Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added some of the v5 1.1 rulings. #775

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Stolas
Copy link
Contributor

@Stolas Stolas commented Feb 28, 2024

Note that the v5 1.1 rulings dont have a permalink (yet).
And fixed a typo.

@the1andonlime
Copy link

The only way you can fix the check for "RBK 20200701-10" is either by changing the GHA, or by add a "0" in front of all the single digit sub-listings (which will break all existing references to any of them)

@lionel-panhaleux
Copy link
Owner

lionel-panhaleux commented Mar 19, 2024

There are in fact multiple ways to order things. Especially considering numbers. You have to make sure the plugin/tool you're using to sort uses the exact same sort as the check does. If it's not the case, you have to modify the order by hand to "make it work". The sorting works consistently if you use the tools indicated in the README file: the check uses yamllint and the order depends on the locale env variable you're using. It should be eu_US.UTF-8.
I personally use Benny's Sort Everything VSC plugin in dev, and it's consistent, if that helps.

@lionel-panhaleux
Copy link
Owner

This now needs a rebase, sorry (can't commit to your master branch to fix this)

@lionel-panhaleux
Copy link
Owner

If that's alright with you, I'll take your branch as a base and modify and commit it.
I'd like us to use located hyperlinks for "rulebook rulings", pointing to the web/http version of the rulebook (the http living rules) rather than a PDF people have to search through. see the RBK ruling links.

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
---
100001|.44 Magnum:
- Provides only only maneuver each combat, even if the bearer changes. [LSJ 19980302-2]
- Provides only one maneuver each combat, even if the bearer changes. [LSJ 19980302-2]
- If you use the maneuver provided by this gun during the determine range step, you are committed to use the strike it provides (2R damage). [BCH 20240228]
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we want to add this, it needs to be added to all the weapons and strikes that provide a maneuver. I'd rather not include dozens of rulings when it's covered by the rulebook. IMHO this should be removed.

@@ -196,6 +197,7 @@
- The burn option can be used if all your vampires with [mal] are in torpor. [LSJ 20091203]
100135|The Barrens:
- Cannot be used when a card is played to draw a card that would cancel it "as it is played". [RTR 20040501]
- This card can be used at any time (including in combat) if you are in a dire need of a more useful card. [BCH 20240228]
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I fail to see a relevant sentence in the rulebook. A located hyperlink to the web/http version might help

@@ -2722,6 +2725,7 @@
- Must be played after the presses are handled and can be played if the round ends prematurely. [RTR 20001020] [LSJ 20001024] [RTR 20030519]
- Can be played before or after effects that are played at the end of the round or "when the combat would end" (eg. [AUS] {Telepathic Tracking}). Can be played after [CEL] {Psyche!} [LSJ 20021113] [ANK 20191219] [ANK 20180910-1]
- Can be played if the opponent was burned. [LSJ 20031201-2]
- You can play it if the opposing vampire has not lost any blood to "cycle". [BCH 20240228]
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I fail to see a relevant sentence in the rulebook. A located hyperlink to the web/http version might help

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

image

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, I see. It's PDF-only T.T

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep I noticed this. Maybe we should wait with merging and ask Vincent to update the github.
Then we refer to github as the permalink (since we can use the revision and line).

@@ -2957,6 +2961,7 @@
- "[val], [VAL] Does not prevent the opponent from dodging, the dodge just has no effect. [LSJ 20030902-2] [LSJ 20060808-1]"
102113|Vessel:
- Can be used when the vampire is in torpor. [PIB 20150522]
- Burning a Blood Doll is optional. If you wish to do so, you must announce it when playing the card, before replacing it. [BCH 20240228]
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AFAIK the rulebook makes no explicit provision on whether a non-chosen optional effect should be considered yielded if not announced before the replacement. Sounds very much like a tournament ruling that would need a dedicated RD link. Something that explicitly states "you yield your chance to burn a Blood Doll if you don't announce it before replacing the card".
Note that I agree it's the case, but I don't think a rulebook link is enough.
As a rule of thumb, I would say we should not allowed ourselves to interpret the rulebook and card text to infer a ruling. Only the RD (and, in a tournament, judges) can do that. Our job as this DB maintainers is to record and sort things to make them accessible.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

image

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I copied everything directly from the rulebook 1.1
No self interpretation is done, there is no permalink (as the Google-discussions) for these docs this was the best I could come up with.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lionel-panhaleux
Copy link
Owner

Note that the v5 1.1 rulings dont have a permalink (yet)
They do now ☺︎

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants