New Errata as of 1-16-08

[headswillroll]

Well, there is a disarm question that has been debated for years has finally found resolution in this game. If you are disarmed, you may disarm your opponent as long as you have the ability to attack or block, depending on the type of Disarm you use.




Headswillroll

[Thorr]

For years? Hardly. It only affects 2E versions of Disarm.

[prowler7]

thorr said:

For years? Hardly. It only affects 2E versions of Disarm.

I dunno, that thread SEEMED to go on for years.

[Thorr]

Hehe, I agree there

[clique84]

You guy do know that this ruling is kinda...not good right? I need to double check but it could lead to 2 ppl not having swords, and not being able to exert to get them back (parking garage)?

[scottr]

That would assume that both people were playing disarm, and neither was packing the cards (or could get to the cards) to avoid their own Parking Garage. Recon, Extra Weapon, any other location, etc, would be chances to get out of that gridlock.

Since all the 2e disarm cards that this ruling would apply to are bugged, it doesn't seem like this needs a thread in the TYPE ONE subform.

[headswillroll]

thorr said:

For years? Hardly. It only affects 2E versions of Disarm.

I was referring to this same discussion in years past concerning the " in place of an attack" disarm cards, as well as the time frame. Technically, it will change the effectiveness of the generic, Connor, Duncan, Luther, Nefertiri, and Xavier Disarms, as if anyone uses them.


Headswillroll

[headswillroll]

clique84 said:

You guy do know that this ruling is kinda...not good right? I need to double check but it could lead to 2 ppl not having swords, and not being able to exert to get them back (parking garage)?

In TYPE TWO format, possilbly, but they do have Extra Weapon.

In TYPE ONE format, we still roll for disarm and prone, plus there are many cards we get to use that cover this issue.



Headswillroll

[Thorr]

headswillroll said:

thorr said:

For years? Hardly. It only affects 2E versions of Disarm.

I was referring to this same discussion in years past concerning the " in place of an attack" disarm cards, as well as the time frame. Technically, it will change the effectiveness of the generic, Connor, Duncan, Luther, Nefertiri, and Xavier Disarms, as if anyone uses them.


Headswillroll

I don't think so. The disarms were all errata'd to be in place of a 'Basic Attack' (specifically to address this problem). If you can't play a basic attack, you can't play the disarm. The only reason that the 2E disarms will work is because they simply say 'in place of an attack', meaning any attack. Greg specifically stated that they wanted it to be that way this time around.

[headswillroll]

scottr said:

That would assume that both people were playing disarm, and neither was packing the cards (or could get to the cards) to avoid their own Parking Garage. Recon, Extra Weapon, any other location, etc, would be chances to get out of that gridlock.

Since all the 2e disarm cards that this ruling would apply to are bugged, it doesn't seem like this needs a thread in the TYPE ONE subform.

I put this in the TYPE ONE forum as an update because like it or not it has merit for a few cards. We have to be unbiased when we do these updates. This ruling has an effect on the generic, Connor, Duncan, Luther, Nefertiri, and Xavier Disarm cards from 1ed.


Headswillroll

[headswillroll]

thorr said:

headswillroll said:

I was referring to this same discussion in years past concerning the " in place of an attack" disarm cards, as well as the time frame. Technically, it will change the effectiveness of the generic, Connor, Duncan, Luther, Nefertiri, and Xavier Disarms, as if anyone uses them.


Headswillroll

I don't think so. The disarms were all errata'd to be in place of a 'Basic Attack' (specifically to address this problem). If you can't play a basic attack, you can't play the disarm. The only reason that the 2E disarms will work is because they simply say 'in place of an attack', meaning any attack. Greg specifically stated that they wanted it to be that way this time around.

You are right, I forgot about the errata from the handbook. Gosh, it has been a long time, oh well. Scott and Thorr are correct at this time but I will keep it as a supplimental rule for in case they do make an unbugged Disarm in 2ed, make another errata to switch the wording to "in place of an attack" for the 1ed cards ( fat chance there), or make new persona specific Disarms that are worded similarly to the generic (once again, fat chance).


Headswillroll

[zuhzuhzuh]

clique84 said:

You guy do know that this ruling is kinda...not good right? I need to double check but it could lead to 2 ppl not having swords, and not being able to exert to get them back (parking garage)?

After playing Fasil in the Parking Garage and running up against Kastagir Disarming, I think a person would be a fool not to have some sort of protection against their own Garage. And that is regardless of this new double disarm problem.

[Thorr]

Since the 2E disarms require a Disarm Check (Attribute Check), you'll not likely see a Disarm without a bug. The only ones you'll see without a bug are ones that are automatically successful.

[headswillroll]

thorr said:

Since the 2E disarms require a Disarm Check (Attribute Check), you'll not likely see a Disarm without a bug. The only ones you'll see without a bug are ones that are automatically successful.

Probably true, but I want to cover all bases. Besides, I don't think that it would now be a big deal if the text was errataed back to say "in place of an attack". In the TYPE ONE format there are tons of different ways to rearm yourself. But that would be up to the Design Team to make that decision.



Headswillroll

[jamesmcmurray]

Yeah, in a world filled with Watcher: Fair Fights the odds of two people disarming one another in T1 are pretty slim.