Black Chantry Rulebook Feedback

The aim of this thread is NOT to debate the rules that currently exist, but to provide feedback on making the rulebook more clear. For instance, complaints about the default sect designations in section 10 are not useful; we've debated that topic elsewhere. Here are a few things that I noticed on my first pass of the rulebook: 1. In section 11, remove the section on 'vulnerability', the term was removed in the HttB reprint RTR updates. 2. Only talk about the current card layout. There are awkward constructions, where it's like A or like B, these cards don't have a group, so they're group 1, etc. The current book is also inconsistent about when it refers to alternate layouts. In 1.6.1, you get both variations on blood cost, but not on pool cost. Instead, provide a separate illustrated (via real card images) section about card (layout) migration. This is the better place to put the older variants. Newer players will, for the most part, be using new cards with the current layout. Focus the text around that and direct players to the migration section with something like: "If you card layout does not match the current card layout shown here, see Appendix XXX: Card Layout Migration for how to map older card information." Wordsmithing TBD. Also, this may help alleviate common misconceptions, such as older political action cards containing +1 stealth political action on it and people thinking that was in addition to the default stealth listed in the rulebook. A migration section could call that out as "reminder" text. 3. It may also be useful here, to mention that card texts have migrated over time and where the most recent text is available. Players with VtES edition Delating Tactics don't think there's a blood cost. Not sure how to work that into the rulebook, exactly, perhaps alongside the migration section? 4. The bouncing around between political actions and titles in 6.3.3; section 10, where title affiliation and uniqueness is described; section 4.2 where contesting titles is mentioned; and section 10.5 where additional contesting costs are described for Barons. It's rather difficult to follow and do correctly without an experienced player walking you through it.

The "steal blood" effect described in section 6.4.5, under "strike effects" has a nice example and description of the effect, but the name of the effect "steal blood" is misleading. The effect works on both blood and life counters. I already have to explain many and many times that theft of vitae or goratrix can steal life from allies and convert them to blood. Can we be clearer on this context on this rule? I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

> Charles_Bronson wrote: > The "steal blood" effect described in section 6.4.5, under "strike effects" has a nice example and description of the effect, but the name of the effect "steal blood" is misleading. > > The effect works on both blood and life counters. I already have to explain many and many times that theft of vitae or goratrix can steal life from allies and convert them to blood. Can we be clearer on this context on this rule? > The reprints will be clearer about this: Name: Theft of Vitae Cardtype: Combat Discipline: Thaumaturgy [tha] Ranged strike: steal 1 blood or life (becoming blood). [THA] Ranged strike: steal 2 blood or life (becoming blood). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

this section of the rule book should be amended > Non-existant user wrote: > 1.5. Overview of Crypt Cards > Some library cards have multiple Discipline symbols on the attribute bar. Some of the effects listed on these cards require one of the Disciplines listed, while other effects require another listed Discipline, and some effects require the vampire to possess several Disciplines. Each effect shows the icon(s) of the Discipline(s) required. Library cards that require more than one Clan require only one of those clans unless stated otherwise. >

> self wrote: > this section of the rule book should be amended > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > 1.5. Overview of Crypt Cards > > Some library cards have multiple Discipline symbols on the attribute bar. Some of the effects listed on these cards require one of the Disciplines listed, while other effects require another listed Discipline, and some effects require the vampire to possess several Disciplines. Each effect shows the icon(s) of the Discipline(s) required. Library cards that require more than one Clan require only one of those clans unless stated otherwise. > > That section of the rulebook is describing disciplines specifically. The wrong thing to do with the current rulebook is haphazardly mention unrelated things because they don't fit anywhere else. The current rulebook already does too much of this. The current rulebook should be seen as a rough guide to playing the game. Not everything should be included. VTES is a game where players join a play group and are taught the game by current players who know the rules. There's a DIY spirit to learning all nuances of the game, and it is what it is at this point. If the goal is to have an all encompassing rules reference, the current rulebook should not be it. Either the Complete Rules Reference should be updated and expanded to include every single interaction in the game (which is not going to happen) or the way rulings are compiled should be more interactive, wherein a card database should exist with every single ruling and description of non-obvious or complex interactions appear alongside a card when searched (I think this database needs to exist). Anyway, back to the topic: What you're aiming for does not need to be described in the rulebook; rather, the card text can have or : effect.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > That section of the rulebook is describing disciplines specifically. The wrong thing to do with the current rulebook is haphazardly mention unrelated things because they don't fit anywhere else. The current rulebook already does too much of this. > > The current rulebook should be seen as a rough guide to playing the game. Not everything should be included. VTES is a game where players join a play group and are taught the game by current players who know the rules. There's a DIY spirit to learning all nuances of the game, and it is what it is at this point. > > If the goal is to have an all encompassing rules reference, the current rulebook should not be it. Either the Complete Rules Reference should be updated and expanded to include every single interaction in the game (which is not going to happen) or the way rulings are compiled should be more interactive, wherein a card database should exist with every single ruling and description of non-obvious or complex interactions appear alongside a card when searched (I think this database needs to exist). > > Anyway, back to the topic: What you're aiming for does not need to be described in the rulebook; rather, the card text can have or : effect. > I don't think this is in the spirit of the op. Question is how do we make the rules more clear and answer is why bother, just learn game from wise man on mountaintop. I tacitly state that the rules should explain EVERYTHING about how to play the game. Not some things, not a general idea, but how to actually play the game.

> Mewcat wrote: > I don't think this is in the spirit of the op. Question is how do we make the rules more clear and answer is why bother, just learn game from wise man on mountaintop. > > I tacitly state that the rules should explain EVERYTHING about how to play the game. Not some things, not a general idea, but how to actually play the game. > I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not saying "why bother." My post agrees with your assertion that something needs to exist to explain everything about how to play the game. I just think it should be exist separately from the current rulebook, which would optimally be used only as a guideline how to play the game, for clarity and conciseness. This way, players have the option to learn the game through the rulebook and "wise men on the mountain top" if they so choose. It's prudent to continue the DIY and word-of-mouth approach to rules that has worked for so many players over the years. But I believe something else should exist that's comprehensive for those who, say, want consistent judging at tournaments, or those who have to learn the game in a vacuum because no playgroup exists nearby. Or whatever.

It is not unusual to have a quick start guide as a rules companion. The quick start guide should not confusingly be called rule book, however.

I am a new player to the game, and this is my first post to the forums (I think - I may have dropped a note about finding a playgroup a while ago). I have to say that I generally find the rulebook to V:TES to be pretty easy to read, at least compared to a number of other CCG rulebooks I've encountered. I was able to pick up a lot from just reading the rules. There are two things I'd like to see made more clear in a new rulebook, though. First, it was totally lost on me that actions are only paid for if they're successful. I know that this is in the rules, but it could be made clearer, perhaps via example. For at least the first two months of play I was paying for my Governs even if they were blocked. Second, and more substantially, I find the rules on damage, aggravated damage (especially so), and going to torpor to be baffling. It was the only part of the game I didn't "get" just by reading the rules. I had to have other players walk me through a number of scenarios to help me figure out how aggravated damage and torpor worked.

> Mewcat wrote: > It is not unusual to have a quick start guide as a rules companion. The quick start guide should not confusingly be called rule book, however. > Well, it's not a quick start guide. That already exists separate from the rulebook (the Quick Reference Playmat). If there's any confusion, it's because nobody actually, you know, reads the rulebook. One of the first paragraphs describes the objective of the rulebook, how players should learn the game, and how to use the rulebook: "This rulebook provides the comprehensive rules of the game; don't feel like you have to absorb all the rules at once. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle is a game of complex strategies that are acquired over time. Once you learn the basics, play the game, and then consult the rulebook when you have questions." So, when learning the game, reading the rulebook should be the third thing you should do. The first thing to do is learn the basics (ie, from your play group) and play the game (ie, with your play group). Then consult the rulebook when questions arise. This is all fine and good. The problem for me is the failure of the rulebook to actually be a comprehensive set of rules to consult when questions arise. Something more comprehensive is needed, and that something, in my opinion, should be (1) a streamlined version of the current rulebook, and (2) a database of cards, with rulings and clarifications included alongside each card.

Overview of "Base Stats" (stealth, strength, intercept,....) and "Basic Action" a vampire would have and making clear how - intercept is different than + stealth. Now this section is a few pages. But it really should start with an overview. Actions/modifiers/reactions in Torpor. Several players at the EC where surprised when I self resqued my vampire form torpor and played a Kiss of Ra on the block attempt. It's not in the rulebook that you cannot do it. But it isnt clear you are allowed to either. Elaboration? Windows to play reaction cards/out-of-turns. Unclear that you are allowed to play reaction when someone crosstable is acting. Same as others, not forbidden or even explicitly in the rules. confusion with the "you can only block prey pred" In the same vein: You are allowed to attempt completely useless actions (bleed 0, action fizzle bcs can't pay cost, etc...) and waste modifiers attempting them. Not specified. Tapping locking as a cost. Very Very VERY weird "ruling" thats not even in the rulebook. You can pay cost like "Tap a vanpire" with a tapped vampire. Which is completely ridiculous. You have to have blood to pay blood, but dont need an untapped to tap. Yet this is nowhere in the rulebook. It is very distinct from every other cardgame since they don't have this consistency in logic failure.

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > > Tapping locking as a cost. Very Very VERY weird "ruling" thats not even in the rulebook. You can pay cost like "Tap a vanpire" with a tapped vampire. Which is completely ridiculous. You have to have blood to pay blood, but dont need an untapped to tap. Yet this is nowhere in the rulebook. It is very distinct from every other cardgame since they don't have this consistency in logic failure. > I don't think you can 'lock x _to_ do y with an already locked vampire. But if it's not a cost - and is an effect (eg Revelation of Ecstasy) - you can target the vampire and 'lock a locked' vampire. Name: Revelation of Ecstasy [LotN:C/PS4] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Serpentis +1 stealth action. [ser] Lock one of your prey's ready minions. [SER] As above, and place a corruption counter on that minion. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds his or her capacity or cost, you may burn those counters to take control of him or her. Artist: Jim DiBartolo which yea - isnt great

No, you can lock locked vampired for cost. Everycard that doesnt include "an unlocked vampire" means you can lock a locked or unlocked vampire.

Wrong. for example : Hide the Heart [Reaction] Reaction [Valeren] Valeren [Auspex] Auspex [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion may burn 1 blood to cancel this card as it is played. Only one Hide the Heart may be played at [val] each action. [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 2. In order to use the effect to reduce a bleed against any methusalah by 2, you have to be untapped (At least, it has been explained to me that way)

Well that is more of a templating issue. The costs and effects of cards is anything but intuitive. As it stands every card has it's own ruling practically.

[ ! cards snipped ! ] Hide the Heart [Reaction] Reaction [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 2. Does not specify the minion needs to be unlocked. You are perfectly allowed to be locked, play OTQV and that card at superior. Mind Numb [Action] Action [1 Blood] [pre] (D) Put this card on any untapped vampire. Tap that vampire; he or she does not untap as normal during his or her controller's untap phase. Art's Traumatic Essence [Action] Action [Melpominee] Melpominee [Auspex] Auspex +1 stealth action. [aus] (D) Tap any untapped minion. [mel] (D) Tap any untapped minion, and that minion burns 1 blood or life. [MEL] (D) Put this card on any ready untapped minion and tap that minion. Principia Discordia [Action] Action [qui] (D) Burn 1 blood on an untapped vampire and tap that vampire. [ser] (D) Steal 1 blood from a ready tapped vampire. Cards above care about the position of the target. Any card that does not specify the position the target needs to be in, doesn't care. You can lock already locked vampires and unlock already unlocked vampires. I feel your point, I had a 3 page discussion on this forum about it with mods of the rules sub. Can't find anything before february 2018 though....

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > [ ! cards snipped ! ] > > Hide the Heart [Reaction] Reaction [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or [b]tap to reduce[/b] a bleed against any Methuselah by 2. > > Does not specify the minion needs to be unlocked. You are perfectly allowed to be locked, play OTQV and that card at superior. > I'm pretty pretty pretty sure there's a ruling around those bold word of 'lock _to_ <do something>' just gotta find it edit: www.vekn.net/rulebook 11 - SPECIAL TERMS Wording Template: “Lock X to do Y”: Some cards use this wording, for instance: superior Bauble, Isanwayen. Such effects can’t be used by locked minions, even by those under a wake effect. These effects require an unlocked minion to be used. Conversely, “Lock X. Do Y” effects (for instance: Redirection) are usable by locked minions under a wake effect.

Good list; good feedback. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > In the same vein: You are allowed to attempt completely useless actions (bleed 0, action fizzle bcs can't pay cost, etc...) and waste modifiers attempting them. Not specified. > You cannot attempt an action for which you do not meet the requirements. Cost is a requirement. Other effects could allow such an action to begin, Ravnos Carnival or Hackerspace as long as there are enough counters between the minion and the cost-paying card, but as a general rule if you can't pay for it, you can't start it.

Something that confuses me: The No Repeat Action Rule. In the rulebook, bleed actions and political actions both have it explicitly written that only one of (each of) those actions can be performed by the same minion per turn. And in section 6.1.6: "A minion cannot perform an action with the same action card more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. A minion cannot perform each action via the same card in play (including from the minion's own card text) more than once each turn, even if he unlocks." But to me, this is unclear. Is attempting an action, the same thing as performing? If I attempt to bleed with Govern, for example, the cost is not payed if I am blocked, but the action is still considered 'performed'. Isn't that a bit odd? And what about hunting? It is a cardless action, and it would seem, as the rules were written (by omission in this case), that a minion could hunt infinitely, provided they had enough Freak Drives and were not blocked. Because nothing that I can find in the rulebook says that only one hunt action can be taken per minion per turn. But the elders of my group tell me otherwise. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

Actualy, you can perform any number of hunt actions each turn... If I remember correctly, every basic action except bleeding can be performed any number of time (for example rescueing a vampire, equiping from another minion etc...)

> LivesByProxy wrote: > But to me, this is unclear. Is attempting an action, the same thing as performing? > No. The NRA kicks in when the action reaches resolution, either because it is successful, or because it is blocked (or fails). > LivesByProxy wrote: > If I attempt to bleed with Govern, for example, the cost is not payed if I am blocked, but the action is still considered 'performed'. Isn't that a bit odd? > It reached resolution. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The following part Wording templates “During X, do Y”: The “during X do Y” template is used in several cards. When this template is used, only one Y can be done per X with this card. For instance, you may move blood from your vampire to your pool with Vessel only once per unlock phase. Could use some clarification. Cards deviate from this templating and we are left to guess what is intended. First example I find --- Qawiyya el-Ghaduba … can burn 2 blood to unlock during your minion phase. is "can do y during x" meant to be the same as "during x, do y". Basically you need to go through all cards like this and add them as alternate templates if this is intended.

> Mewcat wrote: > > First example I find --- Qawiyya el-Ghaduba … can burn 2 blood to unlock during your minion phase. > > is "can do y during x" meant to be the same as "during x, do y". > Yes, grammatically and logically (and rule-wise). The opposite would be very counter-intuitive. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > > > First example I find --- Qawiyya el-Ghaduba … can burn 2 blood to unlock during your minion phase. > > > > is "can do y during x" meant to be the same as "during x, do y". > > > Yes, grammatically and logically (and rule-wise). > > The opposite would be very counter-intuitive. > That's not how templating works... At the very least some acknowledgement of alternate templates (???) is needed if we are unable to reasonably go through all the variations that have cropped up over time.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Anyway, back to the topic: What you're aiming for does not need to be described in the rulebook; rather, the card text can have or : effect. > I forgot I wanted to address this earlier. Firstly it appears that I grabbed the wrong part of the rulebook. whoopsie. Secondly, you're not wrong with your point, but in my mind Meeting The Requirements To Play A Card is probably important and should be very thoroughly described.

So when we combine all this info we get: Deflection [Reaction] Reaction [dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah. Locked vampire plays OTQV and bounces. He pays "Tap this reacting vampire" with no issues even though he is locked. Locking a locked vampire is not against the rules. Using locked vampire to pay cost? YES Hide the Heart [Reaction] Reaction [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 2. Because we value logic and consistency. This card functions exactly like Deflection, Arts Traumatic essence and Revelation of ecstasy. Haha no, who cares about logic or consistency. You need to pay the "tap to reduce a bleed" with an unlocked reacting vampire. For some reason??? > narpassword wrote: > edit: www.vekn.net/rulebook > 11 - SPECIAL TERMS > Wording Template: > > “Lock X to do Y”: Some cards use this wording, for instance: superior Bauble, Isanwayen. Such effects can’t be used by locked minions, even by those under a wake effect. These effects require an unlocked minion to be used. Conversely, “Lock X. Do Y” effects (for instance: Redirection) are usable by locked minions under a wake effect. > Using locked vampire to pay cost? NO Art's Traumatic Essence [Action] Action [Melpominee] Melpominee [Auspex] Auspex +1 stealth action. [aus] (D) Tap any untapped minion. [mel] (D) Tap any untapped minion, and that minion burns 1 blood or life. [MEL] (D) Put this card on any ready untapped minion and tap that minion. You need to target an unlocked vampire to be able to lock it using this action., as is clearly described in its card text. Using locked vampire to pay cost? NO, explicitly prevented by card text Revelation of Ecstasy [Ser] (D) Tap one of your prey's ready minions. [SER] As above, and place a corruption counter on that minion. I did some gravedigging because the search function doesn't work on this website and found this 3 page long post stating "Revelation of Ecstasy" is perfectly playable on tapped vampires. www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/75626-revelation-of-ecstasy-when-prey-is-tapped-out answers by: Hakuron talonz TwoRazorReign thelonius reloaded Ankha Using locked vampire to pay cost? YES Luckily this is all in the rulebook. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Tapping a tapped card is not mentioned at all in the rules. It's completely on the player to discover that it's not restricted by the rules. At some point, this is going to have a detrimental effect on the game, where players don't want to make that extra effort to discover things. > Oh... or not. And it only takes 7-8 hardcore VTES players to figure out how this actually works and why it makes "sense".

I am no english native speaker so maybe I don't understand some subtlety but it seems pretty forward to me. The difference between deflection and hide the heart is that in the case of deflection, you lock a vampire as part of the effect of the card. Locking a locked minion not being a problem, you can wake and then play deflection. But, for hide the heart, it is "lock TO reduce a bleed" the capitalized "TO" is really important and seems pretty clear to me, you have to lock the reacting vampire in order to use this effect so it is a cost and not a part of the effect... The rest of these example seems pretty consistent to me : When it is a cost (you can tell because you have to "lock TO blablabla"), you can't use an allready locked minion but when it is part of the effect of the card, you can lock an already locked minion if it please you...

Edited down for clarity in commenting: > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > Art's Traumatic Essence > Using locked vampire to pay cost? NO, explicitly prevented by card text > Revelation of Ecstasy > Using locked vampire to pay cost? YES > These are targeting requirements. Art's Traumatic Essence can only target unlocked minions because it says so on the card. There is also restriction on Revelation of Ecstasy: prey and ready. So, the action allows targeting minions who are locked, since it's not explicitly listed.

> Timo wrote: > I am no english native speaker so maybe I don't understand some subtlety but it seems pretty forward to me.. > So, for you, the rulebook explains this clearly enough that you would not make a mistake?

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > > > Timo wrote: > > I am no english native speaker so maybe I don't understand some subtlety but it seems pretty forward to me.. > > > So, for you, the rulebook explains this clearly enough that you would not make a mistake? > For me it does. Locking TO do something and locking as a separate effect is clear. For me the rulebook is not clear enough for 'performing' actions; I still wouldn't be able to parse the difference between Tangle Atropos' Hand and Psychomanchia on only by rulebook and card text. Here's hoping that the lock requirement discussion is now cleared, so we can focus on other feedback on the rulebook? I'm sure there's plenty to cover. ps. You are spot on with being able to lock a locked vampire when targeting though, it could be clearer in the card text or cleared in the rulebook. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> kschaefer wrote: > You cannot attempt an action for which you do not meet the requirements. Cost is a requirement. > Here is what the rules say about actions: 1.1. Important Terms in the Game Locking and Unlocking: During play, you will turn cards sideways to "lock" them, indicating that the cards have been used for some particular purpose or effect. Unlocking a card restores it to its original position, indicating that the card is reset and will be able to be locked again later. Only unlocked minions can take actions, block the actions of other minions, or play reaction cards (see Minion Phase, sec. 6). 1. Action cards: A minion can play an action card to take an action other than the default actions like "hunt". Only one action card can be played for the action; action cards cannot be used to modify other actions. 1.6.1.3 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. 6. Minion Phase Most of the activity in the game occurs in the minion phases. During your minion phase, you may have your minions take actions. Only ready unlocked minions can take actions, and taking an action locks the acting minion. Other Methuselah's ready unlocked minions may attempt to block your action, and blocking locks the blocking minion (see Resolve Any Block Attempts, sec. 6.2.2). An action is successful only if it is not blocked. Each action is resolved (successful or blocked) before another action can be attempted. As noted, only ready unlocked minions can take actions, and taking an action locks the acting minion. So, if the minion manages to unlock (due to a card or an effect) during this phase, it is possible for him to take another action. Some actions are mandatory. For example, a ready vampire with no blood must hunt. During your minion phase, none of your minions can take any non-mandatory actions if any of your ready unlocked minions have mandatory actions yet to perform. If you have two or more minions with mandatory actions, they may be done in the order you choose. A minion with a mandatory action to perform cannot perform any other action. If a single minion has two or more different mandatory actions, then he is "stuck" and cannot take any action (this doesn't prevent your other minions from taking non-mandatory actions, however). 6.1. Types of Actions By default (without the use of a card), a ready minion can perform one of two actions: bleed or hunt. Good to know resque from torpor doesn't exist. Ready minions can also use actions to bring different types of permanent resources into play. These include equipment (such as computers, guns and exotic artifacts), retainers (henchmen, attendants or animals commanded into the service of the minion) and allies (non-vampire minions, such as mages, werewolves or ordinary mortals). An equipment card is brought into play with an equip action, a retainer with the employ retainer action, and an ally with the recruit ally action. These three actions are very similar, although the cards they bring into play are not. Equipment (but not retainers) can also be moved from one minion to another by taking an action. Instead of taking a default action, a ready minion could play an action card to perform the action indicated on the card. Some action cards are enhanced versions of the default bleed action or other basic actions, while others are original types of actions. A special type of action card is the political action card, which a vampire can use to call a referendum. In addition, there are special actions available for dealing with anarchs and with vampires in torpor. These actions are not described here (see Torpor, sec. 6.5 and Anarchs, sec. 10.5). 6.1.6. Action Card (or Card in Play) A minion can use an action card to take an action, and some cards in play will allow special actions to be taken as well. Unless otherwise noted on the card, these actions are at 0 stealth (see Stealth and Intercept, sec. 6.2.2.2) and can be attempted by both vampires and allies. If the card describes a special version of a basic action, then all the rules that apply to the basic action apply, except as otherwise noted on the card. If Krid plays Computer Hacking (text: "Action. Bleed at +1"), then all the normal rules of bleed actions (only being able to target your prey, for example) apply, except that the bleed amount is increased by one. To take the action described on an action card in your hand, play the card and lock the acting minion. If the action is successful, it resolves as indicated on the card (and the cost, if any, is paid). If the action is unsuccessful, the card is burned. To take the action described by a card in play, announce the action and lock the acting minion. If the action is successful, it resolves as indicated on the card (and the cost, if any, is paid). If the action is unsuccessful, there is no effect. A minion cannot perform an action with the same action card more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. A minion cannot perform each action via the same card in play (including from the minion's own card text) more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. To take the action described on an action card in your hand, play the card and lock the acting minion. If the action is successful, it resolves as indicated on the card (and the cost, if any, is paid). If the action is unsuccessful, the card is burned. 6.2. Taking an Action Any ready unlocked minion you control can take an action. The procedure for resolving an action is described in the following sections. Note that action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time in this process as appropriate, subject to the restrictions on adding stealth and intercept listed below and the restrictions against the same minion playing the same action modifier or reaction card more than once (see Minion Cards, sec. 1.6.3), and following the same sequencing strictures of all effects (see Sequencing, sec. 1.6.1.6). Summary of the Course of an Action The action is declared, and the card used for the action (action card, equipment, etc.) is played, if any. Lock the minion who is taking the action (the "acting minion"). The target Methuselahs may try to block the action with any of their ready unlocked minions. If the action doesn't target another Methuselah, or targets a card controlled by the acting Methuselah, then the minions of the prey and predator may try to block. If one attempt to block is unsuccessful, another attempt can be made. If no more attempts are made, then the action is successful, and the cost of the action is paid. If a block attempt is successful, then the blocking minion locks and enters combat with the acting minion. Action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time before resolution during an action (unless otherwise noted on card text), with the acting Methuselah getting the opportunity to play first. Only the acting minion can play action modifiers, while only other Methuselahs' ready unlocked minions can play reaction cards. The effect of an action modifier or a reaction card lasts for the duration of the current action by default. Also remember that the same minion cannot play the same action modifier or reaction card more than once per action. 6.2.1. Announce the Action All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc. Any card required for the action is played (face up) at this time. Lock the acting minion (only ready unlocked minions can take actions). EXCEPTION: Any decisions to be made for a referendum are not declared until the action succeeds (see The Political Action, sec. 6.3.1). 6.2.3. Resolve the Action If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. If the action is blocked, then any card played to take the action is burned (it is moved to the ash heap) and the blocking minion is locked and enters combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). The effects of the action do not take place when the action is blocked. Note that the action's cost, if any, is only paid if the action succeeds; the cost is not paid if the action is blocked. The costs of action modifiers and reaction cards are always paid when the cards are played, regardless of the success of the action. If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. The rulebook differentiates between requirement and cost. Cost is paid after the action is successful. If you argue that paragraph 1.6.1.3 places the cost under the label "requirements" there are still 8 paragraphs dedicated to Actions that do not mention anything about requirements at all and 2 paragraphs that say you check if you can pay the cost after the action is successful. Not clear, and a defendable point using only what is written in the rulebook. Anyway, that wasn't the point of my original remark. > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > In the same vein: You are allowed to attempt completely useless actions (bleed 0, action fizzle bcs can't pay cost, etc...) and waste modifiers attempting them. Not specified. > Reminder vampire abilities/specials are not clearly defined, is +strength an ability? is the title an ability? is everything not in bold text an ability? If you give an example it's easier to see the possibilities. For example: The Arcadian uses his special while on 1 blood (because 0 blood vampires are forced to hunt) to announce a bleed action against his prey on 21 pool. The Arcadian may bleed at +1 stealth and +1 bleed as a (D) action that costs 1 blood. Arcadian plays a Seduction on superior on a minion crosstable. Arcadian plays a Foreshadowing Destruction on Superior. Prey declines to block. Prey plays Deflection with a locked reacting vampire. Arcadian plays a Conditioning on Superior. (payed instantly) Grandprey declines to block. The Arcadian has no bloos to pay the cost of his action and the action "fizzles" Also NOT a defined concept

Removed unnecessary text for commenting purposes: > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > ... > Good to know resque from torpor doesn't exist. > Not by default. There has to be a vampire in torpor to be able to perform that action. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > ... > The rulebook differentiates between requirement and cost. > ... > If you argue that paragraph 1.6.1.3 places the cost under the label "requirements" there are still 8 paragraphs dedicated to Actions that do not mention anything about requirements at all and 2 paragraphs that say you check if you can pay the cost after the action is successful. > ... > > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > In the same vein: You are allowed to attempt completely useless actions (bleed 0, action fizzle bcs can't pay cost, etc...) and waste modifiers attempting them. Not specified. > > The point is you cannot begin an action that you cannot pay the cost for. It is part of the general requirements of all cards. When the cost is paid is apparently causing confusion. If the rulebook stated under actions: "Even though actions are only paid for when successful, you must be able to pay the cost to attempt the action or you cannot do so." Clear up this confusion? It's more clear in the general rulings section, cf. the original ruling. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > For example: The Arcadian uses his special while on 1 blood (because 0 blood vampires are forced to hunt) to announce a bleed action against his prey on 21 pool. > The Arcadian may bleed at +1 stealth and +1 bleed as a (D) action that costs 1 blood. > The Arcadian had enough blood to pay for the cost of the action, so he can attempt it. He could not attempt Dominate Kine or Mind Rape, for instance, which require 2 blood. If by the time the action resolve, he can no longer pay that cost it fizzles (same ruling as above). Fizzle, as a concept, (or perhaps something that has less of a WotC Magic-inspired history) should make its way into the rulebook; we shouldn't need to read rulings for it. Though I am not writing the rulebook, I think this discussion is good for examining the weak spots in the current rulebook. It seems that the delay in paying for actions requires additional clarity vis-a-vis cost requirements.

> kschaefer wrote: > It's more clear in the general rulings section, cf. the original ruling. > Answering a new players question with "Because LSJ said so" isn't helping. > kschaefer wrote: > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > ... > > Good to know rescue from torpor doesn't exist. > > > Not by default. There has to be a vampire in torpor to be able to perform that action. > We have had a new player lose a tournament finals he was about to win because he did not realise that rescuing from torpor was an available action.

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Answering a new players question with "Because LSJ said so" isn't helping. > I specifically asked if additional wording in particular sections would be helpful, and?

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > We have had a new player lose a tournament finals he was about to win because he did not realise that rescuing from torpor was an available action > Here, you appear to be arguing that people need to be able to play the game without actually reading the rulebook, which is hardly a useful position. That option is described in the rulebook in Section 6.5.3. The general section on actions 6.1 specifically points readers to Section 6.5 as where actions that involve vampires in torpor are described ("In addition, there are special actions available for dealing with anarchs and with vampires in torpor. These actions are not described here (see Torpor, sec. 6.5 and Anarchs, sec. 10.5"). -- National Coordinator South Africa

> 6.1.5. Recruit Ally (+1 stealth) > Allies are action cards that become minions in their > own right, capable of acting and blocking independently > of the minion that recruits them. The recruit ally action > has a default +1 stealth. > To recruit an ally from your hand, play the card and lock the > acting minion. If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your > uncontrolled region, even though it is controlled, to indicate that > it cannot act this turn (and the cost, if any, is paid). > I am pretty sure the bold part is no longer true... IIRC the ally is now in your control region but can't act the turn it is recruited. > At the end of your influence phase, any vampire in your > uncontrolled region with a number of blood counters on him equal > to (or more than) his capacity becomes controlled. The vampire > is turned face up and moved to the ready region, unlocked. The > counters are kept on him to represent his blood (counters in excess > of his capacity drain off immediately as usual). Other types of crypt > cards are handled similarly. > This is also no longer the case. Actually, it makes me wondering if I am reading the correct rulebook... > 10. Vampire Sects > Some of the various clans of vampires have grouped themselves > into sects. Each sect represents clans with similar philosophies and > goals. Each sect has its own codes of conduct and its own political > structure and titles. > No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title. > If a vampire with a title gains another, he loses the first title, even > if the new title would be a demotion. If a vampire with a contested > title (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2) gains a title, he immediately > yields the contested title. > Each vampire’s sect is given in its card text, and that may > override the default sect of that vampire’s clan (see the lists in the > following sections). If a vampire changes clans (by means of a > Clan Impersonation card, for example) to a clan that belongs to a > different sect, he changes sects as well. A vampire must belong to > the appropriate sect to receive a title. > A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. > If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect > inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his > clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his > title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately > yields the old title. > There is a repetition. > 10.5. Anarchs > Anarch is not a sect itself, just a special attribute that some > Independent vampires can have. > OK, I understand, the PDF format is outdated... That's why...

> Kraus wrote: > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > > > > Timo wrote: > > > I am no english native speaker so maybe I don't understand some subtlety but it seems pretty forward to me.. > > > > > > > > So, for you, the rulebook explains this clearly enough that you would not make a mistake? > > > For me it does. > > Locking TO do something and locking as a separate effect is clear. > The reason for this confusion is due to poor or nonexistent card templating. The rules can't really clear this up because the cards don't make any meaningful distinction between costs and effects.

I would like to remind you that we wanted feedback on the PDF Rulebook available here: www.blackchantry.com/rulebook/ Which should match the online one on vekn.net. Most of the errors that have been reported so far in this thread are not in the PDF Rulebook on www.blackchantry.com. V:EKN Website Coordinator

6.5.4 uses the same unclear language as before. Clearly state that diablarie at someone else's vamp is 0 stealth.

6.1.3 some clarification of equipping with something already in play would be helpful. Might be best to call it something else and say the acting minion is considered to have equipped all transferred equipment. I find this confusing as a cardless action that requires a card. I mean can you just announce equip with card in play even if nothing is in play? Is it really just an equip action?

Thanks, Damnans for the reminder, but I could have sworn when I started the thread the only rulebook I was viewing was the PDF. That being said, vulnerability no longer appears, so great. Regarding 6.1.3: > > Mewcat wrote: > I find this confusing as a cardless action that requires a card. I mean can you just announce equip with card in play even if nothing is in play? Is it really just an equip action? > Well if we call it something else, that potentially breaks current game interactions. For instance, NRA PAC works with equipping from the hand or from another minion. I would suggest that it could be broken into two subsections: 6.1.3.1 Equipping from the hand 6.1.3.2 Equipping from a minion in play. To Mewcat's point you can refer people to the requirements section, while reminding them that you can only take this action if there is a valid target. Constantly reiterating the general requirements for actions throughout will help reenforce the general requirements. Furthermore this section should make it clear that you can equip from a minion in torpor. This is currently allowed by the rules because of their wording, but it isn't always clear to people that this is an option. I know, I've had to site the rulebook almost every time I do this.

I will point to one sentence that epitomizes some major issues with the rulebook I think should be given attention (and that maybe most people are not thinking about): "Being locked or unlocked doesn't matter for combat. Locked minions fight just the same as unlocked minions" First of all, "doesn't matter for combat" is such a mealy mouthed way to explain that locked and unlocked minions are both able to enter combat. Language like this appears all over the rulebook. I mean, I seriously would have no clue what this means if I were reading the rulebook cold without any prior knowledge gained from playing VTES. Unclear and unhelpful language like this needs to be rewritten for clarity. One should be able to read the rulebook cold and not have to guess the meaning of its unclear language. Second, minions don't "fight." They enter combat, maneuver, choose strike, press, etc. There are many examples of this type of "folksy" language in the rulebook that appear to be involving flavor from the RPG but just end up adding extra fat. This extra fat gets in the way of not only reader comprehension ("where is the "enter fight" step again?"), but also optimal word counts, especially in a rulebook for a game this complex. The rulebook should not be the place to add "flavor," it should simply codify the rules. Leave the flavor to the cards. Finally, to my most important point: What really should be stated here is that minions do not lock for simply entering combat. Namely, if a minion enters combat by some means other than blocking an action, they do not lock by default. The only instance of entering combat the rulebook describes is via blocking an action. I'm thinking this is because the most common (and maybe only) way to enter combat without use of a card is via blocking an action. The problem is, this current (and sole) description of combat could lead one to believe that minions lock whenever they enter combat: "If the action is blocked...the blocking minion is locked and enters combat with the acting minion" In this sentence, it's unclear what's causing the minion to lock. Entering combat, or the successful block? This is another potential place where it could be explained better that entering combat does not lock a minion. Here are my proposed fixes: "Being locked or unlocked doesn't matter for combat. Locked minions fight just the same as unlocked minions"locked and unlocked minions are both able to enter combat. A minion does not lock for entering combat." "If the action is blocked...the blocking minion is locked as a result of the successful block and enters combat with the acting minion"

We could use some more parity between 6.1.1 Bleed and 6.1.2 Hunt. > Non-existant user wrote: > By default, all minions have a bleed amount of one (most allies have card text that overrides the default). > > "From wrote: > If the action is successful, move a blood counter to the acting vampire from the blood bank. > The first section doesn't really explain +Bleed and the second section doesn't use language that makes +Hunt workable. There should at least be parallels between these two.

Section 6.1.6: > > A minion cannot perform an action with the same action card more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. A minion cannot perform each action via the same card in play (including from the minion's own card text) more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. > This needs to be reworded. "The same card" is used twice with two different meanings. Proposal: "A minion can only play one copy of a given action card in the same turn. A minion can take an action granted by a card in play once per turn per copy in play." In general, the NRA rules should get their own section rather than being sprinkled in individual action descriptions. Players don't need the NRA rule to learn how a bleed works. They need it to learn how Freak Drive works, and at that time they need all the possibilities in front of them at once. "6.1.8 Multiple actions in one turn If an effect unlocks a minion during its minion phase, then he can choose to take another action. However the following restrictions apply: -A minion can only attempt one bleed action per turn. -A minion can only attempt one political action per turn. -A minion can only play one copy of an action card per turn. -A minion can only attempt an action granted by a card in play once per turn per copy in play." Use "attempt" instead of "perform" in NRA rules to make it explicit that the NRA triggers even if the action is blocked.

> Non-existant user wrote: > "6.1.8 Multiple actions in one turn > If an effect unlocks a minion during its minion phase, then he can choose to take another action. However the following restrictions apply: > -A minion can only attempt one bleed action per turn. > -A minion can only attempt one political action per turn. > -A minion can only play one copy of an action card per turn. > -A minion can only attempt an action granted by a card in play once per turn per copy in play." > > Use "attempt" instead of "perform" in NRA rules to make it explicit that the NRA triggers even if the action is blocked. > This would be a breaking change, as vampires can attempt more than once a bleed for instance, if the first one never reached resolution (eg., Direct on the bleed action card, or Tangle Atropo's Hand). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I cannot see why Tangle for one could not be rewritten for clarity, and cancelling action cards as they are played already has a spot on the rule book that could be amended. Some text changes here or there not to brake the rules just to have much clearer info on repeated actions clause seems like a small price to pay. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > I cannot see why Tangle for one could not be rewritten for clarity, and cancelling action cards as they are played already has a spot on the rule book that could be amended. > > Some text changes here or there not to brake the rules just to have much clearer info on repeated actions clause seems like a small price to pay. > If you know the difference between "perform" and "attempt", then both are equally clear. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Mewcat wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo wrote: > > > > I am no english native speaker so maybe I don't understand some subtlety but it seems pretty forward to me.. > > > > > > > > > > > So, for you, the rulebook explains this clearly enough that you would not make a mistake? > > > > > For me it does. > > > > Locking TO do something and locking as a separate effect is clear. > > > The reason for this confusion is due to poor or nonexistent card templating. The rules can't really clear this up because the cards don't make any meaningful distinction between costs and effects. > Perhaps a format similar to what Magic (and the LCGs use) would be helpful here. That format is [cost] colon [effect]. So for example: "Lock a minion you control: Your prey burns 1 pool." versus "Burn 1 pool: Lock a minion." Everything before the colon (":") is the cost that is paid, or required. Everything afterwards is part of the effect. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> Mewcat wrote: > The reason for this confusion is due to poor or nonexistent card templating. The rules can't really clear this up because the cards don't make any meaningful distinction between costs and effects. > I agree that the legacy templating is far from being perfect, but the one you are pointing out is consistent throughout all the cards. "Do X to do Y" : X is the cost, Y the effect. The original assumption : > 2wayspeaker wrote: > No, you can lock locked vampired for cost. > > Everycard that doesnt include "an unlocked vampire" means you can lock a locked or unlocked vampire. > is simply wrong, And it's not related to templating. > LivesByProxy wrote: > Perhaps a format similar to what Magic (and the LCGs use) would be helpful here. That format is [cost] colon [effect]. So for example: > > "Lock a minion you control: Your prey burns 1 pool." versus "Burn 1 pool: Lock a minion." > > Everything before the colon (":") is the cost that is paid, or required. Everything afterwards is part of the effect. > This is another way of representing the exact same thing. I'm not convinced it's clearer when mixed up with other text on the card. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > The reason for this confusion is due to poor or nonexistent card templating. The rules can't really clear this up because the cards don't make any meaningful distinction between costs and effects. > > > I agree that the legacy templating is far from being perfect, but the one you are pointing out is consistent throughout all the cards. > > "Do X to do Y" : X is the cost, Y the effect. > It has everything to do with templating and consistent communication. The idea of costs and effects is quite simple but when we look at the cards and rulings it becomes anything but. The cards don't say "do x to do y". They have every possible ham fisted variation. Without a consistent way to tell what is a cost and what an effect on every card a general rule gets us nowhere.

> Ankha wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > Perhaps a format similar to what Magic (and the LCGs use) would be helpful here. That format is [cost] colon [effect]. So for example: > > > > "Lock a minion you control: Your prey burns 1 pool." versus "Burn 1 pool: Lock a minion." > > > > Everything before the colon (":") is the cost that is paid, or required. Everything afterwards is part of the effect. > > > This is another way of representing the exact same thing. I'm not convinced it's clearer when mixed up with other text on the card. > I disagree that it wouldn't be clearer. The existence of the punctuation (the colon) is absolutely crucial for the MtG template to work. Whenever the template is used, the colon is included, so there is a visual cue that a template is being used. The "Tap X to do Y" template does not have a similar visual cue, so it's not always clear to the reader that a template with specific functions is being used. In addition, the colon forces the card to not "mix up other text" and deviate too far from the template, as is often the case with "Tap X to do Y". Whoever developed the "Tap X do Y" template really did not understand that templates are used to provide consistency and structure to the text, first and foremost, so that the reader can understand the rules. It's not meant to be a rule in itself ("do this whenever this template is used")

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I disagree that it wouldn't be clearer. The existence of the punctuation (the colon) is absolutely crucial for the MtG template to work. Whenever the template is used, the colon is included, so there is a visual cue that a template is being used. The "Tap X to do Y" template does not have a similar visual cue, so it's not always clear to the reader that a template with specific functions is being used. > MtG is another game with a majority of triggered effects. It's logical that triggered effects are emphasized. It would be weird to do the same in V:TES since they are very few effects such as these. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > In addition, the colon forces the card to not "mix up > other text" and deviate too far from the template, as is often the case with "Tap X to do Y". > This is false. Can you point out cases where the "tap ... to ..." template is not consistent? > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Whoever developed the "Tap X do Y" template really did not understand that templates are used to provide consistency and structure to the text, first and foremost, so that the reader can understand the rules. It's not meant to be a rule in itself ("do this whenever this template is used") > This is the case. The usage of "tap ... to ..." is consistent and provides structure to the text. I understand it's not written the way you'd like it to be written, but that's another subject to which I answered in my previous post. For instance, usage of a colon could get mixed up with strikes that use colons. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I can unequivocally state that the best way to make cards is for each card to have 3 categories. 1. Requirements, followed by a list of all requirements. 2. Costs, followed by a list of all costs. 3. Effects, followed by a list of all effects.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Perhaps a format similar to what Magic (and the LCGs use) would be helpful here. That format is [cost] colon [effect]. So for example: > > "Lock a minion you control: Your prey burns 1 pool." versus "Burn 1 pool: Lock a minion." > > Everything before the colon (":") is the cost that is paid, or required. Everything afterwards is part of the effect. > Here here! A very clear and precise method of delivering info. Why not make the cards as clear as possibly able? Finnish Politics!

> Ankha wrote: > MtG is another game with a majority of triggered effects. It's logical that triggered effects are emphasized. It would be weird to do the same in V:TES since they are very few effects such as these. [...] For instance, usage of a colon could get mixed up with strikes that use colons. > You're not wrong, MTG does have mostly triggered abilities, but I'm curious whether you mean triggered or activated abilities (effects). In MTG, the [cost]:[effect] model is for activated abilities. Triggered abilities use the words "when", "each time", "at the beginning of [phase]", etc. They are written as ["when" / "each time" / "at the beginning of..."] [game phase / game state / condition is met], [effect]. So for example, Aching Beauty is a triggered ability by MTG standards. Your comment on possible confusion with strikes because of the colon has me thinking more on the subject of templating and VTES graphic layout, and the pros and cons. On the one hand, part of me wants to see most of the information for timing windows, blood costs, discipline requirements, and other requirements reduced to the [cost] : [effect] model like MTG, but that poses its own problems. For example: , 1 , , Strike: Strength + 2 damage. Only usuable on the second round of combat. Looks good IMO, would all fit in the text box, and would clear up a lot of the card space and would mean we could remove the marble border. And having the 'requirement' come at the very end was actually how the Jyhad cards were written. But then you'd have to repeat the entire [cost] line just to do the version, making for a lot of redundancy. But then again, you could change the cost more readily for the version. For example: , 2 , , Lock: Cancel a referendum as it is called. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

Note: card templating and card wordings are separate from the rule book and the current topic. The grounds of discussion were laid out in the opening post. Please attempt to return to the rule book feedback once done with the templating opinions. Card and wording templates in general could make for a topic of it's own. Those themes touch the original topic, but should not derail the discussion. Please continue the discussion on wording on cards and templating here: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77373-discussion-clear-and-consistent-wording-templates#93431 "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

minor quibble: On page 7, the alignment of the card type icons and the accompanying text is off, starting with 3. Ally, equipment and retainer cards. Additionally, I would advocate for changes to be made to the Action Modifier icon. As it currently stands, it is somewhat easy to mistake them for Actions for new players and players who have poor vision. The easiest fix I can think of for this is to just rotate the icon 90 degrees and have it point up and down, thus making it more distinct from the arrows point left and right. Regarding NRA, I feel that the passage in 6.1.6 could be amended as follows: > A minion cannot attempt an action of the same name or an Action provided by a card in play (including the minion's own card text) that has already resolved (successfully or unsuccessfully) for him that turn, even if he unlocks. Actions that are cancelled may be attempted again, unless stated otherwise on the cancelling card. > there's probably a better way of phrasing that, but framing the passage in terms of resolved actions and providing a reminder that an unsuccessful action has still resolved could add greater clarity. additionally, a reminder that cancelled actions, which have not reached resolution are exempt from this rule unless otherwise stated (like change of target)

> Ankha wrote: > This would be a breaking change, as vampires can attempt more than once a bleed for instance, if the first one never reached resolution (eg., Direct on the bleed action card, or Tangle Atropo's Hand). > No, because cancellations are already treated as exceptions to the general rule. > > “Cancel a card”: A "canceled" card has no effect, but it is still considered played. Unless explicitly > written, cost for the card is paid. If the card was a strike card, the minion who played it must choose > a strike, which might come from another strike card. If the card was an action card, the minion > doesn’t lock (he doesn’t pay for the action card), and can play the same action card again. > That part should be rewritten to include all actions, not only cards. You cannot expect anyone to understand the effect of Tangle on a cardless bleed from reading the current rulebook alone.

> self wrote: > Regarding NRA, I feel that the passage in 6.1.6 could be amended as follows:[/i] > > > A minion cannot attempt an action of the same name or an Action provided by a card in play (including the minion's own card text) that has already resolved (successfully or unsuccessfully) for him that turn, even if he unlocks. Actions that are cancelled may be attempted again, unless stated otherwise on the cancelling card. > > > there's probably a better way of phrasing that, but framing the passage in terms of resolved actions and providing a reminder that an unsuccessful action has still resolved could add greater clarity. additionally, a reminder that cancelled actions, which have not reached resolution are exempt from this rule unless otherwise stated (like change of target) > Well, actually, what you state is wrong. You can hunt any number of time in the same turn, you can rescue from torpor any number of time, you can even equip from your other minions any number of time. And on the other hand, you can't play a parity shift and a KRC in the same turn.

> Timo wrote: > > > self wrote: > > Regarding NRA, I feel that the passage in 6.1.6 could be amended as follows:[/i] > > > > > A minion cannot attempt an action of the same name or an Action provided by a card in play (including the minion's own card text) that has already resolved (successfully or unsuccessfully) for him that turn, even if he unlocks. Actions that are cancelled may be attempted again, unless stated otherwise on the cancelling card. > > > > > > > > there's probably a better way of phrasing that, but framing the passage in terms of resolved actions and providing a reminder that an unsuccessful action has still resolved could add greater clarity. additionally, a reminder that cancelled actions, which have not reached resolution are exempt from this rule unless otherwise stated (like change of target) > > > Well, actually, what you state is wrong. > > You can hunt any number of time in the same turn, you can rescue from torpor any number of time, you can even equip from your other minions any number of time. > > And on the other hand, you can't play a parity shift and a KRC in the same turn. > Please show me where I advocated for changing the exceptions made for actions taken to hunt, Rescue From Torpor, or Equipping from another minion. Please show me where I advocated for the removal of the restriction placed on Bleed actions and Political actions. For further clarity, I'm saying the last paragraph under 6.1.6 on page 13 of the Black Chantry rule book that states: > A minion cannot perform an action with the same action card more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. A minion cannot perform each action via the same card in play (including from the minion's own card text) more than once each turn, even if he unlocks. > could be amended to provide greater clarity as to how the no repeat actions rule works in general, as stated in my previous post. Indeed, at the very top of the next page in the rule book under 6.1.7 it reads: (emphasis from the rulebook) > 6.1.7. Political Action (+1 stealth) > A political action is an action that is used to call a referendum. It has a default +1 stealth and can only be taken by vampires (allies cannot call referendums). A political action is always undirected (see Who May Attempt to Block, sec. 6.2.2.1). A minion cannot perform more than one political action each turn. >

I think, bold emphasis is mine, that this is the problem that Timo was pointing out. > > self wrote: > > > A minion cannot attempt an action of the same name or an Action provided by a card in play (including the minion's own card text) that has already resolved (successfully or unsuccessfully) for him that turn, even if he unlocks. Actions that are cancelled may be attempted again, unless stated otherwise on the cancelling card. > > > Please show me where I advocated for changing the exceptions made for actions taken to hunt, Rescue From Torpor, or Equipping from another minion. > I think it's the dubious nature of "same name," which could be interpreted to mean hunt or rescue, or.... Not sure on a better wording, but I agree that a paragraph describing the NRA rule as you intend if a good move.

> kschaefer wrote: > I think, bold emphasis is mine, that this is the problem that Timo was pointing out. > > I think it's the dubious nature of "same name," which could be interpreted to mean hunt or rescue, or.... Not sure on a better wording, but I agree that a paragraph describing the NRA rule as you intend if a good move. > it's also an easy fix to drop the word 'card' into the text for further context and clarity. > A minion cannot attempt to play an action card of the same name or an Action provided by a card in play (including the minion's own card text) that has already resolved (successfully or unsuccessfully) for him that turn, even if he unlocks. Actions that are cancelled may be attempted again, unless stated otherwise on the cancelling card. >

Yes, it was the fact that you stated that card with the same name couldn't be repeated. I thought it was confusing (actually, it confused me ^^) and yes, adding the word "card" make it clearer.

There is nothing in the rulebook about the keyword "immune". Can I play frenzy cards on an immune to frenzy vampire? Can I play frenzy cards on myself in combat with an immune to frenzy vampire? If i'm immune to frenzy cards, can I play frenzy cards at all? If a minion is immune to damage, does damage counts as inflicted? Or he doesnt take any damage? If a minion has resilient mind, and I burn form of corruption on it, does the controlling methuselah still burns 1 pool? Can we get clearer on this on the rulebook or maybe, the cards? Just a reminder that seeds of corruption was banned for just be confusing on the same way. EDIT: fixed typos I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

Very good reminder on immune. Which is distinct form "Treats as normal" which does have a small paragraph at the end of 6.4.6. > Charles_Bronson wrote: > Just a reminder that seeds of corruption was banned for just be confusing on the same way. > This is because much in the same way that Requirement and Cost is poorly explained in the rulebook there is no rule/definition about "Vampire special abilities" Seeds of Corruption +1 stealth action. The vampire's special abilities cannot be used. Vampire special abilities are mentioned to exist in 1.5 but then never explained. In fact paragraph 6.1.3. Equip and 6.1.4. Employ Retainer go out of their way to confuse this even more: 6.1.3. Equip (+1 stealth) Equipment cards are action cards that give minions special abilities. (similar for Retainers) So "Seeds Of Corruption" Surpresses equipment cards attached to a vampire as well? But it doesn't surpress the title because i am playing a politics deck and i need my 4 Votes. But Lazvernius doesnt get his +2 strength because he already hurts too much with POT. And how about other permanents in play? Like a Repulsion?

Just a small thought I had when glancing the rulebook The term "heal damage" seems unusual/backwards as an effect that removes life tokens. My assumption (based on games, etc, prior) are the relations - take damage, remove, loose, shrink + heal damage, add, gain, grow I get it how it makes sense in context of vampires but it's not how I'd prefer describing it to a novice. The lore bit about spending blood to heal could perhaps be just that, some flavor text, rather then the name of the step?

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Very good reminder on immune. Which is distinct form "Treats as normal" which does have a small paragraph at the end of 6.4.6. > > > Charles_Bronson wrote: > > Just a reminder that seeds of corruption was banned for just be confusing on the same way. > > > This is because much in the same way that Requirement and Cost is poorly explained in the rulebook there is no rule/definition about "Vampire special abilities" > > Seeds of Corruption +1 stealth action. The vampire's special abilities cannot be used. > Vampire special abilities are mentioned to exist in 1.5 but then never explained. > > In fact paragraph 6.1.3. Equip and 6.1.4. Employ Retainer go out of their way to confuse this even more: > 6.1.3. Equip (+1 stealth) Equipment cards are action cards that give minions special abilities. > (similar for Retainers) > > So "Seeds Of Corruption" Surpresses equipment cards attached to a vampire as well? But it doesn't surpress the title because i am playing a politics deck and i need my 4 Votes. But Lazvernius doesnt get his +2 strength because he already hurts too much with POT. And how about other permanents in play? Like a Repulsion? > This is why I suggest BC look at the way FFG does their LCGs. What a keyword is is clearly defined, and a list of keywords is given. FFG's LCGs also make substantial (and interesting) use of subtypes. Then, cards can specifically reference 'keywords' or subtypes in the text box. For example, "while in combat, [name] loses the 'Retaliate' keyword." Likewise, FFG has this consistent card-effect that they've printed multiple times in different games, usually on a card that you put on an enemy: "Treat [that card] as though it's text-box were blank." I also had an argument discussion . . . talk with Ankha about what a keyword is or isn't. All of the titles (Prince, Bishop, Cardinal, etc.) are effectively keywords, but according to Ankha, VTES does not have keywords, only 'special terms', which titles aren't. I thought the use of '(Limited.)' in the Black Chantry cards was adoption of a new keyword, but Ankha assures me that Limited is not a keyword either, nor a special term, but is just a reminder that "no more bleed modifiers can be played this action." Which means that the word in reminder text (i.e. Limited) could have, and might need, it's own reminder text. Fun playing with traits (i.e. subtypes). Cancel a card's effects (compare to confusion about "cancel that card as it is played" in VTES.) Blanking printed text-boxes as a way of turning off special abilities. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

Just a reminder: Seeds of Corruption is banned for a reason. Until the new rulebook is out, at least. And Frozen Solid was far better before. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Just a reminder: Seeds of Corruption is banned for a reason. > Until the new rulebook is out, at least. > > And Frozen Solid was far better before. > I want Anthelious back!!! Make a change to its effect to consume all MPAs like: skip entirely master phase and MPAs to exchange a card master card from their hand with a master from ash heap. (skipping the master phase will prevent player to make more than one MPA and also will skip usage of many good effects in game like Blood Doll, Chantry and many others) or As the first MPA each turn a Metuselah can exchange a master card from their hand with a master card from their ash heap, if he or she do so they can not use more MPAs this turn. Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer Prince of Rio de Janeiro Powerbase Rio de Janeiro

The PDF rulebook on the BC site (Oct 1, 2018) does not contain the limited definition that the VEKN rulebook does and that was added in the Lost Kindred rules update.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > I cannot see why Tangle for one could not be rewritten for clarity, and cancelling action cards as they are played already has a spot on the rule book that could be amended. > > > > Some text changes here or there not to brake the rules just to have much clearer info on repeated actions clause seems like a small price to pay. > > > If you know the difference between "perform" and "attempt", then both are equally clear. > With the bump on this thread, it reminded me that I wanted to comment on this. when using the word "perform" to describe what you describe in the NRA section, it very strongly implies that the action was performed successfully. > per·form > /pərˈfôrm/ > verb > 1. carry out, accomplish, or fulfill (an action, task, or function). > "I have my duties to perform" > synonyms:carry out, do, execute, discharge, bring about, bring off, accomplish, achieve, fulfill, complete, conduct, effect, dispatch, work, implement; informal pull off; archaic acquit oneself of; rare effectuate > how many of us have heard a player say "But I didn't perform the action, I was blocked!" while teaching the game? Phrasing the NRA rule in a way that references action resolution instead would reinforce how the rule actually works. It is not very intuitive that a blocked action is still 'performed,' but it is much clearer to think that both a successful action and blocked action have reached resolution. This also makes it clearer that actions that are canceled do not reach resolution and can be attempted again.