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?

this section of the rule book should be amended

The Rule Book 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 biased wrote: this section of the rule book should be amended

The Rule Book 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.