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

keeping tabs on both threads right now, but I'm at work and typing with my thumbs. I largely agree with Bloodartist's assessment that. Combat works but the process could be better defined.

The way Strike: Combat Ends resolves (and interacts with First Strike) isnt the most intuitive thing.

Also i would personally like to see the term "Before Range Is Determined" put into a cannon and shot into the sun. I realize theres a bit in the rulebook that says you play these cards before maneuvers, but with the very nature of what words actually mean it could be taken that these cards could be played at other times.

So i would be in favor of establishing a clearer process for how combat works.

I prefer option A over option B. I feel that B is too clipped, while A does a good job of codifying the steps that we currently have, making the process more understandable. I don't think combat needs to be shorter, just more understandable.

kschaefer wrote: I don't think combat needs to be shorter...

It's not really important what you (the guy, who already knows the rules) think, catch somebody at the boardgame shop and show him two options and ask, what he thinks.

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?

Again, V:TES is regularly criticised for making players learn lots of vocabulary to make sense of it. Adding more doesn't make it better. Requiring new players to know both, because they have to be able to read and understand old cards, makes it worse. I cannot fathom the reasoning that says "Let's take one of the problems our game suffers from and make it worse, consciously and repeatedly."


Further: as terms, approach and leave only make a whole lot of sense if combat is one round, which it isn't - Trap is a thing, amongst others. I would also foresee a lot of confusion about the "Leave" step around Strike: Combat Ends. I'm playing Majesty, so I'm leaving combat, right? Since I'm leaving combat, we're in the Leave step, right? So I can play presses?

I agree with the above.

I'd rather play with the Option B, but the wording is not the best. I'd continue to use the words we all know:

1: Range
2: Strike
3: Press
4: Round
5: Combat

self biased wrote:
Also i would personally like to see the term "Before Range Is Determined" put into a cannon and shot into the sun. I realize theres a bit in the rulebook that says you play these cards before maneuvers, but with the very nature of what words actually mean it could be taken that these cards could be played at other times.
.

I for one, when first learning, definitly thought 'before ranged is determined' meant cards could be played alongside maneuvers.

'i go long with magnum'
sure - i come close with flash, and while im here grab a signpost out of the ground'

Maneuvers are what are used to determine the range. Thus, if people are still playing maneuvers - the range is yet to be determined.

honestly i still see it this way, the only reason i play how its meant to be is because someone somewhere told me 'thats wrong - you need to play 'before range is determined' cards before range is even talked about'

A simplified system is great in theory, but it limits design space. The original rules were actually not complicated enough to take into account all the cards that were later created. My principal problem with the game's structure is that many cards have been given unique timing windows through card text or rulings when a more robust system, combined with disciplined editorial oversight, could have accommodated them.

It would be better to start off with a mildly complicated combat structure and then scrupulously prohibit any new cards from getting a unique timing window outside of that structure.

I certainly am all in favor of getting rid of the "pre-strike" phase of IG and a few other cards. The fewer phases to call out, the better.

However, your system should have a phase that corresponds to the text "Play this card before range is determined [on the first round]". Even though this "phase" is not listed in the current rules as such, it is an integral and discrete phase of the VTES combat system. By doing a perfunctory search on Secret Library, I find 103 library cards and 14 crypt cards that mention this phase.

Please do not make this phase part of the the "Approach" step, because that would be an inauthentic result. If a card must be played before maneuvers, then it should get a separate, enumerated step. Practically, you cannot rewrite those 117 cards, and you should not deny future designers the opportunity to design "pre-range" cards.

1. Preparation/Pre-Combat/Pre-Approach
2. Approach/Maneuver/Range
3. etc.