'Down exept if you have dodge' Question

[Longshot]

LRB pp15

Unless stated otherwise in the skill description you never have to use a skill just because the player’s got it

You can choose not to use dodge.

LRB pp10
Quote:
Unless the defender has the Dodge skill he is pushed back and then knocked over. If he does have the Dodge skill then he is only pushed back. The attacking player may follow up the defender.


Possession of the skill is what matters, not usage.

IIRC this came up recently and my thoughts were that the blocking results just says "has dodge" so you can't choose not to use it..

So Ian, what is the good thing?

[cleminho]

I would say, and I think it is the most simple and logical for the moment (waiting for precisions soon in the next LRB?), that if we stick to the rules:

-a player may choose not to use a skill

but, in this particular action with the block dice, moreover in defense:

-if the player has dodge he is only pushed back

There is nothing added which says "he is only push back unless he decides not to use his skill".

So, it is needed to be added in the next rules if it works like that or it is needed to be precised that it always works like that in this particular action and the player cannot decide not to use his skill.

Consequently, for the moment, I would have my player with dodge pushed back and then pushed into the crowd.

[Old Man Draco]

only problem is frenzy implicitly states that it must be used, dodge does not implicity state this

I guess that's what I said. Well, we play it that if you have the skill on defence you have to use it. No exception.

[DoubleSkulls]

So Ian, what is the good thing?

I changed my mind after reading the blocking rules.

Although pp15 says you don't have to use a skill pp10 doesn't talk about usage, just possession.

This is an inconsistency in the rules, and my interpretation is that the specific rule (pp10) overrides the general case (pp15).

[cleminho]

[/quote]

Although pp15 says you don't have to use a skill pp10 doesn't talk about usage, just possession.

This is an inconsistency in the rules, and my interpretation is that the specific rule (pp10) overrides the general case (pp15).[/quote]

I agree with that