Blood to water - when ?

Another question about timing... Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be played? When choosing range? When choosing strikes? When choosing additional strike (before those strikes are resolved?) Thanks Ian

ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) wrote: >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be >played? >Thanks >Ian Blood to Water may be played at any time in combat before strike resolution. (2nd round of combat notwithstanding) Before range can be chosen (a la Torn Signpost time) After Range is being argued about (as if it were a manuver card) After Range is Determined (a la Immortal Grapple) After Strike Declaration (Acting minion) After Strike Declaration (Reacting minion) BUT NOT after strike resolution, prevention, press starts. I'm fairly certain those are all the times that the card can be used. After the first strike has resolved you cannot play B2W, so between initial strike resolution and additional strike declaration would be an illegal time to play B2W (i.e. you could play cards which are not B2W in this time though) Hope this helps Stu

> Stuart J. Pieloch wrote: > >ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) wrote: > >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be > >played? > Blood to Water may be played at any time in combat before strike > resolution. (2nd round of combat notwithstanding) Not quite. Errata came about from the RTR that first said 1. B2W may not be used at long range. Then they said 2. B2W must be used after range is chosen. SO: > After Range is Determined (a la Immortal Grapple) > After Strike Declaration (Acting minion) > After Strike Declaration (Reacting minion) > BUT NOT after strike resolution, prevention, press starts. > I'm fairly certain those are all the times that the card can be used. > After the first strike has resolved you cannot play B2W, > so between initial strike resolution and additional strike declaration > would be an illegal time to play B2W (i.e. you could play cards which > are not B2W in this time though) Yeah. I think that once your first strike resoultion has passed, you are not allowed to play B2W because there might not be a second or third strike. It's like maneuvering with a 44 Magnum. You have to use the gun as your first strike, and even if you have sup. Celerity, you cannot use an Acrobatics as your first strike. -Nathan Harada

ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) writes: >Another question about timing... >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be >played? When choosing range? When choosing strikes? When choosing >additional strike (before those strikes are resolved?) Officially, from the error-prone Nov.96 rulings, it has errata that it can only be played after range is determined (and range is close). It cannot be played after strike resolution (including "before" resolving additional strikes) - until the next round, of course -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <5afa6r$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >Officially, from the error-prone Nov.96 rulings, it has errata that >it can only be played after range is determined (and range is close). > > I realise that you are only passing on the 'official' word but if you yourself admit that the rulings are error-prone then surely there is now a need for an 'un-official but I think that's what they really mean errata' that can be posted alongside the 'word of WotC' errata. We all trust you LSJ!! :) You can overturn these silly hand damage strike confusions etc. Otherwise we could be left in deep trouble with some silly rules if, for instance, WotC sever contact with all rule query debates. This in my opinion looks ever more likely. After all what have they got to gain in monetary terms by having one guy spending hours dealing with this group?? (Yes I know it's a silly question and they would have to have a very short term attitude to take this view - but who says they haven't got a hard headed short term business attitude?) Ian

ianb...@aol.com writes: >In article <5afa6r$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. >Scott Johnson) writes: >>Officially, from the error-prone Nov.96 rulings, it has errata that >>it can only be played after range is determined (and range is close). >I realise that you are only passing on the 'official' word but if you >yourself admit that the rulings are error-prone then surely there is now a >need for an 'un-official but I think that's what they really mean errata' >that can be posted alongside the 'word of WotC' errata. We all trust you >LSJ!! :) OK, well the errata (from the error-prone rulings) probably fits the "what they meant to say" school of supporting the game. They change card text to make B2W work the way the cardwriters intended. ("Before strike resolution" could easily be viewed as a poorly worded attempt at getting "just before strike resolution" timing into a card.) But, with most other cards, the common method of supporting the game is "play it as written". Therefore, "Before strike resolution" includes "before range is determined", and B2W should be playable at that time. I always read it as the latter, and was annoying when they issued that silly "only at close" errata, which had been reserved for "during strike resolution" effects (strike, retainers, etc.) - especially when that errata could be circumvented by playing B2W before range was set (since the round begins at close anyhow). The new ruling may be an attempt to validate the mis-guided "close range only" ruling, assuming that that ruling was made hastily by someone not noticing that B2W was not a "strike resolution" effect. Or, the new ruling may be an attempt to wrangle the card to work the way the writers intended. We play it the way it is written; but I no longer have a problem with the pair of errata that have been issued on it - so long as other cards (Concealed Weapon) are also errata'ed to work as intended. > You can overturn these silly hand damage strike confusions etc. I've posted my "ruling" on hand strikes before: Hnad Strike: any non-weapon strike that does damage based on the damage done by a non-range innate strike (hand strike). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Neurotic: http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Self-taut person. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> You can overturn these silly hand damage strike confusions etc. >I've posted my "ruling" on hand strikes before: >Hnad Strike: any non-weapon strike that does damage based on >the damage done by a non-range innate strike (hand strike). Wow, not only does he have his own rulings, but his own spellings too. ;-) Hopefully LSJ himself will find this most amusing since he just finished spell checking my html pages. A service that I greatly appreciated BTW. And a very great thanks to you Scott, for all the work you have done to keep this a sane and enjoyable game for those of us who like to play it. Stu [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19961230233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) wrote: >Another question about timing... > >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be >played? When choosing range? When choosing strikes? When choosing >additional strike (before those strikes are resolved?) Just take it literally: at *any* time before strike resolution (and after the block has been successful) Referring to my other post answering a question of yours this can be done from step 2. on. Michael -- Michael Gerdau email: m.ge...@elmshorn.netsurf.de 2b or not 2b that's ff (or ger...@ifm.uni-hamburg.de) WWW-Homepage http://elmshorn.netsurf.de/~m.gerdau PGP-key available on request or at public keyserver Key fingerprint = 1FA5AEC97D4EF476 E964D42685B60B4E

In article <32C923...@hula.net>, Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote: >> Stuart J. Pieloch wrote: >> >ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) wrote: >> >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be >> >played? >> Blood to Water may be played at any time in combat before strike >> resolution. (2nd round of combat notwithstanding) > > Not quite. Errata came about from the RTR that first said >1. B2W may not be used at long range. Then they said 2. B2W must be >used after range is chosen. SO: Weren't these Errata (at least the later) issued in the very same statement that also contained two contradictory statements regarding Rotschreck ? My understaning is that the official RTR's of late have been crap and were published without thinking of the consequences for the rest of the game. Especially when compared to Cauldron of Blood this ruling makes B2W wallpaper (IMO). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 19:58:34 +0200, m.ge...@elmshorn.netsurf.de (Michael Gerdau) wrote: >In article <32C923...@hula.net>, Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote: >>> Stuart J. Pieloch wrote: >>> >ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) wrote: >>> >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be >>> >played? >>> Blood to Water may be played at any time in combat before strike >>> resolution. (2nd round of combat notwithstanding) >> >> Not quite. Errata came about from the RTR that first said >>1. B2W may not be used at long range. Then they said 2. B2W must be >>used after range is chosen. SO: > >Weren't these Errata (at least the later) issued in the very same statement >that also contained two contradictory statements regarding Rotschreck ? > >My understaning is that the official RTR's of late have been crap and >were published without thinking of the consequences for the rest of the >game. Especially when compared to Cauldron of Blood this ruling makes >B2W wallpaper (IMO). It can't be dodged, an S:CE won't avoid it, and it can't be prevented. Oh, and it can be played in multiples too. Wallpaper? BtW is _still_ ridiculous, even as a second round only card; it just isn't as unjustifiably overpowered as it was before the errata/ruling, what have you. Not that the Tremere don't need the boost after you ban all the _broken/extremely overpowered_ cards they have (Seeds of Corruption, Ankara Citadel, about 1/4 of their existing vampires), but still, in comparison to other means of messing people up, I'd use it any day. Alec Chang

st...@atl.mindspring.com (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >>Hnad Strike: any non-weapon strike that does damage based on >>the damage done by a non-range innate strike (hand strike). >Wow, not only does he have his own rulings, but his own spellings too. >;-) >Hopefully LSJ himself will find this most amusing since he just >finished spell checking my html pages. Of course. I don't know how to type, and use a 6-fingered method that I've grown into. My hands are all over the place. I frequently transpose letters because of this. Also, my keyboard is wired in such a way that it will not take a key-down event in some cases if the previous two keys haven't been released yet. This sometimes results in a dropped letter at the end of a word. >A service that I greatly appreciated BTW. >And a very great thanks to you Scott, for all the work you have done >to keep this a sane and enjoyable game for those of us who like to >play it. Thanks for the accolades. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * - Tribble http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | (-*-) - Darth Tribble in his Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | TIE Fighter

m.ge...@elmshorn.netsurf.de (Michael Gerdau) writes: >In article <32C923...@hula.net>, Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote: >>> Stuart J. Pieloch wrote: >>> >ianb...@aol.com (Ian batty) wrote: >>> >Blood to water says play before strike resolution. When exactly can it be >>> >played? >>> Blood to Water may be played at any time in combat before strike >>> resolution. (2nd round of combat notwithstanding) >> >> Not quite. Errata came about from the RTR that first said >>1. B2W may not be used at long range. Then they said 2. B2W must be >>used after range is chosen. SO: >Weren't these Errata (at least the later) issued in the very same statement >that also contained two contradictory statements regarding Rotschreck ? The latter was. The former came about during Shawn's term, IIRC. >My understaning is that the official RTR's of late have been crap and >were published without thinking of the consequences for the rest of the >game. Especially when compared to Cauldron of Blood this ruling makes >B2W wallpaper (IMO). Well, Cauldron can be circumvented with a Dodge or S:CE or damage prevention, while B2W cannot. B2W can also be combined with Walk of Flame (without resorting to celerity strikes). [ quoted text not captured ]

te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: >It can't be dodged, an S:CE won't avoid it, and it can't be prevented. >Oh, and it can be played in multiples too. Wallpaper? BtW is >_still_ ridiculous, even as a second round only card; it just isn't as >unjustifiably overpowered as it was before the errata/ruling, what >have you. The errata doesn't reduce the power of B2W in any real way. If it was "unjustifiably overpowered" before, it is still so now. I don't think it is overly powerful, either way. [ quoted text not captured ]