Trap rewording

narpassword wrote:

Non-existant user wrote:

Kraus wrote:

Counting down is more intuitive in that it's clearer that something 'ends' when things get to zero.

Problem is: Trap only counts one way. It resets the other way, so it is easier to put the reset on the 0 side rather than have to define an upper bound.

Definitely agree. Dreams counts up anyway, we can manage that card fine.
I like Ke's wording the most:

Only usable before range is determined during the first round of combat.
If this card has less than 3 counters it automatically provides a press to continue combat. Add 1 counter at end of each round <of combat>. When any combat card is played this combat, remove all counters from this card. Burn this card at the end of combat.

id change 'a' to 1, specify each round 'of combat', and make sure it gets counters wiped by all cards, not just combat cards.

Count one more vote for this wording - I think resetting to 0 is simpler.

BTW, either version will change functionality in a few cornercases: since Trap would not go to the ash heap until the end of combat, it cannot be retrieved during the combat. This would affect Chiram's Hold, Erciyes Fragment, Reality Mirror, Spiritual guidance, etc - ie, mostly useless combos.

skimflux wrote:

Count one more vote for this wording - I think resetting to 0 is simpler.

I consider it simpler to explain with "You have as many presses as this card has counters".

BTW, either version will change functionality in a few cornercases: since Trap would not go to the ash heap until the end of combat, it cannot be retrieved during the combat. This would affect Chiram's Hold, Erciyes Fragment, Reality Mirror, Spiritual guidance, etc - ie, mostly useless combos.

Since trap cannot be played during any other combat round beside the first, this would not have an effect to the current combat, even if there is a cornercase discrepancy.

Ankha wrote:

EDIT: I suppose that you read it this way: "Add a counter for each card played (until it has 3 counters)" whereas the sentence means: "If you play a card, fill the card back up to 3 counters".

At some point, I wanted to write "Each time a card is played this combat, put back the counters you removed from this card on this card." Would it be clearer?

I originally read it as Lonkka did.

I still think further clarity is needed. I've suggested something similar to this previously: "Each time a card is played this combat, add as many counters to this card that are needed (if any) to reach, but not exceed, 3 counters."

The original version's plural (counters) should clarify that it's one or more (to reach 3) counters per card played. Technically it works. If some people misread it however, of course there could be more clarity.

"Each time a card is played this combat, add as many counters that are needed (if any) to reach, but not exceed, 3 counters."

Why is "but not exceed" necessary? When you 'reach' 3, you're at 3. Nothing implicates that you should ever go beyond 3.

The same goes for "if any". "Reach" is a nifty word in that it makes both clarifications already explicit. At least it should be.

Kraus wrote:

The original version's plural (counters) should clarify that it's one or more (to reach 3) counters per card played. Technically it works. If some people misread it however, of course there could be more clarity.

"Each time a card is played this combat, add as many counters that are needed (if any) to reach, but not exceed, 3 counters."

Why is "but not exceed" necessary? When you 'reach' 3, you're at 3. Nothing implicates that you should ever go beyond 3.

The same goes for "if any". "Reach" is a nifty word in that it makes both clarifications already explicit. At least it should be.

Because it provides explicit, clear guidelines on exactly how many counters should be on the card. If you remove "if any" or "not to exceed", people are likely to ask, "what if there are already 3 counters" and "can I put more than 3 on the card," respectively.

TIL that I had been playing Trap wrong.

I've been reading it as: For the next three rounds (including this round), if any combat cards were played, the Trap provides an automatic press to continue combat.

But now I'm learning the Trap effect can remain active for dozens of rounds, and grant dozens of potential presses.

But I don't like the proposed wording. Combat cards are supposed to be one-time-use>play>do-the-effect>go-to-ash-heap-cards. Combat cards should never sit in play or have counters. (Blah blah WWS blah blah.) VTES has always ignored the purpose of card types which is suppose to be rules for timing, play, and permanence. We've got Locations that are Equipment but aren't, Combat cards that act like Equipment but aren't, Master cards that are played as Combat cards, and now the idea is to make a Combat card sit in play with counters like its a Master card.

The result of proposed wording is inelegant (more card text) and fiddly (moving counters on and off for an indeterminate amount of rounds, back and forth.) No thanks.