Layout change suggestion for Library cards.

TheLich wrote:

I don't want to waste posts on this being nit-picky about what interpretation was messed up how.

The point is that these templates are the building blocks that do two very important things.

1.) Make the game easier to read by using a format we are already using on other cards.

2.) Make the game more consistent so that rules are more easily handled.

I want to see this implemented into the game. They are already experimenting with using the blood drop in other places, symbology with rules connected to it, make reading simplicity. It's why the During rule still remains and it's why this design should be the way of the cards.

Allow me to make counter-argument, not to nitpick for nitpicking sake, but because VTES is soon a 30 year old card game full of rulings, text erratas and reverse rulings because people did not nitpick enough during the creation of it's building blocks instead deciding "card text is king and everything will fall in place after that" or "let's not ponder all existing possibilities up front but deal with them as they come."

The Foundation for something new, important and symbolic has to scrutinized with rigorous mindset. Not to catch some easy fix typos but to catch logical errors and highlight where it might be best to just choose not reprinting a card, change the cards mechanics OR to fix a flaw in the foundation before the tower tilts because it's cascading effect.

Nowhere in the card text it is shown or told whether these cards follow the "choose one" format as previous minor, minor, master at max format discipline cards. If we assume, again, key word here, assume, the symbolism inherited from the existing cards without the "as above, and" text connotates selection between one with each action, reaction etc symbol. You as a player get to pick the effect. And only one.

This lack of clarity (as it's a new format without ruling) in conflict with existing format creates situation where cards without multiple choices turn to ones where they are possible. The Car Bomb card highlights it as it does not allow choice for methuselah that played it in it's effect yet with the new card layout with it's symbolism and existing precet of card layout makes it look like it has.

This creates confusion when people that do not understand the cards and their mechanic assume there is nothing wrong and instead have to be meticulously told and explained "oh it received a card list errata to fix the reprint that was meant to make the card easier to read, you know, just VTES things."

Either we accept the fact that this new layout is not the magic bullet that can be easily applied to be all and end all OR we figure out a way to make clear AND/OR/IF not THEN format with symbols, layout and text that is also readable and easy to understand from first glance.

I think it's worth taking few extra moments because simple fix by including "only usable if the acting minion has / does not have a vehicle" might end up causing it to become worse wall-o-text then it already has. In that situation, we need to consider is the effect and it's causality worth a mechanical change to "be a neater in layout." If we choose yes, that creates precent for all the other non-choice cards to receive a choice and the discussion regarding the mechanical balance of all those cards.

As example, feel free to follow Car Bomb layout logic with Mirror Visage's otherwise clause and blindly change it to the new layout separating the effects. You should be able to see where I'm coming from when you consider the original card has 9 rows of text and the new and improved, easier to read and understand has...
If you throw a bit wider net you'll catch even more cards where this format "as it is now" simply fails because they run out of card space The Status Perfectus with it's 12 lines is good stress test as without adding any symbols the attempt to highlight various effects in cleaner and easier to read format, well, yeah.

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.

However, one does not build foundation from bricks that are "mostly good". At least where I'm from. Are we okay with tossing away the cards that do not fit the new layout or are we fine changing them mechanically? Do we accept there will be harder to parse large blocks of text with smaller font just to enable this layout to fit earlier hard to parse large blocks of text? Can we find some alternative that works before we jump and need to go the "good old card list errata road" yet again. And if that is definition of nitpicking, then fine, I'll be the one nitpicking about it, just to enable the "I tried" effect for later. It's simple if, then operation.

If you want clear card text play magic. VtES is for thouse, who are ready to suffer.

I can not second this suggestion enough; the cards are SO MUCH clearer and easier to use with the suggested layout.

This needs to be implemented ASAP.

Thank you Self Biased! <3

The layout was so successful, that the most of the criticisms that were levied consisted of pedantic arguments about changed functionality based on typos i had made.

For what it's worth, I was moving at a pretty brisk pace wanting to get as many examples out, and Each card took me an average of nine minutes to produce.

My focus was not on meticulously recreating each individual card with 100% accuracy in the new format, but hoping that y'all would be able to understand that how the layout was important in conveying the information of the card, rather than getting caught up in the weeds of "THIS ISN'T WHAT THE ORIGINAL CARD DID, SO THEREFORE THE LAYOUT IS WRONG."

My siblings, i have heard you. I have read your comments, and made adjustments to the tentative examples I presented.

Even if my style suggestion is adopted by the publisher, each card will still have to undergo scrutiny by the people who actually determine how to phrase each card to ensure that functional changes are deliberate and intentional, and not just crude copypastas of my fanciful ideas.

Now, on to the revised cards:

self wrote:

Under the current rules, what is preventing me from making the choice of using the bottom -1 stealth effect on a vampire that has a vehicle? Nowhere it says I must choose the choice that works "best" whatever that means. Sure they do not receive the -1 stealth as they have vehicle but they also do not burn the vehicle and all that jazz. Call it free cross table cycling if we need to include reasoning behind mechanical discussion. See playing Foreshadowing Destruction to increase bleed by 0 at superior on whether or not this is legal play.

This is the crux of the problem "choose one" aproach that just using the existing symbols create. Do we include some new symbols that show and mandate order of multiple effects that have been separated for easier reading? Or do we increase the amount of text on the card to explain away the confusion caused from existing convention of playing and choosing effects from the cards. Or are we okay with this new added feature on existing cards?

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.

Then again I might be alone and it's crystal clear for everyone else that one chooses the correct choice that makes the card work as intended, but as someone who has seen enough +0 Foreshadowing bleed modifiers played to "game the wording around the restrictions to cycle at critical moment" I'm quite sure I'm not alone. If the choice exist, someone will use it.

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?

IMO, it should be used to add clarity to mutually exclusive options. 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.

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?