New round structure - OPTION A - we'd like your feedback!

Sure.

Should we have a Start of Combat and Starts of every independent Round then? Some cards are usable only "on the first round of a combat", like Trap.

Or are those combat cards so few and far between there's no real reason for that?

I'd just like to have "Start combat" and "End combat" and have independent Rounds in between, since stuff also happens at "End combat", like starting new combats or rounds or what have you.

Kraus wrote:

That timing gives people an amount of information to base their next moves on. Instead of trying to guess if I should be close or long before the Signpost, I can plan accordingly.

I suppose you are thinking about maneuvering to long range only if opponent plays torn signpost? But this is a thing mainly because maneuvers are also fixed to specific time in maneuver step. What if torn signpost is played in maneuver step, and you could play your maneuver to long afterwards regardless whether it happens at the beginning, middle or end of the maneuver step or whatever. There is certain elegance to "responding" to what the opponent does, even though this isn't exactly what responding means in magic.

"Do you maneuver?"
"no."
"then I play torn signpost"
"Oh, then I maneuver to long".

(And then we arrive to issues with Grapple. Sigh. Should we errata the card so that it is playable always, but it only does something if the range is close?)

ps. Personally I prefer "beginning" more than "start". I don't know why.

Bloodartist wrote:

The timing between presses and taste of vitae is an example of an unnecessary complication in my opinion, as an example.

I think it's important to consider the balancing effects of timing, decision making and play testing. The before range part of a card like Torn Sign Post lets the opponent know that they should really try and manoeuvre to long — this may have been a balancing decision.

A similar thing could be said with Taste of Vitae — it only being playable after presses affects the risk / reward decision making. If it could be played at any point in the press step it would introduce a new dynamic (in this case not necessarily a bad one).

The overall point is that timing does have a fairly major impact on the effect, player behaviour and power level.

Ke. wrote:

The overall point is that timing does have a fairly major impact on the effect, player behaviour and power level.

Yes it does, but the way VTES handles this is that it forces a set timing structure, which in my opinion LESSENS the dynamic of the game. People have less options. It also adds a lot of "oops I forgot that" situations.

Good stuff; streamlining perhaps the most complicated part of the game is a huge plus!

Especially as it seems that not much will be cut off in the process.


However, I like Ankha's other suggestion even more.
It is even more clear and easy.
And so many combat cards have precious small timing window/phase where you are able to play them and giving them a bit more leeway is good.

And it ain't like combat decks are dominating the scene right now (or ever...) so if you make playing them a bit more easy since you are not so strictly restricted when you play certain cards it should help the cardflow and thus the combat decks a bit.

www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/76615-new-round-structure-option-b-we-d-like-your-feedback#86960

Taste vs Press is such an unintuitive thing that people who have played for decades still occasionally have to remind themselves how it works in my local games.

I don't think it's necessarily unintuitive. I think that's a function of an outline of all combat steps never being included in the main rulebook. Had something like this been included, perhaps people would know how to handle combat, ie, that the "end of round" step exists even if there are no cards played in that step (players have to actively decline playing cards in that step).

Regarding having stuff in the rulebook:
We preferably need a comprehensive rulebook for judges reference, that spells out every minute detail as accurately and explicitly as possible. This rulebook would be referenced whenever there is a rules issue and should be available online for everyone.

However, the detailed rulebook shouldn't be the one that standard players use. In the "normal" rulebook you only need to mention steps themselves, to keep the text concise and easy to understand. You don't need to spell everything out in order to get beginners play a game of VTES. This is where having things intuitive becomes important, and where the new step structure shines. We can cut down on unnecessarily verbose text on

I agree with this in one sense, but disagree in another sense. First, VTES already tried this, with the rulebook and a separate complete rules reference (later renamed the detailed play summary). All steps in combat were clearly outlined in the detailed play summary. The problem is, few bothered to look at it. Therefore, I'm not sure it's a great idea to have a streamlined rulebook that most players are using as a reference, and a more detailed rules reference meant only for a few judges.

Now, I do think there should be two rulebooks, but for different reasons than you stated. There should be one rulebook in print that comes with the cards, and another that exists online. The print rulebook should look like a smaller version of the current rulebook and be a very basic description of the rules and only serve as an introduction to the game. The online rulebook should be super comprehensive and be regarded as the main rulebook for VTES. The print rulebook should guide players to the online rulebook wherever more information may be needed. The idea would be to have 2-5 new players be able to sit and play a game of VTES using the print rulebook. Then, for any questions that come up, these players can access the online rulebook. In this day and age, with browsers including a text search function, having the main rulebook be super comprehensive and electronic is the way to go, especially given how complex VTES is. That's how I would do it.