Striga/Maleficia

direwolf wrote:

Are you referring to the rulebook link to the left? because that rulebook doesn't mention Potence, or Celerity, or any other disciplines.

That is because the rulebook on the site is incomplete compared to the ones distributed in starters. Those come with a separate cheat card containing symbols for disciplines and card types at least (maybe also clans? I don't remember). Just because it is not stappled to the main booklet does not make it less part of the rules.

Fun fact: the online rulebook lists neither vampiric disciplines nor clans but it does list the Imbued virtues and creeds.

Squidalot wrote:

Government/Transient/Innconu etc should just go as have no relevance in game except to not be Gehenna

One of the main advantages to having "keywords" and other traits is forward compatibility.

In an ever-changing collectible card game, designers have to take into consideration the cards that have come before it.

Keywords and traits are building blocks to be used to design cards with a common concept. They may work together or against each other.

Imagine how much ink and card space we could have saved if we had a keyword for "you may not play action modifiers to further increase this bleed."

direwolf wrote:

Imagine how much ink and card space we could have saved if we had a keyword for "you may not play action modifiers to further increase this bleed."

In that case, it is not so much a keyword problem but a rule delimitation problem: when the exception (unstackable bleed boosts) is more frequent than the rule itself (stackable bleed boosts), it means the exception should become the rule, although that is hardly doable without reprinting cards.

AaronC wrote:

Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea of having a complete and correct rulebook? Kevin, I've seen you post in a previous thread that you would like the rulebook to be improved upon, so I'm surprised by this response.

Because you either misread what I wrote or you made the incorrect assumption that me not wishing to change the rulebook on one issue means that I don't wish to change the rulebook on other issues.

I do wish to change the rulebook on several issues, if not do a complete clarification on each and every section.

I do not wish to add into the rulebook concepts which are completely card-based and self-contained enough to be played off the cards themselves, such as is being argued for in this thread.

KevinM wrote:

I do not wish to add into the rulebook concepts which are completely card-based and self-contained enough to be played off the cards themselves, such as is being argued for in this thread.

Like disciplines? At the very least it makes sense that they're in the rule book — disputing this seems odd to me.

Key-worded traits such as black hand, seraph and even bahari etc should at the very least be added to the "Rules Glossary" or "Word of Darkness Glossary" — as it stands new players have to search the web for what black hand means and that's just backwards. They should be able to simply check the rules / glossary.

Disciplines and their icons are an important and appealing part of the game, not listing them in the rules make no sense what so ever.

It also makes a lot of sense for anything else with an icon to be listed in an "other icons" section — with it's own mini-glossary. Again, it's just means there's one place / download new (and old) players could refer to instead of having to break out their google-fu.

It's not like the rules are being changed — they're just being completed.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Ke. wrote:

KevinM wrote:

I do not wish to add into the rulebook concepts which are completely card-based and self-contained enough to be played off the cards themselves, such as is being argued for in this thread.

Like disciplines?

No, actually not like disciplines at all, because you can't figure out how to use disciplines without the rulebook, whereas you CAN figure out how to use Mal/Str with a rulebook and the cards themselves.

Ke. wrote:

At the very least it makes sense that they're in the rule book — disputing this seems odd to me.

If you accept the maxim that the rulebook need not contain every rule about a game if the cards themselves contain enough information, then you agree with me. If you don't, then your side makes more sense.

The two sides will never agree, so maybe we should just mercifully end the thread?

Ke. wrote:

Key-worded traits such as black hand, seraph and even bahari etc should at the very least be added to the "Rules Glossary" or "Word of Darkness Glossary" — as it stands new players have to search the web for what black hand means and that's just backwards.

No, they don't, since the cards themselves have enough information to be self-contained and used on their own, without anything being in the rulebook.