LSJ Rulings and Errata posting

LSJ wrote: " Non-weapon strikes are hand strikes. [RTR 961113] !NEW! Damage from weapons based on hand damage is still hand damage. [JON 961118] !NEW!" I am still completely dubious as to the authenticity of these "Rulings". Both of these statements were off the cuff comments by Jon, not on the "Official Ruling from Rules Team" post. The "Damage from weapons is still hand damage" comment was specifically contradicted by Jon himself in multiple places (in one post he wrote "Damage from weapons is not hand damage" and then in another post he wrote "Damage from weapons is hand damage"), thereby nullifying any weight of that statement. The "Non weapon strikes are hand strikes" comment, again, was a non-official reply from Jon, presumably based upon a misunderstanding. To attribute "Official Rulings" to individual statements written by Jon, and not posts under the heading of "Official Rulings from the Rules Team" is an iffy thing to do, as he has clearly indicated that his role is not that of a rules reference (like Tom was), but instead that of a courier who brings questions to the rules team and brings answers back. As far as I can remember, to this point there has been one post of "Official Ruings from the Rules Team" brought back by Jon, and the two aformentioned points were not clearly stated within. Not to say that I don't appreciate Jon's position as one of a message courier, but that is clearly his role. I feel it is inadvisable to take his (few and far between) word as law. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Now, maybe there will be some peace and quiet in this place." -Yojimbo

pd...@aol.com writes: >LSJ wrote: >" Non-weapon strikes are hand strikes. [RTR 961113] !NEW! > Damage from weapons based on hand damage is still hand damage. [JON >961118] !NEW!" >I am still completely dubious as to the authenticity of these "Rulings". As am I. >Both of these statements were off the cuff comments by Jon, not on the >"Official Ruling from Rules Team" post. No. The one cited to the RTR is from the RTR. >The "Damage from weapons is still >hand damage" comment was specifically contradicted by Jon himself in >multiple places (in one post he wrote "Damage from weapons is not hand >damage" and then in another post he wrote "Damage from weapons is hand >damage"), thereby nullifying any weight of that statement. The "Non >weapon strikes are hand strikes" comment, again, was a non-official reply >from Jon, presumably based upon a misunderstanding. I only use the statements from Jon when he is acting in an official capacity. When he gives his opinions as such, I treat them accordingly. >To attribute "Official Rulings" to individual statements written by Jon, >and not posts under the heading of "Official Rulings from the Rules Team" >is an iffy thing to do, as he has clearly indicated that his role is not >that of a rules reference (like Tom was), but instead that of a courier When Tom made contradicting statements (Like the directability of GtU), I treated his statements the same way. Just because Jon makes rulings that seem implausible doesn't mean that his rulings are any less official. >who brings questions to the rules team and brings answers back. As far as >I can remember, to this point there has been one post of "Official Ruings >from the Rules Team" brought back by Jon, and the two aformentioned points >were not clearly stated within. Not to say that I don't appreciate Jon's >position as one of a message courier, but that is clearly his role. I >feel it is inadvisable to take his (few and far between) word as law. That will have to be taken up with WotC. His role is exactly the same as Tom's role was when Tom served this group. I include Mr. Wilkie's seemingly erroneous rulings in my list becuase they are the official rulings - or at least they have been presented as such by the appointed giver of official information. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker

> >LSJ wrote: > >" Non-weapon strikes are hand strikes. [RTR 961113] !NEW! > > Damage from weapons based on hand damage is still hand damage. [JON > >961118] !NEW!" > >I am still completely dubious as to the authenticity of these "Rulings". So what is the current (possibly temporary) status of this ruling? Are weapons based on hand damage inflicting Hand Damage? Able to be modified with say Wolfs Claws? > When Tom made contradicting statements (Like the directability of GtU), > I treated his statements the same way. Could you elaborate on this? I missed this ruling. What do you mean by "the directability of GtU"? Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> >LSJ wrote: >> >" Non-weapon strikes are hand strikes. [RTR 961113] !NEW! >> > Damage from weapons based on hand damage is still hand damage. [JON >> >961118] !NEW!" >> >I am still completely dubious as to the authenticity of these "Rulings". >So what is the current (possibly temporary) status of this ruling? Are >weapons based on hand damage inflicting Hand Damage? Able to be modified >with say Wolfs Claws? Currently, any strike that isn't a ranged strike and isn't a weapon strike is a hand strike. From: Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Weekly Rulings, Volume 1 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:27:49 -0800 Message-ID: <WotCCST-1311...@w11-63.wizards.com> QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming). CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword, Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)? ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is. (Note the CLARIFICATION part of the question. Reduced to minimalist form, the Q&A is: Q: What card text denotes a "hand strike"? A: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. As a ruling, this leads to the [RTR 961113] part of the summary. In addition, Jon extended the ruling so as to exclude ranged-strikes: From: Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: Weekly Rulings, Volume 1 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:05:10 -0800 Message-ID: <WotCCST-1511...@w11-63.wizards.com> > >ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang > >Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is. > > Again: What text denotes a hand strike? > > By the above "answer", I could assume that Blood Rage is a hand strike. > (That is, it doesn't involve a weapon). You would be correct. As far as I know, there is no specific wording that denotes a Hand Strike. If the strike is at short range, and does not involve a weapon, it is to be considered a Hand Strike. The "As far as I know" text does not denote an opinion, as some people apparently believe, but rather, denotes that this is the official rule to the best of our official Net.Rep's knowledge. 'AFAIK' is not the same as 'IMHO'. >> When Tom made contradicting statements (Like the directability of GtU), >> I treated his statements the same way. >Could you elaborate on this? I missed this ruling. What do you mean by >"the directability of GtU"? Superior GtU had enjoyed a short-lived status of being able to put blood (influence) on a "younger" vampire in someone else's uncontrolled region. To add salt to the wounded ruling, it was ruled that such use of GtU did not constitute a directed action, by virtue of a missing (D) symbol on the GtU card text (and the fact that the uncontrolled region doesn't qualify under the definition of a directed action - for us purists who don't view the (D) symbol as anything but a reminder). In the ensuing discussion regarding the validity of such a ruling, Tom was forced into a position of stating that no actions were directed in some cases and undirected in others based soley on the controller of the target (a statement in direct opposition to rulebook text regarding the diablerie action). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <01bbe5e7$ad6e1760$0758...@Chris.apdi.net>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> >LSJ wrote: >> >" Non-weapon strikes are hand strikes. [RTR 961113] !NEW! >> > Damage from weapons based on hand damage is still hand damage. [JON >> >961118] !NEW!" >> >I am still completely dubious as to the authenticity of these "Rulings". So am I... > > >So what is the current (possibly temporary) status of this ruling? Are weapons based on hand damage inflicting Hand >Damage? Able to be modified >with say Wolfs Claws? Taking the rulings as law, Yes. Also Thetmes or Basillia with a bastard sword does 2 agg damage! Surely this is wrong, especially as in the AH rulings sheet it specifically states that Bang nahk are NOT hand strikes. Surely this is a contridiction as they are all Melee weapons? I feel that this ruling should be ignored until completely clarified. What do you reckon SLJ? LOS

Lord of Shadows (MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk) wrote: : In article <01bbe5e7$ad6e1760$0758...@Chris.apdi.net>, : >So what is the current (possibly temporary) status of this : >ruling? Are weapons based on hand damage inflicting Hand : >Damage? Able to be modified with say Wolfs Claws? : Taking the rulings as law, Yes. Surely this is wrong... : Surely this is a contridiction as they are all Melee weapons? : I feel that this ruling should be ignored until completely : clarified. What do you reckon SLJ? : LOS Yes, the ruling is inane. However, according to WotC, those rulings are law. Now then, if there had been a clarification/correction a week after that ruling was made (which would have been the first opportunity), then everything would be ok. However, WotC (most likely through omission) has not made such a clarification, and until we hear otherwise, it will stand as the OFFICIAL ruling. Let's face it, LSJ can say whatever he wants (as can we), but when it comes down to it, he (and we) are not official sources. And so, until WotC responds, we must make a HOUSE RULE to force hand strikes to be hand strikes, and weapon strikes to be weapon strikes, and dodges to be neither... Sheesh, this game is really going down the crapper. -spongy

MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of Shadows) writes: >In article <01bbe5e7$ad6e1760$0758...@Chris.apdi.net>, > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >>> >LSJ wrote: >>> >" Non-weapon strikes are hand strikes. [RTR 961113] !NEW! >>> > Damage from weapons based on hand damage is still hand >damage. [JON >>> >961118] !NEW!" >>> >I am still completely dubious as to the authenticity of >these "Rulings". >So am I... >>So what is the current (possibly temporary) status of this >ruling? Are weapons based on hand damage inflicting Hand >>Damage? Able to be modified >>with say Wolfs Claws? >Taking the rulings as law, Yes. Also Thetmes or Basillia with >a bastard sword does 2 agg damage! Surely this is wrong, >especially as in the AH rulings sheet it specifically states >that Bang nahk are NOT hand strikes. Surely this is a These rulings clearly state that weapon strikes are not hand strikes, so Basilia with a Sword deals only 2 damage. And Bang Nahk are still not hand strikes. The ruling is in error in that other (non-weapon strikes) like Majesty and Blood Fury are hand strikes when, clearly, they are not. >contridiction as they are all Melee weapons? I feel that this >ruling should be ignored until completely clarified. What do >you reckon SLJ? Yes it should be clarified. (Reversed/errataed/overturned, actually). The eventual "correct" ruling will be along the lines of: Hand strike: Any non-weapon, non-ranged strike which is based on hand damage, or any inherent, non-ranged strike. But, for now, this is not the official ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <58rvl9$r...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >The eventual "correct" ruling will be along the lines of: > >Hand strike: >Any non-weapon, non-ranged strike which is based on hand damage, >or any inherent, non-ranged strike. This would mean that Burning Wrath and Scorpion Sting are hand strikes, which I don't think they were intended to be. I think that a strike that is a hand strike should have the following template: Strike: Use your hand [or melee weapon] at +x damage. With the [or melee weapon] text being optional, of course. Thus, if they wanted to make Burning Wrath a hand strike, they could say: Strike: Use your hand at +2 aggravated hand damage. Judy -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> "You boys aren't drunk. You're just stupid." - Beavis & Butt-Head <> <> jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

>These rulings clearly state that weapon strikes are not hand strikes, >so Basilia with a Sword deals only 2 damage. And Bang Nahk >are still not hand strikes. The RULEBOOK declares that hand strikes is the damage not dealt by a weapon or a card. It aslo declares that if a card says anything else, then the card go over the rules. At last it declares that "Hand damage modifiers" affects hand strikes with melee weapons. With the rulebook you CAN do aggrevated damage with Bang Nakh on thetmes, you CAN not use Theft of Vitae or Bank Nakh under an Immortal Grapple, and you can use undead strentgh on Bank Nakh. However, it doesnt say anything about the difference between hand strike with no card, hand strike with card or melee weapon strike with card. With an rule errata that melee weapons is not hand strikes, it says exaclty what the rule book says, and it doesnt affect the rule that "Hand Damage modifiers affect melee weapons". >The ruling is in error in that other (non-weapon strikes) like >Majesty and Blood Fury are hand strikes when, clearly, they are not. The funny thing is that there are two cards involving "Hand strikes" that must be satisfied with the same rule. Immortal Grapple is not satisfied when you cant use Brass Knuckles, Wolf Claws are not satisfied when you CAN use Brass Knuckles. Adding more blood like to say that "Theft Of Vitae is a non ranged, non weapon strike, so its hand damage" then you can use wolf claws on it.... >Yes it should be clarified. (Reversed/errataed/overturned, actually). >The eventual "correct" ruling will be along the lines of: >Hand strike: >Any non-weapon, non-ranged strike which is based on hand damage, >or any inherent, non-ranged strike. >But, for now, this is not the official ruling. Hand Strike: Any non-weapon strike that declare anything about the use of hands.

>Taking the rulings as law, Yes. Also Thetmes or Basillia with >a bastard sword does 2 agg damage! Surely this is wrong, >especially as in the AH rulings sheet it specifically states >that Bang nahk are NOT hand strikes. Surely this is a >contridiction as they are all Melee weapons? I feel that this >ruling should be ignored until completely clarified. What do >you reckon SLJ? "Bang Nakh is not not considered hand strikes" is the most annoying errata I have seen. It doesn't only contradict the rulebook about melee Weapon, it also ONLY declare BANG NAKH as no hand damage. The rulebook still declares that if you do not use a special card or a weapon as you strike, your strike is a hand strike. Also I havn't really understood the latest rule about "All non range - non weapon strike are hand strikes". Then Immortal Grapple could only be used to stop ranged strikes and weapons... Also the rule about "XR" and hand strikes on allys sucks.

staffan.bengtsson wrote: > > "Bang Nakh is not not considered hand strikes" is the most annoying errata > I have seen. It doesn't only contradict the rulebook about melee Weapon, > it also ONLY declare BANG NAKH as no hand damage. Actually, no. Bastard Sword, Brass Kanukles, Meat Cleaver, Sengir Dagger... all of these are melee weapons, and none of them deal "hand damage". > The rulebook still declares that if you do not use a special card or a > weapon as you strike, your strike is a hand strike. Here you give the exact reason why Bang Nakh and others are not hand strikes: because you are using a weapon. James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"

In article <1847.6922...@mailbox.swipnet.se>, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: > > >These rulings clearly state that weapon strikes are not hand strikes, > >so Basilia with a Sword deals only 2 damage. And Bang Nahk > >are still not hand strikes. > > The RULEBOOK declares that hand strikes is the damage not dealt by a > weapon or a card. > It aslo declares that if a card says anything else, then the card go > over the rules. > At last it declares that "Hand damage modifiers" affects hand strikes with > melee weapons. > With the rulebook you CAN do aggrevated damage with Bang Nakh on thetmes, No, because Thetmes' hand damage is aggravated, but this is not a hand damage modifier. It is a "damage-from-hand-strike" modifier. > you CAN not use Theft of Vitae or Bank Nakh under an Immortal Grapple, > and you can use undead strentgh on Bank Nakh. True and true, and true. > >The ruling is in error in that other (non-weapon strikes) like > >Majesty and Blood Fury are hand strikes when, clearly, they are not. > > The funny thing is that there are two cards involving "Hand strikes" that must > be satisfied with the same rule. > Immortal Grapple is not satisfied when you cant use Brass Knuckles, > Wolf Claws are not satisfied when you CAN use Brass Knuckles. Wolf Claws is another example of a "damage-from-hand-strike" modifier. You cannot use Brass Knuckles when IG is in effect, and you cannot use Wolf Claws to modify the damage done by Brass Knuckles. > Adding more blood like to say that "Theft Of Vitae is a non ranged, non weapon > strike, so its hand damage" then you can use wolf claws on it.... True, which won't have any effect (making a non-damaing strike aggravated), but is still evidence of an improper ruling. > >Yes it should be clarified. (Reversed/errataed/overturned, actually). > > >The eventual "correct" ruling will be along the lines of: > > >Hand strike: > >Any non-weapon, non-ranged strike which is based on hand damage, > >or any inherent, non-ranged strike. > > >But, for now, this is not the official ruling. > > Hand Strike: > Any non-weapon strike that declare anything about the use of hands. This is merely a less-clear version of the longer version I suggested. What are Blood Rage, Scorpion Strike, etc. under your proposed rule? --- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Confidence occurs when you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | are ignorant of the facts. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <58s7qd$a...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>, jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) wrote: > > In article <58rvl9$r...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, > L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > > >The eventual "correct" ruling will be along the lines of: > > > >Hand strike: > >Any non-weapon, non-ranged strike which is based on hand damage, > >or any inherent, non-ranged strike. > > This would mean that Burning Wrath and Scorpion Sting are hand strikes, > which I don't think they were intended to be. Neither do I, but WotC (Tom and Shawn) say that they are hand strikes. I would prefer a general ruling that excluded these two from the "hand strike" domain. But that's not where the official rule will end up, judging by current trends. > I think that a strike that is a hand strike should have the following > template: > > Strike: Use your hand [or melee weapon] at +x damage. > > With the [or melee weapon] text being optional, of course. > > Thus, if they wanted to make Burning Wrath a hand strike, they could say: > > Strike: Use your hand at +2 aggravated hand damage. Excellent work. Too bad you aren't part of the development team (they could really use someone who knows how to implement a template). [ quoted text not captured ]