| Author |
Message |
Carnage4u |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 08:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 36
Status: Offline
|
|
what deacon?
that is so much better then before... how often do you worry about fouling with big guys.. that would have to be a minor issue.
now i wont belive it to i see it printed but that rule makes me happy enough. i might even consider taking a big guy now again. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Deacon |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 08:34 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
England
Posts: 13
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
The point is you don't have to Foul. You use up the Foul action for the Team Turn just to get your Minotaur to do something useful - like stand up or move to where the action is.
Wild Animal is suppose to be a negative trait. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 08:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
You most certainly have to foul a player. The definition of a foul has two parts: (1) you move some squares and (2) you lay the boot. Choosing one makes it a Move action, not a Foul action. It's cheating, plain and simple.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 08:43 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
yes it is cheating but not against the rules.
pass action on page 8 says u must throw the ball at the end of the move.
foul does not say the same thing. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 08:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
"Yes, it is cheating but not against the rules."
Now I've heard everything.
Anyway, the description of the Foul action explicitly states the following:
"This [the Foul action] allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square."
It says "move AND THEN foul." The description says nothing about NOT making the foul, nor does it say "MAY make a foul." This is obviously a deliberate attempt to misread the rules.
On cccasion, a coach declares an action he cannot complete - as when a Bonehead fails to Blitz, or when a coach declares a Pass that is found to lie beyond the range ruler. But he can't declare a Foul with no intent to follow through on it any more than he can declare a Block, add +2 to the roll, and then say, "But now he'll move instead." That constitutes a Move action, not a Block action; substitute "Foul" for "Block" and you'll have the proper reading of the rules in this case.
Just don't go down that road.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 09:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
i totally agree with you chet but people will just move themselves so they won't be in position to make a foul....then they can't throw it.
if you are required to declare action at beginning of turn there is no other way to rule it. just remove the foul action from this change and it's fine. who fouls with a big guy anyway?
As for pass action on page 8 of lrb it says they MUST throw a pass at the end of the move. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deacon |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 09:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
England
Posts: 13
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| My opponent ends his turn all his players are now on their feet. My minotaur is down, I declare a Foul action with my downed Minotaur - he gets up but has nothing to foul so just moves. Nothing illegal about that. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 09:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
And if you tried that in any league I ran, you'd be warned about gamesmanshp, and if you still tried it, asked to leave.
So, this is going to be legal for the BB...hmm, maybe I should give the rats one more try (and it means I only need to paint one figure, rather than 12!  |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 09:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Deacon wrote: My opponent ends his turn all his players are now on their feet. My minotaur is down, I declare a Foul action with my downed Minotaur - he gets up but has nothing to foul so just moves. Nothing illegal about that.
As Chet said, you declare a foul to get next to a prone opposition player. If none are prone, you can't declare the foul.
However, I can see people getting Stand Firm on WA, so they can declare a foul and run into a TZ to hopefully fail a dodge. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Carnage4u |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 09:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 36
Status: Offline
|
|
but how often or how many poeple are going to do something like this?
this is taking a fix of something that was messed up.. making it better,,
but then looking at that fix.. finding something that could be abused by an odd situation... then going off on it...
now i think looking at it from all angles is good, but really the # of times this will be an issue by most players will be very low, at least in the crowds i play blood bowl with. Most people I know dont abuse or try to do things like that. If they did, we dont play with people like that.
I dont know why so many people seem to have these rules abusers in their group, but i guess im lucky to just not have to run into them |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deacon |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 09:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
England
Posts: 13
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| Darkson - my point is the new rule is open to abuse. Take out the 'Foul' option and it's a workable rule and actually demonstrates a Wild Animal at work. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 10:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
| What if the opposing coach gets to roll for the ref if a foul occured or not? If the WA keeps using the foul action to get up/move the WA will always have the possiblity of getting thrown out. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 10:13 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Actually, I think "Block, Blitz, Foul" illustrates a creature who is more motivated by blasting an opponent than not blasting an opponent. If your league is ripe with beards who insist on cheating like this, perhaps you should house rule it away; if these players are ubiquitous, the BBRC's options are:
1. Leave it alone, preach a bit, answer it in a FAQ.
2. Change the WA description to eliminate fouls.
3. Enforce turnovers for failing to carry out (foul) actions.
I prefer to do #1, because I don't believe in adding or changing rules just for the sake of a few twits (to be blunt).
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 10:46 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: The old WA did affect Horns on the Minotaur. Since you could force the Minotaur to block an adjacent opponent, you could prevent him from using his Horns by marking him with a single player.
I thought you just had to block that player, not declare a Block Action. Specifically, under WA/LRB2.0, you could declare a blitz, dodge out and hit the mark, using your horns.
And as for the new WA/LRB3.0 rule being different from the rules listed in the October Rules Review, I don't like this precedent. The whole point to the BBRC is to get together once a year and vote on changes, rather than have changes come up whenever people feel like it, potentially with no BBRC deliberation.
The 3 line-of-scrimmage rule is an exception, since it sounds like that was actually a vote miscount. But changing WA 3 months into the rule cycle is a bad idea, plain and simple. Wait until the next ORR to do it. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 11:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: You most certainly have to foul a player. The definition of a foul has two parts: (1) you move some squares and (2) you lay the boot. Choosing one makes it a Move action, not a Foul action. It's cheating, plain and simple.
I was looking at the LRB here, and I disagree. It is beardy (and we've all talked about that already), but it might not be cheating.
LRB wrote: However, when you use this rule, one player per team turn is allowed to take a Foul action. This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square
If you must lay the boot because of this wording, then I'd argue that you must also move your full MA.
The other actions in the game also give precedent to the may-use action in move-act type actions. In a pass action, the LRB actually says that you move some squares, after which you may pass the ball. The blitz action is similar. You are not required to throw any particular block, but you are able to throw a block during your move. You don't even have to designate a blitz target when you start moving.
Player actions like Foul, Pass, Blitz, and Handoff should remain of the move, optional action sort rather than the move, required action simply because sometimes people screw up. You forget that that guy there has Guard, Foul Appearance, or whatever. You fail to break away from the guy with Tentacles. Lots of reasons you might start by saying "Okay, this will be my Blitz/Foul" and end up not wanting to do it after all. You've still burned the team's one Blitz per turn, but you shouldn't be penalized for this.
In the case of the WA, you could add an addendum: if the WA doesn't block or foul someone during an action that was declared as a Block, Blitz or Foul, he gibbers in boundless rage, making him lose his TZs until he stops gibbering.
I don't think we should fix the WA loophole by requiring a Blitzer to throw a block somewhere in their run.
On the other hand, this is an example of why I posted above that I don't like how the rules can get changed between review sessions. The point to the rules review is to allow more time for everybody to talk about this kind of stuff, rather than us finding out about it after people figure it out. I tried to make a point to this effect in another thread about how any rule change will have unforseen consequences, simply because the people making the rule changes can't possibly think of everything, in a sufficiently complex game. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
