Juggernaut

[Smeborg]

I would add another couple of arguments against Ian's initial ruling.

If you disallow the use of Stand Firm on chain-pushed players following a block made with Juggernaut, you create an anomalous situation, because your own players are obliged to use Stand Firm (neither player moves) and your opponent's players are obliged not to use Stand Firm (because of Juggernaut). This seems anomalous.

Secondly, I suspect other cans of worms might follow from allowing the use of blocking skills on secondary (chain) pushes. How about Grab? (I know the "can of worms" argument is never conclusive in itself, but it's usually worth bearing in mind.)

Interestingly, the use of Stand Firm in secondary pushback situations appears to be mandatory, rather than voluntary (a rare example of a skill being sometimes voluntary, sometimes involuntary).

I don't give much importance to the plural in "opposing players". The rulebook is full of loose English usage, such as "players" for "player", "or" for "nor" etc.

[Pug]

[DoubleSkulls]

I think this is grey and subject to interpretation - and my interpretation is that the pluralism in the wording means it should prevent any player from using SF. Also I think it helps if the skill is that way since Jugg is a relatively uncommon skill and as a SF counter a tiny boost doesn't hurt.

If you disallow the use of Stand Firm on chain-pushed players following a block made with Juggernaut, you create an anomalous situation, because your own players are obliged to use Stand Firm (neither player moves) and your opponent's players are obliged not to use Stand Firm (because of Juggernaut). This seems anomalous.

I'm puzzled by that. Why are your own players obliged to use Stand Firm? Sticking to my interpretation either all players or no players in the chain would be able to use Stand Firm - either you use Juggernaut or not.

So I don't see any anomaly.

Secondly, I suspect other cans of worms might follow from allowing the use of blocking skills on secondary (chain) pushes. How about Grab? (I know the "can of worms" argument is never conclusive in itself, but it's usually worth bearing in mind.)

So a grab player blocks (or blitzes) a sidestep player and pushes the sidestepper into another sidestep player? I can see this working both ways. My preference would be for the cancelling affect to apply to all players in the chain.

Interestingly, the use of Stand Firm in secondary pushback situations appears to be mandatory, rather than voluntary (a rare example of a skill being sometimes voluntary, sometimes involuntary).

Why do you think that? I'm looking at the SF skill description and I can't see anything that indicates secondaries don't get to choose if they use the skill or not.

I don't give much importance to the plural in "opposing players". The rulebook is full of loose English usage, such as "players" for "player", "or" for "nor" etc.

Nor would I. I think the wording is ambiguous so open to valid interpretation both ways.

[Smeborg]

Ian - the Stand Firm skill description states, among other things:

"If a player is pushed back into a player with using Stand Firm
then neither player moves."

My bad: this is clearly a typo in the rulebook (same typo in LRB5 and LRB6). I had read "with Stand Firm". I suspect the rulebook means to say either "using Stand Firm" or perhaps "with and using Stand Firm".

Could you get this little typo corrected for LRB6?

Cheers

[GalakStarscraper]

I disagree with Ian ... the secondary pushbacks are not subject to the skills of the first block. Nothing in the rulebook says that the blocker's skill effect anyone expect the actual person blocked.

Galak

[Smeborg]

Thanks, Galak.

As an aside, it occurs to me that in the hands of an experienced coach, interpreting the Juggernaut rule in Ian's way would make it exceedingly easy to push players into the crowd with (say) a Norse or Dwarf side.

Not sure I can see the case for upgrading a skill which is already very good.

I think it takes time (years) for good new skills to be adopted widely by BB coaches, who are generally conservative and slow to change their team development strategies. Juggernaut, like Wrestle, is such a case, I suspect.

[Darkson]

Have to agree with Galak on this one - never used Juggernaut on secondry pushbacks.

[lunchmoney]

I think it takes time (years) for good new skills to be adopted widely by BB coaches, who are generally conservative and slow to change their team development strategies. Juggernaut, like Wrestle, is such a case, I suspect.

my league players have adopted Jugg with gusto. we closely look at all skills, when ever a player skills up. and Jugg is proving very popular. esp with big guys and werewolves.

[lerchey]

I had a quick thought on the issue of the "players" not being able to use Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle.

You can use Juggernaught with Multiblock. An Ogre with Jugger and Multi hits two linemen, one with Stand Firm and one with Wrestle. Neither of the opposing PLAYERS can use their skills.

Thus, the use of "players" makes perfectly good sense.
:)

[zerak]

Hmm, but Juggernaught only works when blitzing, right?
And you can't use Multi block on a blitz.

[lerchey]

Oops. Man, I should go back to just reading. Three times this week I've posted something that I thought was on, and all three times I've been dead wrong. :P

Thanks for the correction! You are, indeed, right.

[Uldreg]

Another Juggernaught question. A witch elf with Block and Juggernaught blitzes a Wrestle, Fend Human lineman. Blitz result is Both down. Can the WE coach choose either to use the Both down as a Push or use the Both down (WE has block so human lineman is down)? OR does only the Both down Push result apply? Thanks

[DoubleSkulls]

Juggernaut negates wrestle. So on both down you can knock the human lineman down in the square and roll for injury on them

OR you can choose to push and follow up.

[mattgslater]

I disagree with Ian ... the secondary pushbacks are not subject to the skills of the first block. Nothing in the rulebook says that the blocker's skill effect anyone expect the actual person blocked.

Galak

The real question, it seems to me, is whether using an ability against a chainpush is the same as using it against a block. Stand Firm is kind of an interesting conundrum here. The first sentence of the skill, "A player with this skill may choose to not be pushed back as the result of a block," doesn't say anything that is not included in the following sentences. Does it then follow that the first sentence is a summary of the entire skill? If so, then it would follow that the use of Stand Firm results from a block, even if it is occasioned by a chainpush (itself a result of a block). I don't see any amazingly great reason to infer that a second-order result of A is or is not a result of A; this is simply a point on which English is silent. Juggernaut reads "... then opposing players may not use their ... skills against blocks." Is using a skill against a block the same thing as using a skill against a result from a block?

More practically, Stand Firm, Fend and Wrestle are very good skills, and I'm inclined to think that their counter skills are the ones that need love. So if it's not clear, side with whoever needs the love.

[alternat]

neither sidestep says that you can use it on chainpush, but you can.