Chainsaw with Dirty Player?

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

User avatar
lerchey
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:37 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA - USA

Re: Chainsaw with Dirty Player?

Post by lerchey »

GalakStarscraper wrote:However ... you guys saying it is optional are missing the important word ... ACTION.

You can choose to mix Dirty Player with Chainsaw.

Tom
That's what I was looking for clarification on. Thanks Tom!

I stayed out of the "option to use the chainsaw" because even if it would be allowable, IMHO, it defeats the purpose of HAVING a chainsaw, and I would never do it. :)

Reason: ''
Pagan
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Aiea, HI
Contact:

Re: Chainsaw with Dirty Player?

Post by Pagan »

it is saying that a player with the Chainsaw skill has permission to take a Foul Action
The problem I have with how it is worded is this. Every player in the game has permission to take a Foul Action by default. Look at Ball and Chain for example. It specifically states a player can only take Move Actions. So his skill restricts him from fouling. Chainsaw doesn't say the player may not take a Foul Action as normal before implying he CAN use it to Foul however.

Why does Chainsaw say he MUST use it when Blocking, but doesn't say MUST use it to foul?

Reason: ''
User avatar
Grumbledook
Boy Band Member
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 6:53 pm
Location: London Town

Re: Chainsaw with Dirty Player?

Post by Grumbledook »

cause no one pedantic enough pointed it out before ;]

Reason: ''
Smeborg
Legend
Legend
Posts: 3544
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 2:02 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Chainsaw with Dirty Player?

Post by Smeborg »

Pagan -

The wording in the rulebook to the effect that all skills are optional unless otherwise stated in the skill description is (I believe) relatively recent, and is of great help in avoiding this kind of dispute.

There is no "system" to the way mandatory skill use is worded. Different terms are used for different skills. I have suggested before on this forum that if there were to be a future re-write of the rules, a clear flag (e.g. "mandatory" after the title of the skill) would help improve clarity.

Meanwhile, I suggest that common sense, attention to wording, and a feel for the spirit of the rules ought to lead most coaches to the same conclusion as Galak and myself.

Hope that helps!

Reason: ''
Smeborg the Fleshless
Post Reply