Rebalancing ranged weapons

Dorrinal wrote: I agree the (free) maneuver some range weapons provide is an issue, ...

It really isn't.

*disclaimer* I don't play gun decks */disclaimer*

If I play a combat deck, I pack maneuvers to go to close range and I'm fine sometimes losing to celerity gun decks. Ranged combat should be a counter to close combat. What I feel is a teensy bit overpowered are the additional strikes + target vitals + magazine/aim cards and the occasional extra Carrion Crows finished off with a taste.

If I don't play a combat deck, I pack S:CE and ranged combat is not that much of a problem, I rarely see Sanguine Entrapment or Thoughts Betrayed played.

If I don't have access with S:CE in a deck, I play dodges and then only additional strikes hurt me bad, not the maneuvers. I'm not really interested in being able to hand strike for 1.

In fact, the only gun decks that are really annoying are the ones that pack 10+ Second Traditions + Eyes of Argus + Additional Strikes. Anything else can be suffered with minor discomfort really.

Even with all that said, I'm not convinced guns need rebalancing. Gun decks are not dominant, there are decks that easily beat gun decks and more. I'm growing rather weary about balancing threads that super focus on a single aspect.

Yeah, guns do ranged combat really well, except in games where combat is avoided with S:CE, Change of Target, Elder Impersonation/Seduction etc etc. which is nearly most of the time...

There are many rocks to this scissor strategy.

Weakening one aspect of VTES strengthens other aspects. Meaning you really do get actual balance issues. Celerity guns annoy the crap out of me when I am the target, but sometimes they are required at the table to beat another deck that have even less rocks to their scissors. A simple weenie stealth/bleed deck is can be way more powerful for example... In a 5 player game, I can turn someone else's gun deck to my advantage (often overlooked factor in rebalancing threads).

Now with melee weapons, even those don't have a balance issue, they simply do not get played much (sticks excluded) and that fact doesn't break the game at all. The question here is "Do the designers want players to actually play with melee weapons?" If the answer is no, then proceed, do not make new melee weapons. If the answer is yes; then either fix melee weapons or make new melee weapons that are actually worth playing.

Ankha wrote: Maybe something like this would have been more balanced compared to melee weapons:

".44 Magnum
Strike: 2R. Once each combat, you can cancel a maneuver to close range used by the opposing minion."

I like it.

Ankha wrote: ".44 Magnum
Strike: 2R. Once each combat, you can cancel a maneuver to close range used by the opposing minion."

Seconded.

Next local VTES night is next week - will see if I can arrange a gun deck battle match and see how this works out (assuming this is meant to apply to all ranged weapons with an in-built manoeuvre).

Pro: Would be a straightforward clarification of existing cards; doesn't significantly change current play.
Con: Lots of cards already printed with text that doesn't say that.

Ankha wrote: I was thinking about what did the original designers wanted to achieve when designing the .44 Magnum for instance.

I suppose that they wanted to translate the fact that with a gun, you can keep the opponent at bay (long range).
The trouble is that it doesn't work well with the fact that range is close by default.

I think they wanted to translate a default starting range of long for some kinds of gun combat.

I don't agree that the problem is the maneuver. The maneuver correctly translates the intended idea of a vampire wielding a weapon with a long range and using the opportunity to do so. (Really should say "only useable to go to long range")

Guns deal too much damage to the undead compared to the source material, and the guns' firing mechanism shouldn't be responsive enough to allow additional strikes. Meanwhile, melee weapons, which are superior in the source material for damaging vampires, are inferior in many ways in the game.

Ranged weapons should inherently only be useable once per round, except to use additional strikes granted by the weapon itself. Only two guns already have this limitation - Combat Shotgun and Mark V - and they're wallpaper anyway. Equip multiple guns if you want to Blur. Press if you want to use your gun more.

Additionally, Bastard Sword, Meat Cleaver, Bang Nakh, Blade of Enoch, and Brass Knuckles should have "optional maneuver, only useable to go to close".

Aaron, back to the OP which tried to answer this question:

I brought this up a while ago, but do melee weapons suck because celerity/guns work so well? Would melee weapons be better if guns only minimally benefit from additional strikes?

I've reduced this question to:
Why is a gun better than a melee weapon?

Guns don't do any more damage than melee weapons. They aren't any more... blurrable? Their damage is ranged and come with a maneuver, and it's those differences that make them better than melee weapons.