New round structure - OPTION A - we'd like your feedback!
16 May 2018 06:31 - 16 May 2018 06:33 #86942
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic New round structure - we'd like your feedback!
Dang. I changed "beginning" for "start" and forgot to update the cards. I've edited the first post.Like some other players here noted: We should not use "start" in the rules, and then "beginning" on cards; there needs to be one wording only.
Last edit: 16 May 2018 06:33 by Ankha.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 May 2018 06:34 - 16 May 2018 06:34 #86943
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic New round structure - we'd like your feedback!
Yes, it seems sensible. 4.b should only be used to play presses.
Should superior Drawing out the Beast be errated to resolve in 4.a rather than 4b? That would follow the general guidelines of resolving mandatory effects first.
4. Press step 4.a Start 4.b Press ( = During the press step) 4.c End
Drawing Out the Beast
Combat
Animalism
[...]
As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round.
Last edit: 16 May 2018 06:34 by Ankha.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 May 2018 07:23 #86944
by jamesatzephyr
But I'm not arguing for not updating the rules. I'm arguing for updating the rules to codify the steps of combat, but not inventing new terminology where it isn't required.
If the rulebook says: "Here are the steps of combat. They go in the following order: a).... b)...", then there is nothing inherently better about calling a step "Start of maneuvers" vs "Before range is determined", or even just "play before range" or something if you prefer to make it shorter. If you spell out what the steps are and in which order they go, it's completely unambiguous as to when it happens - and new players will have to learn both sets of terminology unless Black Chantry proposes banning old cards.
"Start of maneuvers" (or whatever) would only be 'the most modern wording possible' because a change had been made. The point is whether that change is actually necessary.
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic New round structure - we'd like your feedback!
For the sake of new players I would argue the opposite. If they are getting cards from Black Chantry they should have the clearest, most modern wording possible. The game has morphed through a series of erratas and the addition of new, implicit, timing windows to the point where it is hard to follow and, dare I say, annoying at times.
If we don't update the rules and card rulings, then the game is basically just catering to the existing (dwindling) player base. Catering to current (legacy?) players is ok, but we know what direction the player base has been headed with that strategy. I don't envision some mass exodus of VTES players based on their Torn Signposts doing the same exact thing that they used to, but where some cards say it differently.
But I'm not arguing for not updating the rules. I'm arguing for updating the rules to codify the steps of combat, but not inventing new terminology where it isn't required.
If the rulebook says: "Here are the steps of combat. They go in the following order: a).... b)...", then there is nothing inherently better about calling a step "Start of maneuvers" vs "Before range is determined", or even just "play before range" or something if you prefer to make it shorter. If you spell out what the steps are and in which order they go, it's completely unambiguous as to when it happens - and new players will have to learn both sets of terminology unless Black Chantry proposes banning old cards.
"Start of maneuvers" (or whatever) would only be 'the most modern wording possible' because a change had been made. The point is whether that change is actually necessary.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Molloy
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jamesatzephyr
- Offline
- Antediluvian
Less
More
- Posts: 2788
- Thank you received: 958
16 May 2018 07:26 #86945
by Kraus
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Replied by Kraus on topic New round structure - we'd like your feedback!
I have a similar question about Darkness Within. It says it moves a blood 'during strike resolution', so I guess it doesn't affect (for example) a situation where it is played against a vampire with one blood who wants to play Majesty. And how does it work with damage?
Would this be changed to "after" strike resolution then, or something something to make explicit when the blood moves?
Loving this by the way. I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable.
Would this be changed to "after" strike resolution then, or something something to make explicit when the blood moves?
Loving this by the way. I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 May 2018 07:45 #86947
by Ke.
The concern I have with "start" is that the word "start" is used multiple time in the other steps. Beginning (or similar would avoid this and subsequent confusion).
Replied by Ke. on topic New round structure - we'd like your feedback!
I enjoy 'beginning' more, but 'start' is shorter admittedly and is interchangable.
The concern I have with "start" is that the word "start" is used multiple time in the other steps. Beginning (or similar would avoid this and subsequent confusion).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 May 2018 07:54 - 16 May 2018 07:55 #86949
by Kraus
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Replied by Kraus on topic New round structure - we'd like your feedback!
I'm not sure I understand you - or, rather, identify those 'other steps'.
Outside of a combat outline?
If 'start' is used exclusively to mark a beginning of any given whatever, in the whole game, I think it's fine. As long as the 'starting' of a step/phase works similarly across the rules set. I can't think where it doesn't though.
For example, the starts of "Unlock phase", "Combat" and "Strike step" are similar - it's the first timing window of that given phase/step. Right?
Krausedit\\ I used to propose in another thread that the Start of (round of) combat would be called a Preparation step, to give it a name. "Start of combat" or "Start of Round" names the step too, however.
Outside of a combat outline?
If 'start' is used exclusively to mark a beginning of any given whatever, in the whole game, I think it's fine. As long as the 'starting' of a step/phase works similarly across the rules set. I can't think where it doesn't though.
For example, the starts of "Unlock phase", "Combat" and "Strike step" are similar - it's the first timing window of that given phase/step. Right?
Krausedit\\ I used to propose in another thread that the Start of (round of) combat would be called a Preparation step, to give it a name. "Start of combat" or "Start of Round" names the step too, however.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Last edit: 16 May 2018 07:55 by Kraus.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.099 seconds
- You are here:
- Home
- Forum
- V:TES Discussion
- Rules Questions
- New round structure - OPTION A - we'd like your feedback!