thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.
19 Sep 2012 06:37 #37246
by Lönkka
The new Nergal example above was much niftier than the old one.
Then again, I donät know if there are some cards that would end up having several lines worth of Keywords which would feel kinda clunky.
Also, even if currently this is purely academical right now with the absence of publisher, this wouldn't be the first time cards have been reformatted.
In olden days essential info (such as restictions when the cards could be played etc) might've been located as the last sentence of the cardtext.
And before LSJ started to do the card text layouts himself, some nitwit graphic designer at WW thought it would be a Very Nifty Idea TM to use the same miniscule font size in all cards no matter if the card was full of text or just 4 words (say, cards like Ex Nihilo vs simple [inf] +1 bleed, +2 bleed).
Replied by Lönkka on topic Re: thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.
I'm actually beginning to warm up to it.As for the suggested re-formatting, I doubt that it's worth the effort.
The new Nergal example above was much niftier than the old one.
Then again, I donät know if there are some cards that would end up having several lines worth of Keywords which would feel kinda clunky.
Also, even if currently this is purely academical right now with the absence of publisher, this wouldn't be the first time cards have been reformatted.
In olden days essential info (such as restictions when the cards could be played etc) might've been located as the last sentence of the cardtext.
And before LSJ started to do the card text layouts himself, some nitwit graphic designer at WW thought it would be a Very Nifty Idea TM to use the same miniscule font size in all cards no matter if the card was full of text or just 4 words (say, cards like Ex Nihilo vs simple [inf] +1 bleed, +2 bleed).
Finnish 
Politics!
Politics!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 Sep 2012 06:40 #37248
by Ohlmann
When I Burst of sunlight a damage immune people, I still take the part of the burst that don't concern me. So, it's different from damage immunity. On the same token, Jaroslav entire action is unsuccessful if even one sabbat vampire is immune to
action, which seem completely counter-intuitive and certainly will attract an ad-hoc ruling from you, like for the Immortal Grapple.
That's why it is confusing. You make every immunity different with specific set of rule. I can't predict what your "immunity" will do, while I can mostly predict the current rule. Given how complex they are, I suppose you understand why I believe you should drop that idea.
It's not the question. The question is, if I play an action modifier that will affect immediatly the immune vampire, should he be "immune" to it ?
Replied by Ohlmann on topic Re: thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.
"Immunity to Grapple" would mean the Grapple has no effect when you use it with the other minion. So any card with the Grapple keyword will unsuccessfully resolve (meaning neither vampire is bound by the Grapple, there will be no press AND the next round of combat is NOT automatically close range).
When I Burst of sunlight a damage immune people, I still take the part of the burst that don't concern me. So, it's different from damage immunity. On the same token, Jaroslav entire action is unsuccessful if even one sabbat vampire is immune to
action, which seem completely counter-intuitive and certainly will attract an ad-hoc ruling from you, like for the Immortal Grapple.That's why it is confusing. You make every immunity different with specific set of rule. I can't predict what your "immunity" will do, while I can mostly predict the current rule. Given how complex they are, I suppose you understand why I believe you should drop that idea.
If you choose to play action modifiers on an action that will not resolve successfully, then that's your own foolishness, just like declaring the action in the first place.
It's not the question. The question is, if I play an action modifier that will affect immediatly the immune vampire, should he be "immune" to it ?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 Sep 2012 06:41 #37249
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.
What are you talking about? I can't see any Nergal example.The new Nergal example above was much niftier than the old one.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 Sep 2012 06:50 #37251
by Juggernaut1981
Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Replied by Juggernaut1981 on topic Re: thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.
@Ankha: About 6 posts up there should be two images. The main difference is that Nergal's static abilities (i.e. +2 bleed, Infernal) are listed in the top line of the text rather than the end. It's not a huge change, but they don't need to be bold to get the effect. I suppose we've all become used to looking for +bleed, +intercept, etc at the end.
@Ohlmann:
What new idea doesn't have bugs? I never claimed to have perfected it. I do however, think that creating new keywords or extending keywords will create a situation which is easier for new players to understand and won't require giant long cardtexts which can be 'rules laywered' out of existence.
And if you're going to quote examples to me, then what action modifiers are you thinking about?
@Ohlmann:
What new idea doesn't have bugs? I never claimed to have perfected it. I do however, think that creating new keywords or extending keywords will create a situation which is easier for new players to understand and won't require giant long cardtexts which can be 'rules laywered' out of existence.
And if you're going to quote examples to me, then what action modifiers are you thinking about?
Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 Sep 2012 07:19 #37257
by Ankha
Talking about the Nergal example, I'm torn between the two options that both have pros and cons.
Talking about the keywords, you also have two philosophies with pros and cons: either use keywords that express the same thing with fewer words but require extra knowledge from the player, or use the current system which is more explicit (and lenghtier).
I think cards are already complicated. Reducing the card text by using keywords don't make the cards more simple because they require more implicit knowledge.
(It can be dangerous also when designing cards because designers will tend to accumulate keywords and effects since they have more space.)
Using the same templates for the same effects is a better way to go in my opinion, and templating is totally independant of using keywords or not.
For example:
Masochism: Whenever this vampire plays a card, you may remove X rush counters from this card to reduce that card's blood cost by X.
Fatuus Mastery: The counters on this card may be used to pay some or all of this vampire's blood cost to play cards <snip>
Though they have exactly the same effect, they are formulated ("templated") a different way. It's not worth creating a keyword for that, but using the same pattern reduces confusion and improves the learning curve.
(A more common example will be Bum's Rush and Charge of the Buffalo. "Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah." vs "Enter combat with a <tapped> minion.". If you except the "tapped" in Charge of the Buffalo, there are the same but Charge of the Buffalo implies many things such as: the target must be ready and controlled by another Methuselah. In that case, a new keyword such as "Rush" could be even introduced, but it has drawbacks as explained above).
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.
Thanks, I deactivated the images so I didn't saw them.@Ankha: About 6 posts up there should be two images. The main difference is that Nergal's static abilities (i.e. +2 bleed, Infernal) are listed in the top line of the text rather than the end. It's not a huge change, but they don't need to be bold to get the effect. I suppose we've all become used to looking for +bleed, +intercept, etc at the end.
Talking about the Nergal example, I'm torn between the two options that both have pros and cons.
Talking about the keywords, you also have two philosophies with pros and cons: either use keywords that express the same thing with fewer words but require extra knowledge from the player, or use the current system which is more explicit (and lenghtier).
I think cards are already complicated. Reducing the card text by using keywords don't make the cards more simple because they require more implicit knowledge.
(It can be dangerous also when designing cards because designers will tend to accumulate keywords and effects since they have more space.)
Using the same templates for the same effects is a better way to go in my opinion, and templating is totally independant of using keywords or not.
For example:
Masochism: Whenever this vampire plays a card, you may remove X rush counters from this card to reduce that card's blood cost by X.
Fatuus Mastery: The counters on this card may be used to pay some or all of this vampire's blood cost to play cards <snip>
Though they have exactly the same effect, they are formulated ("templated") a different way. It's not worth creating a keyword for that, but using the same pattern reduces confusion and improves the learning curve.
(A more common example will be Bum's Rush and Charge of the Buffalo. "Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah." vs "Enter combat with a <tapped> minion.". If you except the "tapped" in Charge of the Buffalo, there are the same but Charge of the Buffalo implies many things such as: the target must be ready and controlled by another Methuselah. In that case, a new keyword such as "Rush" could be even introduced, but it has drawbacks as explained above).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.120 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Generic V:TES Discussion
- thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.