Rulebook: Potentially misleading and oddly placed passages

kschaefer wrote:

This could be solved by reminder text instead:
Strike: Combat Ends. (Usable at any range.)

I'm a fan on helpful reminders and this is such.

However, some cards with S.CE or Dodge might have so much text that adding such reminders would prove difficult or downright impossible. In such case the omission would lead players into thinking that that particular strike wasn't usable at long range.

Also, the cards already in existence wouldn't have such reminders and might cause some confusion in the future.

Would hamper new card deign too.


Pondering about this and I think i have to say that the current system is most likely the best.

kschaefer wrote:

This could be solved by reminder text instead:
Strike: Combat Ends. (Usable at any range.)

That's valid, and a decent compromise. I just find it inconsistent that we now have "Ranged Strike: Steal blood..." on Theft of Vitae, but guns retained "Strike: R damage," seemingly because it's a legacy holdover. By changing Strikes that do R damage to Ranged Strikes that do Damage, it reinforces the rule that Strikes are effective at Close Range only (with the exception of Dodge and Combat Ends, which i'll get to again in a moment), and Ranged Strikes are effective at either range, rather than carving out an exception to the rule.

Consider:

Strikes are effective at close range, only. Ranged strikes are effective at both close and long range.

is much more consice than

Strikes are only effective at close range, unless they do "R Damage." Ranged strikes are effective at both close and long range.

"Lönkka wrote:

self wrote:

make Dodges and Combat ends strikes Ranged,

Would hamper new card design too.

Howso and in what way?

Lönkka wrote:

the cards already in existence wouldn't have such reminders and might cause some confusion in the future.

Personally, I don't find the argument of "The old cards are still in circulation, so we therefore cannot make changes to card text because it might confuse someone to see two different versions" in any way compelling, if this is what you're saying. Reprints are very much the motivation for updating card text, and updating cardtext seems to be a driving force for including a card to be reprinted.

Recommending the changes to Dodge and CE was a way to use the game syntax that already exists, rather than create new rules out of thin air, because the community at large seems to not like any changes (even for the better). But if we were a little more forward thinking about things we could have a passage in the rulebook like this instead:

◼ Resolve Strike: The effects of the strikes from both minions are resolved simultaneously. A Strike is effective only at close range unless otherwise indicated. Strikes that are "Ranged Strikes" or "Defensive Strikes" are effective at both close and long Range. Strikes that are "Long Strikes" are effective only at long range.

Not only does this eliminate the "R Damage" exception to the strike rule, it codifies two other distinctions that are already effectively present in the game, and adds to the design space because these concepts would be actually codified into the rules.

And before anyone says "But the old cards still exist and that will confuse people!" two things: First, Print on Demand is very much a conrnerstone of keeping V:TES alive and in print. Black Chantry could simply release a "Guns, Guns, Guns" or some other anthology for PoD to get the updated card texts into circulation.

Second, these changes might be confusing for returning players, but will be less likely to confuse new players. Returning players should hopefully have enough knowledge of the game to be able to figure out the changes. New players (in my experience) tend to buy the cards on the shelf of their FLGS or from the company's website to start before they go whole hog into buying collections off of Ebay, so they're less likely to encounter the older versions within their playgroup.

New players should also probably be given more credit in being able to learn and play the game despite the things that are already confusing. I don't think that making the text clearer and better in the rules and on cards makes things 'more confusing' because the old cards exist.

self wrote:

"Lönkka wrote:

self wrote:

make Dodges and Combat ends strikes Ranged,

Would hamper new card design too.

Howso and in what way?

Limiting the amount of space for card text.

Lönkka wrote:

Limiting the amount of space for card text.

busting our chops to save six or maybe twelve characters because the card text is getting too cramped to read feels like an indication that there are other, bigger concerns with that card, than "ranged" being appended to it.

IIRC, the "Limiting the amount of space for card text." has been a comment from the game's lead designer (could've been a public or private one, can't recall as it has been some years)...

self wrote:

That's valid, and a decent compromise. I just find it inconsistent that we now have "Ranged Strike: Steal blood..." on Theft of Vitae, but guns retained "Strike: R damage,"

My personal opinion: For consistency we should change ranged strikes to have text:

Ranged strike: X damage.

to be in line with thefts
Ranged strike: steal X blood.