These issues do not need to be addressed in the rulebook. Perhaps, something more in-depth like a reference guide or a "wiki" would be more appropriate.
Okay, Direwolf, this is why it should be addressed in the rulebook. The rulebook as currently written is incorrect:
Requirements for Playing Cards. Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan or Discipline (if any) required to play the card and the cost (if any) of playing that card. Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, while only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
According to the rulebook, the only symbols that appear in the attribute bar are symbols identifying card type, clan, discipline, cost, or burn option (described in the next paragraph).
Since the symbols for Maleficia, Striga, and Flight appear in the attribute bar and do not fall under the given categories, the rulebook is incomplete and incorrect.
Now, if the symbols didn't appear in the attribute bar, it would be a different story.
Isn't this nitpicking on an extraordinary scale? Are players TRULY unable to figure out how to play the cards they are complaining about? So the answer then is to rewrite the rulebook so that every symbol and every keyword need not be defined via the rulebook, and are able to be defined by the cards, so the player base doesn't have to have fruitless discussions like this multiple times per year.
You should be able to figure out how to play a game with a rulebook and the pieces provided.
Given that Mal, Str, Flight, et.al., are all sufficiently explained on the game pieces, there doesn't seem to be any non-OCD need to put them in the rulebook.
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.
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.
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.