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

drnlmza wrote: There are other cards played after range is determined, but before strikes are chosen, including

Thin Blood
Blood of Acid
Superior King of the Mountain
inf Blissful Agony

Just for thoroughness:
Death of my conscience
Sanguinary wind
Shame

LivesByProxy wrote: Maneuver: Grapple. Only usable at close range. Strike cards that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round.

What "Only usable at close range" means in this context?

As I've said, problem lies not in the wording, it lies in the way the combat plays.

By giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG we are effectively changing the way combat works in a very fundamental way, because IG - SCE "challenge" are extremely one-sided.

I'm not saying the change will be bad (maybe even the opposite - maneuvers will be usefull together with SCE) but the goal hear is not to change how the cards work.

If we are not giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG, than we are back at the "grapple step square" - range should be determined, than grapples (and, as we see, several other "close range before strikes cards) should be played (or passed) by both players.

elotar wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote: Maneuver: Grapple. Only usable at close range. Strike cards that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round.

What "Only usable at close range" means in this context?

As I've said, problem lies not in the wording, it lies in the way the combat plays.

By giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG we are effectively changing the way combat works in a very fundamental way, because IG - SCE "challenge" are extremely one-sided.

I'm not saying the change will be bad (maybe even the opposite - maneuvers will be usefull together with SCE) but the goal hear is not to change how the cards work.

If we are not giving opportunity to play maneuvers after IG, than we are back at the "grapple step square" - range should be determined, than grapples (and, as we see, several other "close range before strikes cards) should be played (or passed) by both players.

I imagine it would work with each player playing Maneuver cards or using maneuvers until both players decline. If we used maneuvers and I assume I got the range to close, then my opponent opted not to maneuver or play a Maneuver card, I would play IG. Then my opponent would likely maneuver to long. This is a good thing IMO. This is good interactivity.

I'm in favor of minor changes to cards if we can reduce the word-count on the cards. Using the Strike:Effect format does that, and I also think the fundamental change to the game of making combat more open (as a result of that and changes like Option B Ankha proposes) are a good thing. Ankha and crew are being conservative (not a bad thing) but making combat more open ended with more relaxed windows and timings would make things more interesting and possibly more fun.

Really though, would any of the cards that Drnlmza or BloodArtist mentioned be broken if they were worded to be Maneuver: or Strike: (that is, you play it within those large timing windows) instead of 'after range is determined, before strikes are chosen'? I don't think so, and I think the fundamental change to combat as a result would probably make it more exciting, etc.etc.etc.

Also, Magic actually works this way. There is only 1 card that I can think of off of the top of my head that specifically states a timing window in combat. That card is Berserk and says, "Play Berserk only after blockers are declared and before combat damage is dealt." That card was printed back in 1993 and they've never gone back to specifying timing windows because 1) giving players freedom to respond to things that are played in a variety of ways makes the games more varied, exciting, interesting, etc.etc.etc. and 2) the function of the card itself conveys the optimum time it should be played, generally.

LivesByProxy wrote: I don't think so, and I think the fundamental change to combat as a result would probably make it more exciting, etc.etc.etc.

I agree with you.

Unfortunately the goal of the project, discussed here, is not to change the way how combat works in any fundamental way, just change wording. With IG it's especially important because it's an only card in a discipline, theoretically dedicated to combat, which trumps main defense strategy in the game.

IG/SCE is a red herring. already has one reliable maneuver to come back to close, and needs it anyway against . The SCE deck would have to be able to reliably maneuver twice to be able to beat IG, and I cannot see how such a big combat package in a non-combat deck could work in a varied meta.

The IG change would make a difference against guns or , but in that case, it is an advantage for the deck to be able to cycle. It is not like they were going to stay close before seeing your IG anyway...

Overall, a very minor change.

Boris The Blade wrote: IG/SCE is a red herring. already has one reliable maneuver to come back to close, and needs it anyway against .

It would be prudent to say "strike with a maneuver". I was confused for a moment since you can play as many maneuver cards as you like in a combat, therefore saying "has one/ needs it for X" is misleading. What if we introduce a maneuver card that requires merely potence? Or is this weakness to maneuvers intentional in potence design space?

ps. I don't want to screw over IG. I don't want to change its function in any way! But I hate the "playable after maneuvers, before strikes are chosen" timing window. I hate timing windows that are not defined in the rulebook, unless they use the wording "beginning of" or "at the end of".

I wanted to suggest changing IG's wording to "Playable at the end of maneuver step, if the range is close." I guess I never got around to doing it since other people made lots of suggestions before I did..