| Author |
Message |
Apedog |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 05:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
We've always played 'may' and thats how I read the rules, but I do see the point of it being must, otherwise I could declare a Pass (or Handoff) action everytime I move the player with the ball. If he doesn't throw it no one else will that turn.
OTOH what does it matter, I could pre-count the squares before I declare the action and know what the range would be and whether I want to throw.
Just to add to the confusion how about a hypothetical situation. I declare a pass then move my thrower only to realise that theres no players on my team in range of a throw (unlikely but maybe it's a gobbo). For those who play 'must', do I have to throw to an empty square? |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: Must pass?
Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 07:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
For those that rule that a pass action must end in a pass, what happens when an Ogre declares a pass action but fails the bonehead roll. Is the pass optional or complusory?
Another situation that could arise is where the ball is on the ground and a player declares a pass action. While moving towards the ball he requires a reroll to pass a dodge and decides not to continue with the go-for-it and pickup to get the ball. Can the player be forced to make these extra rolls to get the ball and then pass it? Most of our previous scenarios assume the player already holds the ball so no extra roll is needed other than the pass. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 05, 2004 - 08:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Must means that you have to do it unless prevented by uncontrollable circumstances. Failing a bonehead roll is one of those things that you just can't control.
As for your second example, yes, we have always forced the coach to go ahead in this kind of circumstances. It's happened to me a few times in the past. I don't mind, since that's the rule (or at least that's what i thought the rule was, we know now that we don't know). |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: Bonehead
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 01:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
| But if you declare a Blitz with an Ogre & you fail your Bone Head roll, you lose your Team's Blitz action that turn. So would that also not be the same if you were to declare a Pass with the Ogre who failed his Bone Head roll? Since a Blitz & a Pass are actions you can only do one of per turn. If Bone Head can waste your Blitz, it would seem it would also waste your Pass. |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 12:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
| For the GFI example, I would have thought that if you can't be made to go for it to make a second frenzied block, the you shouldn't be made to, to pick up the ball on a pass action either. |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: but
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 12:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
| But on the Pass or pick up the ball & then Pass, you would (should) have already known the GF risks involved before you were to Declare an action. I think once any Action has been declared it "Must" be carried out. I'm not saying this on just personal liking or opinion, but because thats how I think the game was meant to be played! |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: but
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 12:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Apedog wrote: For the GFI example, I would have thought that if you can't be made to go for it to make a second frenzied block, the you shouldn't be made to, to pick up the ball on a pass action either.
It says under the frenzy traight that you have to follow up on a push back & hit one more time. So yes you do have to hit again, provided you do have more movement left, & only then do you have the option to not use the traight on a GFI. That is because of a traight description, not a basic game rule description.
You can't compare Traight use to basic game rules. |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 01:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm fairly sure you can't be forced into going for it in any circumstances anymore (now that the frenzy thing has been cleared up). Forcing a GFI seems Just Bad.
I'd say under the must-pass rules, if you ended up out of range of any legal receivers, you'd still have to pass the ball to an empty square (maybe the one right in front of you, maybe you'll end up with it anyway.
I've tossed the ball to empty squares in the past (kind of a last-minute punt to keep the other team from scoring.) |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 01:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: Another situation that could arise is where the ball is on the ground and a player declares a pass action. While moving towards the ball he requires a reroll to pass a dodge and decides not to continue with the go-for-it and pickup to get the ball.
To be honest I'd never considered that situation. Mostly because whenever it has happened the player has always gone on to try anyway, without pause for second thought. With no exceptions, all the way back to the release of third Ed.
Just like Zombie, I would make the player go through with it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 02:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: The heck with it, the rules say what I want them to say because I said so.
Well it does seem to be the main tenet of your argument.
You have certainly provided no evidence that what you've been arguing is more reasonable or logical that what I have been.
Quote: One BBRC member does not a ruling make.
True, but I have been arguing that a ruling is not needed. I mentioned this as much because you didn't take anything I said as being even remotely possible until Chet confirmed it. It's like you're saying to me that only a BBRC member can be trusted to read the LRB or look up words in a dictionary. In fact you strongly implied that I'm not qualified to read a book and then tell someone what it says in the WA thread, and then you complain about me insulting you!
Quote: Why, I even muttered an obscenity when I read your last post, Mordredd. But I didn't type it in, because this should remain a forum in which we don't resort to namecalling out of frustration.
I too have muttered many obscenities over this debate, none of which have made it to this forum.
It is important for you to realise that me finding the line of reasoning stupid is quite different from accusing individuals of being stupid.
As for the rules lawyer jibe, you looked up the word in a dictionary but you're still insisting that there can only be one possible interpretation. What's that about? It's a bit like those drivers who insist that using a mobile phone has no effect on their chance of having an accident, even after it has been experimentally proven that it does.
Quote: Finally, another argument for my side: the rules on page 8 are a summary of all possible actions. The rules on page 13 are a detailed description of what goes on in a pass action (there are similar detailed descriptions of blocking, etc). So which should take precedence?
My argument is that neither take precedence, and that they can be easily read in a fashion were they do not contradict. I've even quoted another part of the LRB (on kicking off) where exactly the same use of the word "may" occurs.
Another way of looking at it is that p8 is a summary of a pass action. P13 is a description of how it works. Look at it from a writer's perspective. This section is meant to tell the reader what they need to do to go through with a pass action in detail, so everything he writes will assume that the player will throw the ball. The idea that the coach might change his mind may never have occurred to him. Similarly, wouldn't he be treating us as idiots if he assumed that he had to reinforce everything he had written earlier at every opportunity? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 04:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: My argument is that neither take precedence, and that they can be easily read in a fashion were they do not contradict. I've even quoted another part of the LRB (on kicking off) where exactly the same use of the word "may" occurs.
Well, maybe I'm dense then. This will probably be my last post on the matter, since we're really not convincing each other (and I still disagree with both you and Clan Skaven that the different phrases can be read in a sane, non-contradictory manner). I can find many many situations in the LRB where the word "may" is used to denote an option the coach has, rather than a requirement of the coach.
Most importantly, I can understand the reason for why you and others are arguing for the interpretation that you are. I simply do not agree with your read on the situation.
Finally, I never meant to imply that you are unsuited to make interpretations, merely that you are unqualified to make a global ruling in the case where the rules are unclear. The rules must be unclear because reasonable people have disagreed on their meaning. It seems like we need BBRC intervention if we want a global (rather than local, league rules based) clarification on the matter.
Now, back to my regularly scheduled work... |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sputnik |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 08, 2004 - 01:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 512
Status: Offline
|
|
o.k.,
I have now understood that some play with one option, others with the alternative option.
I am sure we will stick to whatever "houserule" (in case it is one  ) we currently use in our own small league.
However, what I would like to know for the next tournament matches is the official ruling. May or must? Under current rules set we have now of course.....
Shall we add it to tournament clarifications? Should I ask my opponent before each game? 
Sputnik |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 08, 2004 - 04:38 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Sputnik wrote: Shall we add it to tournament clarifications? Should I ask my opponent before each game?
Sputnik
Judging by this thread, that's probably the worse option! Just get on with having some fun and roll a D6 for it if it comes up.  |
_________________
 Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sputnik |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 08, 2004 - 05:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 512
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: Judging by this thread, that's probably the worse option! Just get on with having some fun and roll a D6 for it if it comes up.
I personally play either way, whatever my oponent prefers. From my experience this will not be an issue in most tournament games anyway. I just like to know in advance, and if there could be any "official" ruling somehow for future tournaments....
And my personal point of view is that NO RULE EVER should be decided by a roll of a dice. In case of doubt I prefer to let the tournament organisator decide in advance, or the ref. Anything else might lead to dice rolls for other 'unclear'  rules as well. See Dungeonbowl.
Lesson learned.
Sputnik
P.S.: the refs should otherwise have an official "ref dice". One without numbers or symbols, so that noone can blame the dice for the wrong decision afterwards! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 08, 2004 - 05:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Sputnik wrote: However, what I would like to know for the next tournament matches is the official ruling. May or must? Under current rules set we have now of course.....
Unfortunately, there is none. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
