Strike-based maneuvers: Errata conflict?

Greetings! I'd like to get a bit of clarification on strike-based maneuvers, and when they can and can not be used. I think I may have run into an inconsistency with one of Wylie's old rulings in the errata list. { gasp! shock! horror! ;) Back in February, I asked a question about Hidden Lurker, and on 2/20/97, LSJ answered it thusly: >> [2] Hidden Lurker: When used, the blocking minion can not use any >> strikes in the first round of combat. Does this also preclude the >> blocking minion from using a weapon's maneuver? > > Yes. No strike-based maneuvers are possible for the blocker. In LSJ's monthly list of V:tES errata and rulings, note the entry for Immortal Grapple. This card includes a ruling from Tom Wylie dated 12/17/95 that reads: > If a minion is commited to using a strike other than a hand strike > (e.g., used a maneuver from a gun), then he gets no strike. Tom's ruling would imply that you *can* use a weapon's maneuver even though the strike from that same weapon is prohibited. This seems to be in conflict with LSJ's statement about Hidden Lurker. If LSJ's more recent ruling is the correct one (it gets my vote, anyway!), Tom's ruling about Immortal Grapple should probably be removed from the errata list. Thanks muchly, Eric -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Eric Tullis wrote: > > Greetings! > > I'd like to get a bit of clarification on strike-based maneuvers, > and when they can and can not be used. I think I may have run into > an inconsistency with one of Wylie's old rulings in the errata list. > { gasp! shock! horror! ;) > > Back in February, I asked a question about Hidden Lurker, and on > 2/20/97, LSJ answered it thusly: > > >> [2] Hidden Lurker: When used, the blocking minion can not use any > >> strikes in the first round of combat. Does this also preclude the > >> blocking minion from using a weapon's maneuver? > > > > Yes. No strike-based maneuvers are possible for the blocker. > > In LSJ's monthly list of V:tES errata and rulings, note the entry for > Immortal Grapple. This card includes a ruling from Tom Wylie dated > 12/17/95 that reads: > > > If a minion is commited to using a strike other than a hand strike > > (e.g., used a maneuver from a gun), then he gets no strike. > > Tom's ruling would imply that you *can* use a weapon's maneuver even > though the strike from that same weapon is prohibited. This seems to > be in conflict with LSJ's statement about Hidden Lurker. > > If LSJ's more recent ruling is the correct one (it gets my vote, > anyway!), Tom's ruling about Immortal Grapple should probably be > removed from the errata list. There is no conflict. Under HL, you cannot maneuver with a strike-based maneuver because you have no strike. You know this at the time because HL is played before the maneuver can be used. However, Grapple cannot be played until range has been determined (after any maneuvers have been played), so cannot prevent a strike-based maneuver from being used, since the strike-based maneuver will be played before Grapple can be played. If 1) a minion uses a strike-based maneuver and 2) combat is at close and 3) Immortal Grapple is played and 4) the strike used for the maneuver is not a hand strike then the minion who played the strike-based maneuver is restricted to using that (non-hand) strike, but prohibited from using any non-hand strike. So he is stuck and cannot strike at all. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > Under HL, you cannot maneuver with a strike-based maneuver because > you have no strike. You know this at the time because HL is played > before the maneuver can be used. > > However, Grapple cannot be played until range has been determined > (after any maneuvers have been played), so cannot prevent a > strike-based maneuver from being used, since the strike-based > maneuver will be played before Grapple can be played. Thank you. This makes perfect sense. I didn't take the time to look at the *sequence* of events that occur when using each card. I was focussing way too much on raw card text, and by doing so took the cards out of their practical context. Thanks again! Eric -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jennifer Tincher ... Eric Tullis ... Jen...@iquest.net =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=