Striga/Maleficia

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.

the only reason i see to have either of these "not-disciplines" in the rulebook is if more cards are printed that require them. seeing the symbol on a card that requires it would lead someone who isn't familiar with them to wonder "who has this skill?" it says its not a discipline on cards that need it, but nothing else. it easy enough to remedy by asking someone, i just think future cards should have stronger reminder text.

but i also think that if the game gets picked back up, symbols should be used for things other than just disciplines and flight. if a minion can do something as a d action, having the [D] : this minion may"blahblahblah" and cutting out the "as a [d] action"part. or if the minion can gain an effect by burning a blood have [blood] [reaction] : this minion may give any minion +1 intercept or [blood] [combat] :this minion may treat agg as normal this round of combat.
i think wizards owns the tap symbol, so thats probably out, but still, simplicity like symbols makes the game less windy with wording (even if it also makes it like reading algebra with too many symbols)

very true for library cards, but there are @ least 40 crypt cards that have "may burn a blood to" "can burn a blood to" or "...burn 1 blood (make something happen" and thats not counting the blounts or humo/greenesleaves (or vamps that allow other vamps to burn a blood for something, like som caitiff/pander or jack drake). and my secret library searches didn't show me jalan, lambach, or qawiyya so i'm sure i didn't try all the combinations there are.

i'm not sure if it would make things easier, but it takes away words, streamlines rules, and makes potential reprints look more organized.

william biltmore could read:

Camarilla. [1blood]:+1 bleed or +1 stealth. only usable once each action.

it would allow things to be easier to read. i'm not saying its the absolute best thing to happen in game design since Garfeild invented turning a card sideways and copy-writing it, but its an idea. mtg has convoluted rules involving the cost before the colin, and i'm not even saying to adopt that inso much as to say a blood symbol follow by a colon should mean "this minion can/may burn this amount of blood for this effect with these limitations."
just a thought though, and its not needed on library cards, since so few of them would be relevant to the concept at the moment

As a side note, burning blood and blood cost are actually pretty different. I am not sold that the difference warrant to be keeped at all cost, but whithout a real new edition, (experienced) people will resist that kind of change.