After failing to argue an IP call, can I then use a reroll?

[Artificial Penguin]

i disagree penguin...not everything has to have a downside.

the main downside of arguing the call is that it usually doesn't work. that's good enough.

If the only downside of arguing the call is that it doesn't work, how are you any worse off than before? That's not a downside. I agree that not *everything* needs a downside, but if a choice is going to be introduced into the game, their needs to be risk and reward, otherwise it's not a real choice.

For nearly all teams, the only downside is that you cannot argue a future call if you roll a 1...which doesn't present a real downside because the negative options you're faced with are:

1) don't argue the call -- IP is called and stands
2) argue and roll a 1...no more arguing calls (but if you hadn't chosen to argue in the first place, you'd be in the same position)
3) argue and roll a 2-5...nothing happens

[Zombie]

It's obvious that if you "choose" to argue the call, you can't then use a reroll after you fail. Otherwise that wouldn't be a "choice" at all, it would be an automatic thing to do.

The rules are clear. If you argue, it's then too late to use a reroll. Playing otherwise is using a house rule, and a beardy one at that.

[Artificial Penguin]

Zombie:

That's great if it's obvious...please point me to where that is in the rulebook and I'll be much happier. I find all the discussion of house rules interesting, but what I really want is the official ruling, and I haven't found it addressed anywhere.

[Grumbledook]

Well you have to use skills directly after the dice roll. You can't roll another dice then decide to reroll the one before. While that doesn't directly speak about rerolls, it was talkinag about skill rerolls and its on the page with the reroll rules. Thats as about as official as the rulebook gets. Its also comman sense, to try and reroll an earlier dice is ludicrous.

[Zombie]

Zombie:

That's great if it's obvious...please point me to where that is in the rulebook and I'll be much happier. I find all the discussion of house rules interesting, but what I really want is the official ruling, and I haven't found it addressed anywhere.

From the LRB, p.18:

In order to represent this, every time the referee sends off one or more of your players, or issues an illegal procedure call against you, or bans the use of a secret weapon, you may argue the call with him.

Why say "may" if the choice was not yours to make and this was an automatic thing? The intent is obvious.

And don't go telling me that the illegal procedure isn't called until after you've argued the call. The IP isn't even called by the referee. It's the opposing coach who calls it. From the LRB, p.8:

If he forgets to move the counter before taking an action with one or more of his players, then the opposing coach is allowed to call for an ‘illegal procedure’ penalty as soon as he spots the mistake.

[Artificial Penguin]

Taken from your quote, Zombie:

"In order to represent this, every time the referee sends off one or more of your players, or issues an illegal procedure call against you, or bans the use of a secret weapon, you may argue the call with him."

It specifically says that the "referee...issues an illegal procedure call...".

So no, there's nothing obvious about this rule, at least not that I've seen yet. Saying obvious when the issue isn't directly adressed is like saying it's "common sense"--sometimes people have different interpretations.

Anyway, the reason I posted the thread was to see if anyone could point me to a part of the rulebook that specified whether you could choose to use your reroll after failing to argue the call. Sounds like it definitely isn't covered, so I'll just leave it up to my commish...

[Joaquim]

I think GW & obvious don't fit well the same setence.... specially if you put rules in it!!..

But I guess that if you ask someone at GW the answer will be: It's part of the hobby...

But, actually, I've seen a lot of rules out there and these aren't the worst - it's a complex game, after all...

Funny thing: we don't even use the argue rule... it sounded a little... and never remembered to introduce it...
Actually I guess it's because of our coachs tried to argue any call.... this is really a good ideia of "distracting" that kind of coachs: instead of arguing with "us" he will try to argue with the "ref"....

Anyway, in this case....
a) the penalty for a IP is losing a RR (if the team can) or suffer a turnover, so, if you argue and fail you just suffer the consequencies: a burn RR or a turnover...
I really don't see the question here.... is a kind like asking if a fouling player is sent off if you fail the argue....

b) I'm not sure on the rules, but if any coach wants to rr the argue... for me, spending a RR to try to save one looks fine.!!...

[Zombie]

Listen, if you could argue and still use a reroll after you fail, why wouldn't you argue? I can't think of one situation where i wouldn't. The word "may" becomes pretty stupid.

Besides, the strategy and tactics in this game is all about making choices. "Do i go for it twice to decrease the passing range, or try to pass from here?", etc. The more of those choices there are in the game, the more interesting it becomes. Making one tactical choice (do i try to argue the call and save a reroll, or go for the sure thing and burn a reroll) obsolete is not the way to go. Especially since there are no good reasons (nothing that would make the game better) for doing so.

[Snew]

If you've rolled a die, that's it. You can re-roll that die, the argue the call die in this case, but you can't go back and turn in the re-roll counter just because your argue wasn't successful.

[ZanzerTem]

Listen, if you could argue and still use a reroll after you fail, why wouldn't you argue? I can't think of one situation where i wouldn't.

Here is one: if you decide to argue it, and you roll a one, you get ejected and can't argue any more calls. Most players in my league do NOT argue IP calls because of this. They save them for fouling or for their secret weapons.

[Zombie]

Well, that's pretty stupid. There's a 1 in 6 chance that you'll save the reroll, and a 1 in 36 chance that it will help you in a later call if you don't argue now. The coaches in your league must be pretty bad in math.

[Munkey]

Listen, if you could argue and still use a reroll after you fail, why wouldn't you argue? I can't think of one situation where i wouldn't. The word "may" becomes pretty stupid.

I think that's what was being discussed and addressed with Darkson's house rule. As far as I read the rules it's 'obvious' that you can do this, and Darkson's house rules addressed this isssue by providing more of a downside and so made the issue less beardy.

Well, that's pretty stupid. There's a 1 in 6 chance that you'll save the reroll, and a 1 in 36 chance that it will help you in a later call if you don't argue now. The coaches in your league must be pretty bad in math.

Nobody said that choices always had to have sensible outcomes. On a double I could choose to pick pass as a skill for a Black Orc but I'd be better off with Block (I know thats a crap example but it's the only one I could think up ).

[Kri]

The game rarely forces you to do anything. If you fail a dodge with a player with dodge skill you don´t have to use dodge so I don´t see why you would HAVE to argue the call.

Most people reroll the failed dodge, most people (that use the rule) argue before spending a RR.

The only MUST in the game is Frenzy and some BG-traits. And to interpret a rule from one word doesn´t work because GW haven´t spent alot of time on absolutely correct terms.

[Zombie]

I don't interpret a rule from one word. I interpret it on what seems to be the intent, like Jervis always said we should. The intent is obvious: you can argue or spend a reroll, not both. It just "makes sense" that way.

[Snew]

"Intent" is impossible to determine and "makes sense" has never been an indicator of anything in the rules since you can never determine if the intent was for it to be written that way as a game mechanic or because someone dropped out of school in the 7th grade.

This is why we get to "discuss" the rules over and over again on forums like these.