Frenzy / Horns / Blitz - Combo Question

[Wylder]

Hi Guys.

Friend of mine was telling me about a game he played. His opponent was blitzing using a beastman who has horns (obviously) and frenzy. The beastman used a block as the first move of the blitz, and so as we all know, horns does not apply as he has not yet moved a square.

However, a pushback was rolled, and the beastman coach was trying to insist that horns can be used on the second (frenzy) block, as the beastman is still blitzing, and has now moved a square - from following up.

This doesnt seem right to me, but a reading of the rules for the skill doesnt seem to give me any way to argue against it. Ive provided the LRB text here for reference.

Horns (Mutation)
A player with horns may use them to butt an opponent. This adds 1 to
the player’s Strength when he makes a block. However, the player may
only use this ability as part of a Blitz, and only if he has moved at least
one square before he makes the block (standing up at the start of your
Action does not count!). If the player has the Frenzy skill, then the Horns
bonus applies on the second block if it applied on the first.


It says that "If the player has the Frenzy skill, then the Horns bonus applies on the second block if it applied on the first".

However what is implied, but not stated, is that "If a player has the Frenzy skill, then the horns bonus DOESNT apply on the second block if it DIDNT apply on the first".

This seems logical, but the proof of the positive case does not imply the disproof of the negative case.


So... Horns on the second block of a frenzy? Yay or Nay?

[Ullis]

If the player has the Frenzy skill, then the Horns
bonus applies on the second block if it applied on the first.

However what is implied, but not stated, is that "If a player has the Frenzy skill, then the horns bonus DOESNT apply on the second block if it DIDNT apply on the first".

Definitely no! I didn't check the rules myself, but it's more than implied. I myself don't see what's there to argue. If we take apart the relevant part of the rules, we get the following:

1. Does the player have Frenzy and Horns?
2. If yes, did the player get the Horns bonus on the first block?
3. If yes, add +1 to ST on the second block (as well). If no, then Horns is utterly useless.

[Darkson]

No.

[GalakStarscraper]

This seems logical, but the proof of the positive case does not imply the disproof of the negative case.

Totally disagree with you.

The wording is to me very clear on this. Did he get the Horns bonus on the first block? If No ... then he doesn't get it on the 2nd block. If Yes ... then he gets it for the 2nd block.

Galak

[Daefaroth]

This seems logical, but the proof of the positive case does not imply the disproof of the negative case.

Totally disagree with you.

The wording is to me very clear on this. Did he get the Horns bonus on the first block? If No ... then he doesn't get it on the 2nd block. If Yes ... then he gets it for the 2nd block.

Galak

I understand where Wylder is coming from on this, I've taken enough college level math and physics to follow the statement. If this were a question in a Logic textbook then I would be forced to agree with his statement. However, I think the way it is written is more than clear enough for a game.

[DDogwood]

I understand where Wylder is coming from on this, I've taken enough college level math and physics to follow the statement. If this were a question in a Logic textbook then I would be forced to agree with his statement. However, I think the way it is written is more than clear enough for a game.

Yeah, in formal logic you'd have to say "if and only if", but I'm not sure that it's really necessary to write game rules to fulfill the requirements of formal logic.

[GalakStarscraper]

Yeah, in formal logic you'd have to say "if and only if", but I'm not sure that it's really necessary to write game rules to fulfill the requirements of formal logic.

Only if you want the rulebook to be 100 pages long.

Galak

[Xeterog]

consider this. If the statement "If the player has the Frenzy skill, then the Horns bonus applies on the second block if it applied on the first. " does not disprove the negative case, then why have this statement in the skill at all, since you would always get the strength bonus on the 2nd Frenzied block (well except for the corner case of hitting someone with stand firm...)

[whitetiger]

Uh, this is Bloodbowl. I don't think Orcs take to logic in any sense of the word, and Nurgle just totally leaves it all behind. And besides, isn't Chaos a total departure from logic anyway?

[Wylder]

Thanks guys. Im really glad that you guys responded the way you did.

I think it was a fairly retarded thing to try too. Now I can show this guy that a bunch of other people think so too :p

[t3clis]

That's not a "think so" matter... that's it the only way it could possibly be. (even agreeing that lawyering about the rules spelling in a twisted-sort-of-first-order-logic way the fact COULD maybe be taken in consideration for more than five minutes)

[Wylder]

That's not a "think so" matter... that's it the only way it could possibly be. (even agreeing that lawyering about the rules spelling in a twisted-sort-of-first-order-logic way the fact COULD maybe be taken in consideration for more than five minutes)

Yeah, for sure.

I was just having trouble constructing an argument against this tom-foolery that didn't just boil down to "But you just CANT do that!".

I'm much happier with "Galak and Darkson said so, so shutup!".


P.S. I dont play the guy who tried this on (with good reason), Im just trying to help out a friend who does occasionally play this guy.

[space cowboy]

Those are the worst kinds of rules lawyers (and often the kinds of people that help ruin perfectly good games of any variety for me.) Kind of like saying 'the rules don't say I can't do something, so I am going to do it.'

Thanks,
Howard

[Daefaroth]

Those are the worst kinds of rules lawyers (and often the kinds of people that help ruin perfectly good games of any variety for me.) Kind of like saying 'the rules don't say I can't do something, so I am going to do it.'

Thanks,
Howard

Given how many variants of this situation has come up, perhaps Rule #1 needs to printed in LRB 6.

RULE # 1: If the rules don't explicitly say that you able to do what you are attempting, it is not allowed under the rule set.

[space cowboy]

I am a big fan of that rule in everything except maybe Illuminati, and then only the cheating version.

Thanks,
Howard