Samson (acting) is in combat with Sabrina.
Samson: Concealed Weapon/Saturday Night Special. No more pre-range.
Sabrina: No pre-range.
Samson: Maneuver long with gun.
Sabrina: No maneuver.
Samson: 1R with gun.
Sabrina: Wave (Sabrina has a Majesty in hand, but decides not to play it.)
Samson: Modify with Dragon's Breath Rounds.
Should Samson have used DBR before Sabrina chose her strike, or is this play valid?
Relevant texts:
Dragon's Breath Rounds
Ammo.
Only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. This gun inflicts +2 aggravated damage each strike for the remainder of this combat. Burn the gun after strike resolution. No more than one ammo card can be used on a gun each combat.
Advocate of Good-looking Deck Posts
pulledfangs.blogspot.com :vtes: Manila V:tES
The gun's strike has NOT been resolved until both minions have chosen their strikes AND both minions have declined to modify their strikes.
So DBR is legal after the declaration of the strike but before resolution of the strike (in a similar window to modying with Wolf Claws).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> CryWolf wrote:
> Samson (acting) is in combat with Sabrina.
>
> Samson: Concealed Weapon/Saturday Night Special. No more pre-range.
> Sabrina: No pre-range.
> Samson: Maneuver long with gun.
> Sabrina: No maneuver.
> Samson: 1R with gun.
> Sabrina: Wave (Sabrina has a Majesty in hand, but decides not to play it.)
> Samson: Modify with Dragon's Breath Rounds.
>
> Should Samson have used DBR before Sabrina chose her strike, or is this play valid?
>
Not only is it a valid play, but it is also the only possible play of the ammo card. [LSJ 20090323] (DBR isn't plyable before the opponent's strike is declared). This is due to the cardtext: "only usable before" .
On the other side, Wolf Claws doesn't have such a cardtext.
Wolf Claws thus is playable before range is determined, during the determine range step, when choosing strikes, after strikes are chosen and before they are resolved (and any of these would affect the handstrike).
You can play it during strike resolution, but it won't retroactively change the hand damage to aggravated [LSJ 19951005]
Wolf Claws
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Protean
[pro] For the remainder of the round, this vampire's hand damage is aggravated.
[PRO] Press.
The wording is not very intuitive.
From a logic viewpoint, "only usable before X" meanst that you can use it anytime before X, but not after X.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
Pascal,
To be honest, I can't see a good reason why you should not be able to play DBR at the same time you declare the strike since that point is also "Before Strike Resolution" but is simultaneous to your Strike Declaration.
Is this a quirk of Impulse and Strike Declaration??
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
I fixed the link above.
>
> LSJ wrote:
> No. It is only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. As in "immediately before".
>
See also: Immortal Grapple isn't played in the "before range" step, even though we are, by default, at close range in this step.
> Pascal wrote:
> I fixed the link above.
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > No. It is only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. As in "immediately before".
> >
> See also: Immortal Grapple isn't played in the "before range" step, even though we are, by default, at close range in this step.
>
LSJ clarified: *immediatly before*. That is not the same as *before*. If text means *immediatly before*, it should really say so. It is not intuitive at all. Immortal Grapple is another beast, cause it can only be used at close range *before* strikes are chosen, which leaves a very narrow timing window.
Why do Ammo cards have to behave differently to Wolf Claws (et.al)? Both modifiy the damage from the strike. It would be good to have them work the same.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
Would it be clearer if it said: "Only usable before resolving a gun's strike" ?
I don't think it's necessary to indicate "immediately" or "just before".
"The man put his hat on before going outside." implies that immediate sequencing. He didn't put his hat on hours before going out.
The "only usable" part also stresses the moment the card must be played.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Sorry guys but what are you talking about? What difference is it to wait for the declaration of the opponent's strike and play then the ammocard compared to play it at one's own strike declaration? I mean what difference for a smooth flow of the game? Please enlighten me of an instance where it matters.
Baron of Frankfurt
> Joscha wrote:
> Sorry guys but what are you talking about? What difference is it to wait for the declaration of the opponent's strike and play then the ammocard compared to play it at one's own strike declaration? I mean what difference for a smooth flow of the game? Please enlighten me of an instance where it matters.
>
Big difference, let me explain:
You have guns on 3 minions, but only 1 DBR (dragon breath rounds) in hand.
You rush a minion and say, my strike is gun, what is yours? opponent plays majesty.
You rush again, say my stike is gun, whas is yours? opponent plays dodge.
You rush a third time, you say my strike is gun, whas is yours? opponent is out of majesty and strikes:handstrike, since there is no majesty or dodge, you modify with DBR and send opponent to torpor.
If you declared DBR before strikes you would have used DBR on the first rush and maybe not had it for later once the combat ends were finished.
Ivan - Maybe this?
Yes sure, that is the way you play it and a big advantage, right. Now guys above complain why they shouldn't be allowed to play it when choosing their strike, before the opponent's strike. Of what use should that be?
Baron of Frankfurt
If you know (or suspect) that your opponent will be playing Majesty, you might want to play Dragons Breath to cycle it without losing your gun (as the strike will never resolve). You can't do this.
> Joscha wrote:
> Sorry guys but what are you talking about? What difference is it to wait for the declaration of the opponent's strike and play then the ammocard compared to play it at one's own strike declaration? I mean what difference for a smooth flow of the game? Please enlighten me of an instance where it matters.
>
I think Joscha has a technical question, not a tactical question. Of course it is usually better for the acting player to let the the non-acting player declare their strike before the acting players plays DBR so the acting player has more information.
LSJ's and Pascal's ruling means that DBR must be played after both strikes are declared. My impression is that Joscha is questioning why DBR can't be played by an acting minion after he declares his strike but before the blocking minion declares his strike. Normally you can modify a strike at this time.
Apparently "Only usable before" means only after every other possible effect and declaration. I think it's news to most of us.
... as an aside, there are scenarios where you'd want to play DBR before your opponent plays a strike.
For example:
- A is preying on B and has just blocked B's last acting minion.
- All of B's other minions are tapped.
- A drops Aura Reading, sees that B has a handful of Staredowns but no wakes.
- Choose Strikes is reached. B plays Rapid Thought (drawing Staredown). Now A has to choose strikes first.
- A has:
--- DBR and Rotschrek in hand
--- a Saturday Night Special on the blocking minion
--- enough bleed showing to oust next turn.
At this point, B's main chance of survival is to cycle into a wake. If A can play DBR and Rotschreck before B plays a strike, B will cycle one less card this turn.
> Aaron wrote:
> LSJ's and Pascal's ruling means that DBR must be played after both strikes are declared. My impression is that Joscha is questioning why DBR can't be played by an acting minion after he declares his strike but before the blocking minion declares his strike. Normally you can modify a strike at this time.
>
You can, and that's what Aim cards do, per cardtext. Please note that my "ruling" is merely a quote of LSJ's, which I see no reason to change (it would be cleaner to update cardtext).
Here's another ruling by LSJ, confirming that ammos are played after strikes are chosen: [LSJ 20090709]
> Aaron wrote:
> Apparently "Only usable before" means only after every other possible effect and declaration. I think it's news to most of us.
>
I don't know how far LSJ's ruling extends. Clearly, Ammos and Immortal Grapple (and Blood of Acid, ..) are affected. If you find any "before" that looks weird, please let me know.
To be honest, I don't think it really affects Immortal Grapple, Blood of Acid, et al. The timing of those cards is explicit because they are played between set range and strike declaration.
It seems like there are pre-strike strike modifiers (IG) and post-strike strike modifiers (Ammo).
Both IG and ammo cards are played during strike declaration.
Perhaps you could just add two lines to VI.C.1., one indicating a timing window at the beginning (VI.C.1.a.) for strike modifiers that must be played before strikes are declared, and another timing window at the end (VI.C.1.e.) for strike modifiers only usable before the resolution of the strike.
> Aaron wrote:
> To be honest, I don't think it really affects Immortal Grapple, Blood of Acid, et al. The timing of those cards is explicit because they are played between set range and strike declaration.
>
Not between set range and strike declaration, but before strike declaration, when at close range. Compare this to the Outside the Ourglass + Pulled Fangs case [LSJ 20100630] .
> Aaron wrote:
> It seems like there are pre-strike strike modifiers (IG) and post-strike strike modifiers (Ammo).
>
> Both IG and ammo cards are played during strike declaration.
>
> Perhaps you could just add two lines to VI.C.1., one indicating a timing window at the beginning (VI.C.1.a.) for strike modifiers that must be played before strikes are declared, and another timing window at the end (VI.C.1.e.) for strike modifiers only usable before the resolution of the strike.
>
I'd be happier to have a ruling reading "'before' means 'immediately before'". Is there any case where "before" would mean something else? Same for "after", perhaps.
There are plenty of examples of cards that state "Only usable before range is chosen." So this dose suggest that they can be played before the Determine Range Step AND during the Determine Range step before both players stop playing Maneuvers.
It also means that players cannot "threaten" an opponent into a different strike, say S:D or S:CE IF combat cards with "before X" can only be played "immediately before the event X". e.g. If "Before Strike Resolution" means "At no point in the combat other than after Strike Declaration and before Strike Resolution". You can't scare an opponent into 'backing down' because they can't know that you were modifying the strike in that way because you couldn't play the card before Declaring your strike or as you declare your strike.
Baal's Bloody Talons could be played as early as Determine Range (as that point is still "before" the resolution of a weapon's strike.
Blood of Acid which is often played before strikes are declared, let alone before they are resolved and now can only be played after strikes are declared.
Blood to Water, which again is often played before declaring strikes, would now only be played after strikes are declared.
Death of My Conscience which is often played before setting range, would now only be played in the same window as Immortal Grapple.
Free Fight can be used, as it is currently written, DURING the determine range step.
Horrid Form (see Free Fight)
Sanguinary Wind as it stands now, can be played at any point in a combat up to the declaration of strikes.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Pascal wrote:
> I'd be happier to have a ruling reading "'before' means 'immediately before'". Is there any case where "before" would mean something else? Same for "after", perhaps.
>
I only found two combat cards with the text "immediately after": Anasthetic Touch and Autonomic Mastery. The word immediately disallows any other effect from happening or being played once the effect in question is resolved.
If you say that "before" means "immediately before", then playing a "before X" combat card means that no more cards or effects can be played after that card and before X.
For instance, if an acting minion played an ammo card "immediately before" strike resolution of his gun, then the opposing minion would not be able to play his own ammo card because it would contradict the "immediately" clause of the previous ammo card. The damage of both guns resolves at the same time, and the term "immediately" precludes any other event from occurring between playing the first ammo and the damage resolution of both combatants' guns.
There are multiple "before" effects that vampires might want to play before certain benchmarks in combat: range being set, declaration of strikes, resolution of strikes... Ammo, immortal grapple, Blood to Water are examples of "before" cards, multiple examples of which might be played in the same round of combat.
The rules reference already assigns "before range is determined" effects to the "Round begins" window of time. Assigning "before strikes are chosen" and "before strikes are resolved" cards to their own timing windows follows this precedent and allows multiple cards of those types to be played in the same round.
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > I'd be happier to have a ruling reading "'before' means 'immediately before'". Is there any case where "before" would mean something else? Same for "after", perhaps.
> >
> If you say that "before" means "immediately before", then playing a "before X" combat card means that no more cards or effects can be played after that card and before X.
>
> For instance, if an acting minion played an ammo card "immediately before" strike resolution of his gun, then the opposing minion would not be able to play his own ammo card because it would contradict the "immediately" clause of the previous ammo card. The damage of both guns resolves at the same time, and the term "immediately" precludes any other event from occurring between playing the first ammo and the damage resolution of both combatants' guns.
>
Come on, we're not robots. Cards that must be played "before X" must be played when X is going to happen (but just before). You and your opponent can of course play as many as you want before X (with usual priority).
Do we really need to express in a mathematical way what is "before" when everyone has understand it? Cannot "immediately" be understood loosely?
Create a chart if it pleases you (generally speaking), I think it's a bit a waste of time.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Aaron wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > I'd be happier to have a ruling reading "'before' means 'immediately before'". Is there any case where "before" would mean something else? Same for "after", perhaps.
> > >
> > >
> > If you say that "before" means "immediately before", then playing a "before X" combat card means that no more cards or effects can be played after that card and before X.
> >
> > For instance, if an acting minion played an ammo card "immediately before" strike resolution of his gun, then the opposing minion would not be able to play his own ammo card because it would contradict the "immediately" clause of the previous ammo card. The damage of both guns resolves at the same time, and the term "immediately" precludes any other event from occurring between playing the first ammo and the damage resolution of both combatants' guns.
> >
> Come on, we're not robots. Cards that must be played "before X" must be played when X is going to happen (but just before). You and your opponent can of course play as many as you want before X (with usual priority).
>
> Do we really need to express in a mathematical way what is "before" when everyone has understand it? Cannot "immediately" be understood loosely?
>
> Create a chart if it pleases you (generally speaking), I think it's a bit a waste of time.
>
I don't agree. "Before" means any time before.
"I have been here before".
If you want to express that something has to happen immediatly before X, you would have to write it that way - "immedialty before".
Best errata Ammo cards to read just like Claws of the Dead. That would be the cleanest solution.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
how does this affect the use of other cards like Blood to water? We usually played it on the 2nd round after determine range step but before strikes are chosen. So if its an ally he gets burned without a strike. Is there some change now to its timing?
> Ankha wrote:
> Come on, we're not robots. Cards that must be played "before X" must be played when X is going to happen (but just before). You and your opponent can of course play as many as you want before X (with usual priority).
>
> Do we really need to express in a mathematical way what is "before" when everyone has understand it? Cannot "immediately" be understood loosely?
>
> Create a chart if it pleases you (generally speaking), I think it's a bit a waste of time.
>
> Amenophobis wrote:
>
> I don't agree. "Before" means any time before.
> "I have been here before".
> If you want to express that something has to happen immediatly before X, you would have to write it that way - "immedialty before".
>
> Best errata Ammo cards to read just like Claws of the Dead. That would be the cleanest solution.
>
I'm not advocating that "before" be interpreted as "immediately before". I don't agree with LSJ's statement that ammo cards must be played after both strikes are declared. In my opinion the "plain English" card text should be our guide as much as possible. However, this is VTES, and the prevailing philosophy is that the intention of the head designer takes precedence over what the language of the card is commonly understood to mean.
I have been suggesting ways to inocorporate the intention of the head designer in a way that is both practical and rigorous. We are talking about a specific window of timing to play cards with a specific card text. This window of time should be defined. The rules reference is an excellent, if not perfect, resource for establishing exactly when cards with similar timing text can be played.
And I understand that "before" does not mean "immediately before". I am pointing out some of the logical problems that arise when you use the term "immediately".
Which is where I would like to suggest one major change be made to the way cards are designed. Plain English should be the basis of designing the cards and the first way to interpret the cards.
Some of the rulings by LSJ that meet the most opposition, and even at times ridicule/attack, are the ones where an elaborate analogy or extensive text was needed to resolve an issue with a card.
Plain English design should be followed by rulings on Plain English and possibly even have the design and rulings separated so that intent of the designer should be assumed to be written on the card!
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> blackday wrote:
> how does this affect the use of other cards like Blood to water? We usually played it on the 2nd round after determine range step but before strikes are chosen. So if its an ally he gets burned without a strike. Is there some change now to its timing?
>
Blood to water can be played any time before strike resolution. You can play it between strike declarations: [LSJ 20090825] . No change here.
> Pascal wrote:
> I'd be happier to have a ruling reading "'before' means 'immediately before'". Is there any case where "before" would mean something else? Same for "after", perhaps.
>
Then Blood to Water would only be playable after Strike Declaration, instead of being playable at any point after the range is confirmed to be "Close".
So we have:
Option 1: "Before" always means "Immediately Before". This forces things such as Blood to Water to be played only after Strike Declaration (since that is the time immediately before Strike Resolution). This option is basically extending LSJs ruling on Ammo cards out to apply to any combat card listing "Before X".
Option 2: "Before" means "At any point before the condition listed". This allows Ammo cards to be playable at any time before strike resolution. As a consequence, DBR could be played before the "Determine Range" step and still have its effect in the Strike Resolution step. This option repeals LSJs ruling on Ammo cards.
Option 3: Create two different rulings on the way "Before" functions depending on the type of the card. This effectively means we have two readings of one keyword that require new players (and Judges) to remain fully appraised of the rulings on individual cards for over 70 combat cards.
Personally, I think it should at least NOT be Option 3. It would also seem the most intuitive, from a PLAIN ENGLISH reading to choose Option 2. Either Option 1 or Option 2 creates a consistent ruling for the word "Before" in its VTES context.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Option 4: Have "before" mean "at any point before" (which doesn't really need a ruling, I guess), and have the existing Ammo ruling stand (which doesn't create a new ruling)
This option is the one that changes nothing to the current state.
Option 5: reword Ammo cards.
Changes nothing but cardtext, which would make players reading up-to-date cardtexts happy.
The options are countless.
I'll add the point to the list for next review.
Option 4 creates multiple rulings, it means that there are different cards with the same word "before" which have different meaning. (This turns back into Option 3 and having one word mean different things on different cards).
Option 5 means that the printed cards are not the correct text at all anymore. It's an errata on 6 different cards with no expectation of reprints to release the new text into the wider cardpool.
I don't want to sound objectionable, but really we need to have one ruling about how the phrase "Before X" works that applies to all cards and not have a patchwork of rulings which add increased complexity to new players for no significant benefits. I cannot see ANY benefit in stopping Ammo cards from being played at any point before the resolution of a gun's strike. I'm not trying to crap on LSJs legacy, but I can't see why we should keep this ruling since it seems to only remove gameplay options** and increase complexity.
**In fact, restricting the play of Ammo cards reduces the potential play techniques of the card (Early cycling to find other wanted cards, threatening the opposing player with the effects of the ammo card or surprising your opponent by turning a simple strike into a much more deadly strike).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Option 4 creates multiple rulings, it means that there are different cards with the same word "before" which have different meaning. (This turns back into Option 3 and having one word mean different things on different cards).
>
> I don't want to sound objectionable, but really we need to have one ruling about how the phrase "Before X" works that applies to all cards and not have a patchwork of rulings which add increased complexity to new players for no significant benefits. I cannot see ANY benefit in stopping Ammo cards from being played at any point before the resolution of a gun's strike. I'm not trying to crap on LSJs legacy, but I can't see why we should keep this ruling since it seems to only remove gameplay options** and increase complexity.
>
> **In fact, restricting the play of Ammo cards reduces the potential play techniques of the card (Early cycling to find other wanted cards, threatening the opposing player with the effects of the ammo card or surprising your opponent by turning a simple strike into a much more deadly strike).
>
Thing is: this ruling on Ammo cards seems to be new to some players (though it's been around for quite a while now). You want me to, basically, reverse it, which, in the end, is like creating a new ruling (because it changes something).
I'll take this in consideration too.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Option 2: "Before" means "At any point before the condition listed". This allows Ammo cards to be playable at any time before strike resolution. As a consequence, DBR could be played before the "Determine Range" step and still have its effect in the Strike Resolution step. This option repeals LSJs ruling on Ammo cards.
>
Given that ammo cards specify "before resolution of a gun's strike" and "This gun", I don't see how this change would make the ammo card playable before a gun strike has been declared.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
You are effectively declaring your strike earlier in the round, like locking yourself into a strike by using a card such as Thrown Gate or Aid from Bats.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Nope. Being committed to using a strike doesn't mean you're declaring it.
For instance, if you maneuver to long range with a Saturday Night Special, committing yourself to using that very weapon to strike, and the opposing maneuvers back to close range and plays Immortal Grapple, you declare no strike.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I don't want to sound objectionable, but really we need to have one ruling about how the phrase "Before X" works that applies to all cards and not have a patchwork of rulings which add increased complexity to new players for no significant benefits. I cannot see ANY benefit in stopping Ammo cards from being played at any point before the resolution of a gun's strike. I'm not trying to crap on LSJs legacy, but I can't see why we should keep this ruling since it seems to only remove gameplay options** and increase complexity.
>
I think the intention behind the wording of ammo cards was to limit their use to only when a strike with a gun has been successfully made.
Ammo. Only usable before resolution of a gun's strike.
Juggernaut is saying that simply having the potential of a gun strike is sufficient to fulfill the "before" requirement, thus ammo can be played at any point in combat up until strike resolution if a gun is present.
I would agree with Pascal that a strike with a gun MUST be declared before the ammo card can be played. Until the strike is declared, it is not possible to know for certain if the condition of the ammo card will be fulfilled.
However, I agree with Juggernaut and others that nothing in the current wording should prevent an ammo card from being played before the other minion's strike is declared.
A root of this issue might come from the original wording of the ammo cards. My VTES edition of DBR says "Only usable when damage from a gun is being resolved." Under that wording, you would have to wait for both strikes to be declared before playing the card since it was played during damage resolution.
Now cards that modify strikes can only be played effectively before strike resolution, rules reference VI.C.1.c. That reference even says that they can be played earlier.
Ammo card text was appropriately updated, but doing so also changed the original timing window of those cards. Perhaps LSJ did not consider ammo cards to be strike modifiers, but rather cards that are played during the strike resolution window.
Or maybe the issue is that there is no window to play strike modifiers between the strike declarations of the two combatants? I don't think that's the case, but who knows?
> Pascal wrote:
> Nope. Being committed to using a strike doesn't mean you're declaring it.
>
> For instance, if you maneuver to long range with a Saturday Night Special, committing yourself to using that very weapon to strike, and the opposing maneuvers back to close range and plays Immortal Grapple, you declare no strike.
>
How is committing to a strike in the range step not also declaring that atrike? I can accept that a strike that was declaring previously in the round cannot be effective (e.g. declaring a gun strike by using a maneuver before an Immortal Grapple was played) but at the point where you choose the Maneuver from the gun, you're also locked into striking with the gun. So it seems sensible that you could also play the Ammo card after that point (under the present text) since you are:
a) in effect declaring a strike with the gun
b) before the resolution of that strike
Regarding the effect Immortal Grapple would have on the strike is far easier. Immortal Grapple renders any strikes previously declared that are no longer valid as "declared but invalid" rather than "forced into a non-strike". This removes the discontinuity of a vampire choosing a non-handstrike before the the playing of Immortal Grapple and the vampire then choosing a "non-strike" in the "strike declaration" step.
This would mean that Immortal Grapple cancels the effect of non-hand strike strikes chosen before Immortal Grapple was played (but does not cancel the declaration of that strike as well).
Regarding DBR + Gun + Immortal Grapple. Since there is no gun strike (Immortal Grapple effectively cancelling the effect the gun strike) then the effects of the DBR (or another ammo card) are also cancelled. To give an example:
Beast enters a combat with Joaquin Murietta (Joaquin is the acting minion). Joaquin has a Saturday Night Special and uses it for a Maneuver (thereby also Declaring the Strike: 1R from the Gun and excluding himself from choosing another Strike). Beast maneuvers back to close. Joaquin plays a Scattershot Ammo card before the "Declare Strike" Step. Beast responds by playing Immortal Grapple. Joaquin has declared his strike (and because of it was able to play the original Scattershot) but the Immortal Grapple cancels the effects of the strike (but not cancel the strike so that another strike cannot be declared) and Beast declares a hand strike (e.g. Pushing the Limit etc).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Nope. Being committed to using a strike doesn't mean you're declaring it.
> >
> > For instance, if you maneuver to long range with a Saturday Night Special, committing yourself to using that very weapon to strike, and the opposing maneuvers back to close range and plays Immortal Grapple, you declare no strike.
> >
> How is committing to a strike in the range step not also declaring that atrike?
>
BTW, there's no such thing as declaring a strike in the rulebook.
There's a small discrepancy between 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 in the rulebook and VI/ in the complete rules reference
> Rulebook wrote:
> 6.4.2. Determine Range
> <snip>
> If a minion uses the maneuver from a strike card or a weapon, he is effectively choosing his strike as well. As such, he cannot use a second strike card or weapon to maneuver again in the same round.
>
(please note the use of "effectively")
> Rulebook wrote:
> 6.4.3. Strike
> <snip>
> During each pair of strikes, the minions first choose their respective strikes (the acting minion first, then his opponent), and then the strikes are resolved. Strike resolution occurs simultaneously, except for a few special cases (see Strike Effects, sec 6.4.5).
>
> * Choose Strike. Each minion chooses his strike. The strike can be from a combat card, from a weapon the minion possesses or (the default) from a hand strike. If a minion has used a maneuver from a strike (either a strike card or a weapon) this round, then he cannot choose any other strike for his initial strike of the round. For additional strikes, any strike can be chosen, even if a maneuver has been used.
>
> Non-existant user wrote:
> VI/ HOW TO RESOLVE A COMBAT [6.4]
> C. Strike. [6.4.3]
> 1. Minions announce their strikes (and targets, if applicable). [6.4.3.1]
>
What appears clearly anyway is that minion chooses their strikes during the strike step, not before.
Furthermore, the current rules handle perfectly the case Immortal Grapple vs. strike card played/used before strike step. The only suggestion here would be to allow to play ammo cards before the strike step, but it's clearly not a rule clarification.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Thanks Vincent, I'll fix that in the next Rulebook version.
@Juggernaut1981: You're still making the confusion between "having to choose strike: X" and "choosing strike: X".
Declaration of strike includes the target (for instance, you could go to long range and shoot the Raven Spy - but the target is part of the declaration of the strike, which is done when choosing the strike).
See this ruling from LSJ: [LSJ 20080409] (which also introduces the Aim card).
@ Aaron: The switch to "before strike resolution" was to have Rötschreck playable. Here's the RTR making the change: [RTR 19990105]
>
> Ammo (Dragon's Breath Rounds, Glaser Rounds, Manstopper Rounds)
> Are played "before resolution of a gun's strike", not "when damage from a
> gun is being resolved". That is, it is played after the strike is announced,
> but before the strike resolution phase.
> #
> # Doesn't change much of anything, but helps resolve an inconsistency
> # regarding Rotschreck. The timing is now consistent with Claws.
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > Ammo (Dragon's Breath Rounds, Glaser Rounds, Manstopper Rounds)
> > Are played "before resolution of a gun's strike", not "when damage from a
> > gun is being resolved". That is, it is played after the strike is announced,
> > but before the strike resolution phase.
> > #
> > # Doesn't change much of anything, but helps resolve an inconsistency
> > # regarding Rotschreck. The timing is now consistent with Claws.
> >
The timing is not consistent with Claws.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
I guess the consistency, back then, was to have only things played before strike resolution work with Rotschreck (that is, consistency with the fact that, if you play Claws during strike resolution, it won't change the damage to aggravated)
What is the consistency now?
If ammo is a strike modifier, then it should be played in the same window as other strike modifiers, with the limitation that there has to be a strike with a gun declared first.
Changing the wording on ammo ultimately changed when it could be played, perhaps unexpectedly. If the designers wanted it to be played in the previous timing window (after all strikes are declared), there would have to be some more explicit text or rule to that effect, IMO.
I'm not sure what a "strike modifier" is. Wolf Claws certainly isn't (since it doesn't mention the word "strike").
Now, when it comes to design and intent, the only way of knowing the truth is asking the person who changed the cardtext, and face it to the person who made the "only after strikes declaration" ruling. Since they are the same - LSJ - I suppose he didn't consider necessary to explicitely write "after strikes declaration". But my argumentation is as valid as whatever counterargumentation you might bring up.
Since the term strike modifier is used in the complete rules reference, I assumed that it was a universally understood term.
Looking through the Google group, it is not a term that LSJ has used for a decade. Here is an example: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/9758b468f6cecc90/952cc5179f1eed42?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=strike+modifier+lsj#952cc5179f1eed42
But you know, it's cool. I'll drop it. Ammo cards can only be played after all strikes are declared. Whether they work like other combat cards is not relevant.