3 Questions: Take Root, Injury Roll and skill use

[sann0638]

As I just answered on the NAF site, the NAF isn't actually a rules-making body, we have just collated the answers in a central resource. Galak's answers are usually taken as the Official ones.

[GalakStarscraper]

I am happy to be argued on this one that I am wrong.

But I try not to put "words" into the rules even with the understanding of how it is "supposed" to work since I typed up this rulebook (and edited new content for 60% of it).

I know the intent of the game was that broken AV follows with injury ... but clearly that is not how the words read and to be honest ... I don't think anyone ever noticed because it would be a rare case that you'd prefer prone to the possible injury roll. And to be honest I don't think any computerized version of the game every allowed you to skip the injury. (FUMBBL, PBeM, Activision or Cyanide) (and that is just fine I think). But could see it left as is.

As for Treemen ... they need to lose the block from the Blitz. The block in a Blitz costs 1 MA so if you allow them to still Block then you need to add in text for them needing to GFI to throw the block and how they cannot follow up that Block. Definitely not something I would recommend.

[Jump]

Ok, so can we make "Official" also in the NAF page the situations?

1) Injury...can be "not" rolled?
2) Disturbing Presence or Foul Appearance: can be "not" used?

Thanks...I just would like to have safe rules before my imminent tournament...thanks again!

[Regash]

Disturbing Presence or Foul Appearance: can be "not" used?

My answer is never an "official" one.
But if you read both skills decriptions, both have the word "must" in them, which means, no, you can't choose to not use them.
Think about it: Can some ugly monster choose not be ugly?

[GalakStarscraper]

2) Disturbing Presence or Foul Appearance: can be "not" used?

Both these skills cannot be turned off. They must be used

[kaltenland]

I don't think anyone ever noticed because it would be a rare case that you'd prefer prone to the possible injury roll.

Why Prone?

So there is no difference from AV roll failed or AV roll succeed?

I find this situation simply horrible, but if this is the way you say it is correct I think that prone is illogical.

[Darkson]

[Note: I don't like the rule, and wouldn't play that way, but RAW it's correct.]


@kaltenland
You knock someone down (prone) and break AV, and using the above ruling decide not to roll for Injury.
In what position do you think the player should be then? They were prone before the AV roll was made, and if there is no Injury roll made they can't be stunned/KO/injured, so logically they have to be left prone.

Only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the B&C.

[Regash]

I think you misunderstand.
A player becomes prone when he falls because of a block, a failed dodge or a failed GFI, meaning he falls to the ground.
The AV roll is just a consequence of falling.
AV roll fails, nothing happens, player stays prone, can stand up on his next activation.
AV roll succeeds, now you have the choice if you would roll for injury to maybe stun him or get him of the pitch or just leave it and let him lying there on the ground.

Edit: Darkson beat me to it, dang!

[Jump]

Ok, so the official position is that you can decide to NOT roll the injury dice, and so the player stay prone down, right?

[kaltenland]

AV roll succeeds, now you have the choice if you would roll for injury to maybe stun him or get him of the pitch or just leave it and let him lying

So, why I have to make a useless roll (AV roll)?

[Note: I don't like the rule, and wouldn't play that way, but RAW it's correct.]
@kaltenland
In what position do you think the player should be then? They were prone before the AV roll was made, and if there is no Injury roll made they can't be stunned/KO/injured, so logically they have to be left prone..

This is the point, in the rules there is no words about what happens if I choose not to roll.
I agreed that Galak intended the rule in the way we always play it and that is just written bad, so I was wandering if it's better to have something like an Errata Corrige than this.

[Darkson]

This is the point, in the rules there is no words about what happens if I choose not to roll.

There are also no rules to say you reset anything if this happens, so the default position to take is to leave things as they are at that point - i.e. prone.


Looking at that page (that Galak referenced) in the rules again, it seems you don't even need to make the AV roll if you don't want to (I freely admit I haven't looked through the rest of the rules).

[kaltenland]

Looking at that page (that Galak referenced) in the rules again, it seems you don't even need to make the AV roll if you don't want to (I freely admit I haven't looked through the rest of the rules).

This could be more logic, I don't want to roll an AV roll so I don't have to roll an injury (But agree with you when I you say that you don't like it)

[GalakStarscraper]

Going strictly from the wording currently in the rulebook.

1) You rolled the Block dice and you rolled a result that results in the player being Knocked Down

2) Knocked Down is a game term. It means the player Knocked Down is placed prone and then an AV roll is made. The AV roll is not optional in the rulebook.

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.

What is the best thing that could come of this is if sann can use his NAF link as it is to GW to suggest to them to look over the FAQ page and use it to consider some rules clarifications. At the same time ... he might want to suggest that page 11 say "must roll" instead of "allowed to roll" for injury.

[Darkson]

Tom, not disagreeing (as I said, I didn't look at the rest of the rules) but for my peace of mind where are you referencing #2 from, as the bit on p.11(?) where the "may" for the inj roll has the same wording for the AV roll.

[Regash]

Sorry, Darkson, but it doesn't.

INJURIES
Unless the rules state otherwise, any player that is Knocked Down may be injured. The opposing coach rolls two D6 and adds their scores together in an attempt to try to beat the Knocked Down player’s Armour value. If the roll succeeds, then the opposing coach is allowed to roll on the Injury table in the next column to see what injury the player has suffered.

See what I mean?
The player "may be injured", not you may try to break his armour.
The armour roll has to be made to see if the knockdown has any effect and breaking the armour always has an effect, at least it leaves the knocked down player stunned.

It's not "you may roll 2D6". You are rolling them!
Does that make sense if you want to pass on the injury roll anyway? Not really, I admit it...