Option A vs B, where to begin?

This may have been covered somewhere in the 17 pages discussing option B (or in the option A topic), but I think it would help to have some direction from VEKN on what is or is not on the table regarding rules changes. People on the forum have a lot of good ideas and have done brainstorming. I am wondering about a few things:

1) Are we just talking about altering the rounds of combat, or the game more broadly?
2) If just combat, how closely should it resemble what we have now?
3) How open to card bans/errata is the VEKN in the name of the new format?
4) Are there things you consider problematic that you will probably cut/change either way?

They plainly stated they weren't trying to completely redesign combat. Just trying for more clarity.

(So naturally we turned it into 20 pages of argument...)

ReverendRevolver wrote:

They plainly stated they weren't trying to completely redesign combat. Just trying for more clarity.

(So naturally we turned it into 20 pages of argument...)

THEY CANT MAKE THINGS CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!1!!! THAT WOULD CONFUSE NEW PLAYERS!!!!11! WE MUST CONTINUE TO HAVE A POORLY DEFINED SYSTEM SO WE DONT CONFUSE PEOPLE!!!one!!

self wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

They plainly stated they weren't trying to completely redesign combat. Just trying for more clarity.

(So naturally we turned it into 20 pages of argument...)

THEY CANT MAKE THINGS CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!1!!! THAT WOULD CONFUSE NEW PLAYERS!!!!11! WE MUST CONTINUE TO HAVE A POORLY DEFINED SYSTEM SO WE DONT CONFUSE PEOPLE!!!one!!

You forgot to toggle between caps and lowercass on the last "!!!one!!" I'll forgive it for now.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

They plainly stated they weren't trying to completely redesign combat. Just trying for more clarity.

(So naturally we turned it into 20 pages of argument...)

So that answers #1, but not 2, 3, or 4.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

They plainly stated they weren't trying to completely redesign combat. Just trying for more clarity.

(So naturally we turned it into 20 pages of argument...)

So that answers #1, but not 2, 3, or 4.

I don't think any of 1, 2, 3, or 4 for option A. The first post in option A was simply an outline of how combat currently works, with more detail than what's given in the current rulebook. I believe the goal was just to codify all the different parts and sub-parts of combat as we currently know it. Then option B went a little bit further and actually altered rounds of combat to have fewer phases and give more flexible timing (some cards were also reworded to fit the new combat structure). So I think #1 applies to option B. I'm thinking the point of having two options was to gauge the interest in actually altering combat structure in the name of clarity, with option A a big fat "leave combat alone" and option B a "yes, lets change combat for simplicity's sake".