Bleed modifiers on currently blocked bleed

I await, then, your learned explanation of how introducing a new, single-word term into the rulebook will help you parse any LSJ rulings (which may or may not be listed here).

Well, we could condense LSJs rulings, remove them and edit the rulebook to fix it all.

OR

We could leave the rulebook as a static unchanging and have 10,000 dense, difficult to parse statements from LSJ stored in a now-remote location of the internet.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Well, we could condense LSJs rulings, remove them and edit the rulebook to fix it all.

OR

We could leave the rulebook as a static unchanging and have 10,000 dense, difficult to parse statements from LSJ stored in a now-remote location of the internet.

OR

We could leave the rulebook as a static unchanging and have 10,000 statements from LSJ stored in a central place (ie. www.vekn.net/index.php/all-rulings).

The problem is that far from every LSJ ruling is in this place. My vote goes to your first suggestion though.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Well, we could condense LSJs rulings, remove them and edit the rulebook to fix it all.

OR

We could leave the rulebook as a static unchanging and have 10,000 dense, difficult to parse statements from LSJ stored in a now-remote location of the internet.

I notice how you didn't address my question, which was the entire point of the thread. Interesting.

Just because I aimed at the principles underneath doesn't mean I didn't answer your question. To make the rules more of a living document rather than relying on people using the, now outdated, Google-Group OR to build layer upon layer of rulings, non-rulebook terminology and possible confusion.

I'm suggesting that LSJs 'impulse' rulings should either:
a) Be replaced by a new general ruling that would appear somewhere like the CRR
b) Be added explicitly into the rulebook (so that everyone should be able to parse his scattered rulings around the Google-groups and the ones which may appear under All Rulings, which is ironically named).
c) Be individually replaced by PB & the RT until there are no "impulse related" LSJ rulings (so that Impulse vanishes from VTES since it isn't in the rules)

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Just because I aimed at the principles underneath doesn't mean I didn't answer your question. To make the rules more of a living document rather than relying on people using the, now outdated, Google-Group OR to build layer upon layer of rulings, non-rulebook terminology and possible confusion.

I'm suggesting that LSJs 'impulse' rulings should either:
a) Be replaced by a new general ruling that would appear somewhere like the CRR
b) Be added explicitly into the rulebook (so that everyone should be able to parse his scattered rulings around the Google-groups and the ones which may appear under All Rulings, which is ironically named).
c) Be individually replaced by PB & the RT until there are no "impulse related" LSJ rulings (so that Impulse vanishes from VTES since it isn't in the rules)

Again: You proceed from a false assumption.

There are no 'impulse rulings'. There isn't a real issue when someone speaks of the "impulse", because that word is just shorthand for "the opportunity" in 1.6.1.5, above.

So, your issue is moot.

I have never had an issue with any player, ever, understanding 1.6.1.5 while using the term 'impulse' to substitute for 'opportunity'.

If you have, I suggest you view that as an opportunity -- see what I did there?