Rulebook: Potentially misleading and oddly placed passages

self wrote:

That's valid, and a decent compromise. I just find it inconsistent that we now have "Ranged Strike: Steal blood..." on Theft of Vitae, but guns retained "Strike: R damage,"

My personal opinion: For consistency we should change ranged strikes to have text:

Ranged strike: X damage.

to be in line with thefts

Ranged strike: steal X blood.

And get rid of the "R damage". Same template could be easily extended to any strike that works at range. Like:
Ranged strike: steal equipment with first strike

Kilrauko wrote:

I'll lodge my opposition to the part of Dodge/combat ends to become ranged strikes as it will affect number of +1 damage to ranged strike damage vampires and most glaringly will turn this card to anti combat ends/dodge which was not it's nor dodge's/combat ends design choice.

Name: Shadowed Eyes
[HttB:R, POD:DTC]
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Auspex & Obtenebration
+1 stealth action.
[aus][obt] (D) Put this card on an ally or younger vampire. The attached minion gets -2 intercept and cannot perform directed actions or use ranged strikes. Any minion can burn this card as a +1 stealth action.
[AUS][OBT] As above, and the action to burn this card costs 1 additional blood or life.
Artist: Juan Calle

Now if the card text for +1 damage ranged strikes Vampires and Shadowed Eyes is changed to include strikes but *not* include combat ends and dodges, it will be kosher in my eyes provided there's not some other interaction I'm forgetting.

I don't understand building a blanket exception to the rule into the rulebook: "Most strikes are effective only at close range, unless the strike is identified as ranged, does “R” damage, or is a defensive strike such as dodge or combat ends. Ranged strikes and strikes that do “R” damage can be used at any range, close or long." when you can have something that is consistent and easy to understand, and then errata the cards that need the exception clarified.

Also, this was brought up in the discord somewhere, but "Defensive" needs to go unless we're going to actually use it at a kind of strike like Ranged.

Advanced rules inserts.

⇒ Rename them to "Detailed rules" insert instead (or something similar).

While inserts are useful for clarity and readability, the use of "Advanced rules" as a title is misleading for new players. A recurring question from new players is "so do you use the advanced rules when you play or just the basic rules?".

The term "advanced rules" generally means, in a boardgames setting, that these rules are optional and can be used (partially or completely) or not. This is not the case here. Our "advanced rules" inserts provide very essential parts of the rules, even is usually a bit technical or niche. For note, the "becoming anarch" action, out-of-turn master cards, contesting and sequencing are all listed as "advanced rules" — I'm curious how new player groups manage to play without those rules in effect. ("I'm bringing a second Alice Chen out" - "what? But you can't she's unique!" - "Nah man, we're not playing with the advanced rules").

the “Lock X to do Y” template shoud be generalized to "Do x to do Y"

"Do x to do Y" is at the moment a de facto template, wich is used on several cards, not only with locks. (shattering crescendo for example)

The structure of the text lead to confusion. "Personal titles" are under independent which could indicate that they are for the independent sect. It's even more now since there is a camarilla vampire with a personal title. There should be a section that explain that "X votes (titled)" is kept if you change clan and/or sect.

Also, the contents of this page should probably find its way into the rulebook as an appendix: www.vekn.net/general-rulings