NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - Does Foul Appearance Stack?

NAF World Headquarters

Rules Questions - Does Foul Appearance Stack?

crazylegs - Mar 15, 2004 - 02:43 PM
Post subject: Does Foul Appearance Stack?

I know all about foul appearance working while prone, and the debate that prompts, and I don't want to start that all over again, I just want to know if foul appearance "stacks". Ie: if a player is within 3 spaces of 2+ players with foul appearance does he take -2 (or more) to his pass/catch roll?

thanks,

SBG - Mar 15, 2004 - 04:08 PM
Post subject:

I hope it doesn't ! But I couldn't see why it shouldn't. I mean, 4 pass blockers can do their stuff, so why not 2 foul appearing guys?

crazylegs - Mar 15, 2004 - 04:56 PM
Post subject:

It's a very unique case in that it's a skill that affects things in a zone, that multiple people can have... and I can't find anything in the LRB on point (which makes me think that they do stack, but I'd like to know that before I try to make a handoff with 3 rotters nearby...).

Hoshi_Komi - Mar 15, 2004 - 05:38 PM
Post subject:

yes it stacks and you can be on the ground too!

Ratin_Mutants - Mar 18, 2004 - 12:37 AM
Post subject:

What do you mean 4 pass blocks can?
As far as I remember ONLY ONE pass blocker can move, but if you already have players within takcle zones, then yep it is possible.

And as the you can have more TZ on the thrower and the catcher... Foul Appreance is cumulative... that makes the Rotters very nasty to throw the ball against. with 4 rotters and one beast with FA.

Doubleskulls - Mar 18, 2004 - 03:11 AM
Post subject:

Ratin_Mutants wrote:

What do you mean 4 pass blocks can?
As far as I remember ONLY ONE pass blocker can move, but if you already have players within takcle zones, then yep it is possible.

No all pass blockers can move. So long as they can put a TZ on the catcher/thrower or move to intercept.

Being allowed to only move 1 player to intercept was a common house rule.

Zombie - Mar 18, 2004 - 03:22 AM
Post subject:

Only one player can be moved into interception range, but as many as are available can be moved to exert a tackle zone on the thrower or catcher. It says in the rules that "the move may only be made if it allows the player to move into a position to attempt an interception, or to put the thrower or catcher in his tackle zone." Only one player can attempt an interception, therefore only one player can put himself in a position to attempt one (unless it also happens to put a tackle zone on the opponent, in which case he's allowed the move but for another reason).

ZFurelli - Mar 18, 2004 - 03:38 AM
Post subject:

As far as I understand, multiple players can be in a position to intercept (or indeed move to a position where they could intercept using Pass Block) but only one player can make the interception roll.

Furelli.

Zombie - Mar 18, 2004 - 03:49 AM
Post subject:

It says "move into a position to attempt an interception". You can't move if it won't allow you to attempt an interception.

Doubleskulls - Mar 18, 2004 - 05:08 AM
Post subject:

LRB pp36 "the move may only be made if it allows the player to move into a position to attempt an interception, or to put the thrower or catcher in his tackle zone."

All players with Pass Block can move - so long as they theoretically can get into the correct position. They don't even have to move to such a position (although this is flagrant disregard for the spirit of the rule).

You only decide who will intercept after all pass block moves are made so, IMO, Zombie is, unusually, wrong about this one.

Deathwing - Mar 18, 2004 - 05:09 AM
Post subject:

Hmmm...there's a difference between 'moving into a position to attempt an interception' and making the attempt itself.

If the range ruler passes over three opposing players then they're all 'in a position to attempt an interception'.

Down to intrepretation again, if it's one player then it should read something like 'move into a position in order to attempt an interception', and if it's multiple players it should read something like 'move into a position that allows an interception attempt'.

Who knows?

ZFurelli - Mar 18, 2004 - 05:44 AM
Post subject:

This is quite amusing. Interpretations of the LRB going on on Both TBB and here involving IanWilliams, me and Deathwing - do none of us have work to do.

Furelli

Mordredd - Mar 18, 2004 - 06:29 AM
Post subject:

"the move may only be made if it allows the player to move into a position to attempt an interception, or to put the thrower or catcher in his tackle zone."

I too think Zombie is wrong. There is nothing in this statement about the player going on to make the intercept attempt. If it was meant to be that it should read "the move may only be made if it allows the player to attempt an interception." No reference to position on the field in necessary if the pass blocker has to attempt to intercept. If it was not compulsory for that player to intercept then a separate statement that only 1 player could move to a position to intercept would be necessary. You would also find yourself in a strange world where a player can't put a tackle zone on the thrower or catcher because it would put him in a position to intercept and another player has already done the same.

Similarly I think that Doubleskulls is wrong about players being able to move in any direction just as long as they could theoretically have placed a tackle zone on the thrower or catcher, or have been in position to intercept. I think the statement above is a list of conditions and the player must try to meet at least one of them in his move.

Zombie - Mar 18, 2004 - 12:45 PM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

All players with Pass Block can move - so long as they theoretically can get into the correct position. They don't even have to move to such a position (although this is flagrant disregard for the spirit of the rule).

All right, so you agree that moving a player in a position where he can't attempt an interception is against the spirit of the rule. How is this different from the case we're discussing? You're proposing to move a player with full knowledge that there's no way he can even attempt an interception, because you know that another player will attempt it. That's just as much against the spirit of the rule as the other case you mentioned!

If you tried to pull off something like that in my league, i'm sorry, but i'd question your sportmanship.

Doubleskulls - Mar 18, 2004 - 02:07 PM
Post subject:

Actually my league has a house rule only allowing you to move one player to intercept.... and we insist on you moving until you are in an eligable position.

I can see your point, but TBH I don't believe Pass Block is such an overpowering skill that this makes much difference. Rarely do you see it taken before the 3rd skill choice.

Zombie - Mar 18, 2004 - 02:45 PM
Post subject:

I agree that it's not the best skill out there, and i'd like to see more of it as well, but that's not the point. I really believe that the rule you're using is the official rule and not a house rule.

Mordredd - Mar 19, 2004 - 08:01 AM
Post subject:

Question to Zombie and Doubleskulls.

What of the situation where a pass blocker has already move into the tackle zone of either the thrower or catcher AND into a position to intercept the ball. Do you allow a second pass blocker to move into a position to intercept but where he is not exerting a tackle zone on either the thrower or the catcher? Does it depend on the second guy having a better chance of intercepting?

Doubleskulls - Mar 19, 2004 - 08:27 AM
Post subject:

With our house rule we are allowed to move any number of players to get a TZ on the thrower/receiver, but only one can move into a position where they can intercept, but don't have a TZ on the thrower/catcher.

I think that question does however pose some issues for Zombie's interpretation of the official rules Wink

Zombie - Mar 19, 2004 - 12:15 PM
Post subject:

Mordredd wrote:

If your second guy wants to move to intercept, then obviously your first guy's move wasn't to intercept since you knew that the second guy would. The first guy's move was for the purpose of a tackle zone only. Only one player can move into intercept range without exerting a tackle zone.

Xtreme - Mar 19, 2004 - 01:32 PM
Post subject:

I often take Pass Block as a second skill on Agility based teams. And stand by the fact that the Intercepton is the biggest play in BloodBowl. Now obviously a good opponet will avoid pass blockers but even that should be seen as a small victory for changing there plan even in the smallest way.

As for whats at hand We have always played that only one pass blocker may make a pass block attempt, seems much more in spirt and IMO that is more often the way to go.

Mordredd - Mar 19, 2004 - 03:56 PM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

Except that the second guy doesn't have to make the intercept attempt, it could be done by a player who was already there, or even the first pass blocker. Besides if your justification for only allowing one player to move "into a position to intercept" is true then there can only be one. Logically the second player could not move as a pass blocker had already put himself "into a position to intercept" and he would therefore be a second player.

Zombie - Mar 19, 2004 - 05:59 PM
Post subject:

My interpretation is "only one player can move into a position to intercept and not in a tackle zone". I thought i had made this clear enough over the last 4 or 5 posts, but it seems i'm still misunderstood.

Aramil - Mar 20, 2004 - 09:35 AM
Post subject:

What I understand from the rule is that ALL the Pass-block players that can move to a position where they can attempt an interception, can take the move.
This is becouse, if you try to think with the mind of the players, they cannot know WHO of them would be able to intercept the pass... so all of them would move and try to attempt it... but only one of them would be able to do that becouse of the trajectory of the pass. But when they have the instinct of moving to try the interception they cannot know how the ball will be thrown...

Just my two cents... Smile

PS: I hope it's enought clear what I wrote... It's a very difficult for me to try to explain feelings and abstract theories in a language not mine... Embarassed

Zombie - Mar 20, 2004 - 03:08 PM
Post subject:

Don't worry, your English is not that bad and it's pretty easy to understand. You're clearly making an effort, and that's very commendable.

Mordredd - Mar 22, 2004 - 04:31 AM
Post subject:

Zombie wrote:

It wasn't that clearly stated earlier. In fact the way you first expressed your interpretation clearly stated that once a player was in a position to intercept then no other pass blocker could move unless they put a tackle zone on the thrower or catcher.

Mordredd - Mar 22, 2004 - 04:40 AM
Post subject:

Aramil, I would say that your English is pretty good. You only made one mistake (I hope it's clear enough...) and your meaning was clear. In fact your written English is better than some of my university friends for whom English is their first (and only) language. Rolling Eyes

I also totally agree with your reasoning.