| Author |
Message |
Doubleskulls |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 02:34 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: GalakStarscraper wrote: Very Long Legs and Extra Arms work on one but not the other.
IMO extra arms can be used on interceptions and scattering balls. In fact, it has been suggested before that very long legs + extra arms make for a pretty potent intercepting combo.
LRB pp35 "A player with one or more extra arms may add +1 to all his
Catch rolls. This trait does not work on interception attempts."
pp34 "A player who has the Catch skill is allowed to re-roll the dice if he fails to catch the ball. It also allows the player to re-roll the dice if he drops a hand-off or fails to make an interception."
Bouncing balls is dealt with in the same section as catch - and talks about catching the ball - so catch should worth there too. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 03:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: LRB pp35 "A player with one or more extra arms may add +1 to all his Catch rolls. This trait does not work on interception attempts."
When was this changed? In my Death Zone playbook, this sentence isn't there. In the LRB 1.3, it's there but not in blue (all changes are supposed to be in blue). Another rule slipped in without telling us? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Narkotic |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 05:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 178
Status: Offline
|
|
??I thought that it was that way all the time, but I haven't played 3rd ed much TBH.
I really don't know why an interception is ruled out for extra arms? This mutation is horribly weak, why make it even more worthless? It should work for interceptions as well. I even would opt for extra arms players that they may ignore the minus mod of one adjacent tackle zone while catching/intercepting.
Back to topic: ok, somehow catch and interception are different things but this has been proved by deductive means, it would really be a lot clearer to say that every dice roll where you want to grap/receive/catch/handed-off the ball is a catch roll. Include the -2 mod for interceptions in the catch mod table.
This solution would annihilate a lot of extra sentences (xx does work for interceptions, xx does not work for interceptions etc), really wouldn't change the gameplay and would get rid of a some annoying and ever repeating rules-questions. BTW this would be the understanding most coaches intuitively would refer to an interception. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 05:28 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: When was this changed? In my Death Zone playbook, this sentence isn't there. In the LRB 1.3, it's there but not in blue (all changes are supposed to be in blue). Another rule slipped in without telling us?
If it was then its one that has now been on the books for 2 years and no one noticed or cared.
I don't look at the old books anymore Zombie unless I'm trying to prove how long a "new" rule has been in the books. So now does my ruling on Buzzing make a little more sense?
By the way ... before we beat this to death ... I fixed the wording of NoS and Buzzing in the LRB 3.0 to solve this problem and the LRB 3.0 is now up on the website making it the new rulebook to argue from ...  
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 05:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Well, I suppose it's kind of pointless to argue with a guy who actually can change the rules 
On the whole, I suppose no-one really has any strong feelings about this one, and I think most of the people will be happy as long as single, correct interpretation is readily available. At least I am. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 07:07 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Mestari wrote: Well, I suppose it's kind of pointless to argue with a guy who actually can change the rules
Yeah but I didn't change them to match my ruling ... my ruling was based on the text of the LRB 2.0. But I fully agreed that the intent of NoS was for it to work on interceptions and for Buzzing players to not be able to intercept. So I fixed the wording to make it clear the intent ... not the way the LRB 2.0 reads.
IE ... no rule changes here ... just cleaning up vagueness as we find it.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 11:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
I don't know. In LRB1 and LRB2, it specifically says that extra arms doesn't work on interception. This to me says that it would work if not stated, otherwise stating that in the skill description is a waste of space. This means that interceptions are, and always have been, catch rolls.
Anyway, it doesn't change anything now since it seems that you made the LRB3 to match my view anyway! |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 29, 2004 - 01:21 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: Anyway, it doesn't change anything now since it seems that you made the LRB3 to match my view anyway!
Yup I'm just mostly BBRC evil ... not all the way BBRC evil yet l guess ... 
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
