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

jamesatzephyr wrote:

I'm not at all sure why adding more random words to the game is helpful.

Currently, we have a Determine Range step. Range is a word that players have to be familiar with, because combat is either at long range or short range. During the range step you play maneuvers, so a feasible alternative is "Maneuvers step" - which is fine in terms of cognitive load, though still has issues that so many cards out there say "range" or "before range" on them. In either case, you have to know both terms - range and maneuver - to play the game. So why add a third term that players have to learn?

Technically we are replacing, rather than adding. I am also two minds on the matter;
If we replace a keyword with another, it becomes immediately apparent for old returning players that there has been a change, and they will probably ask for clarification right away. (Imagine people just returning from torpor straight into a tournament or game night and then getting confused during the game).

I think its potentially very confusing if we use same term for two different purposes, depending on era. Then you might receive vastly different answers to your questions depending who you ask. We should probably try to avoid that. For this purpose I am inclined toward new terms when applicable (btw, I think we might want to name the new ruleset VTES 4th edition or something)

On the other hand, not all terms merit a replacement. Maneuvers don't really have any issues associated with them, and people already know how maneuvers work. I think we might potentially want to keep the term "maneuver" and use it for the same thing it has always done. Its the steps and strikes and the combat structure that we need to clean up.

When I'm trying to think of how combat structure could potentially work, I keep running into this annoying thing: that strike:combat ends, theft of vitaes and normal strikes have to resolve in a specific order. Why did we need to do this I don't think there is a good way to both simplify this part and keep the strikes the way they are. We need to specify that order in some way and it feels so artificial. At the very least we should probably errata the non-standard combat ends (hand strike: combat ends, etc) so they fit into this structure better.

That's even without including the criminally underused first strike which btw requires another timing step of its own. I'm not sure how to factor it into this, or even just errata the whole bloody thing away.

In comparison, analyzing how Magic does things, MtG has only two strike steps, first strike and normal strike. Ignoring first strike, strikes resolve at the same time, but game state is not checked during the resolution of cards, abilities or strikes. (terminology simplified, no need to educate me on that) This means that if player would be about to receive lethal damage from opponents creatures strike, but at the same time gain life from own lifelinking creatures strike, the player would not lose the game since state of lifepoints would be checked only after everything has finished resolving. I wonder if we could learn something from this approach.

I've noticed plenty of issues in both VTES and netrunner that stem from checking game state constantly, even during a cards resolution (netrunner players remember Ekomind + Levy AR lab access interaction? That was the first case the lead designer made a ruling that was in contradiction with the card text. Ie. card functioned differently from what its card text said). Maybe we could move away from checking game state constantly? It might allow us to possibly make things work without creating a rigid timing structure with strikes (imagine theft of vitae vs normal strike possibly resolving at same time)

Someone pointed out earlier that we shouldn't think about specific cards when re-evaluating combat, but I don't see how we can avoid that. The cards are the cause of so much god-forsaken MESS, we sorta have to. Especially since much of the problems are caused by individual cards creating timings and rulings issues unique to themselves. If we ignore that, we are just going to end up with same problems again.

ps. We do need a lot of time to process these suggested changes.. I am really hyped about the possibility of fixing soooooo many problems and simplifying combat though. I'm sure it can be done now that we have the best ever opportunity to do so. This discussion will probably make some minds explode though. ;D

So much these!

Non-existant user wrote:

Brum wrote:

No more First Strike, please.

I would go the other way: keep First Strike, and use it for Dodge and Combat Ends instead of adding special rules.

Dodge effect: cancel the negative effect of the opponent's strike.
Combat Ends effect: go to Leave step, presses cannot be played.

Those effects do not need any special timing or resolution rule, they stand on their own. A dodge would need First Strike to negate the strike made with First Strike. Combat Ends does not prevent the opponent's current strike on its own, but that effect can be achieved by giving current Combat Ends cards First Strike. That means a First Strike always resolves against Combat Ends.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

Why bother with first strike if its never first. Its actually third. Third strike. After sce. After dodge. Then your allegedly fast minion, then other stuff. Let's make it matter. Most dodge and sce can become first strike, but not all. Like carlton but not Mylan get it.
You get the idea.......

And before you start saying that this'll make First Strike too strong, bear in mind that damage from First Strike can be prevented. So it ain't gonna producing auto torporizations from aggropokes (well, it is if people don't take it into account and add some prevents to the deck)

I vaguely remember one guy talking for no avail about first strike some time ago...

About IG/SCE "duel".

I'm kind of divided - from one view point, greatly articulated by Brandon some time ago - decisive combat "I got IG - you are toast/no IG - SCE, nothing happened" looks wasted opportunity. On the other hand actually ability to pack SCE and not bother with combat is a feature - large part of player community are not interested In this "mini game". Actually what I'm starting to see is that combat decks start to leave "anti SCE" behind - they are mostly not very useful against other form's of combat, like popular sticks+for, so game divides into guys interested in combat, hitting each other "interactively", and guys perfectly fine playing the game "if I got SCE i will survive, if not, I'll be toast". Which is not so bad a game state.

Except maybe all of this is happening because of combat being so complicated, and by simplifying it we can get more people interested in it. I see no problem in, for example, toreador player, to have combat plan of dodge+ press to end, if it'll be a working solution (no ig/SCE in the pool and dodge helping against environmental). Will it be too big a change?

I keep running into this annoying thing: that strike:combat ends, theft of vitaes and normal strikes have to resolve in a specific order. Why did we need to do this

There's the question, that what happens to blood stolen at max cap compared to damage. Theft of Vitae is pretty straight forward - blood moves first, then damage is done. It's a clarification and a nerf to the card, and explains how it works.

I'm kind of baffled why people make such a huge fuss about it. The 'issues' with first strike are a lot more pressing.

Also, just to make a statement to your choice of words: combat in VtES is not problematic, nor is a problem. It works fine, but could use cleaning up. Either options A or B presented will do this. They do not address problems.

I like this one too. It is very short. But I think it could be seen as unprecise. A little bit too less and undetailed