3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Don't understand a particular rule or just need to clarify something? This is the forum for you. With 2 of the BBRC members and the main LRB5/6 writer present at TFF, you're bound to get as good an answer as possible.

Moderator: TFF Mods

babass
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:05 pm

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by babass »

GalakStarscraper wrote:
3) If the result of the AV roll is an armour break then the way the rulebook reads is that an Injury roll can then be chosen by the coach thrown the block against that opposing player.

Now ... several things mentally do occur. Why roll for AV if you can ignore the result? So yeah ... I get the point that this does not make sense. But it is how the rules read.
actually, it's really a great new for me, to realize that this injury roll is optional!
so many times, i was worry a lot on this roll, to let a square NOT empty, which let me allow to do a chain-push (i have already choose NOT to use mighty blow or claw to make such injury roll or armour roll fail)

thanks a lot for learning me this feature!

Reason: ''
Image
Jump
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:12 pm

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Jump »

Ok, so...Galak, how can I have an official point of view?
Sorry for asking, but I have some situations to manage and I would like to give an official answer in order to decrease the possibile problems.

Just this...thanks again

Reason: ''
User avatar
RoterSternHochdahl
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:04 pm
Location: Düsseldorf
Contact:

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by RoterSternHochdahl »

This doesn't make sense, gentlemen.

Either both rolls are optional (which they apparently aren't) or none. A split here would render the first roll a useless formality in case the second was not intended anyway. Despite the wording already cited it may very well be ruled that the Injury roll is mandatory.

Grammatical interpretation is only the first and most basic layer of interpreting rules. Yet, if the historical, systematic and/or teleologic argument point elsewhere norms may be interpreted beyond and, in extreme cases, even against their wording.

Reason: ''
"Chess is two stoic soviet sleeper agents silently conducting 300 possibility calculations per second. Blood bowl is a game where a halfling makes a shepherds pie so you lose all your re rolls." (Thanks to nonumber)
Jump
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:12 pm

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Jump »

Sincerely, my opinion is that the word "if succed the coach is allowed to..."
So, for me, honestly the sense of these words is: the injury roll is allowed only if the armour roll succed.
So, "allowing" is for that, not for saying that the coach can choose to roll or not.

Thinking and thinking maybe this can be the interpretation.

About DP or FA I think that it is possible to NOT use, because in that case the word MUST is referred to the opposite player.
It means that IF I USE FA, YOU HAVE TO ROLL A 2+.
It's like Diving Tackle...if I use, the opposite player "must subtract 2 from the dodge dice"....you see? I have the word MUST here, but I know that I can choose to NOT USE DT, and for me FA must have the same interpretation.

Galak? What is your opinion? :P

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by dode74 »

Opinion here.

Injury roll: if it says "is allowed to" then it is optional. If the option is not taken then the player is not injured and merely prone. I suspect there are very few times the option won't be taken, but that's not the point.
It's worth noting that the Stab skill states if AV is broken then an injury roll must be made.

DP/FA - Notes on skill use:
Unless otherwise stated in the skill description, the following rules apply to all skills:
1. All bonuses/modifiers from skills can be combined.
2. Skills may be used an unlimited number of times per Action.
3. Some skills refer to pushing a player back in order to work. These skills will work as long as you roll a result of ‘Pushed’, ‘Defender Stumbles’, or ‘Defender Down’ on the Block dice.
4. Skill use is not mandatory.
5. You can choose to use a skill that affects a dice roll after rolling the dice (e.g., Diving Tackle does not need to be used until after seeing the result of the Dodge roll).
6. Only Extraordinary skills work when a player is Prone or Stunned.
7. A skill may only be taken once per player.
So while skills are, in general, not mandatory, these specific skills (like Really Stupid) say "must" in the description so there is no optionality. Prehensile Tail also uses the word must, but specifies optionality by saying it is a tail "he can use"; similarly, Diving Tackle allows optionality by including a "may use" before stating the opposing player "must subtract 2 from his Dodge roll".
It also works from a fluff perspective. I doubt even the most disciplined player would be able to control "a massive cloud of flies, sprays of soporific musk, an aura of random
chaos or intense cold, or a pheromone that causes fear and panic" sufficiently well to be able to turn off Disturbing Presence, nor could a particularly ugly player put on or take off enough make-up between turns (or even just before a block) in order to be able to be less repulsive.

Reason: ''
kaltenland
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:25 pm

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by kaltenland »

dode74 wrote:Opinion here.

Injury roll: if it says "is allowed to" then it is optional. If the option is not taken then the player is not injured and merely prone. I suspect there are very few times the option won't be taken, but that's not the point.
The point has no sense that I have to do a useless roll (The AV roll Galak says it's mandatory) if I don't want to roll an injury.

I totally agree with this
RoterSternHochdahl wrote:This doesn't make sense, gentlemen.

Either both rolls are optional (which they apparently aren't) or none. A split here would render the first roll a useless formality in case the second was not intended anyway. Despite the wording already cited it may very well be ruled that the Injury roll is mandatory.

Grammatical interpretation is only the first and most basic layer of interpreting rules. Yet, if the historical, systematic and/or teleologic argument point elsewhere norms may be interpreted beyond and, in extreme cases, even against their wording.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Regash
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 11:09 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Regash »

GalakStarscraper wrote:Now ... several things mentally do occur. Why roll for AV if you can ignore the result? So yeah ... I get the point that this does not make sense. But it is how the rules read.
Galak already said this.
It makes no sense but that is what the wording of the rules say: Mandatory armor roll, optinonal injury roll!

There was a question and there was an answer.

Reason: ''
User avatar
GalakStarscraper
Godfather of Blood Bowl
Posts: 15882
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by GalakStarscraper »

I am no longer the source of official rules.

My opinion is this:

1) Disturbing Presence and Foul Appearance CANNOT be turned off.

2) I would have no worries with a league saying otherwise as I would change the wording. But as it reads right now I would say rolling for injury is optional and rolling for armour is not optional. Does that make sense ... no ... but it is how the rule was written. Its a carryover from the loose language of 3rd edition that no one caught but I said I hoped sann could let GW know to edit it and change it to must.

Reason: ''
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image
User avatar
RoterSternHochdahl
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:04 pm
Location: Düsseldorf
Contact:

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by RoterSternHochdahl »

Regash wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:Now ... several things mentally do occur. Why roll for AV if you can ignore the result? So yeah ... I get the point that this does not make sense. But it is how the rules read.
Galak already said this.
It makes no sense but that is what the wording of the rules say: Mandatory armor roll, optinonal injury roll!

There was a question and there was an answer.
This brings us right back to 15th century scholastic literal obedience. If the literal result does not make sense, it cannot be the intended outcome. If the rule was written this way, the mistake was in the writing. There is, however, no sense in enforcing an erroneous rule. This is the time of interpretation. Two result are possible:

a) AV and Injury have to be rolled, or
b) neither of them.

There are arguments for a) and b) but not a single reason to make one mandatory and the other optional

Reason: ''
"Chess is two stoic soviet sleeper agents silently conducting 300 possibility calculations per second. Blood bowl is a game where a halfling makes a shepherds pie so you lose all your re rolls." (Thanks to nonumber)
User avatar
GalakStarscraper
Godfather of Blood Bowl
Posts: 15882
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by GalakStarscraper »

If you go that route ... then they both need rolled ... definitely a. Since it is clear in the rules that the armour roll is required.

This is where the league commissioner comes into play

Reason: ''
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image
Fold
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Fold »

GalakStarscraper wrote:If you go that route ... then they both need rolled ... definitely a. Since it is clear in the rules that the armour roll is required.

This is where the league commissioner comes into play
Huh? It's also clear that the other one is not required, so one might equally say "definitely b, since it's clear the second roll is not required"!

Or you could just play it how it says. It's not the only unnecessary roll in the rules I'm sure and we're all smart enough to just say "I don't want to cause an injury anyway so I won't bother rolling armour".

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Darkson »

Regash wrote:Sorry, Darkson, but it doesn't..
That wasn't the bit I was posting about (and I said I hadn't checked the rest). I'll post that bit I saw when on the PC.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
User avatar
Regash
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 11:09 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Regash »

RoterSternHochdahl wrote:If the rule was written this way, the mistake was in the writing. There is, however, no sense in enforcing an erroneous rule
You get no argument from me about that.
Yes, this is poorly written rules because they are not logical.
It makes no sense and I've said that twice already.

But this is not about enforcing a faulty rule.
This is not about discussing how it should be handled or what the idea was when those rules were written.
This is a question about a rule that has clearly been answered. Period.
For how long has CRP been around now? Six years? And no one ever saw this, everyone always made their injury roll, right?

Let's say, we both play in the same tournament and suddenly, with a wide grin on my face, I point you to a rule that clearly says, you lose the game immediately if you don't wear green socks.
Just because noone ever saw this little bugger of a rule in some small paragraph doesn't mean it's not there and as long as I wear green socks, I win!
Fair? Nice? Logical?
No to all three but still... I win!

Logic says that injuries are not intentional, they do happen or armor and lucky circumstances prevent them.
That is why we do roll dice to see if armor breaks and how bad the hit was.
To me, logic would say, the injury roll is mandatory as well, just because you can't really get your opponent down in a completely controled way, otherwise there would be no injuries in todays sports like American Football or Rugby. But there are injuries, not only in contact sports but also sports that should have no physical aspect to them.

But like I said, it's not up to us to decide what should or should not have been written.
We're here and we have to use what we've got: CRP rules.
Yes, a league commisioner might handle this for each league indiviually but this already would delve into house ruling for me.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Darkson »

Darkson wrote:
Regash wrote:Sorry, Darkson, but it doesn't..
That wasn't the bit I was posting about (and I said I hadn't checked the rest). I'll post that bit I saw when on the PC.
Nope, ignore that - I thought I had the LRB6 pdf open (the one the BBRC made) but it seemed I had someone's (non-official)LRB6 and that had a different wording. Own fault, should really delete some of these "fan-made" LRBs I have stored.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
User avatar
Bakunin
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:39 am
Location: Norsca

Re: 3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

Post by Bakunin »

RoterSternHochdahl wrote:
Regash wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:Now ... several things mentally do occur. Why roll for AV if you can ignore the result? So yeah ... I get the point that this does not make sense. But it is how the rules read.
Galak already said this.
It makes no sense but that is what the wording of the rules say: Mandatory armor roll, optinonal injury roll!

There was a question and there was an answer.
This brings us right back to 15th century scholastic literal obedience. If the literal result does not make sense, it cannot be the intended outcome. If the rule was written this way, the mistake was in the writing. There is, however, no sense in enforcing an erroneous rule. This is the time of interpretation. Two result are possible:

a) AV and Injury have to be rolled, or
b) neither of them.

There are arguments for a) and b) but not a single reason to make one mandatory and the other optional
The rules are clear, you dont have to roll for Injury... So if you dont want to, then dont roll for AV.

Reason: ''
Galak 3:16 says "There is a point in time that a player really should read the rulebook."
Post Reply