Looking at CSS, it doesn't look like the first opportunity ability should have a + next to it. Opportunities with +s next to them TELL you how how the extra opportunities are spent (such as the two cost opportunity below it), but this one doesn't.

If this is the case, and one a single weapon can be ensnared, I don't think I have a problem with how this ability works.

10 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

Real-world weapon binds tend to actually not be grapples of the weapon. Fastest way to break free of my hilt bind (using a rapier) is to take your blade offline from me. Disarming is a separate technique.

With a quillon-less weapon, binds are usually of the "press" variety: I force your blade against yourself. Pretty much, anything BUT hitting me is doable.

Lesser used, but still practical with curved blades vs , is the coiled pin - it's usually used to disarm. I hook my backedge around yours, apply leverage, and then attack offhand. I've done it with scimitar, once, and had it done to me more than once; it's impossible with a rapier. If I keep the tension, you have to move with it, withdraw, or let go.

Sai and Jitte, have trapping arms - you slot the blade, and twist to hold. A straight retreat can often defeat it, as can simply pulling up hard. Too strong a twist near the end of the trapped blade with the sai or jitte, and you can potentially snap the trapped blade.

This is all true. I never said there was no way to trap weapons. Unless I'm mistaken, though, all those things you mentioned require you to also have your weapon committed (for instance, to keep the blade pressed), which is not the case with CSS. For instance, you can, after applying CSS, sheathe your weapon, and the target weapon still can't be used to attack.

Note that CSS neither forces a disarm (that's Crimson Leaves, iirc) nor does it damage the weapon.

7 hours ago, Xphile101361 said:

Looking at CSS, it doesn't look like the first opportunity ability should have a + next to it. Opportunities with +s next to them TELL you how how the extra opportunities are spent (such as the two cost opportunity below it), but this one doesn't.

If this is the case, and one a single weapon can be ensnared, I don't think I have a problem with how this ability works.

Check the errata.

EDIT: Sorry, it's not the errata. I asked FFG about this directly, and they told me this:

"Coiling Serpent Style is intended to scale, and lets you choose one additional weapon from one of the targets of the attack per <OP> spent this way. "

Another answer from FFG. I asked:
"1) SOMEWHERE along the rulebook says you can spend an Opp during the Initiative roll to draw a weapon. However, no such option is presented in the tables at the end of the book. It was brought to my attention that such option existed in the Beginner rules. So, is "spend an Opp to ready weapon during initiative":
a) something you forgot or couldn't put in the end tables due to space;
b) something that you guys decided to drop as an option (aka, your first stance is going to be Water and you'll LIKE IT"); or
c) something else entirely? "

FFG answered:

"The citation you're looking for is on page 262, which provides "readying a weapon" and "diving for cover" as possible options for spending <OP> on an Initiative check in a skirmish.

Essentially, <OP> can let a character undertake some task they could have done for free during a narrative scene as the fight breaks out. For further examples, it advises the GM to look to the table—these are more structured options that are generally more codified than the more open-ended examples provided first."

8 hours ago, JBento said:

This is all true. I never said there was no way to trap weapons. Unless I'm mistaken, though, all those things you mentioned require you to also have your weapon committed (for instance, to keep the blade pressed), which is not the case with CSS. For instance, you can, after applying CSS, sheathe your weapon, and the target weapon still can't be used to attack.

Note that CSS neither forces a disarm (that's Crimson Leaves, iirc) nor does it damage the weapon.

If I've done the bind right, I'm already one line with you and can repost into you, blocking you from doing likewise.

The push bind blade v blade, ideally, I'm able to sidestep to release and drawcut simultaneously. Ideally, I've pinned your blade vertical, with min horizontal and can rotate around you to put my blade into you, and done so in a way that your arm cannot bend to deliver an effective strike (be it a chop or a draw).

Remembering that only a crit is actual bodily contact, if you're not fatigued, and I'm not spending opp, I'm merely forcing you to not strike at me until you've stepped back, turned away, or sidestepped away, or at least made a major change to your posture (which "telegraphs" the attack). Given the indefinite combat round, that telegraph might be the round without attacking.

4 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

If I've done the bind right, I'm already one line with you and can repost into you, blocking you from doing likewise.

The push bind blade v blade, ideally, I'm able to sidestep to release and drawcut simultaneously. Ideally, I've pinned your blade vertical, with min horizontal and can rotate around you to put my blade into you, and done so in a way that your arm cannot bend to deliver an effective strike (be it a chop or a draw).

Remembering that only a crit is actual bodily contact, if you're not fatigued, and I'm not spending opp, I'm merely forcing you to not strike at me until you've stepped back, turned away, or sidestepped away, or at least made a major change to your posture (which "telegraphs" the attack). Given the indefinite combat round, that telegraph might be the round without attacking.

really sad that people are still defending CSS...

it is a badly written rule. sure you can try to imagine weird ways to do thing to make it logical, but it is not... CSS is not a "narrative skill" it is a "mechanical skill", and as a mechanical skill it is poorly designed because you need to veto how it can work depending on the weapon you are using and veto how someone got around it depending on the weapon they are using or even the size they are!! you can basically "bind" an Ogre warclub with you Sai... plus, it is boring to use because the counters to it are boring. it just never ends; binding weapon without immobilising, binding 2 weapons, binding weapons that even if the opponent move away from you he still cannot use, binding enemies three times your size... there is full of leakage everywhere in that rule, full of micromanaging needed to be done to make it "logical".

there is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't get a better wording.