Rebalancing ranged weapons

(Please move if in wrong forum category)

Not a card idea per se, but an idea that's piqued my interest. Following Maddog's good practice, moved to a separate thread.

First off - usually I keep my cards filed when not in use, but I have had a Toreador Gun Deck on hand and ready to play probably for 16 years now. I have to admit, however, that guns with magazined ammo cards and Blurs are on the munchkin-side.

In the original thread , Self-Bias wrote:

I brought this up a while ago, but do melee weapons suck because celerity/guns work so well? Would melee weapons be better if guns only minimally benefit from additional strikes?

I therefore wondered whether each gun should get X counters, where X is their base cost, and once they run out, an action (either a 'gun strike' or normal/additional strike) has to be spent reloading.

So a ranged weapon that costs 1 pool can be fired once, the second strike spent reloading (should you wish to fire again), firing again on the third strike. Obviously, this doesn't affect anything should you only wish/need to fire once per combat.

A 2 pool ranged weapon can be fired twice, to continue using the third action must be a reload, then can be fired another two times.

And so on.

Obviously this makes Ivory Bow (1 pool) and Desert Eagle (1 pool) a lot less powerful. Assuming two rounds with an additional strike in each and firing each strike:
Traditional rules: Strike: 1R agg x4 / Strike: 2R x4.
Suggested rules: Strike: 1R agg, [Reload], Strike: 1R agg, [Reload] / Strike: 2R, [Reload], Strike: 2R, [Reload].

A .44 (which I believe is the most used gun weapon) can only fire twice before reloading (so if Blurred, that third gun action would be a reload strike). That may shift preferences to Submachine gun, which does 3R each strike and would be fireable three times before reloading.

This, to me at least, captures the "The good thing about swords? They never need reloading"-ness of combat. The effect is obviously much more noticeable in multi-strike or multi-round combat.

It also makes 3, 4, 5 -pool ranged weapons that can strike multiple times per round before reloading much more valuable, seeing as they don't have to reload so much.

Naturally it also complicates combat rules, but then again... would many people notice in the world's most complicated card game?

The Strike: Reload would also mean that the combatant is neither attacking nor dodging, so is vulnerable, although perhaps if adopted there could be 'Dodge, reload gun behind cover' generic combat card. To be clear, it doesn't matter when you reload (you might have two shots left on a three-shot weapon, but strategically it makes sense to reload).

It is early in the morning and I'm now going to have to rush off, but I quickly put together an overview of how this would affect ranged equipment in VTES as image attachments. Apologies for any errors, and feel free to tell me how much this idea sucks .

I don't think adding a new strike effect is really the way to go. If we just limited guns to their full damage on the first strike, and then 1 damage each additional strike that round. That way we can just errata some cards instead of putting yet another cornercase rule into the book.

In the lore, guns are traditionally less effective than meleé weapons against kindred and do bashing damage instead of lethal. It also strains credulity that, with Celerity, one can make an automatic weapon fire more bullets.

I also liked the idea of allowing meleé weapons to be dumped out during combat instead of taking the action to equip with them.

Tough one, any rebalancing to ranged equipment (guns) will simply add more complexity, not sure that's the way to go. Perhaps a simple rule/errata that you can only use a gun once each round (gun mechanism restrictions).

Always found it odd some melee weapons can only be used once each round, whereas gun mechanisms are actually more restrictive. And a baseball bat (at least in the movies) does way more damage to an undead than a single bullet, you usually need to pump the undead full of lead to do some damage.

The problem with limiting gun use to once a round etc. is that some do that already, while other guns (e.g. Kpist /45 ) and ammos ( Caseless Rounds ) give you an additional strike, only usable to strike with the gun. Therefore, the errata would have to be that you 'cannot fire guns more than once using Celerity-based additional actions', for example.

I assume that getting an additional strike via other means (e.g. Arms of Abyss ) would be fine as you're only firing once.

Additional strikes aren't the problem, it's the built-in maneuver. The maneuver counters hit-back and avoids most steal or destroy equipment effects. See: countless intercept decks that use .44 Magnum and Sniper Rifle without celerity.

Dorrinal wrote:

Additional strikes aren't the problem, it's the built-in maneuver. The maneuver counters hit-back and avoids most steal or destroy equipment effects. See: countless intercept decks that use .44 Magnum and Sniper Rifle without celerity.

I also think restricting celerity is not the answer. I agree the (free) maneuver some range weapons can provide an issue, giving the built-in protection from nasty close range strikes (example: agg poke, entombment, potence hands, coma ect ect) that do not have a maneuver or need a way to maneuver every combat with minion with gun. Range weapons also have the advantage of doing the same amount of damage at close range as they do at long range (all be it more risk at close).

If there was a ruling that damage from ranged weapons was halved at close range, and/or take away the built in maneuver, this maybe could bring more balance, and encourage players to but maneuvers in their deck, even generic maneuvers such as High Ground, backstep, Fake out ect.

Or range weapons with a built in maneuver only do half the amount of damage at close and damage can never go below 1 example: Saturday-Night Special).

It is a tricky thing to fix without strings being attached. I agree with Chrisn statement regarding vtes- "the world's most complicated card game." However I hope "the powers that-be" can make this game far less complicated so it is not overwhelming for new or old school returning players. with out dumb-ing it down too much.