| Author |
Message |
GalakStarscraper |
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
 Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 12:39 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 04:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 04:47 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 05:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
smeborg |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 14, 2009 - 01:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Posts: 223
Status: Offline
|
|
The wording as it stands is clear to me (and also, it would appear, to Frantic).
Cheers |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 15, 2009 - 02:14 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sann0638 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 15, 2009 - 09:38 AM
|
|
President
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
England
Posts: 1113
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| He did! |
_________________
NAF President 2016-17
Founder of SAWBBL, Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.co.uk
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SolarFlare |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 15, 2009 - 10:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 24, 2004
Posts: 199
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 15, 2009 - 02:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 15, 2009 - 07:46 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 16, 2009 - 12:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Skinhead |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 16, 2009 - 02:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 16, 2009 - 06:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3954
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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!  |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Frantic |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 16, 2009 - 07:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Sweden
Posts: 252
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
https://pics.me.me/thumb_huge-thanks-for-the-info-thatsawesome-what-are-your-guyss-54201530.png
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 16, 2009 - 07:41 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
Last edited by GalakStarscraper on Jan 16, 2009 - 07:48 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
