CPOMB - rules lawyering!

[dode74]

From LRB6 skill descriptions:

Claw / Claws (Mutation)
A player with this skill is blessed with a huge crab-like claw or razor
sharp talons that make armour useless. When an opponent is Knocked
Down by this player during a block, any Armour roll of 8 or more after
modifications automatically breaks armour.

Mighty Blow (Strength)
Add 1 to any Armour or Injury roll made by a player with this skill when
an opponent is Knocked Down by this player during a block. Note that
you only modify one of the dice rolls, so if you decide to use Mighty Blow
to modify the Armour roll, you may not modify the Injury roll as well.
Mighty Blow cannot be used with the Stab or Chainsaw skills.

Piling On (Strength)
The player may use this skill after he has made a block as part of one of
his Block or Blitz Actions, but only if the Piling On player is currently
standing adjacent to the victim and the victim was Knocked Down. You
may re-roll the Armour roll or Injury roll for the victim. The Piling On
player is Placed Prone in his own square -- it is assumed that he rolls
back there after flattening his opponent (do not make an Armour roll for
him as he has been cushioned by the other player!). Piling On does not
cause a turnover unless the Piling On player is carrying the ball. Piling
On cannot be used with the Stab or Chainsaw skills.

Bold parts mine. This states PO is used AFTER a block, while Claw and MB can only be used DURING a block. How can PO be used after a block? The block sequence involves block dice and, if successful, armour dice and, if successful, injury dice. Arguably (!) if any one of those fails the block is complete, which means the AV or injury reroll from PO happens after the block and C/MB cannot be applied. A corollary might be that if PO is used on AV then we are already "after the block" and MB cannot be applied to the injury roll.

Thoughts?

[Regash]

I think you're misreading this.

When an opponent is Knocked Down by this player during a block, any Armour roll of 8 or more after modifications automatically breaks armour.

This doesn't mean Claw is used during a block. It means that the opponent has to be knocked down by a block, and no other way, if you want to use the Claw. Claw alters the Armour roll, so it is already used "after" the block itself.
Same goes for the description of MB, of course. It just clarifies the fact that you actually have to knock that opponent down with the Claw/MB player and cannot use it on any other armour or injury roll.

[Oventa]

@regash: dode74 very well knows the rules and I think is looking for arguments based on the explicit words in the rules. I find your answer reasonable and valid and correct but the argument is rather weak.

Bold parts mine. This states PO is used AFTER a block, while Claw and MB can only be used DURING a block. How can PO be used after a block? The block sequence involves block dice and, if successful, armour dice and, if successful, injury dice. Arguably (!) if any one of those fails the block is complete, which means the AV or injury reroll from PO happens after the block and C/MB cannot be applied. A corollary might be that if PO is used on AV then we are already "after the block" and MB cannot be applied to the injury roll.

I agree that there is room for rules lawyering.
Though my answer would be that since only piling on has the section:
"after he has made a block as part of one of his Block or Blitz Actions"
Indicating that this is interrupting the standard block action.

[dode74]

I know how we all interpret it. I am questioning that interpretation.

Regash - then why doesn't it say "by a block" instead of "during a block"? And why the difference between the descriptions of PO and Claw/MB? A block is not just rolling the block dice: it also involves an AV roll and potentially an injury roll.

Oventa - a block and a Block Action are not the same thing. Interrupting a Block Action is largely irrelevant here since it is the timing with reference to the block itself which is referred to, and the Block/Blitz Action reference simply suggests that B&C can't PO (for example) since it only makes Move Actions.

[Itchen Masack]

Whatever the answer turns out to be, my guess will be it starts with ''JJ wanted...'' and that will be the end of it

[Loki]

I would suggest the written differences are mainly due to one thing - if a player uses 'both down' to bring down a player but doesn't have Block himself Claw and MB can both be used PO can't so this skill needs to be worded differently. I agree Regash, the 'after a block' is to clarify that Claw and MB only get used during a block not after someone trips leaving your tackle zone.

Some people hear hooves and think zebra. (Apologies to anyone who during the course of their day hear hooves and the most likely culprit is a zebra rather than a horse)

[adhansa]

I interprete it like Regash.
"When an opponent is Knocked Down by this player during a block" refers only to the prerequisite for using the skill. not the timing of using it. So it doesn't prevent it being used with Pilnig On, the target has still bin "Knocked Down by this player during a block"

[dode74]

Given Regash's interpretation why is PO not written the same way? It very easily could be. Why are they written differently if they are intended to be used the same?

[straume]

I see where you are going with the argument, but the skill description clearly states "You may reroll the armour roll or injury roll for the victim"

That leaves little wriggle room for debating the issue of the wording "after the block"

[Loki]

Given Regash's interpretation why is PO not written the same way? It very easily could be. Why are they written differently if they are intended to be used the same?

I would suggest the written differences are mainly due to one thing - if a player uses 'both down' to bring down a player but doesn't have Block himself Claw and MB can both be used PO can't so this skill needs to be worded differently.

[GalakStarscraper]

Given Regash's interpretation why is PO not written the same way? It very easily could be. Why are they written differently if they are intended to be used the same?

I'd have to check but my guess is that was old wording from 3rd edition that just did not get updated during the CRP process to be the same as the other two. We had 2 professional editors reviewing the text of the rules (yeah I brought in 2 people that do that for a living) as well as many many players who were able to see the rules. If stuff like this was brought up ... we modified it. So you are not seeing a deliberate wording so much as something that didn't get noticed by many many people during the CRP process (or for that matter the many many years after it was over).

Tom

[Vanguard]

Given Regash's interpretation why is PO not written the same way? It very easily could be. Why are they written differently if they are intended to be used the same?

I would suggest the written differences are mainly due to one thing - if a player uses 'both down' to bring down a player but doesn't have Block himself Claw and MB can both be used PO can't so this skill needs to be worded differently.

I'd also suggest that it indicates that PO cannot be used by a defending player if the result is 'Attacker Down' as the defender did not initiate the Block with a Block or Blitz action.
To be honest, I'm not sure if that's the currently accepted interpretation or not.

[dode74]

Given Regash's interpretation why is PO not written the same way? It very easily could be. Why are they written differently if they are intended to be used the same?

I would suggest the written differences are mainly due to one thing - if a player uses 'both down' to bring down a player but doesn't have Block himself Claw and MB can both be used PO can't so this skill needs to be worded differently.

That bit is covered by the "only if the Piling On player is currently standing adjacent to the victim and the victim was Knocked Down" part.

Given Regash's interpretation why is PO not written the same way? It very easily could be. Why are they written differently if they are intended to be used the same?

I'd have to check but my guess is that was old wording from 3rd edition that just did not get updated during the CRP process to be the same as the other two. We had 2 professional editors reviewing the text of the rules (yeah I brought in 2 people that do that for a living) as well as many many players who were able to see the rules. If stuff like this was brought up ... we modified it. So you are not seeing a deliberate wording so much as something that didn't get noticed by many many people during the CRP process (or for that matter the many many years after it was over).

Tom

Thanks Tom.

[GalakStarscraper]

Wait .... wait ... wait

There IS a reason for the wording difference.

It was meant to help make it clear that you CANNOT use Piling On when you are the Defender and the Attacker skulls out. This is not the case with Mighty Blow and Claw. Thus the different wording. It was trying to make it clear that it was different from the other two when the shoe was on the other foot of the block.

NOW you can argue that it should have been worded better ... but that is why the difference. During a Block means either attacker or defender can use it. The "after he has made a block" was to make it clear because the Defender does not "MAKE" a block ... he suffers the blocks (or receives the block) ... so it makes a difference from DURING a block.

Again .... maybe it could have been worded better but that was the reason. Just remembered it after thinking on it more.

[RoterSternHochdahl]

Wait .... wait ... wait

There IS a reason for the wording difference.

It was meant to help make it clear that you CANNOT use Piling On when you are the Defender and the Attacker skulls out. This is not the case with Mighty Blow and Claw. Thus the different wording. It was trying to make it clear that it was different from the other two when the shoe was on the other foot of the block.

NOW you can argue that it should have been worded better ... but that is why the difference. During a Block means either attacker or defender can use it. The "after he has made a block" was to make it clear because the Defender does not "MAKE" a block ... he suffers the blocks (or receives the block) ... so it makes a difference from DURING a block.

Again .... maybe it could have been worded better but that was the reason. Just remembered it after thinking on it more.

Real rules lawyering does not even start as long as we listen to the law makers