Talk Fantasy Football

Note the first line of the skill:

A player with this skill is an expert at stepping neatly out of the way of an attacker.

Now, refer to the Block Dice chart, as well as to p.11 of LRB concerning Blocks:

On the table, the player making the block is referred to as the attacker, while his target is the defender.

There is no 'attacker' on the SS player, who is likewise not the 'defender,' when another player is pushed into the SS player. Therefore, SS should not work in this scenario; it should ONLY work if the SS player is Blocked.

Stand Firm is still a question, because although the skill says in the first sentence "as the result of a Block," subsequent sentences simply say 'Pushed Back.' A player being pushed onto another player ALSO causes a push back, so it isn't clear...unless you take the first sentence as setting the context for the rest of the description, and/or feel "result of a Block" is all inclusive to secondary and tertiary push backs. This can be argued either way, so SF is still a question.

You make a good case there, Zynok. I agree that you could make such conclusions without the rules contradicting you - but honestly you should call them house rules if you use that in your league.

Why? My opinion is that the intent of the rules is clear:

Both skills should work whenever the player is for one reason or another pushed back.

However, the people writing the rules failed to recognise that they are not allowed even such an innocent description as the one quoted above for side step, without it being hijacked to become grounds for curious interpretations of the rules.

Now, I admit that I'm walking on a thin ice here, talking about the "intent" of the rules. Who am I to say what's the intent of the rules?
However, the interpretation I'm offering as the intent of the rules is a one that I can't remember being contradicted in any official documents or by any rules gurus except by the interpretation given above. If a BBRC member doesn't appear and smite me and my opinion, I can't consider the presented solution nothing more than a house rule that could be justified by reading the LRB with the intention of finding such meanings from the text.
It's not a law book so you can't really draw that drastic conclusions with such evidence. It's the same as saying that no-one has to roll an armour roll as the book says that players who are "knocked over" have to roll, and players are only "knocked down" or they "fall over" or "fall prone".

I absolutely agree that all of this stems from the same problem, and would include the "Pass Block a Dump Off" in the mix as well.

The problem is the use of inconsistent terms that become technical terms in the context of the rules. Simply, they need consistent verbage. I am by no means trying to indicate my conclusions are the correct ones, but simply attempting to illustrate how one CAN make an argument because of the inconsistent terminology.

If we ever expect to have a universal understanding of the rules, these things need to be addressed. A simple errata sheet would suffice for everything I have found.

Finally, I am very guarded when it comes to making rulings based on "we've always done it that way." This game is too good (exceptional since LRB 1.3) to not address some of these inconsistencies and clarifications with an errata sheet...no need to rewrite the book, honestly.

I simply try to deduce rulings based on the wording found in the LRB. There really aren't that many problems, but the ones that do exist are significant enough to warrant clarification and/or a rewrite.

In that case, Xynok, I wholeheartedly agree with your aims. I misjudged your intentions.

Too bad that your findings won't make it into the rules review this year, but surely if some of these are not addressed and changed this year by the BBRC, they'll get to "Galaks BBRC Hot List 2003" amongst the first items to be addressed.

Thank Nuffle the Rules Lawyer in my league didn't read the rulebook as closely as you

To make it clear cut, we only allow skills/traits to take effect if the model is one of the two players engaged in the block. Therefore Side Step and Stand Firm will not take effect, if another model is pushed into that your player (subsequent pushes).
Hopefully we will soon hear an official ruling on subsequent pushing: who controls them? do skills&traits like Stand firm append? And what about a thrown goblin landing in a square occupied by a stand firm player? and so on...

RULES LAWYERS! RULES LAWYERS!
Back to your holes foul beasts.

Seriously. Stand firm and Sidestep take effect whenever someone is pushed back (or not in the case of Stand Firm). I know the rulebook may not be absolutely word perfect on this but if you're going to go around dissecting the rulebook like that then you'll find all sorts of neat little tricks. Sort it out amongst yourselves and quit whining about exact wordings, because if you make absolutely every single possible solution absolutely defined then you'll end up with an enormous rulebook the size of an encyclopedia, full of pointless rule descriptions. You have read the background of the game haven't you?

Agreed

It's a GAME for fun, not a win at all costs or you die IRL game. If you think a treeman would get knocked back if a halfling got pushed against him then so be it, it's upto you how you interpret the rules, just try to stick to the feel of the game.

First off, I am indeed a Rules Lawyer; it comes from my 5 years as a Magic:TG judge.

Many of us certainly take BB too seriously, but you are missing the point.

We run an extremely popular hobby store here in America, with sanctioned tournaments for just about any game that lends itself to tournament play. We want to do the SAME for BB. Unfortunately, due to the state of the rules, we have found we dare not do so until such time that we at LEAST devleop an errata sheet of rulings we find need clarification. This board is great for feedback on such things. I'm not sure how many tournaments (of any type) you have run, but when YOU are the final authority on any and all rulings, it is imperative to have something to refer to.

Until BB offers official rules with official errata (etc), the tournament scene for the game is going to be minor. It isn't that I want BB to become as big as M:TG (it WOULD be cool, however), but I DO want to be able to run a tournament and have my judges and players have access to rules errata. If the game didn't need errata so bad, it would be one thing...but it does.

Please refrain from thinking anyone comes here to simply "whine" or "get away with something." Indeed, it is with the intent to AVOID these things that these posts are made. If you're just playing with a group of friends, just as in any game, these things aren't really important. However, when you are responsible for 20+ coaches who may have never met each other, and play under various rules, you BETTER have both clear and consistent rulings for them. Waiting until the situation presents itself is a sure recipi for ensuring nobody ever takes part in your league/tournament again.

Finally, on a personal note, I can't stand ambiguites in the rules for ANY game I play. Inconsistent verbage is my pet peeve. I abhor cheating, and this is why I take GREAT pains to know the rules inside and out, along with any and all errata/clarification to those rules: to ensure nobody else cheats. The LRB has gone a LONG way in making BB the incredible game it finally is; it won't take much to perfect it, but it WILL take work. Until then, discussions of this nature are simply part of running a big league where everyone doesn't know each other, and plays under various house rules...and BB lends itself to a LOT of house rules.

Until BB offers official rules with official errata (etc), the tournament scene for the game is going to be minor. It isn't that I want BB to become as big as M:TG (it WOULD be cool, however), but I DO want to be able to run a tournament and have my judges and players have access to rules errata. If the game didn't need errata so bad, it would be one thing...but it does.

Well I have run 2 national tournaments (and participated in many more), and to be honest I've never had any problems with rules. The Commish's word is Law, and what they say goes when rulings come up. I don't think BB is the kind of game that will draw a following like Magic can, but to say the BB tournament scene is minor is absurd.

It is minor in my area at the moment, but quickly picking up interest. I agree the Commissioner's word is law, but it is handy to be able to quickly have a reference (even if it is your own), not to mention being able to have more than one judge and stay consistent. If these discussions are brought to the table prior to, they can be dealt with quickly.

Either way, since when is discussing rules clarifications whining or a front for ulterior motives? Even the Oberwald (which exists for a REASON) specifically addresses this skill, and even lists a variant. It is one thing to whine, and it is an entirely different thing to discuss rules that simply are not clear.

Cheers.

I agree with Xynok that the rules could do with being a bit more consistent in their wording. This seems to be a general issue with Games Workshop games, their attitude being that we should 'play nice'.

Unfortunately these kind of rules issues tend to arise in the heat of the game when it is hard(er) for players to be objective about the rulings.

Also when you may find yourself playing against people who you consider rules lawyers it is nice if you do not have to do too much arguing with them.

Whilst it's hard to pick up all these points in writing rules to a game as complex as blood bowl I see the living rules process as a great step forward in this respect, these little inconsistencies can be chipped away until one day they will be gone.

Until then though remember that some players are just taking the piss
(not anyone on this site though)

Just write a quick reference for your local league with whatever you feel is right, laminate it, pin it up on the wall and you have it in clear sight

If you're thinking of running a touney, write up a eratta sheet with the wordings YOU want, distribute them to all players prior to the event.
Then no-one can complain about different interpretations.

It doesn't have to be official or right, hell, it doesn't even have to be fair (though that's probably not a good idea), but as long as everyone knows in advance there's no excuse for whining about "But I don't play it that way".

And if something you haven't covers comes up - rule on it, and in the next between game time, announce the ruling so everyones aware.