Stab and Injury rolls

[Jural]

I would think that enough people being confused on the subject warrants a FAQ.

And I'll state again what almost everyone who reads Stab will think- They will think it means that the player who stabs can not use any of his abilities to modify the armor roll.

I understand your point. I still see ambiguity after you explain it regarding stunty and nigglers. The truth is, words like EVERY, ANY, and UNMODIFIED are not being used correctly. And in 99% of the case (or more) that is just fine.

But in this case, the UNMODIFIED from Stab conflicts with the ANY and from the nigglers and stunty sections. They are both absolutes, and I can't understand why one takes precedent over the other, although I do understand that this is the intention of the designer.

Now stakes is different for me. Stakes blatantly overrides a specific use of the word unmodified. By the simple fact that stakes is in the game, I think it's clear that it works.

The intention of the above isn't to make anyone angry- I just want to point out that a person I greatly respect, admire, and deeply believe to be a rationale person, as well as humble, can see this issue differently. Of course I'm referring to myself

[Darkson]

By the simple fact that stakes is in the game, I think it's clear that it works.

Replace the word "stakes" with "niggles" or "stunty" and you can use the exact same arguement.

[Snew]

Stakes says it does "extra damage". It should modify the injury roll. Not the Armor roll.

Darkson- you're being difficult. You won't your point that it's unclear yet you keep kicking it into the ground.

stab- blah. blah....used in place of a block. Make an Armour roll for the victim. No skills may modify this roll and Piling on does not apply. If the score is less than or equal to the victim’s Armour value then the attack has no effect. If the score beats the victim’s Armour value then they have been wounded and an Injury roll must be made. Again nothing may modify this roll, not even Stunty or Niggling injuries, with the exception of Stakes witch allows a modifier against players on Kehmri, Necromantic, and Undead teams. If Stab is used as part of a Blitz Action, the player cannot continue moving after using it. Casualties caused by a stabbing attack do not count for Star Player points.

stakes- works exactly like stab EXCEPT it gets a +1 to injury against Kehmri, Necromantic, and Undead.

I took the liberty of changing stakes a bit but you get the idea.

[Darkson]

Darkson- you're being difficult.

I learnt from the best.

[Snew]

Darkson- you're being difficult.

I learnt from the best.

DL?

[Darkson]

Better...

[Snew]

Seriously. I've been much better since I adopted the what-does-it-say logic. This circular crap just gets confusing as a few of your last posts showed. Maybe it was just me glazing over wondering why you were still posting....

[Jural]

By the simple fact that stakes is in the game, I think it's clear that it works.

Replace the word "stakes" with "niggles" or "stunty" and you can use the exact same arguement.

I'm with you on most things here Darkson, but not this. If stakes didn't work with stab, it wouldn't be in the game. Therefore, it is logical (and consistent) to assume that stakes overrides the restrictions on stab. The mere existence of the rule leads one to that conclusion, so one gives the game designers the benefit of the doubt and interprets the rules this way.

Not exceedingly clear, mind you, but logical and consistent. I assume 98% of league commisioners, or more, would rule that stakes overrides the "unmodified" portion of stab.

However, even if stunty and nigglers didn't apply to stab, they would still apply to numerous other rolls. Likewise, the Unmodified part of stab could refer to mighty blow or Dirty Player. Therefore, I believe it is not clear that the mere existence of stunty and nigglers, nor the unmodified wording in Stab, leads to a logical conclusion of how to handle this.

[Darkson]

I disagree it's logicial and consistent, and I've played GW games for to long to believe it even if it was.

[slup]

To sum up, there is an official ruling, now known by most.

Allthough i disagree, both with the intent and the logic, i will write it into the collected Q&A over at specialist games forum if it is mentioned in a thread over there.

[Snew]

I disagree it's logicial and consistent, and I've played GW games for to long to believe it even if it was.

This is no longer a GW game. It's a Tom game. He worked hard to take all the GWish-ness out of it and you know it. You can't use the arguement that it's GW so you HAVE to read between the lines.

[GalakStarscraper]

He worked hard to take all the GWish-ness out of it and you know it.

I really did ... however its a big rulebook with a lot of intersecting rules so even 2 years of work didn't catch everything.

I readily conceed that this one needs help to be more clearer and we'll put this on the plate for the review.

Galak

[Darkson]

Last time I looked, it was still a GW game. I didn't say it was a GW badly-written rule.
I just meant I've played GW game long enough not to believe the literal wording of every rule written.

[Snew]

We've come a long way from when we needed the Oberwald. You could do a LOT worse than reading the literal translation and believing that.

[GalakStarscraper]

You could do a LOT worse than reading the literal translation and believing that.

One of the things I like about Snew's new BB approach and outlook. If the text doesn't say what I think it says ... he calls me on it ... which is great. The text should say the exact rules and implications and intentions be d*mned.

Galak