Always hungry and Loner

[sann0638]

I just think it's such a minor effect that it doesn't hugely matter

Just wanted something on the flowchart, and the way Fumbbl has done it seems like a sensible interpretation.

[dreamscreator]

It does matter for real coaches! Goblin coaches!

After read all the posts, by rules make sense that is the troll who need to reroll as it's his ability, as logical should be the goblin as he's who is trying to avoid be eaten.

In resolution, and until we have a clarification, is a TO who should decide.

[lunchmoney]

logical should be the goblin as he's who is trying to avoid be eaten.

I disagree. It is the Troll trying to eat the goblin. He succeeds with his lunch munch on a 1

Always Hungry (Extraordinary)
The player is always ravenously hungry – and what's more, he"ll eat
absolutely anything! Should the player ever use the Throw Team-Mate
skill, roll a D6 after he has finished moving, but before he throws his
team-mate. On a 2+ continue with the throw. On a roll of 1 he attempts to
eat the unfortunate team-mate! Roll the D6 again, a second 1 means that
he successfully scoffs the team-mate down, which kills the team-mate
without opportunity for recovery (Apothecaries, Regeneration or anything
else cannot be used). If the team-mate had the ball it will scatter once
from the team-mate's square. If the second roll is 2-6 the team-mate
squirms free and the Pass Action is automatically treated as a fumbled
pass. Fumble the player with the Right Stuff skill as normal.

My highlight on the Always Hungry skill text. He is referring to the Troll. Whilst a little sexist (where are the lady trolls?) it is clear the text is referring the player who trying to perform a throw - the Troll.

[dreamscreator]

logical should be the goblin as he's who is trying to avoid be eaten.

I disagree. It is the Troll trying to eat the goblin. He succeeds with his lunch munch on a 1

Next level of stupidity. He's hungry but is so stupid that can't eat the goblin

[hutchinsfairy]

The thrall is completely passive where as the right stuff player wriggles free. This is an active action by the little guy and therefore should be his roll.

This is genuinely not how I would read those same rules (AH rules, not Blood Lust). The rules talk about the Troll "successfully" scoffing the Goblin or the Goblin squirming free. There are lots of times in Blood Bowl we roll dice to represent opposed actions (not least Dodging and Blocking) and the currently active player is always the one rolling the dice unless stated otherwise.

When it's ambiguous I think you should look at the intention rather than wording of the rules. Looking for loopholes and missed meaning in rules definitions is nonsense geekism.

The intention is apparently obvious to both of us and yet we don't agree what it is! There is a quote from Galak somewhere that I'm trying to find that (paraphrasing from memory) says there is no such thing as intention when it comes to rules. Arguing that the Goblin rolls is exactly the same level of nonsense geekism as arguing that the Troll does, it's all just looking at at the rules as written.

[sann0638]

In resolution, and until we have a clarification, is a TO who should decide.

Correct, but often they will go to the NAF clarifications page. I would have thought as a goblin coach you would prefer no loner.

But tbh, how often would you save the reroll for that? It just wouldn't often happen.

[dreamscreator]

In resolution, and until we have a clarification, is a TO who should decide.

Correct, but often they will go to the NAF clarifications page. I would have thought as a goblin coach you would prefer no loner.

But tbh, how often would you save the reroll for that? It just wouldn't often happen.

I would prefer no loner, but as you said, it would be very unusual expend a reroll in that. Maybe now, with the Doom Dive and in leagues could be more usual I guess.

Tbh, If you roll double 1s and the troll is going to eat the goblin, that's so much fun to be avoided with a reroll

[dode74]

This is an active action by the little guy and therefore should be his roll.

The troll is not passively allowing the goblin to wriggle free: he takes an active part in this action as well as he is trying to eat him. Both players are active in this scenario, but the Action is that of the troll.

When it's ambiguous I think you should look at the intention rather than wording of the rules.

I absolutely disagree. The wording is the only place from which we can garner the intention unless the intention is subsequently made clear, either by errata or by someone who wrote the rule giving us an informal insight here, for example. When we start trying to ascertain the intention rather than reading what is written we add an extraneous layer of *our own interpretation*.

The rule originates from 2nd edition.

This isn't 2nd edition.

[hutchinsfairy]

There is a quote from Galak somewhere that I'm trying to find

[rant mode on]
!@#$!@#@#$!#$ ... there is no such @#$@#$@# thing as intent in a rules document ...
ESPECIALLY when the wording for the CRP was already perfectly clear and did not have any need for a @#$&$%^*^&%&^@#% FAQ
[/rant mode off]

viewtopic.php?p=768427#p768427

[CyberedElf]

@harvestmouse: Thank you for giving the information from 2nd ed. I agree with everything you said, except I don't think the rules as written are very ambiguous. I accept the the 2nd ed. rules are suggestive of intent, if I thought the current wording was equally read in either way. Maybe what you say is the intent, and I don't mind being corrected by someone who was involved in the intent of the current rules, but until then, the words of the current rules seem pretty clear to me. The fact that the rules were changed is proof that at least to some degree there was a desire to change the intent.

Jumping to the other side:
While it may be suggestive (as are which player is currently taking the Action and the 2nd ed. rules), I don't think that Always Hungry being the trolls skill is proof. A player can re-roll getting away from Tentacles on an opponent. A skill can cause a different player to make a die roll.

[hutchinsfairy]

I don't think that Always Hungry being the trolls skill is proof. A player can re-roll getting away from Tentacles on an opponent. A skill can cause a different player to make a die roll.

Good point, previous post amended.

[lunchmoney]

Jumping to the other side:
While it may be suggestive (as are which player is currently taking the Action and the 2nd ed. rules), I don't think that Always Hungry being the trolls skill is proof. A player can re-roll getting away from Tentacles on an opponent. A skill can cause a different player to make a die roll.

That's because Tentacles explicitly states it the player leaving the TZ that makes the roll.

[hutchinsfairy]

Jumping to the other side:
While it may be suggestive (as are which player is currently taking the Action and the 2nd ed. rules), I don't think that Always Hungry being the trolls skill is proof. A player can re-roll getting away from Tentacles on an opponent. A skill can cause a different player to make a die roll.

That's because Tentacles explicitly states it the player leaving the TZ that makes the roll.

There are lots of differences (not least that it is the moving players turn and action) but it does refute my earlier argument that Always Hungry being on the Troll proves it's the Troll's roll.

[CyberedElf]

He is referring to the Troll. Whilst a little sexist (where are the lady trolls?) it is clear the text is referring the player who trying to perform a throw - the Troll.

While I was also quoting CRP, the new rules have changed to non-gender specific pronouns. GW has officially allowed lady trolls to play.

That's because Tentacles explicitly states it the player leaving the TZ that makes the roll.

And AH explicitly states the team-mate squirms free on some results. I think this is very much outweighed by other portions in the description of AH. As with Tentacles, the description of the skill is to be considered. I was only stating that it would be erroneous to assume it is the troll making the roll based only on the fact that it is the troll's skill. I was commenting on relative validity of a single portion of the argument. I felt it is a less valid point than how I interpreted some people presented it, not that it was an invalid point.

[harvestmouse]

Why is 2nd ed irrelevant? The 3 rules in question were created by JJ for 2nd ed; listed as TTM, Right Stuff and din dins (which became Always Hungry for 3rd ed). All 3 rules were streamlined by JJ for 3rd ed. Since then there have been no changes to the rules (as far as I can see) the intent is therefore the same, unless the BBRC had reason to change the intent. If so where is that stated and if stated what is the validation in changing the intent of the rule.

Here is JJs wording.

"Roll the D6 again, a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the other player down, with obviously fatal results for the latter. On a roll of 2-6 the other player squirms free and should be placed prone......." Loner nor Big Guy existed then, so there was no limitation on rerolling and therefore no reason for extra wording on the roll.

Do not confuse successfully scoffs and being successful. This is still a roll of a 1 and a fail. If it was meant as successful action, this would be a roll of a 6. This is a fail of YOUR roll, therefore what would be a success and what you are rolling to achieve is the 2-6, which is actively done by the right stuff player, as stated above with the active verb 'squirm'. In short you are rolling to squirm not to eat.

One point, did this ever come up in early lrbs, where Big Guys had Big Guy. It would then not be possible to reroll it, if it was a troll roll.