| Author |
Message |
pfooti |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 10:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: 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.
I always intend to follow through with a pass when I declare a Pass action, to the best of my knowledge. But if I end up getting a few unforseen 1s, I should be able to change my mind, plain and simple. My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball, if he's stuck to the FA, tentacles beastman that has been shadowing him, for example. To force him to throw the ball in that case is silly, both in terms of fluff and playability.
Mordredd wrote: Oh, and the rule already is that you must pass.
Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open. Furthermore, I'd say that we're debating that in another thread. Even furthermore, based on postings in that thread, I'd say that there is a stronger case for not having to pass based on a strict interpretation of the LRB. The case for the must-pass interpretation is based mostly on "that's the way we play it" and "that's what Chet said", rather than "the p8 rules make more sense" or "the p8 rules are later in the rulebook and override the p13 rules" |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 10:46 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: 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.
You obviously haven't read my earlier post.
It doesn't happen that often but sometimes I'll declare a pass/hand off and then decide against it because I blow the RR earlier in the action. In some of those instances I'd just declare a move action instead because the risk/reward of the pass isn't good enough.
Must pass/hand-off will result in fewer of them being declared. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 11:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball
I would say that when you declare the pass your thrower has decided that the pass is on, or has to be made, so is going to go through with it no matter what. Also picking a very rare example as to why he should be able to choose not to is pointless and proves nothing. Similarly rolling a couple of 1s usually results in a turn over.
Quote: Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open.
Both are untrue. Read the other thread, I have already posted a grammatical analysis of why the interpretation that passing is optional based on the text on p13 is wrong.
Quote: You obviously haven't read my earlier post.
No, I had read it. I just think that your position on this is wrong. If you decided that the whole play was worth the risk then you should be made to follow it through. Just because you tripped at the first hurdle doesn't mean you should be allowed to wimp out. The fact that you have to follow through with the whole pass should be taken into account when you do your original "risk assessment". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 11:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: Quote: My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball
I would say that when you declare the pass your thrower has decided that the pass is on, or has to be made, so is going to go through with it no matter what. Also picking a very rare example as to why he should be able to choose not to is pointless and proves nothing. Similarly rolling a couple of 1s usually results in a turn over.
These extreme cases are very central to my argument, because it is in those extreme cases where I would find myself declaring Pass Action and not wanting to throw the ball. Again, in most cases the may-pass and must-pass rules are indistinguishable, because when I say Pass I usually mean it, and actually it takes more than a blown RR to make me back down. If I blow a RR on a GFI, I will pass to my receiver who has catch instead of the lineman I was trying to level. But if I get stuck on a tentacled player, or something else extreme, I don't want to be forced to make an obviously poor pass.
Mordredd wrote:
Quote: Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open.
Both are untrue. Read the other thread, I have already posted a grammatical analysis of why the interpretation that passing is optional based on the text on p13 is wrong.
You have posted a grammatical analysis. Who are you? You are not the BBRC or JJ. So you are allowed to post opinions on the matter. You are entitled to say "this is how my league plays it and why". You are simply not qualified (and neither am I for that matter) to say "this is the rule".
Furthermore, I already know that we're in contention over the meaning of this rule, so saying "btw, you're wrong" at the end of a post is indeed a cheap shot. Not a cheap shot in the way that "btw, you're a poo-head" would be, but cheap nonetheless.
Mordredd wrote:
Quote: You obviously haven't read my earlier post.
No, I had read it. I just think that your position on this is wrong. If you decided that the whole play was worth the risk then you should be made to follow it through. Just because you tripped at the first hurdle doesn't mean you should be allowed to wimp out. The fact that you have to follow through with the whole pass should be taken into account when you do your original "risk assessment".
This is a reply to Doubleskulls, I think. But I will reply also. If I called a pass play in the NFL, I wouldn't want my QB to throw it directly at a defender, or toss it as he's being tackled and then come off the field and say "Coach, I didn't want to wimp out!".
Forcing players to pass will result in the coaches who had been playing under a may-pass interpretation becoming more conservative. This would be one more gram on the scale tipping toward a (boring) cage-style run and grind game. This is a prediction, not a statement I have evidence for. Just the anecdotal evidence that I know this is how it would affect my play style. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 12:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: You have posted a grammatical analysis. Who are you? You are not the BBRC or JJ. So you are allowed to post opinions on the matter. You are entitled to say "this is how my league plays it and why". You are simply not qualified (and neither am I for that matter) to say "this is the rule".
I am literate and have a copy of the rules. This does put me in a position to say "this is the rule". You are of course free to disagree with me, and argue your case.
As for the 'cheap shot', you were discussing the subject as though the rule was up to the individual to decide on. Saying that it is actually set one way is not saying that you are wrong, just that you should be arguing that the rule "does do" what you say, rather than "would do". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 06:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: I had a no-risk cageing option so why take any risks at all?
Many reasons. It might be better for you to score as soon as possible (e.g. you're losing by 2 TDs). Maybe you want a high scoring game with lots of SPPs, and you don't care much whether you win or lose (e.g. you're already out of playoff contention). Maybe you already lead by 2 TDs so there's no risk of losing the game and you want to max out on SPPs. There are many situations that would warrant this. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 03:01 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| Shouldn't we take all the discussion on passing etc to the other thread? This one is well off topic now. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2004 - 07:39 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Putting this thread back on topic, Experiment 627 of the Northland Raiders is improving his play. He occasionally forgets what he's doing, but he's reasonably reliable (at all the unnecessary times, of course), and he's learned to work better with his team-mates.
BTW, Sure Feet on a Minotaur is a good skill choice. Trust me on this one.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 04:40 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| As a "patch" for WA & fouling why not change the rules so any player performing a "Foul Action" (regardless of whether they actually foul or not) has to roll to be sent off - and moves the eye too. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Posted: Mar 06, 2004 - 06:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
pfooti wrote: Mordredd wrote: 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.
I always intend to follow through with a pass when I declare a Pass action, to the best of my knowledge. But if I end up getting a few unforseen 1s, I should be able to change my mind, plain and simple. My passer is not an idiot, he knows when it is a bad idea to pass the ball, if he's stuck to the FA, tentacles beastman that has been shadowing him, for example. To force him to throw the ball in that case is silly, both in terms of fluff and playability.
Mordredd wrote: Oh, and the rule already is that you must pass.
Cheap shot. I would say that the pass ruling is still open. Furthermore, I'd say that we're debating that in another thread. Even furthermore, based on postings in that thread, I'd say that there is a stronger case for not having to pass based on a strict interpretation of the LRB. The case for the must-pass interpretation is based mostly on "that's the way we play it" and "that's what Chet said", rather than "the p8 rules make more sense" or "the p8 rules are later in the rulebook and override the p13 rules"
I still do not see how you are that confused on the Passing rules! I have explained it time & time again! It is not a condradiction! On page 13 its simply telling you what you "may" do if you wanted to decide to commit to a pass action! On page 8 its telling you what you "must" do should you decide to commit to a pass action! I see no confussion there! Its two totatlly different parts of the rules, sure both dealing with the passing part of the game, but dealing with 2 different mechanics of the game! I have explained this to you over & over on the other thread, (I obviosly must be writing in a differnt language!) Cause I'm sure if I was writing in English you would have surely seen the light by now! |
_________________
"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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 07, 2004 - 01:00 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CoachLazyEye |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 14, 2004 - 03:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 17, 2003
Posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm running a league in Ottawa and the Wild Animal rule is providing a bit of a challenge.
What I was thinking of imposing is that wild animal is exactly as written except that a blitz action may be made against an opposing model in the Wild Animal's tackle zone without a roll being required - just like the block. That way Wild Animal isn't too restrictive but still offers a negative. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Ratin_Mutants |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 18, 2004 - 12:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 57
Status: Offline
|
|
Think of it I LOVE the new rules, remember how it was before... you MUST go First, no assists..... how many turnovers did you guys make? I managed to make a total of 5 in one game.... I still won due the fact that I played against a undead team and they could not pick up the ball... but took a beating.
The new rules are quite good, because instead of haveing the opponents running towards the WA, in the hope of causing a Turnover, they run away in hope to have the WA miss a Blitz.
Isn´t it logically that the opponnetns should go away from the WA? They are not nice, they rip your guts out and trample on you afterwards while playing bowling with your skull. I would try to avoid guys like them EVEN if i´m a BB player whith a death wish. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 18, 2004 - 03:09 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
IMO the new rules are an over-reaction to the RR2003 ones. 2+ to block & blitz with no loss of TZ if you fail? Much better than Bonehead IMO.
Why couldn't the BBRC leave the rules (or revert to the must move 1st one) and then put all these options through some serious play testing... |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lupus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 18, 2004 - 11:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 37
Status: Offline
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: IMO the new rules are an over-reaction to the RR2003 ones. 2+ to block & blitz with no loss of TZ if you fail? Much better than Bonehead IMO.
Much better than bonehead? The WA has to roll +4 for move, blitz and pass... And the worst is that has to roll +4 for un-stunned and stand up! 
Lupus |
_________________
Spanish Team member
Last edited by Lupus on Mar 18, 2004 - 11:41 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
