Talk Fantasy Football

Hi Folks -

Looking for an rules interpretation.

Goblin Ball and Chain Knocked Down.
1. Injury roll made and stunned treated as KO per Ball and Chain skill description
2. What happens if the coach would like to use apothecary?

The reason that I ask is:
A. "Stunned results FOR ANY INJURY ROLES for the Ball & Chain player are always treated as KO'd" (reference Ball & Chain Skill description)
B. "If the player was KO'd leave him on the pitch Stunned ..." (reference Apothecary rules on Page 17 CRP)

It would appear that an injury role that results in a stun is converted to a KO for the B&C player. However, if an Apothecary is then used, there is no additional injury role and the B&C player is stunned not due to a roll, but cause of the Apothecary.

Can this be interpreted to mean that an Apothecary used for a B&C Knockout will allow the B&C player to remain on the pitch stunned?

Do a search, Galak has answered this one before. I think he said that it would stay on the pitch stunned, but I may be misremembering.

Darkson wrote:Do a search, Galak has answered this one before. I think he said that it would stay on the pitch stunned, but I may be misremembering.

I'm pretty sure I remember saying that as well ... and it is currently what I say would happen.

Thanks for the quick answers guys.

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Darkson wrote:Do a search, Galak has answered this one before. I think he said that it would stay on the pitch stunned, but I may be misremembering.

I'm pretty sure I remember saying that as well ... and it is currently what I say would happen.

Well it's still not clear what you said

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Grumbledook wrote:does the fanatic stay on the pitch or not though ;]

No because as soon as the Apothecary converted the injury to Stunned ... the Ball & Chain effect would convert it again to KO'd.

Galak

then:

GalakStarscraper wrote: ...
Anyway ... went back and carefully read the exact wording (which will teach me to give an answer like I did above without reading the rules). I agree with DShaman on this one. With the wording of the rulebook ... I would agree that yes ... if you Apothecary a KO'd Fanatic that he stays on the pitch Stunned.

Galak

Then again:

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Darkson wrote:One to add to the Houserules list then.

I would agree. This is the type of thing that would go on the BBRC list of minor wording fixes normally that need done if they were still around.

In this case the Apothecary currently reads:
"If the player was KO’d leave him on the pitch Stunned, or, if he was not on the pitch, put him in the Reserves box."

It should read
"Immediately after the player suffers a KO'd result you may convert it to Stunned instead."

Not a big deal as far as wording changes but it solves two issues with the current wording:
1) Now it is clear that you are supposed to use the ability immediately after the KO'd roll (and not later say after the KO'd recovery rolls at the end of a drive.)
2) The Fanatic's Ball & Chain rules would then turn the Apothecary's Stunned change back to KO'd and he'd leave the pitch.

Galak
...

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=31154&hilit=chain+stunned&start=15

W

Actually Aino ... looking at that ... I disagree ... it is clear that what I just posted where my thoughts.

Your 1st post of my was redacted by my 2nd post which agreed with what I posted in this thread ... so that has the 1st two posts in agreement with what I said.

The 3rd post was a post not about how the rule currently works but how I would probably rewrites the rules so that it would work if the rules were being redone. As such my 3rd post is irrelevant to the conversation as it is a discussion not about how the rule currently works.

So I appreciate your research as it completely confirms what I said.

GalakStarscraper wrote:Actually Aino ... looking at that ... I disagree ... it is clear that what I just posted where my thoughts.

Your 1st post of my was redacted by my 2nd post which agreed with what I posted in this thread ... so that has the 1st two posts in agreement with what I said.

The 3rd post was a post not about how the rule currently works but how I would probably rewrites the rules so that it would work if the rules were being redone. As such my 3rd post is irrelevant to the conversation as it is a discussion not about how the rule currently works.

So I appreciate your research as it completely confirms what I said.

After re-reading , I get it now

W