Talk Fantasy Football

Ever wonder about how the discription of "both down" result reads? To wit:

Both Down:Both players are knocked down, unless one or both of the players involved has the block skill. If one player USES the block skill then they are not knocked down by this result, though their opponent will still go down. If both the players use the block skill then neither player is knocked down.

Use or have? The wording was/is being talked about by our club as we are getting ready to start our 28th season.

What do you think?

The reason it is written in that way is because Block is optional. You can elect not to use it and allow your own player to be knocked down. There are many reasons for this. Most notably a player may have Block and Wrestle.

To be clear a player has to have a skill to choose whether or not to USE it.

Oh, I understand how it affects play and how it works. I just think its a queer way of discribing Both Down.

Why? "Have" would only make sense if the use of the skill was non-optional.

Well, there is no dice roll involved.

A skill is, most of the time, optional, unless stated in the skill description.
So you don't have to use block even if you have it.
On the other side frenzy states that the use is not optional but mandatory, so here the term have would make sense.

CRP wrote:Frenzy (General)
A player with this skill is a slavering psychopath who attacks his opponents in an uncontrollable rage. Unless otherwise overridden, this skill must always be used. When making a block, a player with this skill must always follow up if he can. If a 'Pushed' or 'Defender Stumbles' result was chosen, the player must immediately throw a second block against the same opponent so long as they are both still standing and...

If the rules said "have block", as you suggested, a player with block and wrestle would never be able to wrestle down an opponent because he has block and doesn't go down on a Both Down result.
But with skills optional, you may choose to ignore block, i. e. not use it, to then use wrestle and get your opponent down.

It makes perfect sense and I don't see where your problem is.

bound for glory wrote:Well, there is no dice roll involved.

And?

Regash wrote:A skill is, most of the time, optional, unless stated in the skill description.
So you don't have to use block even if you have it.
On the other side frenzy states that the use is not optional but mandatory, so here the term have would make sense.

CRP wrote:Frenzy (General)
A player with this skill is a slavering psychopath who attacks his opponents in an uncontrollable rage. Unless otherwise overridden, this skill must always be used. When making a block, a player with this skill must always follow up if he can. If a 'Pushed' or 'Defender Stumbles' result was chosen, the player must immediately throw a second block against the same opponent so long as they are both still standing and...

If the rules said "have block", as you suggested, a player with block and wrestle would never be able to wrestle down an opponent because he has block and doesn't go down on a Both Down result.
But with skills optional, you may choose to ignore block, i. e. not use it, to then use wrestle and get your opponent down.

It makes perfect sense and I don't see where your problem is.

I have no "problem", I just find the wording strange.

bound for glory wrote:I just find the wording strange.

In what way?
I mean, you've got explanations now why it is "use" instead of "have".
What makes it strange to you? I really want to understand.

It's not very smoothly written. He's right. Read it so someone who has never played BB or a game like it. That's the test. We who play the game are used to it, we don't realise when something looks odd because we know what it means from experience.
There are a few skills that could be worded better. Shadowing got the treatment after causing a proofreader a migraine. This could be one.

Cheers BFG.

If anyone does notice something that is difficult please do mention it. It's likely we'll all encounter stuff that requires more explanation with more new players coming in, so yeah, do pass difficulties on.

I'd haste to add that changing how something works isn't the objective but looking at how something is worded to be as clear as possible isn't a bad goal to have.

Thank you, JT-Y. Thats what I was getting at, the wording. I did'nt mean to bother anyone with it. Like I posted, we are getting ready t start a new season, and someone mentioned the wording, then another said, "yeah. That s queer. Maybe its a "british"thing..."

We can consider this closed. Like I said, I did'nt want to Rile anyone, and as I have played the game since forever, I certainly know the meaning and intent of the "Both Down" result. Just wondered if it was just us...

Sorry boys! And cheers!

Even if it is just you, always worth mentioning when you look at something with fresh eyes and notice it being odd.

I don't understand how the wording is "strange"? If you replace "use" with "have", as BFG suggests, you change the intention of the skill.
"Use" means you have a choice.
"Have" means you don't.

As Block is optional "use" is correct, "have" wouldn't be.

Maybe the confusion is between the use of "has" in the first sentence, and "use" later.

Maybe this is better?

Both Down: Both players are knocked down, unless one or both of the players involved has the block skill. A player that has the block skill may choose to not be knocked down by this result. If both the players choose in this way then neither player is knocked down.

Both players are knocked down. If either player has the Block skill, they may use it to avoid being knocked down.