New keyword: "Defeated" (if opposing minion isn't ready...)

There is a russian joke about boxer, his wife, her lover and "defeated" keyword, lol.

Most cards eligible to such keyword should be removed from the game, obviously.

LivesByProxy wrote:

Less card text in the text box.

You still haven't defined what problem this keyword would solve.

If the problem is "The majority of cards which use the text which could be removed by employing this keyword contain so much text that their font size becomes so small that it's difficult to read," as a hypothetical example, that could be considered a problem worth solving.

If you consider the existence of card text itself to be an issue, I hear that Race For the Galaxy is a pretty good game?

@CrazyCatTim, @stephane81: I've only been playing for 2ish years, and not even as frequently as I would like.

I think you guys are wrong though. Keywords are like mnemonic devices and aid in the psychological process known as "chunking" - grouping data together in your memory for easy recall. And BC realizes this, which is why I'm guessing they introduced the word: "(Limited.)" on bleed modifiers.

@Kushiel: You understand what I'm saying. Less card text in the text box aids in readability, and lets BC make more complicated cards, since card text box space is less of an issue.

Kraus could split this off into a separate topic about keywords, but I've already made such a topic in the past, and the response was generally, "Keywords bad!"

Which I find funny, because words like Maneuver and Press are effectively keywords meaning: "Move to long or short range," and "Push to continue or conclude combat," respectively. You could even say Bleed is a keyword, since it means, "This minion burns 1 of the targeted Methuselah's pool." And of course, Burn is a keyword, meaning, "Discard this card from play and/or return this bead to the bank."

@Elotar: I'm guessing you dislike the cards eligible for "defeated" keyword because you think vamps going to torpor or getting burned is bad and should not be encouraged? If so, we could talk about that.

LivesByProxy wrote:

@Kushiel: You understand what I'm saying.

Yes. But I don't agree that there's a compelling reason to create this keyword - like I've been saying, you haven't presented this keyword as the solution to a currently existing problem.

Change for the sake of change is just make-work."BCP might need this keyword in the future" isn't a good argument for creating it now, with all of the ensuing work it would entail; if they need space on a card in the future, they can worry at that time about whether the impact (on all the cards which would require errata) of creating this keyword is worth the effort.

LivesByProxy wrote:

@CrazyCatTim, @stephane81: I've only been playing for 2ish years, and not even as frequently as I would like.

I think you guys are wrong though. Keywords are like mnemonic devices and aid in the psychological process known as "chunking" - grouping data together in your memory for easy recall. And BC realizes this, which is why I'm guessing they introduced the word: "(Limited.)" on bleed modifiers.

@Kushiel: You understand what I'm saying. Less card text in the text box aids in readability, and lets BC make more complicated cards, since card text box space is less of an issue.

Kraus could split this off into a separate topic about keywords, but I've already made such a topic in the past, and the response was generally, "Keywords bad!"

Which I find funny, because words like Maneuver and Press are effectively keywords meaning: "Move to long or short range," and "Push to continue or conclude combat," respectively. You could even say Bleed is a keyword, since it means, "This minion burns 1 of the targeted Methuselah's pool." And of course, Burn is a keyword, meaning, "Discard this card from play and/or return this bead to the bank."

@Elotar: I'm guessing you dislike the cards eligible for "defeated" keyword because you think vamps going to torpor or getting burned is bad and should not be encouraged? If so, we could talk about that.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot by insisting on using the term "keywords." Please remember there are no keywords in VTES. Such a term has a specific definition in other games, and that definition may only partially apply to special terms used in VTES. Therefore, people have a tendency to take whatever part of that definition that does not apply and argue with you about it. This is why everybody goes "keywords bad" when you mention them.

Remember that VTES has "special terms." If you want to attach the meaning of keywords as you know them to these special terms, by all means, that is your prerogative. But please understand that you need to start referring to new special terms you want added to the rulebook as special terms, or people will dismiss the points you are trying to make by pulling in some abstract understanding they have of what a keyword is into their argument and dismiss your points as nonsense.

In other words, if you wish to suggest additions or changes that may benefit the game, you may want to start using terms applicable to that game, not terms other games use that you think should be used globally for all games.

@2RazorReign: I get what you're saying. I disagree with the idea that there are no keywords in VTES - for exactly the reason you mention, no less: that "keyword" should be used globally for all games (more or less), following the same definition - but if using "special terms" engenders more discussion and feedback, then I will do that.

But I do find it a bit silly. Like if Chevrolet (VTES) refused to use the word "automobile" because Ford (MTG) used it first, and so insisted on using the phrase "self-propelled trans-locator" or something...

I mean, I get using terms applicable to the game, but it seems... deliberately stubborn(?) to refuse to use the language of the industry / profession to which you (BC) belong.