First Strike vs. Strike: Combat Ends

The Giant's Blood discussion mutated into a discussion of the rules for strike priority, and I thought they deserved their own thread. AaronC makes this point:

AaronC wrote:

I agree that First Strike should come before S:CE. S:CE effects represent powers that require concentration to use in the RPG for the most part. You should be able to strike before they think about melding into the earth. It would balance a bit S:CE, which is very powerful.

However, strike: dodge should not be changed, and it would be a bit more involved to change it. Right now strike: dodge simply nullifies the negative effects of a strike. Fairly straightforward. If you change it, you'd have to say that strike: dodge nullifes the effects of a strike unless the strike is made with First Strike. To me, changing the order of resolution is so simple really: First Strike -> Combat Ends -> normal strike (and no, Dodge doesn't happen faster than any other strike: it just nullifes the effect of an opposing strike).

Also, you shouldn't think of First Strike as an attack made on a completely unknowing opponent. It is really more an issue of greater speed or initiative. It is still possible to react quickly when surprised. Check out the video footage of ex-U.S. president Bush dodging a shoe flung at him at a news conference in the Middle East. If we assume that Mr. Bush isn't a member of a race of shapeshifting reptilian humanoids with advanced reflexes, we can see that it is possible to dodge an attack that is made by surprise.

I agree entirely with it, and I've seen these sorts of justifications for arguing that First Strike should beat S:CE before. What I haven't seen is a justification for the strike rules as they now stand. According to what logic should S:CE beat First Strike, either in terms of canon, physics, or card balance? Why shouldn't this rule be changed?

Canon reason : it's not alway justified. Form of mist or earth meld are not described in the RPG as being quick - in fact, IIRC they take one entire turn at the very least. Some are somewhat justified, like Majesty (not alway turned on, but which act instantly and don't take a turn to activate), but as far as I know the only alway-on protection one can get is good old Fortitude.

As a side note, firearms are about as effective as a flashlight against a vampire in the RPG. So, we can't say that combat strictly follow RPG canon.

Balance reason : well, for starter, Elimelech will became extremely scary. Dodge and prevention would still work, but thoses are harder and less convenient.

Quick Jab is another problem. It became a non-discipline S:CE hoser ; 1 damage is not usually scary, except when aggravated. So, a lot of not-so-strong clan became a lot stronger (like Gangrel Antitribu), and certains already good vampire become even stronger (for example, Hektor can Psyche!, IG, and quick jab his way throught defense. Good luck going throught that)

Other card granting first strike are far from being easy to use, even if they became awesome.

Mistress Fanchon became much more dangerous.

Undodgable aggravated hand strike unpreventable by fortitude at first Strike.

Samantha even more so since she can also play Drawing out the Beast.

Lots of cards though, probably not so unbalanced as it sounds.

Chaitan wrote:

Mistress Fanchon became much more dangerous.

Undodgable aggravated hand strike unpreventable by fortitude at first Strike

Well, it's not so different from now, since she could play Psyche anyway. The only addition is that she can play Shadow Feint to be sure not to waste her strike card. And if she really want that, Thought betrayed is not banned, and it take care of almost all S:CE and dodge.

Unlike Ankha, I don't think the rule should be left alone because it 'stand the test of time', but there must be a compelling game need to change it.

In other word, changing it because there is a consensus that S:CE and/or dodge are too hard to counter would be fine (it does not seem to be the case). Changing it because first strike card are weak is dodgy at best (twisting the knife is worse, for example). Changing it to fit lore is too dangerous for such a small benefit.

Ankha wrote:

DeathInABottle wrote:

Why shouldn't this rule be changed?

Because it stands the test of time and all the cards were designed with that rule in head? Because there's no good reason to change them?

The rules concerning first strike vs dodge are balanced as they are. Rules aren't be changed for the sake of a minority that found them not enough rpg-like.

And other cards were printed with first strike beating s:ce in mind and priced very high ? There was no good reason to change it in first place, changing it now would be just as fair as it was before.