| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Mar 18, 2004 - 02:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 08:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 08:27 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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  |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 12:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Mordredd wrote: 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?
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 01:32 PM
|
|
Da Boss
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1096
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 03:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie 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.
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2004 - 05:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aramil |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2004 - 09:35 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 424
Location: Rovigo, Italy
Status: Offline
|
|
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... 
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...  |
_________________
Fulvio Cavicchi
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2004 - 03:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 22, 2004 - 04:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: 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.
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 22, 2004 - 04:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
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. 
I also totally agree with your reasoning. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
