Rules Side Step clarification

[Ben]

The side step skill says "the coach may choose to move the player to any adjacent square, not just the three squares shown on the Push Back diagram".

Nothing in this says that it must be an empty square. True, the next sentence says the skill cannot be used if there are no open (i.e. empty?) squares adjacent to the player. However, RAW at least it seems that, so long as there is an empty square next to my player, I can freely choose to move into an occupied square.

Can I assume that the quoted sentence should say any unoccupied adjacent square?

 

[TravelScrabble]

Yes, you can't move into occupied squares, funny that its not more explicit.

 

[Nikolai II]

The BB rules are very sparsely written - if something is mentioned in one place of the rules it will probably not be mentioned elsewhere.

In this case the rule you are looking for is on page 10:

Push Backs: A player that is pushed back as a result of a block
must be moved one square away from the player making the
block, as shown in the diagrams. The coach of the player who
made the block may decide which square the player is moved to.
The player must be pushed back into an empty square if
possible.

Since sidestep does say that it overrides who selects the target square, but doesn't say it overrides that it must be "into an empty square if possible"

 

[Ben]

Since sidestep does say that it overrides who selects the target square, but doesn't say it overrides that it must be "into an empty square if possible"

But it doesn't say that it doesn't override the 'empty square if possible' bit.

That is probably what was intended, as I suggested, but if the rule was only meant to override the directional bit, then it should have said that - i.e. something like 'Furthermore, the push need not be to one of the usual three squares but can be in any direction'.

However, what it actually says is "any square" (emphasis original). The literal reading of 'any' is that it overrides all restrictions, unless that implication is cancelled, for instance by a later clause or sentence that says 'but still not into occupied squares'.

In fact, there is a later sentence that says the skill cannot be used if there are no empty squares, but that would be unnecessary to point out if it only applies to empty squares in the first place. The very fact that this sentence is included could, therefore, provide evidence that you can sidestep into an occupied square.

I know GW's rules writing is often rather loose, but the CRP is supposed to be "for use in tournaments where very precise play balance and exacting wording of the rules are important". Yes, I think we're agreed about what the author(s) probably meant to say, but that's not what the rule does say if you read and apply it literally (as, say, a computer would).

 

[Nikolai II]

If you want to rules lawyer that way, look at "Secret Weapon" and combine it with page 23 "Skill use is not mandatory" and simply say "I don't want to use the Secret Weapon skill" whenever a drive ends..

As for the "can't be used if there are no empty squares", this is because when there are no eligible empty squares you start chainpushing, and if the sidestepper gets to pick where he goes then as well he could select to be pushed into the blockers square, chainpushing him back before he gets to follow up..

But anyway, both online clients handle it right (Cyanide with occasional problems with chainpushing next, especially next to the sidelines) and if you play tabletop you can try to mess with your commissioner instead. If he buys your argument that you should be allowed to push into occupied squares, you could go for the "dwarves should be able to fly" next, since that is also listed in the rulebook.

 

[Silfir]

But it doesn't say that it doesn't override the 'empty square if possible' bit.

Ah, but it also doesn't say that it doesn't not override the 'empty square if possible' bit!

I suspect even the writers of the BB rulebook didn't anticipate the degree to which they would have to state the obvious to satisfy their audience of strategy gamer nerds.

At any rate, here's how I'd put it: The rule referring to push backs on page 10 is the general rule, and applies to all push backs. The rule referring to Side Step applies to all push backs in which the pushed piece has Side Step. Does that mean that the general rules about pushbacks don't apply at all? Looking at the text, the answer is a clear 'no', since the rules for Side Step modify the rules for push backs. Now there are two possibilities:

1. Where the two rule paragraphs "collide", i.e. dictate different outcomes, the Side Step paragraph takes precedence, naturally, since it's the more specific rule (lex specialis derogat legi generali).

2. Where there is no such conflict - because the Side Step rule paragraph doesn't say anything different - the original rules for push backs remain in effect.

Is 1 or 2 the case here? Let's look at the letter of the word. The Side Step rules say "any square, not just the three squares on the push back diagram", but don't explicitly say that they override the push back rules insofar as pushing onto occupied squares vs, empty squares is concerned. Is that enough to conclude that the Side Step rules are intended to override that rule? Considering the same sentence refers to the push back diagram - which in itself only denotes the three squares that a player could be pushed into if they were empty, it's at least doubtful.

Fortunately, the interpretation of law is not limited to the letter of the word. We can take other factors into account, such as general principles of the game of Blood Bowl - one of which is that only one player can occupy any given square at the time. We can take into account the intent of the rules writer, we can take into account common sense.

tl;dr: RAW is only one aspect of rules interpretation, and pretty much always trumped by RAI as long as common sense is applied.

Applying common sense also isn't cheating.