Combat sequence and prevention

It would be clearer if there was a step between 5 and 6 where additional strikes are gained and if so moves the combat back to step 4.

Additionally it would be good to introduce the fact about damage that is inflicted has to always be handled, and when not from strikes it is to be handled in the current phase/step following the normal sequencing rule i.e. other effects can be played but the damage has to be handled before passing or moving to the next phase/step of the game.

Ankha wrote:

The thing is that as soon as damage is inflicted, it opens a damage resolution window. Whether that window opens in the same step or its own step right afterwards does not change anything. For clarity (because strike resolution and damage resolution are handled sequentially), it is listed as its own step "5. Damage resolution".
In the detailed-play-summary, they are listed in two different sequential steps (not showing in your quote because you lost the bullet points): "6.4.3.2.b Apply effects of strike(s)." and "6.4.3.2.c Prevent damage and then resolve any unprevented damage".

Yes, we are in agreement, I pondered about using code quote for it but figured people would just head to check detailed play summary to confirm if needed the earlier structure when compared to the current. But I think we both are in agreement there are currently 3 ADVANCED RULES boxes in bright red dealing with additional strikes nestled across one step of combat. Whether or not that's most clear to new players is not really up to us to decide as we do not know how they feel about it. What I do know is how attention fatigue affects marketing efficiency when repeated with similar stimulus, the additional strike parts are number 20, 21 and 22 in the rulebook. Out of 28. And without red highlight they are number 22,23 and 24 due to choice how some advanced rules sections are highlighted with grey and some with red for some logic. I'm assuming it's due to error in the transfer from pdf master to the www.vekn.net/rulebook or other way around. Either way we can assume it being page 20+ people wishing to just "play the game" are going to be skimming large swathes of text. Hence why the whole Combat Sequence 1-7 is good concise less then quarter page whammo. However it has "strikes" in it.

Ankha wrote:

Given the context, and the additional rule "Some cards may allow a minion to get additional strikes during a round of combat, these are resolved after the normal pair of strikes.", it is clear what "strikes" mean here. We could enforce the use of "pair of strikes", but it is not necessary.

I would argue the fact that OP question even arose is clear indication that it is not so clear. You need to remember that among the first sentences in the rulebook is the following;

. To make it easier to learn the rules, some of them appear in "Advanced rules" sections. Although they are an integral part of the game, we recommend new players to skip them whilst they learn the basic game.

So you cannot blame the reader for not figuring out the correct order of steps when they've been ordered to ignore part of it required to understand it. Whether that warrants any action or addition of "pair of strikes" to condensed "Combat Sequence 1-7" is another matter totally and not up to the community to decide but neither it is up to the rulemonger to claim everyone can understand rules as clearly as they do. This is why I pointed earlier "we all *know* how to play the game" confirmation bias out. And why it's super helpful to get/pay total random persons not related to matter to take any rulebook/manual/info leaflet and just pay attention how they parse and understand it. Have them then explain it out so one can pinpoint where things are not so clear after all for whatever reason.

Ankha wrote:

It's hard to guess why people read it wrong. But given it's the first time someone reads it this way, I don't think it's an issue. If the reader has issues with English, the best is to redirect them to the translated rulebook.

I would argue it's the first time someone has raised the issue in VEKN forum after they've first created the account here. If we extrapolate how active this forum is compared to say, discord, compared to say, how much produce is being sold globally, then see what percent of the year that one post makes it most likely will result in more then one misunderstandings of the rules as designed. Now whether or not that constitutes reason to do anything is, like before, completely up to the designers and not the community.

Ankha wrote:

I don't think it needs fixing, but in any case, you can suggest rulebook changes there: github.com/GiottoVerducci/rulebook2024

I personally prefer to keep VEKN related things as much as possible in official VEKN site. I trust as better authority on the game design/ rules you've understood the point I tried to help pinpoint and then made value judgement based on it. If rulebook text needs further tweaking, so be it, but personally I would prefer the time resources related to it be used to get detailed play summary up to current date in next couple years when major new mechanics have been settled (Looking at you queue, stun and paths at least.) After that it should be easy to get new physical rulebook ready to be released for 35th anniversary/sixth edition along with dyslexia fonted and accessibility checked online variation. With VEKN embracing the online games I wouldn't be surprised if there unseen demand for it and it's somewhat easy to achieve with few tests to ensure simple NVDA screen reader (or whatever it is that's widely used then) compatibility.

Ankha wrote:

Because this is relevant only for damage not inflicted during the strike resolution, such as Outside the Hourglass. These cases are covered by the rulings.

The basic rulebook should cover all the cases within itself. Not assume that the player needs to go to god knows where to find out individual rulings. You are intentionally allowing corner cases to exist by not defining the rules exactly. I see literally no benefit in this.
One should define the rules in a way to minimize the needed individual rulings and corner cases. You repeatedly refuse to do this because you don't deem it necessary.

For several years now, I have tried to make Black Chantry realize that they are in a position where they can rewrite the rules of VTES. Why not use this opportunity to get rid of the problematic rulings and streamline everything? No, no, we must not touch the rules since the game has always been confusing and not beginner-friendly and it must stay this way.

In all cases, the damage resolution happens after the damage have been inflicted. This is sequential. Whether both happens sequentially during the same step or sequentially because of two successive steps is the same, the separation is purely cosmetic.

Yes, this is a recurring theme with you. First you give something that you say is purely cosmetic, then you refer to the same thing as a rule afterwards. How is it even humanly possible not to see this as a problem? Unless it is intentional obfuscation.

It is convenient, convenient for YOU, since you are the one making the rulings. It is convenient to give the rule as vague as possible since then you can interpret it any which way.

In my local vtes community it is an often stated fact that people should not try to learn VTES from a rulebook, they should listen to veteran players instead. Perhaps this is another sign that the rulebook is not up to par.

Bloodartist wrote:

Please quote the relevant section where it says each damage inflicted opens a damage resolution window?

See above. The only case covered is the usual one, which is damage inflicted during strike resolution. For more cornercase scenarios, a ruling is provided, based on the general principle I have outlined.

You have not answered the question.

Bloodartist wrote:

The rules say that damage must be mended, but it doesn't say when

In step 5 which is quite logically described as "5. Damage Resolution: Prevent and mend damage."

Misinterpreted my sentence. Lets try again: When does that step happen? Where is it said that you get a damage resolution step for each individual strike resolution step? Oh wait, you said that steps are purely cosmetic. So which is it?

How do you jump for a pair of strikes to "all strikes" without some logical fallacy?

With All strikes I am referring to all strikes during a round, ie. "initial plus additional strikes".

I have already detailed how you can arrive to this conclusion. You are just refusing the see the issue. "There is no person more blind than the one who refuses to see."

Strike resolution is given as a separate step from damage resolution. This is defining, since steps are not mentioned elsewhere. Section about additional strikes mentions that you get additional strike resolution steps, but nowhere is it said that you get an additional damage resolution step, or that strike and damage resolution are always paired together. This is because the rest of text does not mention 'steps'.

Therefore it is quite possible to interpret the text in a way that you get multiple strike resolution steps and ONE damage resolution step, since damage resolution FOR SOME REASON is not part of strike resolution.

It would be extremely simple matter to make damage resolution part of strike resolution, then it would be impossible to separate the two and make this mistake. But, once again, you refuse to take the simple and explicit route.

The text should refer only to things that it has defined earlier. Since the combat sequence is the only place where steps are mentioned, that's what we are looking at. The rest of the text says that strikes effects are applied and damage is mended, but it does not talk about steps.

I find that most arguments arise from people lacking the imagination to see the other possible interpretations. Go ahead please: make some questionnaires to people who are not already VTES players to see how they would interpret the rules.

ps. Extremely ironic that you of all people talk about logic.

pps. "I dont change the rules since people are not complaining enough." What a great attitude. What am I then?

Hi Ankha,

It's hard to guess why people read it wrong. But given it's the first time someone reads it this way, I don't think it's an issue. If the reader has issues with English, the best is to redirect them to the translated rulebook.

To clarify, I am a native English speaker. My understanding of how it is written is not incorrect, but rather the intention of the writing.

I will attempt to make what I am saying clear:

4. Strike: Announce and resolve strikes.

5. Damage Resolution: Prevent and mend damage.

and

Additional Strikes: Some cards and effects allow a minion to make additional strikes during the current round of combat. Additional strikes are announced and performed only after the first pair of strikes is completed...

The advanced rules say that additional strikes must be performed after strikes are completed. As step 5 makes no mention of being a completion of strikes, the strike phase of combat is the logical place to stop to move on to additional strikes without any additional information, as it even uses the word "resolve" which is used as a synonym of "complete"

...Additional strikes are handled by having another choose strike step and resolve strike step in which only the minions with additional strikes may play strike cards

The rules even explicitly say that Additional strikes are only an extra strike and resolve strike step, which further confuses the matter.

All cases do not need to be covered, merely a change to the Advanced rules for additional strikes to change from:

Additional Strikes: Some cards and effects allow a minion to make additional strikes during the current round of combat. Additional strikes are announced and performed only after the first pair of strikes is completed...

To:

Additional Strikes: Some cards and effects allow a minion to make additional strikes during the current round of combat. Additional strikes are announced and performed only after step 4 and step 5 have been completed for the initial pair of strikes....

And:

...Additional strikes are handled by having another choose strike step and resolve strike step in which only the minions with additional strikes may play strike cards

To:

...Additional strikes are handled by having another choose strike step and resolve strike step in which only the minions with additional strikes may play strike cards, followed by another prevent and mend step for each additional strike/set of strikes.

I think a lot of mixups get cleared up by the players who have been playing for a long time, and as a result rules that might be unclear aren't necessarily getting reported.

It was not my intention to cause any arguments here, I am in no way trying to anger anyone over rules, I was more just trying to ask if the rules were as my group were saying, and if some wording could be changed to reflect it for newer players.