NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - Juggernaut Q
Frantic - Jan 12, 2009 - 01:03 PM
Post subject: Juggernaut Q
Am I right?
I have a High Elf Blitzer with the following skills: Block, Leap Jugernaut and Strip ball. I make a Blitz Action with him against a player with the Wrestle Skill. The diceroll is showend "Both Down". Can I use to block my opponents player down? It clearly says that he can not use his Wrestle skill.
Or do I misunderstand it?
Juggernaut (Strength)
A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion.
If this player takes a Blitz Action, then opposing players may not use
their Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills against blocks, and he may
choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been
rolled instead.
AK_Dave - Jan 12, 2009 - 02:00 PM
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
No. You do not knock down the other player.
You rolled a 'Both Down'.
If you use Block, then the result of the die is not changed and your opponent is potentially knocked down while you're safe. But your opponent has Wrestle, which overrides this and both players are knocked down.
If you use Juggernaut, then the RESULT OF THE DIE is changed to a 'Pushed' result. Wrestle is not allowed against this, as the RESULT OF THE DIE is changed. Literally. This makes the use of Block skill unnecessary, as there is no purpose for Block (or Wrestle) with a 'Pushed' result.
Read it this way:
"A player with this skill (Juggernaut) is virtually impossible to stop once he (or she) is in motion. If this player takes a Blitz Action (and uses this skill), then opposing players may not use their Fend, Stand Firm, or Wrestle skills against blocks ... "
Bottom line:
You cannot use Juggernaut on a block to void the use of Wrestle by your opponent without also changing a 'Both Down' to a 'Pushed' result on the die. You may choose to use the skill, but not choose to use only part of the effect of the skill.
Frantic - Jan 12, 2009 - 03:14 PM
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Well why is it writen as that then?
As it is written now I´m not that sure that you are right, but I´m ben proven wrong before. If youre right then you can explain the Juggernaut much easyer for people like me 
Ok here I go ->
Juggernaut (Strength)
If this player takes a Blitz Action he may choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been rolled instead, then opposing players may not use their Fend or Stand Firm skills.
You never wrestle a "Pushed".
Where is Ian when you need him 
sann0638 - Jan 12, 2009 - 03:27 PM
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
I think he will be in soon, and will say that Frantic is right. Just my prediction!
This was covered recently in TBB: http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25106&highlight=juggernaut+wrestle
smeborg - Jan 12, 2009 - 03:56 PM
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Frantic - I believe your understanding is correct.
If a player with Juggernaut blitzes a player with Wrestle (but without Block), and the result of the block is "both down" then the player with Wrestle may be knocked down (in the square where he is). Of course, the player with Juggernaut may choose to convert the "both down" result into a "push" instead (for example in order to push the opponent into the crowd).
Hope this helps.
AK_Dave - Jan 13, 2009 - 01:24 AM
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
You either use the skill, or you don't use the skill. Use of the skill is optional. You "may" do this, you "may" do that. You "may" use the skill, or you "may" ignore it. If you want a 'Both Down' result on the block, then you don't use Juggernaut. You accept the 'Both Down' result. But then the other player can use Wrestle. If you use Juggernaut on the 'Both Down' result, it becomes a 'Pushed'. You can't use Wrestle on a 'Pushed' result.
Why is Wrestle mentioned in the first place? Beats me. My guess: either redundancy or leftover language from a previous edition.
Thats how I read it. Simple, straightforward, uncomplicated.
If they wanted a skill that allowed you to do two completely unrelated things, the skill should be written as two completely unrelated things. Perhaps two complete sentences. I read it as one combined function because as one combined sentence it is written as one combined function.
I'd suggest this IF the intent of the rule is to allow two seperate functions instead of one combined function:
Quote:
A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion. If this player takes a Blitz Action, then opposing players may not use their Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills against blocks. In addition, he may choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been rolled instead.
Skinhead - Jan 13, 2009 - 04:02 AM
Post subject:
you make a pretty convincing argument, but the way i read it it pretty much says it how you suggest, just with a comma instead of a full stop.
A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion.
If this player takes a Blitz Action, then opposing players may not use
their Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills against blocks, and he may
choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been
rolled instead.
So you can't use Fend, Stand Firm, or Wrestle skills against the block, if a both down is chosen you can't use wrestle. If instead the both down is made into a push, you can't use fend or stand firm.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 13, 2009 - 06:41 AM
Post subject:
The may in Juggernaut means just that you may elect to use the second piece even if you use the first part.
So you use Juggernaut to cancel Wrestle, elect not to convert the block result, and then use the Block skill to knock your opponent down.
Galak
Frantic - Jan 13, 2009 - 06:47 AM
Post subject:
Thx Galak!
The Juggernaut skill is even better now.
Another J Q then. One of my Human Blitzer [Block, J-up, Mighty Blow, Piling On] Are just a few points from gaining another one. If I take Juggernaut skill can I then use it to prevent wrestle (and knock him down) when i´m just making a block action (not a blitz action)?
GalakStarscraper - Jan 13, 2009 - 09:27 AM
Post subject:
Frantic wrote:
Thx Galak!
The Juggernaut skill is even better now.
Another J Q then. One of my Human Blitzer [Block, J-up, Mighty Blow, Piling On] Are just a few points from gaining another one. If I take Juggernaut skill can I then use it to prevent wrestle (and knock him down) when i´m just making a block action (not a blitz action)?
No because Juggernaut only works when a Blitz action is declared.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Jan 13, 2009 - 09:29 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
Why is Wrestle mentioned in the first place? Beats me. My guess: either redundancy or leftover language from a previous edition.
Footnote: the wording of every skill was redone for LRB 5.0 or at least seriously reviewed.
So if you are using a statement like this as a defense for your position ... your position is probably in error.
In past editions 4.0 or earlier ... this would be a reasonable guess. But all the skills were completely scrubbed for LRB 5.0.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Jan 13, 2009 - 09:35 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Let me phrase this a different way for AK_Dave in the hopes that it makes sense.
If you win a contest where you and your opponent have been earning money for questions and I as host say to you:
"AK_Dave .... as the winner of this contest you get $100 from your opponent and you may go to the Monster Truck rally on Tuesday night for free."
Are you going to assume that if you don't go to the Monster Truck rally that you don't get the $100? I'm guessing no. Juggernaut is worded the same way.
Galak
Frantic - Jan 13, 2009 - 09:39 AM
Post subject:
[quote="GalakStarscraper"] Frantic wrote:
No because Juggernaut only works when a Blitz action is declared.
Galak
Thanks, That was what I thought.
Spazzfist - Jan 13, 2009 - 09:58 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Let me phrase this a different way for AK_Dave in the hopes that it makes sense.
If you win a contest where you and your opponent have been earning money for questions and I as host say to you:
"AK_Dave .... as the winner of this contest you get $100 from your opponent and you may go the Monster Truck rally on Tuesday night for free."
Are you going to assume that if you don't go the Monster Truck rally that you don't get the $100? I'm guessing no. Juggernaut is worded the same way.
Galak
Monster Truck rally....
AK_Dave - Jan 13, 2009 - 10:59 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Okay, I read it wrong. But it is easy enough to read it wrong the way that it is written. The intent is not clear due to the way that the sentence is written, with the ", but" implying a dependant clause or relationship between the two concepts. My suggested edit makes the intent, now explained by Galak, crystal clear and unambiguous.
Bottom line: remove the comma-splice grammatical error and the language becomes tight and clean.
The fact that even one person who makes his way all the way to the NAF website with a rules question is proof enough that the rule, as written, is a bit ambiguous. The fact that at least one additional person, myself, can read the rule in a way other than intended is evidence that the rule, as written is ambiguous.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 13, 2009 - 12:39 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
But Frantic has the ruling correct in his first post and three other posts agreed with him even after your explanation. The problem is AK_Dave is that the explanation that you wrote doesn't work. If you add a full stop and use your text ... than its very easy to argue that Juggernaut can be used during Block actions. I'd rather deal with 4 right and 1 wrong on the rule reading compared to needing to completely redoing the last part of the skill to create a correct reading of the rule with a full stop.
AK_Dave - Jan 13, 2009 - 04:05 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
So you want the two concepts to both be linked. Thats the way it is written: the two concepts are linked. Thus my confusion. If the rule was unambiguous, Frantic would have no need to ask for clarification. Link the concepts and it reads like all-or-nothing. Seperate the concepts, and it potentially reads that the first part is dependant on a Blitz Action while the second part can be performed on a Block Action. Heck, it potentially reads that it could be used on a defender's choice block also where the Jugs player is the defender. Closing that loophole would require expanding the second sentence by repeating the "Blitz Action" clause. But at the same time there is a lot of superfluous wordage in the rule that could be omited.
How about this:
Quote:
A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion.
If this player takes a Blitz Action, opposing players may not use
Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills. On a Blitz Action, he may also
choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result had been rolled.
Theoretically, game rules should be able to stand on their own without a webforum for people to get questions answered. The rules should, ideally, be tight enough that questions answer themselves without need for nitpicky ruleslawyering of dependant clauses and the location of commas.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 13, 2009 - 04:47 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
Theoretically, game rules should be able to stand on their own without a webforum for people to get questions answered. The rules should, ideally, be tight enough that questions answer themselves without need for nitpicky ruleslawyering of dependant clauses and the location of commas.
Keep dreaming Dave ... keep dreaming. What you just said is impossible.
I'll bring it up with the BBRC this fall if they feel clarification is needed. My problem is that I strongly disagree that the clarification is required.
You never did answer my question before. Do you think you need to go to the Monster Truck rally to get the $100?
Galak
AK_Dave - Jan 13, 2009 - 05:49 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Keep dreaming Dave ... keep dreaming. What you just said is impossible.
I don't care that it is impossible. That shouldn't keep it from being a goal of all game rules design.
Or I suppose the attitude of game design should be more the GW approach:
Since it is impossible to write rules that are perfectly clear, frak-it-all lets just cram some gobbledegook on the page and then tell the players they're gits if they don't understand the rules the way that we tested them. Oh, and then tell them to "d6 it".
Gratefully, this does NOT appear to be the attitude of the BBRC. Sensible, technically competent, and grammatically correct language seems more the rule than the exception.
Quote:
I'll bring it up with the BBRC this fall if they feel clarification is needed. My problem is that I strongly disagree that the clarification is required.
Thank you.
Its not whether a change is "required". You understand what is written. But I'd anticipate that the members of the BBRC would have a keen understanding of how each rule is supposed to work. You take the Juggernaut text out of the context of the rest of the game and the rulebook, and maybe 99 out of 100 random people read that paragraph in the absence of the rest of the game rules the "right" way. But thats not my point. Put the rule in the context of the rest of the game, which is what I did previously, where "may" is a condition of all skills. You "may" use the skill. In that context, a skill that reads that you "may" do something can appear to be redundant. Yeah, I "may" do that - its a skill, so I'm not compelled to use it in the first place.
Thats where my suggested edit comes in. It is clear from your explanation what the intent of the rule is. The rule can be read that way. The rule can also be read another way. Tweak a couple words, and thats fixed.
Is it necessary to fix it? No. Would it make the game better? Probably wouldn't have any effect. Would it be the right thing to do anyways? I think that tightening language and pre-empting potential rules misunderstandings is always the right thing.
Quote:
You never did answer my question before. Do you think you need to go to the Monster Truck rally to get the $100?
I ignored this as irrelevant obfuscation.
smeborg - Jan 14, 2009 - 01:48 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
The wording as it stands is clear to me (and also, it would appear, to Frantic).
Cheers
Doubleskulls - Jan 15, 2009 - 02:14 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
The fact that even one person who makes his way all the way to the NAF website with a rules question is proof enough that the rule, as written, is a bit ambiguous. The fact that at least one additional person, myself, can read the rule in a way other than intended is evidence that the rule, as written is ambiguous.
If you want a better wording then I'd suggest you propose one yourself. Its harder than it looks to be precise and succinct.
sann0638 - Jan 15, 2009 - 09:38 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
He did!
SolarFlare - Jan 15, 2009 - 10:29 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
By the way, there is no comma splice in the rule as written. There are two independent clauses joined by a comma and a coordinating conjunction. (Note: I'm not saying that it would be impossible to improve the wording of the rule. I'm just saying that, if it is confusing, it is not due to a comma splice.)
AK_Dave - Jan 15, 2009 - 02:39 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
I consider myself to be a person of at least moderate intelligence, which may be hallucination on my part, with good command of the English language (another potential fallacy). So if I can read this so blatantly wrong, I am confident that I am not alone.
Ian: I did propose different text. See above. Thank you.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 15, 2009 - 07:46 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
Ian: I did propose different text. See above. Thank you.
Okay so reading your skill ... I can now treat the block as if both of a "Both Down" and "Pushed" result have been rolled when I use Juggernaut. That could be cool. I'll push the player back and then apply the Both Down ... that will be useful. Wrong ... but useful.
Two other comments:
SolarFlare is a school teacher so if he says the wording is solid on the English front that is a plus to me.
My other comment is that Ian (Doubleskulls) is very correct. I've had a lot of folks come at me on rules wording and then they try it themselves and get picked apart like I'm doing with AK_Dave and the bottom line is that its not easy to create a rule that has no room for misinterpretation. AK_Dave took my comment about that he was dreaming about perfect rules as some sort of blow off ... it wasn't ... its just not as easy as he thinks it is.
======
Also I didn't reply to this when AK_Dave first posted his monologue ... but its still bugging me so ... I will post it now since I've walked away and slept on it first.
AK_Dave make this post that comes down to an accusation that I don't care about clear rules. AK_Dave ... I'm hoping since you are a fairly new online person that you just don't know history. The facts: I've spent thousands of hours over the last 5 years rewording the rules to be as clear as possible which are either not aware of or just choose to ignore. I personally re-wrote the LRB 5.0 as a Word document paragraph by paragraph to remove as many unclear spots as possible (that's why if you look at page 1 ... I'm listed as the Editor. So when you suggest the BBRC cares more about well worded rules than me ... let's just be very clear that if the LRB 5.0 is more clear rules wise than the LRB 4.0 it has only 1% to do with the BBRC as a group and 99% because of my work. So if I disagree with you on the clarity of a single rule when no one else on the same thread has agreed with you that rewording is a good idea ... its not a sign that I overall don't care about clear rules. To be honest ... I was offended enough by that comment to still post this reply days later.
Okay ... now I can move on.
Galak
AK_Dave - Jan 16, 2009 - 12:36 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Okay so reading your skill ... I can now treat the block as if both of a "Both Down" and "Pushed" result have been rolled when I use Juggernaut. That could be cool. I'll push the player back and then apply the Both Down ... that will be useful. Wrong ... but useful.
That portion of the language is identical to that from the rulebook, so this reading would be possible from LRB5. It would be wrong, of course. You're good at whipping up irrelevant straw-man arguments in order to belittle people, Tom. Whether that is intentional or not is not for me to presume.
So how much additional text needs to be included to prevent blatant stupidity?
Quote:
the bottom line is that its not easy to create a rule that has no room for misinterpretation
You're right. Its not. But that doesn't mean we can't attempt to do so.
Quote:
AK_Dave make this post that comes down to an accusation that I don't care about clear rules.
Not true, but I can see where you might come to this mistaken conclusion. Fact is that I have not attempted to attribute this motivation (or lack thereof) to you but have not been explicit in stating so.
I'll be clear: I have not accused you of not caring about clear rules. If that was how you read it, fine, I'm sorry.
Skinhead - Jan 16, 2009 - 02:53 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
I can't really see how the rule as it is can be misinterpreted, or how the suggested change is any different, but i don't have a good command of the english language. But it simply says that on a blitz a defender can't use fend, stand firm, or wrestle against blocks, and that you may choose to treat a both down as if a pushed result had been rolled instead.
All you need is logic to follow it really. I think i am repeating myself, but, if a both down is chosen, you can't use wrestle, since you can't use fend, stand firm, or wrestle against blocks. If a push (whether rolled or a converted both down) is chosen, you can't use fend or stand firm, since you can't use fend, stand firm, or wrestle against blocks. You can't use those skills regardless of what block die result is chosen, however the blitzer may choose to push instead of take a both down.
Spazzfist - Jan 16, 2009 - 06:56 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Skinhead wrote:
All you need is logic to follow it really.
I would tend to agree with you here, but then in BB it is possible to intercept the ball before it is even thrown!
Frantic - Jan 16, 2009 - 07:37 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
I´ll think this discussion is going nowhere. Galak has agreed to talk it over when they going to meet and make the lrb 6.0 final. Why I braught this Q up is because my english isnt that great and I just wanted to know if I understod the Juggernaut correctly. And as it seems I did.
A solution to this could be to put it in the FAQ thats allways in the end of the rulebook.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 16, 2009 - 07:41 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Okay so reading your skill ... I can now treat the block as if both of a "Both Down" and "Pushed" result have been rolled when I use Juggernaut. That could be cool. I'll push the player back and then apply the Both Down ... that will be useful. Wrong ... but useful.
That portion of the language is identical to that from the rulebook, so this reading would be possible from LRB5. It would be wrong, of course. You're good at whipping up irrelevant straw-man arguments in order to belittle people, Tom. Whether that is intentional or not is not for me to presume.
====
Not belittling you ... trying to drive home the point. And your version was NOT the same as LRB 5.0. You left off the word "instead" from the end of the skill. So your version means you will have people wonder if it means "in addition" or whether it means "instead". And it will happen ... it popped into my mind as a question the moment I read your revised description. So its not a "straw man" ... its a legitimate critic of a hole in a rule re-write that you are proposing ... don't tell me I'm "straw man"ing when I'm honestly giving you real feedback on re-writes you present. This is the type of thing I've gone back and forth on for the last 5 years with numerous folks. I'm trying to drive home that this isn't as simple as its been presented and that while changing the rule to make it clear to you might seem straightforward ... changes frequently create new misintrepretions.
Quote:
So how much additional text needs to be included to prevent blatant stupidity?
I find it fascinating to read this from you when you are the one soapboxing on perfectly written rules.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Jan 16, 2009 - 07:43 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Frantic wrote:
A solution to this could be to put it in the FAQ thats allways in the end of the rulebook.
No room for that. FAQ is full.
And its not an FAQ ... I haven't yet seen more than one person interpret it wrong on the forums. To be an FAQ ... it really does need to be a frequently asked question and one that is prone to misinterpretation (ie when they ask the question they have guessed wrong (which in this example you had not)).
Galak
Frantic - Jan 16, 2009 - 07:47 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Ah allright, it was just a thought.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 16, 2009 - 07:50 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Spazzfist wrote:
I would tend to agree with you here, but then in BB it is possible to intercept the ball before it is even thrown!
Lycos - Jan 16, 2009 - 10:21 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
I consider myself to be a person of at least moderate intelligence, which may be hallucination on my part, with good command of the English language (another potential fallacy). So if I can read this so blatantly wrong, I am confident that I am not alone.
You are not. I started randomly asking people on email and you are by no means alone. I read this topic when it was just after Galak's first post on page one and then started asking. Others thought exactly as you did.
In support of Tom and Ian, the guy on BBRC I asked (they can guess who) did get it right!!
AK_Dave - Jan 16, 2009 - 11:04 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Not belittling you ... trying to drive home the point. And your version was NOT the same as LRB 5.0. You left off the word "instead" from the end of the skill.
I overreacted to the way that you were trying to "drive home the point".
Okay. I think it would have been simple to just say so: "Because you omitted 'instead', this is the implication. That word needs to be included."
I'm fine with that. I overlooked the implication of the omission that one word. I saw it as superfluous when it was not. That doesn't make the rest of my suggestion worthless. I'm not claiming to be infallible. Most days I don't even attempt infallibility.
Quote:
I find it fascinating to read this from you when you are the one soapboxing on perfectly written rules.
We disagree: I don't think the rule is perfectly written in the first place, but my attempts to suggest an alternative are also imperfect.
I am willing to concede: 1) that rewriting this section CAN make it worse; and, 2) perhaps the existing language is the closest to perfection that we can achieve.
Here's how I see it:
1. The rule for Juggernaut contains two sections, two things that can be done with the skill. You can do the first, or you can do the first and the second, but the two sections are really only linked by the fact that both of them are predicated on the Blitz Action. By combining them together into a single complex sentence, it is easy to read the skill other than it is intended by skimming by a little too quickly and paraphrasing the skill as "If this player takes a Blitz Action [...] treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been rolled instead." That is clearly not how the rule actually reads and is incorrect.
2. Seperating the two sections into independant sentences reduces the complexity of each sentence and makes this error less likely to occur.
The edit that I suggested did this imperfectly. I can think of other ways to rewrite this, but most of them would not be consistent with the way that rules are written elsewhere in LRB and would thus be inappropriate.
For example:
Code:
15.31 Juggernaut (Strength)
III - SKILLS
III.31.01 A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion.
III.31.02 If this player takes a Blitz Action, then opposing players may not use their Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills against blocks,
III.31.02.01 and he may choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been rolled instead.
Not only is that exceedingly ugly to look at, it is awkward to read and totally inconsistent with everything else in the rulebook. I would rather gouge my eyeballs out with forks than read game rules that are organised like Star Fleet Battles. But it makes the point that "section B" is an optional appendange to "section A". Thats why I didn't suggest it.
Here is another way to do the same thing:
Code:
Juggernaut (Strength)
A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion.
If this player takes a Blitz Action, then: 1) opposing players may not use
their Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills against blocks; and, 2) he may
choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been
rolled instead.
Working within the LRB context of "rules written as ordinary sentences and paragraphs", my thought was that the error could be minimized by simplifying the language and de-complicating the sentence. Break it into two sentences. That would seem to make it obvious, because when you're skimming a little too quickly a period (full stop) will tend to interrupt you.
Alternatively, the sentence could be made even more complicated and achieve the same purpose by replacing the ", and" with a "; and,". Its a little awkward to read, but since "he may choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been rolled instead" is a complete sentence the more appropriate puncutation to use would be the semicolon. This has the unfortunate effect of placing the "If this player takes a Blitz Action" on the wrong side of the semicolon and implying that this condition only applies to the first half of the rule. When it does not.
Thus we come to my suggestion to simply break the complex sentence into two independant sentences.
But this is all predicated on my initial self-centered and egotistical presumption that if I could be so idiotic as to misread this rule so completely that there likely exist others who have or can do the same with equal ease.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 16, 2009 - 11:27 AM
Post subject:
Thanks AK_Dave ... if you had written something like this before I promise my responses would have been very different.
That was a VERY well written response to this topic.
My problems come down to my history working on the rules. Especially the skills section I sat down with two professional proofreaders and one college writing professor and worked with them skill by skill to do a full rewrite on the skills section. So when you see my responses ... I just ask you remember I went through this process.
Now you just stated my one biggest problem. If you add a full stop ... you don't grammatically change what the skill does at all ... in fact you just end up making the skill longer due to repeated text. Grammatically they will be identical. As SolarFlare (a school teacher) already pointed out ... grammatically speaking the current text in the rulebook is correct for what stating what the rule does.
So my problem with concept here of changing the rule is that I read the rule grammatically the right way and Jervis has rules about not making rules longer for no good reason. He's changed rules to just delete a few words from the rulebook in the past. So for me the full stop is no more clear than the current version. However I will conceed that some may not understand the ", and may" method of conjuction. Heck I had to explain on another BB Forum this morning (I read many each day) to a non-native English speaker that the LRB 6.0 wording for Stunty does not make them suffer a KO'd AND a Badly Hurt result when 7 and 9 are rolled since they didn't understand what the word "respectively" meant.
So the rules need to be as clear as possible.
But my question is does a full stop really make the rule clearer ... or are most people still not going to get that its two seperate things not hinged to each other even with a full stop? Namely like below:
Quote:
Juggernaut (Strength)
A player with this skill is virtually impossible to stop once he is in motion. If this player takes a Blitz Action, then opposing players may not use their Fend, Stand Firm or Wrestle skills against his blocks. In addition, if this player is performing a Blitz Action, he may choose to treat a ???Both Down??? result as if a ???Pushed??? result has been rolled instead.
Galak
AK_Dave - Jan 16, 2009 - 01:09 PM
Post subject:
Its repetetive, but it works and honestly I think that is the best combination. It kinda beats you in the forehead that Juggernaut only works on a Blitz Action, and that the second part of the rule is dependant not only on the first but on the Blitz Action itself. I think it would be hard to skim by that one too fast, and easy for someone translating this into another language to get it right the first time. I think your version is less awkard to read than changing ", and may" for "; and, may". It emphasizes the proper way for Juggernaut to work. It looks like a win.
Doubleskulls - Jan 16, 2009 - 02:41 PM
Post subject: Juggernaut Q
AK_Dave wrote:
Ian: I did propose different text. See above. Thank you.
Sorry for not reading the whole thread.
Just to reiterate what Galak said. It is important to the BBRC to get the rules clearly understandable however that is difficult because of the contention inherent in a rule book itself.
Normally people coming in with a specific complaint want to increase the length of explaination of the rule without really considering the larger context. We are trying to get people to play the game the same way.
Long wordy rules - even if in correct English - are much more likely to be ignored, misunderstood and/or misplayed. Most people just aren't interested in reading legal style rule books. In the worst instance this can just put people off playing the game altogether.
Unfortunately some people have a natural desire to twist rules to behave the way they want them too - even if the correct reading of the text one way they end up playing another way because they want it to be so. Correcting the English used doesn't help here at all because it really wouldn't matter what you wrote.
Regardless of the correctness of the English people will still misinterpret it. Not everyone's English is at the same standard, and this is especially true when a significant proportion of the readers of the rules do not have English as a first language. Written documents are a very imperfect form of communication and very difficult to ensure consistent interpretation. Its actually an area where forums excel since it gives a chance for interaction to discuss how to play a certain rule under all circumstances.
So what we really end up trying to do is write rules in such a way that its short, easily comprehensible and gets the majority of coaches playing the game the same way.
Generally speaking people coming into discuss rules clarifications are complaining and as such don't really want to take all that into account - they just want to focus on the specific problem with the matter at hand. However, for the majority of coaches, those efforts can easily be counter-productive and end up with more people playing the rule "wrong".
AK_Dave - Jan 16, 2009 - 05:08 PM
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
I think I understand, Ian. Rules folks like yourselves, you and Galak, have seen a lot of prissy whining about this-and-that. The "I don't like this" complaints can easily become "whack-a-mole". I am sorry that I contributed to that sort of butting heads.
I agree that long wordiness, even though its how I often write, is not the best approach for game rules. Elegant and minimalistic use of language is an art that I have not mastered. I confess that the LRB5 form of the rule may be the best form, but I think that Tom's most recent suggestion is just a little stronger. I concede that my ability to craft concise game rules pales in comparison with his, or that I need more practice.