Talk Fantasy Football

Question: Do you need to pay 1 movement when:
a.) blitzing while using a Chainsaw
b.) blitzing while using Stab

First of all, I realize that there is a similiar thread on Stab already. I'd like to have the answer in one place, so I can link this to my tabletop league and end this eternal debate which pops up constantly.

In my opinion, the answer is "Yes" to both questions. Stab and Chainsaw are used instead of a block. The block during a blitz action costs 1 movement -> Stab and Chainsaw blitzes should cost 1 movement, too.

According to my leaguemates, the Stab Blitz does not cost 1 movement in the BB2 computer game. And there is the argument that the movement cost during a blitz stems from the possiblity to follow up the block, which is not possible when using Stab/Chainsaw.

Has the wording on those skills changed in anyway?
If not, then the rules haven't changed either.

If you use the BB2 computer game to argue about rules you automatically lose the argument.

From the Cyanide known issues thread:

Stab
When blitzing, Stab doesn't cost an additional movement point.

There was a post either here or on facebook around september where GW clarified that Stab is a skill use and doesn’t require 1 square of movement.

[Assuming the answer to LM's unanswered question is in the negative, as I don't have BB2016 to check.]

Have they posted that to a FAQ/Errata? If not, then the rules haven't changed since Stab was added by the BBRC, and costs a point of MA. A post 'somewhere', possibly not even by someone actually involved with the game development doesn't constitute a rule change.

See attached file.
Couldn’t find all of the discussion, just a bit.
But here is the thing:
Apparantly stab is not a kind of block, but something separate from and replacing the block mechanic.
So, as the screen Pic says, stabs dpn’t trigger dump off.
And - as was clarified in the bit I couldn’t find, the 1MA vist was seen as part of the actual blocking mechanic, so Stab does not require the MA.
Surprise!

So they're changing the rules, but not bothering to add it to a FAQ or errata?
I'll continue to play it in the way the people that wrote the rules (i.e. the BBRC) intended until GW say differently (officially, not in some thread that can't be found).

Well as long as you’re not refereeing, it’s all good.
And for the record I agree that your reply is the logical reply.

But I read the GW response “pending a FAQ” as “until such a time as there is a FAQ to the contrary”. I.e. There will be no FAQ because they genuinely believe that stab-for-free is what the rules actually say. Sigh.

The rules are pretty clearly written and no text has changed. Someone answering a email does not change that.
When im TO'ing, im gonna rule based on the written rules and if there is a gray area refer to Tom Anders rulings since he wrote (edited) lrb6.
Also ditto to what darkson said.