Keywords and eliminating redundancy

You just called wake a keyword, so I guess I’m referring to you. Haha! Anyway, I agree that trait needs to be defined in the rulebook. And I think using keyword in VTES is not opitmal because people tend to have a predetermined definition of what keyword means (hence I interpret a negative consequence of using it)

***Edit***

Wake has officially been referred to as a "keyword." See below excerpt from the anthology set announcement. Again, this is unfortunate for the reasons I stated previously (VTES already has a lot of one-word descriptors that are not keywords but can be confused as such owing to people's predetermined definition of what a keyword is and ascribing this definition to any one-word special term that appears on a given card). Also, the keyword wake appears in the same glossary next to the trait unique, leading one to believe they function the same exact way.

I should emphasize that all issues (as I interpret them) can be ameliorated once all special terms are categorized and defined in the rulebook (ie, what a trait is, what a keyword is, what reminder text/word is, what card descriptors like grapple and weapon are, etc).

"Wake
Many reaction cards allow vampires to "play reaction cards and attempt to block even though locked until the current action is concluded."
These cards have a special place in the game as they are the only cards that can be played in the "as a card is played" window without that explicit wording (in order to play reaction cards that can be played legitimately in that window). These cards have always been referred to as "wake" cards by players. By adding the "wake" keyword, the effect will be easier to reference and to learn for new players (in order to mark the difference with a real "unlock" effect for instance). As a reminder, the description of the "wake" effect is left between parenthesis on cards such as Eyes of Argus."

Okay. I think the distinctions are very relevant, but I I've harped on this point enough and this thread may be going off the rails a bit, so I'll stop. I appreciate the replies!

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Provide better explanations in a more accessible way? Number of cards rewritten: zero.

oh totally. we're in complete agreement there.

the +bleed thing is, in the grand scheme of things that are confusing about the game, really really small. I don't think changing the terminology up would make people quit the game or keep new people out, and learning "oh hey, they changed the word for that. okay" might take all of four seconds to explain to someone. It's something that clearly is important to you, and not important to me; this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on.

Ankha wrote:

But as I said, it's not very relevant. You could call it a technical term, a game term, whatever. "Wake" is of the same nature as "bleed" or "hunt". "Limited" is not.

I get what you're saying, but it effectively functions as one due to it's scope. It's not like there's a bunch of cards that are exceptions to this rule, or that we're really hurting for space in the text box on those cards. You're the actual person who gets to define these things, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As SelfBiased says, I'm not really trying to die on this hill but...

My 'predetermined definition of keywords' as 2RR phrases it is based on the precedent set by MTG since the very beginning, and during the entire time that VTES was in torpor 2010-2018(?) FFG was putting out new card games (LCGs) that were pioneering in their own right.

You (Ankha) say Limited is not a keyword because it functions as reminder text... except that if I were to ask 'What does limited mean?' as any new player would, I would have to be told what it means, making it functionally useless as reminder-text because it would require reminder-text. And MaRo reminds us that any word that has or could be substituted for reminder-text is a keyword.

I would also question the benefit of including a rule like "A minion cannot use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action." within the Bleed section of the rules itself (making it a property / aspect of the bleed action?) instead of just having it be a keyword (and thus in a keyword glossary.) Having it embedded within another section of the rules ends up being more rules minutiae IMO. Having some bleed action modifiers explicitly state that they do not count against this limit is just shifting the text around, which we can still see on Amaranth:

Command of the Beast (pre-Limited)
+1 bleed; you cannot play another action modifier to increase this bleed amount.
+1 bleed

Command of the Beast (post-Limited)
+1 bleed; (Limited.)
+1 bleed; this bleed does not count against the limit.

What was gained? And what would be lost if Limited were actually a keyword? You say that the text in parenthesis could be removed without effecting the card, but IMO having things be keywords makes for cleaner looking cards, easier rulings, and a better rule book.

Furthermore, you state that Unique isn't a keyword but a trait. But Unique could have reminder-text (rules) after it, and like MaRo says, if a word could be replaced with the same reminder-text (rules) each and every time, then it is a keyword. Also, FFG defines traits as:
"Most cards have one or more traits listed at the top of the text box and printed in bold italics. Traits have no inherent effect on the game. Instead, some card abilities reference cards that possess specific traits."

Now, I'm aware that you and others before you considered things like Scare, Infernal, and Slave to be traits, but I would argue they're actually keywords because they have specific rules-text. Scare is a keyword that means: "When a Methuselah moves a scarce vampire from her uncontrolled region to her ready region during her influence phase, she must burn 3 pool for every other vampire of the same clan already in play." and if there was room on the card all of that text could / would appear as reminder-text.

Now things like Camarilla and Sabbat would be traits because there is no inherent rules-text tied to those terms. The same goes for Aim and Grapple and Frenzy, and Weapon and Electronic, etc. MTG would call them sub-types but I think traits are a better term.

The point of all of this is that VTES desperately needs to be modernized if you guys want to appeal to anyone outside of the VTES / WW fanbase. That's why I've referenced MTG and FFGs LCGs - both games that VTES could learn a lot from.