| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 28, 2004 - 05:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: Zombie ... several BBRC have rechecked the LRB ... there is definitely not a MAY in the Foul action description ... so it is already required.
Zombie wrote: However, i believe (not sure) that foul actions have always been stated in a way that forces you to foul, just like pass actions. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Carnage4u |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 01, 2004 - 03:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 36
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: GalakStarscraper wrote: Zombie ... several BBRC have rechecked the LRB ... there is definitely not a MAY in the Foul action description ... so it is already required.
Zombie wrote: However, i believe (not sure) that foul actions have always been stated in a way that forces you to foul, just like pass actions.
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 01, 2004 - 04:18 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie ... you stated you were not sure ... I was answering your not sureness.
Zombie wrote: As for fouls, this one isn't quite as obvious. I indeed you don't have to foul in a foul action, that's a just loophole with wild animals
Yes I saw you put that in your comments ... I also saw the several sentences preceding it that said you really didn't know.
Sorry for actually taking the time to answer your query.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 01, 2004 - 04:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
I was talking about previous versions. I meant to say that i was about 90% sure that it had been this way ever since 3rd ed. I knew about the latest posts, as i had read those. I agree with Pfooti that it isn't as clear as it should be. My initial reaction in such a case is to look back at previous rules to see if it were stated any clearer back then.
The problem with actions has always been that they're not all listed in the same place. Until that's fixed, we'll always have this kind of problem.
And i'm sorry, but the fact that BBRC members have given their opinion on this means about as much to me as if you said that your grandma said so (assuming she knows the game of course). I believe in the rules as they are written, not in a BBRC member's interpretation of a rule that he hasn't written. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 09:00 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
The LRB P24 under fouls Second paragraph second sentence
"However, when you use this rule,..."
You may omit the foul rule which will omit the WA foul action.
Not to add gas to the fire but the LRB also says
"...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 whi is both prone and in an adjacent square."
Does this mean that a player cannot GFI to make a foul? Me thinks not. It says "his" So amazon players cannot foul.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 10:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
mtn_bike wrote:
Does this mean that a player cannot GFI to make a foul? Me thinks not. It says "his" So amazon players cannot foul.
I think amazon players should be allowed to foul (and witch elves). But the wording: "This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player which is both prone and in an adjacent square" is unclear overall. Obviously, they meant that you should move up to your MA (not be forced to move your MA) and you should be able to GFI. The point I was arguing throughout this thread is that "must-foul" and "may-foul" are equally valid interpretations of this (already muddy) passage of the rules.
Example: "This placard allows you to park in the employee lot". That sentence does not say or mean "This placard requires you to park in the employee lot". Similarly, it is not clear that being allowed to move and make a foul means "allowed to (move and make a foul)" or "(allowed to move) and (allowed to make a foul)" or "(allowed to move) and (required to make a foul)".
But, the BBRC is already changing the rules, so they could fix this up and clarify it at the same time as they release the WA rule, so the argument is semi-moot. It is only really important if they release the new WA rule and leave the foul section of the LRB untouched. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 12:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
I know I'm the small majority but I would like to see
Must Pass during a pass action.
Must throw a block during a blitz action.
Must foul during a foul action. (which I think it is anyway)
Granted, a team is only allowed one of each but I have been burnt on not declaring an action. Even if no rolls were involved up to the point I was currently excuting. I'd like to see just the opposite. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 04:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
mtn_bike wrote: I know I'm the small majority but I would like to see
Must Pass during a pass action.
Must throw a block during a blitz action.
Must foul during a foul action. (which I think it is anyway)
Why? What does/would it add to your game? I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I really do want to hear the other side of the argument (at least something other than "that's what's in the LRB!") |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 05:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| From my experience (we've always used the must pass rule here), i can tell you that it adds an interesting game decision (shall we call it gamble?) of whether or not to declare a pass when there are many rolls to make before the pass itself and you might end up without your team reroll for the pass and catch rolls. It may be enough in some cases to make you decide not to pass. Anything that makes in-game decisions more complex is good for the game if you ask me. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 02:53 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I prefer the tactical option of being able not to pass. For one thing it means I'm more likely actually declare a pass/hand off action in the 1st place.
e.g. My ball carrying orc thrower is going to have to dodge to get away from his marker. Now I have a blitzer a few squares further forward who can go for the TD - or I can easily cage up again. So hopeing I don't need the RR I call a hand off action, but use the RR on the dodge. So I don't hand off to the blitzer and cage up again. If I'd had to hand off there is no way I would have declared a hand off action. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 03:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| No way, really? Even though there's only a 5% chance (1/3 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 2/3) that the reroll used on the dodge would come back and haunt you? Maybe i like taking risks a little more than you do, but i might call it a hand off depending on the situation. In fact, since this guy is a thrower, i'd probably call it a pass even and go for the extra SPP. The point is, it's not set in stone. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 06:46 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
pfooti wrote: mtn_bike wrote: I know I'm the small majority but I would like to see
Must Pass during a pass action.
Must throw a block during a blitz action.
Must foul during a foul action. (which I think it is anyway)
Why? What does/would it add to your game? I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I really do want to hear the other side of the argument (at least something other than "that's what's in the LRB!")
In my league your not forced to take the action that you declare (pass, blitz). If you _had_ to take the action some coaches would be more careful. If I played zombie I know that it now becomes must pass. That adds a whole new game strategy if I were playing a passing team. It does seem odd that the rules are explicit that "you must declare an action before you move the model" but you are not held to the action. Pass you kind of are on P8. I know it will never become must for all three actions  so I won't make a big deal about it. Thank god for house rules.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 07:14 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: No way, really? Even though there's only a 5% chance (1/3 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 2/3) that the reroll used on the dodge would come back and haunt you? Maybe i like taking risks a little more than you do, but i might call it a hand off depending on the situation. In fact, since this guy is a thrower, i'd probably call it a pass even and go for the extra SPP. The point is, it's not set in stone.
I had a no-risk cageing option so why take any risks at all? |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 10:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
My opinion is that a must-pass rule would force players to be MORE conservative (at least I would be more conservative). It's along the line of doubleskulls' reasoning. Passing is already risky enough, if it becomes worse, I'll just play a running game instead. Running games are boring.
There's already a risk involved, because usually if I'm going to throw a pass, I set up a receiving corps downfield first, and even if I end up not throwing the ball, I'm all spread out and blitzworthy. My catchers are not near each other, the thrower has some protection, but not a full-on cage, and my blitzers might be out of position to help either side effectively.
So a Pass action that ends with me not throwing the ball will still end with me pretty open to a good blitz. I'm gambling from the moment I set up the pass, way before I declare a Pass action. I just decided it was better to wait a turn (for whatever reason) rather than risk the interception or something. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 10:24 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: My opinion is that a must-pass rule would force players to be MORE conservative
Rubbish! It just means that you only declare a Pass action if you mean it, and that you only set up a pass if you intend to follow through with it.
Oh, and the rule already is that you must pass. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
