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

Ankha wrote:

ffiuza wrote:

Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this:

This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist.

I think this is an attempt to solve a potential problem brought about by combat steps in option B, specifically, trying to make up for the (perceived) weaker Immortal Grapple in the proposed combat system. It's definitely pertinent discussion.

drnlmza wrote:

While simplifying the combat sequence is a noble goal, this significantly changes a large number of cards - IG becomes easier to counter, but possibly easier to cycle, set range effects are stronger, a number of "only usable before X" cards are easier to play and so forth.

This needs to be very well tested before making the change.

All change will have pros and cons.
I agree 100% with you. This needs to be VERY well tested.
Fear should not be our main driver, however.

The goal should be to streamline combat, helping new players but also Judges.
Nobody spoke about them yet, but these guys have it hard in this game with obscure rulings that seem to contradict cards or rules and creates attrition between players, judges, etc..
7 hours in a tournament, tolerance is low, stress is high and the poor sobs judging have all the weight of the local community on their shoulders.
Anything we can help them, the better.

We can and must look forward with an open mind to a strong game with lots of new players and most of the old players coming back.

I have zero issues with changes in cards because we would be able to buy new versions of the cards.
If I choose not to, my old cards would still be legal.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Ankha wrote:

ffiuza wrote:

Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this:

This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist.

I think this is an attempt to solve a potential problem brought about by combat steps in option B, specifically, trying to make up for the (perceived) weaker Immortal Grapple in the proposed combat system. It's definitely pertinent discussion.

Specific cards should NEVER be taken into account in these discussions, except to explain the proposed changes.
Its a Pandora's box that created noise and deviates the attention.
And creates attrition.

<Drama> if wallpapering Immortal Grapple saves combat, so be it.. </Drama>

That was joke, for those of you not getting the tag metaphor.

Brum wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Ankha wrote:

ffiuza wrote:

Could we at least add a manuever to it? Something like this:

This is out of topic. You're trying to solve problems that don't exist.

I think this is an attempt to solve a potential problem brought about by combat steps in option B, specifically, trying to make up for the (perceived) weaker Immortal Grapple in the proposed combat system. It's definitely pertinent discussion.

Specific cards should NEVER be taken into account in these discussions, except to explain the proposed changes.
Its a Pandora's box that created noise and deviates the attention.
And creates attrition.

<Drama> if wallpapering Immortal Grapple saves combat, so be it.. </Drama>

That was joke, for those of you not getting the tag metaphor.

I understand it now. I'll keep that in mind for future reference. No drama. Nice joke.

Ankha wrote:

This is another options with less phases, increased flexibility in timing, but it nerfs down some cards (Immortal Grapple can now be countered by a maneuver played afterwards).

Round structure
  1. Approach step
  2. Strike step.
    2.a Choose strike
    2.b Resolve strike
  3. Additional strikes step
  4. Leave step

I appreciate that VEKN is taking a hard look at the rules. Some big changes could be good for the game and cut way down on (the need for) errata. I would also encourage some serious play testing before implementing changes, especially changes as far reaching as the above.

Not really for this discussion (because it is a bit off topic for this thread), more to the VEKN:

As a possible side note, could you also look at including icons for lock and unlock?

Another side note, I played a game recently where someone used Priority Contract and Provision of Silesia. As an experienced player I understand how this works (burning is not a cost of playing Provision, it is an effect), but it is a case where, intentionally or unintentionally, there are effects that appear to compete, but in reality do not. Could wording like this please be avoided?