Layout change suggestion for Library cards.

kschaefer wrote:

Kilrauko wrote:

Again, this is not tied to one singular card and it's "typos" if any, this is tied to the layout and existing symbols. See earlier Mentioned Mirror's Visage that enables playing it for zero stealth if the superior is separated as easier to read by separating it to be behind two superior discipline symbols.

And yet you keep bringing up specific examples without formulating a general reason why this is a bad idea?

Kilrauko wrote:

... When a card mandates something to happen first, it should not be presented to a "or" choice when it's "if not, then". ...

How more general do you wish this? It was in my first reply to topic. I'm sorry if you somehow missed it, I'll try to do better job in the future.

kschaefer wrote:

Your Mirror's Image strawman is a bad example (as strawmen tend to be). It's less clear, not more clear to split the superior. So, you don't do it. Is everything going to be perfectly clear to all player's all of the time? Ask yourself how many rules questions are answered with "card text" today.

So we separate some effects tied with "otherwise" but not all of them, is consistency related to card layout suddenly fluid? I'm not using it as some strawman argument because unlike someone seems to assume, I'm not against this proposed change or trying to argue against it. I'm at the moment fully thinking how we can make this work past the hurdles and among the 20+ cards with otherwise existing atm, it's the clearest to understand and highlights the issue I've quoted earlier in this reply.

kschaefer wrote:

Does this seem generally more clear in many cases? Does it seem more clear in enough cases that those cases should use this formatting? Does that mean all cases need to use this formatting?

Kilrauko wrote:

...
Again, I feel the need to emphasize, the layout is clearer for most of the cases. It's worth putting work and effort into it. It's in the "easier to read" direction. ...

To answer question not already answered, I do feel all cases should use same format. If the aim is to be layout change for library cards, why it should not affect all library cards? Starting from the worst offenders and slowly moving onwards like the blood vs pool cost symbol change was done.

Mirror's Visage
Only usable if this vampire is blocked, before block resolution. Unlock this vampire, lock the blocking minion, and end the action. This vampire cannot perform actions again this turn.
+2 stealth if this is an undirected action, otherwise +1 stealth.

So, to rework this maybe even more drastically to obliterate more of the 'choose one' problem which doesn't actually exist because of the way all effects in VTES are already by default listed as 'choose one'. Let's take that to a level of absurdism. We can just eliminate 'otherwise' cases by explicitly naming the case a) and case b).

Since at we are deciding between 'directed' and 'undirected' actions we can explicitly name when the effects should be used (since this card is a 3-effect card with two of them at ).
At the same time, a game rule/convention can be established such that "Use (time statement)" and "Usable by (minion requirements)" are rigid requirements. If something is 'Use during undirected actions' then it can only be used during undirected actions. If something is 'Usable by a Sabbat' then it can only be used by a Sabbat minion (which by default would mean a vampire since Sects are only a property of vampires by default).

This then gives us the following text:

Mirror's Visage
Action Modifier
1
Use when blocked and before resolving the block. Unlock this vampire, lock the blocking minion, and the action ends. This vampire cannot attempt actions this turn.
Use during undirected actions. +2 stealth.
Use during directed actions. +1 stealth.

This would also easily fit the sort of layout that Chris (selfbiased) has proposed. It would also quickly lend itself to other variations of the layout where individual effects are partitioned in the text box either by 'line separators' (often used in novels to mark a strong shift between characters, locations, or time in the story) or by making the effects have their own discrete text boxes sharing a unified theme (this technique is common on board games). Mockups of both of those concepts could be done quickly.

@kilrauko. How does this look to you?

self wrote:

@kilrauko. How does this look to you?

Both work as one has the proposed rule/convention that I handles the conditioning and other uses the existing restrictions that has over 100 cards with it (I think all bleed and referendum cards at least use "only usable during x". I think most of us agree they are clear and look good, as does the example Juggernaut1981 provided earlier hence I thanked but did not reply as I was rushing to work. I will highlight the true gold nugget, and I quote;

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

...
At the same time, a game rule/convention can be established such that "Use (time statement)" and "Usable by (minion requirements)" are rigid requirements. If something is 'Use during undirected actions' then it can only be used during undirected actions. If something is 'Usable by a Sabbat' then it can only be used by a Sabbat minion (which by default would mean a vampire since Sects are only a property of vampires by default).

...

This would also easily fit the sort of layout that Chris (selfbiased) has proposed.

This is why I wished to push this further then just "looks good". Any effort done now saves us multiple times in the long run. It can also mean creating new rules and *gasp* keywords *gasp* as this is the perfect opportunity for it. If we are willing to accept that sometimes clarity requires more card real estate, we can have easier to understand cards. I don't think Mirror's Visage becomes "wall of text" because it has added line. But it cannot be done either unless we change how the card layout should look like, which, I think, this topic is all about. And if we somehow have restriction that new cards cannot have more lines then the earlier iteration, well, the concept would fail that.

And no, following is not moving the goalposts, or propping more strawmen or any other argument mechanics. This is challenging the concept. The Status Perfectus or any other card (Derange etc) that pushes 11+ lines of text. I remind we can just as easily agree there are cards that cannot be fixed as they are that require either be left to the dust or complete rewrite. Feel free to ignore as I don't have the time to create samples as just imagining it in my minds eye being 13 lines of text is fastest, but if someone can squeeze it tighter, all the more power for them.

EDIT: To visualize, first card I remembered having true block back then.

This is a cleaner way to display the card text and would be in favor of this change.

Wonderful idea!

It would be necesary to analyze each card separately but the point of view looks great to me.