The not Anarch Barons

2wayspeaker wrote:

Sure, but this should be added to the rulebook because stating it after when a new player built a deck and acting all high and mighty about how stupid they are for not realizing The Baron is not a Baron is rude and uncalled for. This is lacking in the rules. Everything claims Prince and Baron as keywords yet when Baron is on the card The Baron it's suddenly not a keyword? Nowhere does it explain this and the best they can come up with is deal with it.

From what I can see - and I've checked rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad - this is the first time in the twelve years since Bloodlines was released that anyone asked the Rules Team or LSJ this question. And as was pointed out by Pascal, nobody thought Roland Bishop could play Bishop cards, nobody thought Carlotta Giovanni was still a Giovanni after Clan Impersonating, and nobody thought Eze was a Demon or a Prince.

One person found something to be unclear and did the totally normal thing thing of asking the Rules Team for a clarification/ruling, which was provided. What has followed is an amount of outrage that doesn't match the size of the problem.

I understand that we should be treating card rulings and rules rulings as potential bug fix requests, and that the cards and rules should be as clear as possible. It makes the game easier to play, more fun to play, and minimizes the need for rulings. The Rules Team is doing a lot to try to fix the wording problems in the game.

Here is where the Rules Team is tracking all of it:

vekn.net/output-changes

It takes a while to load. There's a lot.

yeah be great if some of their stuff made sense "can" v "may" for instance
And it'd be better to focus time on stuff we can actually enact like removal of junk cards from the system

Squidalot wrote:

And it'd be better to focus time on stuff we can actually enact like removal of junk cards from the system

I've appreciated the work they've done to improve card text templating, as it helps write a card properly in the first place. That said, I agree that there are too many cards that have wording that should render them mechanically non-functional, but there's been a historical resistance to banning cards. LSJ and the Rules Team have ended up having to bend over backwards to re-write cards, write lengthy clarifications, or outright issue fiat rulings to make some cards work. Cards like Rewind Time, Seeds of Corruption, Lay Low, and Orun are mechanically unsound.

Don't forget Mask of 100 Faces and of course Winged Second.
I'd ditch the lot we have plenty of cards we could afford to lose 100-220 without any material [5%] deck attrition and it'd actually open up space in other areas [well these ones less so but there are problem cards that lock design space]

I'd be happier on the templating if for each subtype of card there was a firmed up templates you could pick and lock your sub-clauses [like a drop down excel model] instead i have some useful parsing and a load of stuff that is grammatically not the best [can v may, use v play]
I've come across far worse in boardgames it's just disappointing as this game is very language dependant which is essentially Jesper's point that language inconsistency with non-defined key terms can cause misconceptions on how cards are used

BenPeal wrote:

And as was pointed out by Pascal, nobody thought Roland Bishop could play Bishop cards,

TBH, this is the only "Bishop" card in the game:

Inquisition

Requires a ready Sabbat vampire. +1 stealth action.
Choose one or more bishops. Each of the chosen bishops loses his or her title and takes 2 unpreventable damage. The controllers of the chosen bishops may attempt to block in addition to the normally eligible blockers.

This has little to do with Roland Bishop: nobody thought that any vampire could play that

One person found something to be unclear and did the totally normal thing thing of asking the Rules Team for a clarification/ruling, which was provided. What has followed is an amount of outrage that doesn't match the size of the problem.

Outrage? We are discussing clarifying the rules of a card game about fictional vampires. That's all people are doing here. I think we need to keep that in perspective. I respect the hell out of everything you and the rules team have done and continue to do. But, cmon. It is not fair to suggest people are treating the rules team unfairly by posting harmless comments about the rules. Is the rules team really that sensitive?