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

darkmore wrote:

NO!

... lot of wienne combat decks ...

As I see, weenie combat methuselath are trying to overran forum.

Ankha wrote:

hey, wouldnt it be grand if combat were easier to navigate without changing how it actually works?

V:TES player base:

The game already has a great combat system, changing it in order to just launch new cards to sell will take away old players and deeply sink our beloved game deeply.

I say NO to these changes.

  Reprint the old cards the way it was and work on new content with two game modes as the elder "Sydnelson" offered is the solution.





Mauro Ramos
Prince Of Fortaleza.

Mauro wrote:

The game already has a great combat system, changing it in order to just launch new cards to sell will take away old players and deeply sink our beloved game deeply.

No one is changing anything in order to sell (new) cards!

I see all proposed (and implemented) recent changes valid in the process of keeping the game alive and making it more playable and accessible so you don't have to be a walking and breathing computer in order to play it.

Bloodartist wrote:

I think simpler solution would be to write set-range cards as:
"Range is automatically long. Further range-altering cards have no effect." (similarly set range to close)

This means that maneuver cards could be played before or after the set-range card for card cycling, thus enabling set-range card to be played in the maneuver step (approach, whatever). Also the first set-range card (or ability) would be the one that matters mostly empowering the active player.

I'm all for widening the spot where many a combat card could be played, but I'm rather much against of enabling cycling. Either in combat or anywhere else (stealth, intercept, votepushing, etc) as it encourages more sloppy deckbuilding.

So, I think, that after the range has been set you should most definitely not allow any more maneuvers to be played (by making them have no effect = keep on playing them if you want to cycle).

Malachy wrote:

You are very wrong there, my fellow Methuselah Combat is in a very dominant position, and this will increase even more, with the latest set. Sure, an oppressive combat section contains more cards, then the 7 Majesty vote deck, but creating a decent combat section is quite challenging. Let's bring the good ol' ANI decks... it outs and destroys with 3 cards: Deep Song, Carrion - Aid... well maybe that's an exception because there's nothing more efficient than ani combat. But it is there, and it is strong imo, even without the obvious ousting cardtext (meaning bleed and vote).

I'm still not getting this First Strike - S:CE - Dodge madness... What's so confusing? Dodge and S:CE are defensive strikes... they are meant to negate the opposing minion's harmful strike effects, kinda unresolving them, regardless of time...I have never in my life had problem explaining this interaction EVER to a newbie nor they've ever had problem understanding it. Cycling Taste of Vitae against an ally... that's another story

Its not a problem by the time (most) new players are 5ish games in, but its unintuitive.
We are streamlining. Bleed modifiers got un-cluttered, which was logical. Why clutter the normal "as a rule" type cards and let the less than half dozen exceptions to the rule be clean and simple? Also, ppl didn't realize it didn't count until they analyzed it when I was teaching new players, now it's clear. It reminded me of having to explain Howling Mine in MTG "but I already draw a card when my turn starts " "dude, that artifact says you get another one..."
We don't have as many issues with vote. But it could use some tidying once the combat of err, combat is done.

Renaming "First strike " into "Early strike" is cleaner, more intuitive, and also more mathematically correct (you know, because 1 isn't 3) you strike earlier than the other strikes. But still after speed priority 1&2. It gets stronger with my initial idea, but there's not errata with this easy fix