LSJ#
On VTES-L, Johnny Tullner writes:
> Holy crap, I just read every article in deja news about Blood to Water.
> I was trying to track down the origin of the 2 "changes" to the card for
> a friend wanting to use it...
>
> My first source of the changes was LSJ's official rulings/etc.
>
> The errata page contained 1 entry, that BtW was only usable after range
> was determined.
>
> The rulings page contained 1 entry, that BtW was not usable at range.
> I found this mighty confusing, as I didn't see how to arrive at such a ruling
> from the card text (or seeming intent).
The idea was that since it didn't say "ranged", it wasn't effective
at long range.
> Thus begins my reading of 80+ articles...
>
> I tracked down that the "not usable at range" ruling came first, in fact.
> It was issued by Tom, and shortly thereafter he corrected it as errata,
> not a ruling. That change oughta be made to the LSJ lists, ie move it
> from the rulings to errata page...
Yes. I had glossed over that change - having forgotten the reason
that it was errata and not a ruling (i.e., that since B2W is not
a strike, it needn't say "ranged" to be usable at long range).
> An equally important question is why? I saw you, LSJ, repost this as
> a list of questions about 20 times (in fact I recalled when you were
> angrily posting them at the time ;). A number of people seem of the
> opinion that the changes are well-deserved for balance reasons, but
> I don't see that the other reps or you addressed the official reason.
The official reason was that it didn't say "ranged". For some reason,
that meant that is couldn't be used at long range. And then *that*
meant that it was ony usable *immediately* before strike resolution
(the latter probably being the actual intent anyhow).
> I also found this quote from you, LSJ; it confuses me:
>
> > No errata has been issued on Blood to Water.
> >
> > One ruling has been made:
> > It is only usable /immediately/ before strike resolution, and
> > therefore only if the round is at close range (since it doesn't
> > say "ranged").
>
> You have 1 errata and 1 ruling listed for it, and the last official
> word I found was that they are both errata?
Oops. Sorry about that. My statement was incorrect (well, about the
exact nature of the current status of the card - the specified effect
was correct).
> Also, I am curious where, when, and why you drew conclusion(s)
> concerning the rulings/etc. This seems to be a leap, the last posts
> you made on the subject were either questioning the rulings, or
> accepted as part of your summaries.
Sorry - just wasn't thinking clearly that day, apparently.
Anyway - I'll put B2W on the list for RT review. Thanks for all
the research.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html