Judo is a striking skill

[Donny Brook]

Now, to me, the uFAQ doesn't actually go against Judo replacing DX strikes because the general statement only leans against it, and the 'in particular' that elucidates further actually talks about cases where specific other skills are mentioned. Here there are no other skills mentioned, so I think we revert back to the initial state: Judo can sub for any DX roll in close combat except drawing weapons or drop a shield (or based on the uFAQ, where other specific skills are mentioned as subbing for DX).

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

No, but I think you're trying to split hairs so that you can be "right" about this. There are many places that the rules make a distinction between striking skills (Boxing, Brawling, & Karate) and grappling skills (Judo, Wrestling, & Sumo Wrestling). This can be seen from the descriptions of the individual skills all the way through dozens of template that instruct you to take one from each category to Kromm posting about it in a post linked in this thread. It can also be seen in no weapon table entry explicitly listing Judo as being usable to make a strike.

Pretty much everything I have just mentioned you've already brushed off when other people mentioned it. If you don't want to listen to other people and let your players use Judo to strike then, fine, nobody's going to Judo punch your door down to stop you. But if you want others to agree with you, despite the RAW being contrary to that position, it's not likely to happen. And if you want to be argumentative just to be argumentative then please, just, please don't.

I brush it off because it's really not an argument, it's appealing to assumed authority. You and others assume that its lack of mention as some sort of evidence that contradicts very clear statement in a rulebook.

I've already mentioned early in the talk that I am calling it a striking skill because you can use it's SL to deliver strikes. These strikes are still DX-strikes, they just use SL of Judo as somebody mentioned before in the thread.

It's a non-standard option that is not universally useful, that's why you don't see it being mentioned in templates and Kromm posts which aren't always aimed at hyper-optimization.

Half of the thread consists not of actual debunking of the original statement, but emotional statements of "It cant be right!" and "Well, it's not mentioned anywhere else, it cant be right!". By mere fact that this is the first time it's brought up on these forums, it means this topic is obscure - thus of course it'd have no mention in Kromm posts, something I am trying to solicit.

Now, if all you can provide to this discussion is "You dont wanna have a fair discussion", please reconsider your position or don't discuss it.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by MrFix

I brush it off because it's really not an argument, it's appealing to assumed authority.

It's not like we're saying "Joe Blow" said it. Kromm is the authority that wrote the book and is paid to answers questions in an official capacity, and to make sure that authors follow his interpretations of the rules in all the official publications. If GURPS has an authority at all, he's it. So when he interprets a rule to say "That's not how it works" then that's not how it's supposed to work.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

It's not like we're saying "Joe Blow" said it. Kromm is the authority that wrote the book and is paid to answers questions in an official capacity, and to make sure that authors follow his interpretations of the rules in all the official publications. If GURPS has an authority at all, he's it. So when he interprets a rule to say "That's not how it works" then that's not how it's supposed to work.

And there's where the argument falls apart. Kromm DID NOT YET STATE that this isn't an option, you assume that because he didn't that it isn't.

Hence appeal to assumed authority. You imagine that this is what Kromm would say on the topic. Which is utterly useless. Either we're talking about the rule, or we're waiting for Kromm to reply.

We can't sit here and make imaginary Kromm rulings.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by MrFix

And there's where the argument falls apart. Kromm DID NOT YET STATE that this isn't an option, you assume that because he didn't that it isn't.

Hence appeal to assumed authority. You imagine that this is what Kromm would say on the topic. Which is utterly useless. Either we're talking about the rule, or we're waiting for Kromm to reply.

We can't sit here and make imaginary Kromm rulings.

Again, are you not seeing my earlier post?

Direct quote of Kromm: "The line is drawn when strikes (punches, kicks, shoves, slams, etc.) or equipment (readying, dropping, or using) get involved."

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Again, are you not seeing my earlier post?

Direct quote of Kromm: "The line is drawn when strikes (punches, kicks, shoves, slams, etc.) or equipment (readying, dropping, or using) get involved."

Yes, I did miss it. I suppose that is the end of that.

[Judo] covers DX rolls required by grappling, sure, and also DX rolls to keep your footing or for just about any other utility purpose in close combat. The line is drawn when strikes (punches, kicks, shoves, slams, etc.) or equipment (readying, dropping, or using) get involved. Under those circumstances, Judo cannot replace DX unless a specific rule says so. In particular, if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills – like "DX or Sumo Wrestling," "DX, Brawling, or Sumo Wrestling," or "DX, Brawling, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling" – Judo works only if it's called out on the list. For lists of the basic attacks covered by each unarmed skill, see Offensive Techniques (Martial Arts, p. 90).

[Donny Brook]

It looks like both Fix and Ryan are missing my post.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

It looks like both Fix and Ryan are missing my post.

I saw your post, but didnt understand context of it until i read the FAQ. I am torn on your interpretation and statement of faq saying that it excludes strikes.

How do we reconcile the two?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

It looks like both Fix and Ryan are missing my post.

I saw it, I just didn't think you were referring to the same part of the uFAQ as I was, given I thought "the line is drawn when strikes (punches, kicks, shoves, slams, etc.) get involved" was pretty unambiguous.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I saw it, I just didn't think you were referring to the same part of the uFAQ as I was, given I thought "the line is drawn when strikes (punches, kicks, shoves, slams, etc.) get involved" was pretty unambiguous.

My post explained why it was important to read further, to the 'in particular' statement that follows that.