Rulebook: Potentially misleading and oddly placed passages

At the moment "R" Damage is only mentioned once during "Resolve Strike" despite it being a kind of damage that is also dealt by Retainers (Murder of crows) and Retainer damage only being effective at close range by default (see Wold Companion, which has reminder text about that)

This should be worded more generally like "damage dealt during Strike resolution is only effective at close range unless..." as this is the state of the rulings as of now per [LSJ 20020104]

After some discussions in the discord regarding "decline to block" and how the impulse works we found the below that should be considered for a future version of the rulebook.

Below PIB ruled that "decline to block" was not an impulse relevant effect referring to a rulebook portion that is no longer present in the current V5 rulebook. Instead, we currently have another portion in the V5 rulebook (in italics for some reason) that makes it a contradiction which is most probably the result of removing the wrong portion of the previous version of the rulebook that had both portions.

Pascal wrote:

Declining to block is not an effect that gives the impulse back to the acting player. The impulse is given back only when a player declares a block attempt, or when all players have passed.

Rulebook wrote:

Note that moving past the block attempts (when all Methuselahs have declined to block) is an effect and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects.

V5 Rulebook

Stealth and Intercept

[...]

If a block attempt fails, either another attempt is made or the defending Methuselah declares that they will not make any further attempts to block the action. Note that this declaration is an effect and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects.

I suggest we remove the current portion and add in the relevant one referenced by PIB and an additional note to make it clear that declining to block moves the impulse to the next player (same as passing) and that an attempt to block moves the impulse back to the acting.

Link to the thread where LSJ made the ruling to change the portion reference by PIB to what it was up till the previous version of the rulebook (where he should have removed the latter portion which is currently in the V5 rulebook) and also in the post just before LSJ eludes to a kind of split/parallel impulse which might be good to capture somehow.

LSJ wrote:

In practice, the decline to block forms its own chain of
block attempts, paralleling the sequencing rules.

I hope this reflects the discord conversation correctly, if anything is missing or wrong feel free to add or correct it.

A small thing, but "prisci block" should be "prisci bloc." The reason why this is misleading is "block" refers to something one's minions can attempt in response to another player's minion's actions. "prisci block" could be taken to mean something entirely different than what was intended (ie, the prisci bloc being a group with a united purpose, as represented by a unique balloting mechanic). Someone not familiar with the game may take "prisci block" to instead mean that a priscus can block an action differently than a standard block attempt.

Can we get an appendix for returning players that outline rules changes?

For instance, directly stating that Banu Haqim and Assamite, are equivalent? the question comes up frequently enough on facebook and in the discord group.

Or that Clans no longer have an inherent Sect.

I'm sure there are other things that would be fitting to include, but that's what comes to mind right now.

Well, I have this gist lying around but it's a bit long for an appendix...

lip wrote:

Well, I have this gist lying around but it's a bit long for an appendix...

Wow, this is amazing!