| Author |
Message |
Frantic |
|
Post subject: Juggernaut Q
 Posted: Jan 12, 2009 - 01:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Sweden
Posts: 252
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
https://pics.me.me/thumb_huge-thanks-for-the-info-thatsawesome-what-are-your-guyss-54201530.png
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
AK_Dave |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 12, 2009 - 02:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Frantic |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 12, 2009 - 03:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Sweden
Posts: 252
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
|
|
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  |
_________________
https://pics.me.me/thumb_huge-thanks-for-the-info-thatsawesome-what-are-your-guyss-54201530.png
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sann0638 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 12, 2009 - 03:27 PM
|
|
President
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
England
Posts: 1113
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smeborg |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 12, 2009 - 03:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Posts: 223
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 01:24 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Skinhead |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 04:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 06:41 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 06:47 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Sweden
Posts: 252
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 09:27 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 09:29 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 09:35 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
Last edited by GalakStarscraper on Jan 13, 2009 - 10:01 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Frantic |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 09:39 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Sweden
Posts: 252
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 09:58 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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.... |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AK_Dave |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Juggernaut Q
Posted: Jan 13, 2009 - 10:59 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 102
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF # 8106
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
