
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.
TwoRazorReign wrote: 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.
Well, this touches another issue. In Magic "beginning of step X" is reserved mainly for triggered abilities. Something that is in game and only does something once you reach step X (example from VTES: removing a counter from Palla Grande). Cards played by players (spells) don't have that wording as far as I know. Sequencing is handled by having active player play cards first, responding rules, and that both players have to pass(do nothing) in order to move forward from a phase/step.
VTES seems different, and I'm not sure in a good way. Rather than having "responses" for sequencing, it has tried to force a timing structure by having cards "playable only after X/before Y". This wording creates the aforementioned arbitrary timing steps that can be unique to cards (cough immortal grapple), and it also creates obtuse wordings on some cards that require specific timing. Much of the weird timing rules stem from this wording. I'd love if we could figure out a cleaner, more concise alternative.
I ask, does it matter when a card is playable within a step/phase that much? Could we not have cards say for example "playable in maneuver step"? In practice it does not matter (afaik) WHEN you play torn signpost, as long as it happens before you strike? There are certain specific cards that require a more precise timing (immortal grapple, et al.) but in my opinion most cards don't need it. Several cards are done in response to something (stealth, intercept, vote push, action modifiers usually) The timing between presses and taste of vitae is an example of an unnecessary complication in my opinion, as an example. In my opinion the sequence between these should not matter, it only serves to allow players make mistakes. Rules shouldn't exist just to make playing the game correctly harder. Taste vs Press is such an unintuitive thing that people who have played for decades still occasionally have to remind themselves how it works in my local games.
Regarding having stuff in the rulebook:
We preferably need a comprehensive rulebook for judges reference, that spells out every minute detail as accurately and explicitly as possible. This rulebook would be referenced whenever there is a rules issue and should be available online for everyone.
However, the detailed rulebook shouldn't be the one that standard players use. In the "normal" rulebook you only need to mention steps themselves, to keep the text concise and easy to understand. You don't need to spell everything out in order to get beginners play a game of VTES. This is where having things intuitive becomes important, and where the new step structure shines. We can cut down on unnecessarily verbose text on
EDIT: I remembered that despite good intentions, we still can't clean it all, since we have cards that are practically combat cards, played before we're in combat even (Obedience, mental maze, day operation..). VTES, sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
"Plenty of little men tried to put their swords through my heart. And there's plenty of little skeletons buried in the woods."
- Tormund Giantsbane, Game of Thrones
The info given before manouvers are played plays a humongous role. We most definitely need a Start of Combat / Preparation step.
In practice it does not matter (afaik) WHEN you play torn signpost, as long as it happens before you strike?
That timing gives people an amount of information to base their next moves on. Instead of trying to guess if I should be close or long before the Signpost, I can plan accordingly.
Kraus wrote: I'm not sure I understand you - or, rather, identify those 'other steps'.
Round structure: 1. Start 2. Maneuver step 2.a Start 2.b Maneuver 2.c End 3. Strike step ..snip...
"Start" is both a main step (1.) and sub steps (2.a, 3.a & 4.a) — this was the concern.
Perhaps it should just be referred to as "1. Start of round" to be clear.
The same logic applies to step "5. End" perhaps that should be clearly labelled "5. End of round".