What make VtES hard to learn

The biggest problems for most cards with giant texts has been two-fold:
1) Rules-lawyering
2) Keywording

On Keywording
Very little proper keywording was done in the early days of VTES. As time went on, that then resulted in basically "blocks of text". There were no commonly understood words with certain effects. Hence you can't just print a card which is:
Haha tricked you
Action Modifier
1 blood
+1 stealth
Block attempt fails.

We could easily recast almost all of VTES with simpler texts by creating strong keywording. However, it does increase the 'terminology' curve BUT does have less of an intimidation factor. "What does block attempt fails mean? The minion trying to block the action fails to block and cannot attempt to block again."

On Rules-Lawyering
Since there were no keywords, every card is open for interpretation. There are no 'baselines' to compare a text to. In the above example, without the creation of the keyphrase "Block attempt fails" you need to make the text:
Only playable when a minion is attempting to block. That block attempt fails (do not tap the blocking minion)and that minion cannot attempt to block again this action. This action continues as if unblocked.

Now unless that text is iron clad, then players can agitate for it to be read in a certain way. Notice the cards with the most keywording are the least argued, because they tend to have a briefer text and less places for semantic or grammatical arguments. This leads to rulings (which aren't on cards) and windows which don't seem to exist other than to fit a single card into them (e.g. Direct Intervention) and changes to how the card functions based on the prevailing viewpoints of the Rulesmonger and those he holds as most reliable advisers about how to make a Ruling.


Regarding the "Beginning of Combat" and "End of Combat" phases from my blog post.
There are actually cards that can only be played at the beginning of the first round of combat; they are actually attempting to use a window that exists at the beginning of the combat and at no other time. So it seems simpler to change their requirement to "Only playable at the beginning of a combat". There are cards, such as Telepathic Tracking and Psyche, which must be played when the combat is ending. The combat ends after the round ends (because Psyche is not played at the same time as Taste of Vitae) and only if the combat will head to another round. So yes, both of those windows need to exist if you are going to concretely describe Combat AND have it closely adhere to current rulings AND do so without having to vastly errata cards such as Psyche.

I think that the biggest problem I have teaching the game is just how byzantine the entire turn is: Master phase actions, Minion actions, modifying actions, reactions, combat, &c. It's like games within games, and there are a lot of completely different components that make up the greater game.

another problem I have is that there are a smattering of rules that were introduced that while very flavorful, like cold iron vulnerability on kyasid, for example. they don't really add a whole lot of depth to the game, and could probably be done without.

ShadowCat wrote:

6) VTES is unforgiving in cardplay and procedures
There's a whole litany of procedures to do anything remotely interesting like voting and combat. And you need to have the right cards in hand to get from one step to the next. Oh want to damage your prey with KRC? First have enough stealth to bypass blockers. Next ask around for votes, better have transient votes to fight off transient votes like Wrong and Cross-wise, then actually set the terms. Finally Voter Cap to gain blood/pool 'cause titled vampires don't come cheap. And its too easy to stop this at each step of the way. Get enough intercept, transient votes and finally good ole Delaying Tactics. Not to mention DI.

7) Unintuitive game state understanding
When players make choices about what to do, they need to know what their minions and others' minions can do. There are so many disciplines and traits to track in what they can do; and most of it is implicit knowledge. Vets will know that AUS and SPI can allow unrestricted blocking, that Rachel Brandywine with Madness Network is bad news, that Ventrue Lawfirms suck at stealth but rock at multi-acting. But new players don't. They look at the developed table and struggle to get information from it, resulting in unsuccessful activities that leave them frustrated. You want them to DO things and do flashy things, so that they can get excited about playing.

4) and 5) are not uncommon for other CCGs, but 6) and 7) bring up something I hadn't thought about before.

V:TES is largely a game of small effects. Often, I would think of this as a good thing. I like the idea of being able to develop a strategy. I like the idea that card interactions aren't extreme. But, what your post got me to thinking about is how a player can feel like they aren't really doing anything even when what they are doing or not doing is important.

One of the most punishing mistakes a player can make is to block a combat deck's bleed of 1. I'm usually bewildered when players do it. But, as you say, that player may not understand strategies well enough to realize the impact combat can have on one's game, nevermind overvaluing the loss of 1 pool.

I can see how some players will feel like their minion phase is unappealing or that they can't interact with what others do. For instance, sit two new players down at a table and give one a Malk bleed deck and the other a Gangrel combat deck. The player of the former bleeds for 5 repeatedly. The latter doesn't get blocked, can't block due to not having drawn any Raven Spys, and even with combat occurring runs into No Trace or Obedience or whatever. While the game at the competitive level can be played with either deck, one can seem far more fun than the other. Maybe this is why I've always enjoyed stealth bleed decks - you always feel like you can do something relevant to the game, assuming you have ready minions.

With other games, including many CCGs, you may be horribly outclassed by another deck, but your activity seems more impactful.

On a separate topic, I just recalled a problem that has been far more of an issue in recent years than in the past. The amount of time spent not interacting has gone way up, largely due to administrative functions. In designing my own card game, I was struck by how important it is to minimize "administrative time". We can see this in V:TES with the massive increase in how many things happen during untap, how much more involved the master phase is, with more effects occurring on other people's turns (burn option, Enkil Cog increasing the likelihood of out of turn actions, etc.) that force play to be more precise. Not that this really fits into the hard to learn category, it's more of a "painful to play" category.

By the way, I demoed a dead CCG I hadn't played in ages a couple of months back, and, when I finished explaining how the game worked, I was just stunned by how few things I had to explain in order to play the game. Not a simple game, not a game I dislike, just a CCG with a more reasonable level of mechanics complexity. Actually, being involved in wording the rules of the game, explaining one of the most important elements of the games in writing was vastly harder than explaining with an example.

Speaking of examples, all games should have far more examples of mechanics.

Non-existant user wrote:

Combat is poorly described in the rules because most of the important combat cads are played between identifed phases: Torn Signpost before range, Grapple before strikes, Taste after press. Identify the beginning of round and end of round phases as such in the rules and on cards would not solve everyting, but it would already make the rules much clearer.

Certainly the rules could and should be updated to take into account the additional phases of combat.

The Complete Rules Reference lists 6 main phases of combat:
A. Round begins
B. Determine range
C. Strike
D. Presses
E. Round ends
F. Combat ends

I think the reference was drafted under LSJ's supervision. I'm not sure. Certainly the rulebook could have been updated to take into account these 6 phases, minimum. As Juggernaut mentioned, there are really more than 6 timing phases. Combat begins and strike resolution, for example. Many cards and card types such as Ammo create a timing window all of their own. (Ammo is played after all strikes are declared but before damage is resolved, per ruling.)

It would probably be better to allow the official combat rules to be more complex, and then insist that all combat cards be clearly played at a particular phase of combat in a particular order - no exceptions, no new phases created by card text.

I was thinking about cards that are played before strikes are declared, Immortal Grapple being the important one. I find it painful to have to ask for pre-strikes as an additional phase. I think it would be more stream-lined for any card or effect that alters a strike to be declared immediately after the strike, including cards such as Immortal Grapple and Wolf Claws. Those kinds of cards might have to changed or re-examined: "Acting player: My strike is 3R with Sawed-Off Shotgun. I play Dragon's Breath Rounds. Reacting player: My strike is hands for 1. I play Immortal Grapple. I play Wolf Claws." It seems a lot easier, although it puts more power into the hands of the reacting minion. I'm just trying to think of what that might look like.

Also
-Maybe cards that are played at the beginning of cound should be changed to be played at the beginning of combat so there is just a beginning of combat phase.
-Maybe cards that are played at the end of a round could be changed to be played at the end of combat so the end of round phase could be eliminated. Right now there are about 6 cards that are played at the end of the round.

@AaronC
My fix for Immortal Grapple is simpler. Remove it from the strikes step and put it at the very end of the Range Step. That is "Immortal Grapple is only playable when the range is close and before the end of the determine range step".

There are cards that can be played "before range is determined" and those that are played "Before the range is determined on the first round of combat" (which is equivalent to 'At the Beginning of Combat').

I also really do think that all strike modifiers should be played concurrently with the strike (i.e. DBR when you declare the strike, Wolf Claws for Agg when you declare the strike, Target: XYZ when you declare the strike) rather than each player declaring strikes and then modifying them one after the other. Sure it will take out some of the "Surprise" actions of disciplines like Protean, but really most people fighting against Protean combat expect this sort of thing to be happening.

I am all for forcing card to exist within a preset list of windows (but allowing 'before' and 'after' and 'at the beginning' and 'at the end' qualifiers on each)

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

@AaronC
My fix for Immortal Grapple is simpler. Remove it from the strikes step and put it at the very end of the Range Step. That is "Immortal Grapple is only playable when the range is close and before the end of the determine range step".

That means that instead of a pre-strike window, you have a post-manuever window. "Before the end of the determine range step" is practically identical to "Before strikes are declared". I see that you're trying to streamline the already complicated "Strikes" phase of combat, but I don't think that you are in favor of keeping additional steps. Right now, when my group plays combat in which grapples seem possible, we ask "manuever? no. manuever? no. grapple? no, no. What's your strike?", etc. Grouping IG to the previous adjoining window wouldn't change that.

There were five basic subunits of combat, and rules writers started placing effects before and after those subunits, thus creating new subunits. I see the subunits as Combat, Round, Set Range, Strikes, and Presses.

I think that it might be a good idea to go to these phases:

1. Before Combat (no more before range or before round)
2. Set Range (no before or after range cards)
3. Declare Strikes
4. Modify Strikes (IG, agg hands, ammo, targets, etc.)
5. Resolve Strikes (has its own sub-phases. One should address "going to torpor" cards like Amaranth and Reform Body."
6. Presses
7. End of Combat (no more end of round)

With my idea, every combat card would have to fit in own of those phases, and all coards played during that phase could be clearly order between acting/reacting player. This idea is simply an attempt to find a streamlined combat system that's easier to learn, and it would involve somewhat extensive errata to implement.