Direct action question

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Yes. Rescuing your own vampire from torpor, leaving torpor, hunting, political actions, equip actions, recruiting allies, and employing retainers are fundamental undirected actions in the game that also get the exception of having +1 stealth. The problem is, in real life, the +1 stealth is really not an exception. It's the rule for the most common undirected actions a player can perform.

The rulebook needs a dedicated section explaining directed and undirected actions. It should not be buried in the "who may attempt to block" explanation. This would not only help clarify that undirected actions usually have a default of 0 stealth, but it will also help explain the stupid symbol, which has caused just a ridiculous amount of confusion ("I am going to enter combat with your minion as a action, so you have to tap your minion because it is an action directed at you...isn't that why the symbol is there?")

This "there are more exceptions than there are applications of the rule" thing seems to be a recurring theme in VTES. Its very similar to canceling cards (direct intervention, sudden reversal, I am legion, evil eye, hide the mind, etc). The rule is that when card is canceled, the cost is paid. Yet there are more canceling cards that explicitly state that the cost is NOT paid than there are not. Its all sorts of backwards, and a failure of game design in my opinion. Inability to come up with a coherent rule that is actually enforced instead of subverted. We can't really errata this either, since errata would have to touch every single card of this type. Meh, I say.

Almost as if... there was no game director overseeing the development..

Bloodartist wrote:

This "there are more exceptions than there are applications of the rule" thing seems to be a recurring theme in VTES. Its very similar to canceling cards (direct intervention, sudden reversal, I am legion, evil eye, hide the mind, etc). The rule is that when card is canceled, the cost is paid. Yet there are more canceling cards that explicitly state that the cost is NOT paid than there are not. Its all sorts of backwards, and a failure of game design in my opinion.

I would not call this a failure of game design. It's okay that some undirected actions are at 0 stealth and others at +1 stealth. It's also okay that sometimes cost is paid when a card is cancelled and sometimes it's not. The failure is more with the rulebook (and by extension card text) treating the more common things that do happen in a game (+ 1 stealth on undirected actions, cost not being paid when a card is cancelled) as exceptions instead of the rule.

Almost as if... there was no game director overseeing the development..

It's not really the game director's job to make sure the rules and exceptions to the rules are outlined in the clearest way possible. They're busy making sure the game gets produced. It's the job of whoever wrote the rulebook.

Bloodartist wrote:

This "there are more exceptions than there are applications of the rule" thing seems to be a recurring theme in VTES. Its very similar to canceling cards (direct intervention, sudden reversal, I am legion, evil eye, hide the mind, etc). The rule is that when card is canceled, the cost is paid. Yet there are more canceling cards that explicitly state that the cost is NOT paid than there are not. Its all sorts of backwards, and a failure of game design in my opinion.

There are a whole bunch of cards that follow the basic rule - by my very rough count, and ignoring cards which cancel actions or which have a self-cancellation mechanism on them (which is a somewhat different thing), I get:

- 19 cards with card cancellations mechanisms where the cost is paid,

- a further 6 (Aye, Andrew Stuart, Santaleous, Blood of Sandman, Esprit de Corps, and Two Wrongs) where it's paid but the card is in plain sight which is technically the same, but has somewhat different dynamics as it can discourage the play to start with, and

- a further 3 where technically the cost is paid but it's technically possible, because they all affect Gehenna events which can cost pool if Guarded Rubrics is in play, but that's unlikely (Jan Pieterzoon+, Emergency Preparations, Watchtower: The Wolves Feed)

Of the 19, five are: Bliss, I am Legion, Mundane, Power of All, Pseudo-Blindness.

The remaining 14 are where this is default is really helpful - Reflex cards. 14 Abombwe cards have a cancel a Frenzy card Reflex level which cancel the card, but does not refund the cost. Why does this help? Because Reflex is an additional level, so adding extra card text can push this over to an extra line. On most Abombwe cards, this is a third level and going to an extra line can push you into teeny text territory.


(One reflex card is an exception - Fae Contortion. Its other card text is way shorter than a bunch of Abombwe cards, consisting of 4 words.)

Bloodartist wrote:

Inability to come up with a coherent rule that is actually enforced instead of subverted.

There's a rule about card costs when cards are cancelled, yes. But one of the most fundamental rules of V:TES is the Golden Rule of Cards - card text doesn't have to follow the rules if it doesn't want to. Lots and lots cards subvert the defaults, and many very popular cards are popular because they subvert the defaults to do something better. That's not incoherence, that's just people designing cards and people playing cards.

Wait, the player just get refound if the card said "No cost is paid" its that right?
Cause here we play like when anyone cancel cards the cost are not paid, even when cancel frenzy cards (Terror Frenzy or Devil-Channel Hands) with Aye.