Talk Fantasy Football

Stand Firm:

"A player with this skill is never pushed back as the result of a Block."

This means a Block thrown AT the Player with SF, correct?


"He may completely ignore 'Push Back' results, and 'Knock-Down' results always knock the player over in the square where he started."

This is referring to Block Dice results ONLY, correct?

At first glance (I would agree) these questions seem very obvious. However, there was argument concerning what happens if ANOTHER player is pushed back onto a player with SF...can the SF be moved?

I argued vehemently that the skill is describing Block and Block Dice results ONLY (specifically directed at the SF player), and says NOTHING about ignoring Push Backs as the result of another PLAYER being pushed onto a player with SF. In other words, SF does NOT save you from Push Backs as the result of another player being pushed onto you; though it is the result of a Block that caused it to happen, the Push Back from said Block was on ANOTHER player, and the Push Back affecting the SF player is the result the PLAYER being pushed into him.

The specific scenario:

A player (1) is adjacent to another player with SF (2). Player 1 is knocked back as the result of a Block on him. The legal spaces to push player 1 to are all occupied. The coach decides to push player 1 into the space where player 2 (SF) is, thus ALSO Pushing Back the SF player 2 as the result of another player being pushed into him. Is this possible, or does SF protect you from ALL Push Backs PERIOD? I see nothing in LRB to indicate SF protects the player in this scenario, and he SHOULD be Pushed Back.

Official ruling anyone?

We play that you can't push into Stand Firm player - unless there is no alternative.

It doesn't happen too often, and if its a problem house rule it.

I think you're right Xynok. I never thought about it this way, but it makes sense.

I wish someone else would comment on this, because we are severely torn on this issue. Depending on how the rule actually works, certain strategies do or don't work. Specifically, using a tight cage formation with the ball carrier in the center (who has SF of course) works very well...but if they can be pushed out of said cage via another player being pushed onto them, this strategy doesn't work at ALL.

In my mind, the rule is clearly describing the direct results of a Block, and the ensuing results of the Block Dice.

The technical definition of a Block is: Two target players comparing STs, determining number of Dice, Rolling Dice, Stronger player choosing result, and finally resolving said results between the two targets.

This IS what the skill description for SF is alluding to. Saying that SF saves the Player from being pushed back as the result of another player being pushed onto him is the SAME as equating a Block with another player being pushed onto you.

A Block is ONE thing (as above).
A player being pushed onto you is ONE thing (very different at that).
These are NOT the same thing.

The rule CLEARLY indicates Block, but says NOTHING about another player being pushed onto you. IF the skill does indeed save you from this scenario, then the skill description MUST add the line:

"Also, a player with SF cannot be Pushed Back for ANY reason, so he cannot be the target of another player being Pushed Back onto him; if a Pushed Back player was surrounded by players with SF (ie a player in each legal target space), he could not be moved and would stay in his starting square."

As the skill reads now, if you rule that a SF player cannot be Pushed Back by another player being pushed onto him, then you are saying a Block and another player being pushed onto you are the SAME thing.

They aren't. The first player is Pushed Back as the result of a BLOCK...the SF player is being Pushed Back as the result of another player being Pushed Back INTO him. Granted, this is *indirectly* the result of a Block, but it is NOT the SAME as a Block.

Zombie wrote:I think you're right Xynok. I never thought about it this way, but it makes sense.

After looking at the text on Push Backs and the skill Stand Firm, I would have to agree that a literal translation of the LRB would be that Stand Firm does not prevent pushes from secondary, trichary, etc, etc. chains.

However, this one becomes the 1st item for next year's review as the current one is almost done. I'm 90% sure that the intention of Stand Firm is that the player cannot be pushed back for any reason (including a thrown player landing on them), but you cannot get that from the way the rulebook is worded. Seems like a simple fix to Stand Firm to remove the from a Block wording, if I'm right about that not being the intent.

Anyway, congrats Xynok ... 1st new topic for the Hot List for next year.

Galak

It all depends on whether or not you consider secondary push backs as "Push Back" results. I would say they are the same whether you are primary or secondary recipient of the result - and therefore you can ignore them.

Also is Stand Firm always on? i.e. can you choose not to stand firm when blocked? I think that you can choose to be pushed back or not.

Also can you use secondary blocks to push back a SF player who is prone/stunned? I'd say SF doesn't work unless you are standing.

well you can't stand firm if your lying on the floor can you ;]

The first sentence of the description needs to be erased, and simply needs to read:

"A player with this skill is never Pushed Back for ANY reason. REMAINING PRESENT TEXT FOLLOWS..."

Otherwise, a brief sentence like the following must be appended to the description:

"Note the player CAN be Pushed Back as normal in other circumstances (ie is not the target of a Block)."


This ruling made the difference in an offensive TD vs. a defensive TD in a game I had this weekend. If the ruling was no push back for any reason, I scored a TD (offensive play). If it was ruled cannot save you from another player pushed into you, it put the ball carrier out of the cage and allowed a huge defensive play that would have been IMPOSSIBLE otherwise. I felt I HAD to rule it doesn't save you, because the way the skill reads, and what the text for push backs via another player into you says, it IS the CORRECT ruling.

What really put me out is that I ASSUMED (like everyone else) that it WOULD save me, thus why I was in the position in the first place. Since my opponent insisted we read the skill, I carefully examined it and couldn't prove my case; indeed, the opposite ruling IS correct as the rules read. He was able to get my carrier away from the cage, and make a huge play on the ball that resulted in a defensive TD.

From a logical perspective, it really can be ruled either way, but I honestly feel even here the rule is clear. Stand Firm is the ability to brace yourself for the impact of a Block, as well as from the blows received as you try to dodge away. These are both activities where the player is DIRECTLY involved and would be fully aware of the situation, and thus able to react accordingly. Granted, the player COULD brace himself in reaction to another player flying towards him, but it can EASILY be argued in this case that he simply didn't have enough time to react, as he was too worried about plays DIRECTLY involving him and was too distracted to see the Block and ensuing Push Back on the OTHER player. Ultimately, it comes down to the "spirit" of the skill: is the player simply impossible to Push Back period, or is he just really good at "digging in" during a Block and Dodge attempt?

This ruling needs to be addressed.

It all depends on whether or not you consider secondary push backs as "Push Back" results. I would say they are the same whether you are primary or secondary recipient of the result - and therefore you can ignore them.

The first part is where you are dead on. Does this mean ANY Push Back result, or only the Push Back result of a Block? Consider the first two sentences of the skill description: "A player with this skill is never pushed back as the result of a block. He may completely ignore 'Push Back' results, and 'Knock-down' results always knock the player over in the square where he started."

In the context of the first sentence, the 2nd one seems to clearly indicate the results of the BLOCK DICE, and not necessarily ANY push back for ANY reason. However, all it says is "results"; thus the argument.

The 2nd part is where I take exception. If the rule IS indicating ONLY Blocks, then there is only ONE recipient...the secondary, tertiary, etc. Push Back results are from a player being pushed ONTO another player, NOT from Block Dice results (you cannot be Knocked-down from another player being pushed onto you).

Xynok, please don't SHOUT. Use the formatting for emphasis. Ta.

Don't over analyse GW rules - they just aren't written to that level of precision.

IMO the intent is that SF players never get pushed back. The bit about knock downs just to clarify that case. Also remember that blocks are the only things that cause push backs so don't place undue weight on that part of the skill description.

The other thing to bear in mind is that side step, which is very similar in function does not mention secondary push backs either, but I think most people play that it still applies.

I agree with ian here, stand firm players should never get moved unless they are taking a move action, or they choose to take a pushback, same goes for sidestep.

ianwilliams wrote:Also remember that blocks are the only things that cause push backs so don't place undue weight on that part of the skill description.

Throwing players landing on top of player cause them also.

Galak

Sorry, didn't mean to shout, it is just easier to emphasive using caps. On to the discussion:

IMO the intent is that SF players never get pushed back. The bit about knock downs just to clarify that case. Also remember that blocks are the only things that cause push backs so don't place undue weight on that part of the skill description.

Actually, a player Pushed Back into another player also causes a Push Back, not to mention what Galak alluded to. A Block causes a Push Back into another player, and this in turn causes a Push Back on said player. However, said player was not Pushed Back as the result of a Block, but as the result of having another player pushed onto him. Throw in the other things that cause Push Backs, and this skill gets more confusing.

The other thing to bear in mind is that side step, which is very similar in function does not mention secondary push backs either, but I think most people play that it still applies.

Side Step doesn't apply because it specifically states: "The player may not use this skill if there are no open squares on the field adjacent to this player." You cannot Side Step onto a square containing a standing or prone player, so this discussion doesn't apply.

This is a problem unique to the SF skill.

Galak, remember that secondary push backs are not push backs at all, more like the player getting out of the way. Why would stand firm prevent them from doing that?

It seems to me that the intent may have very well been for stand firm players to be moved around in that case. It makes sense realistically and that's the way the rule is written. In my league, we'll play it that way from now on.

All push backs originate from a block (or thrown team mate ) so that's why I said all push backs come from blocks.

Side step important because what happens on a secondary push back against a player with side step - does he get to use the skill? The bit about being surrounded is irrelevant to what happens when someone else is pushed into him. This is exactly the same situation as you are proposing for Stand Firm.

I think the whole question of SS and SF effecting secondary blocks hasn't been addressed in the rules, but I think the intent is that they still apply and therefore play it that way. Without an offical clarification I'd be reluctant to play it another way