| Author |
Message |
SBG |
|
Post subject: A multiple Block quirky question
 Posted: Oct 19, 2004 - 02:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Canada
Posts: 772
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi guys!
Here's the situation:
Player A and B are side by side, perpendicular to the limit of the field.
(ABI - I is the sideline)
Multiple Block player comes in the Blitz, hitting them from the square in front of PLayer A, diagonally.
ABI
M
On a pushback or POW or POW/! result could he push B into the crowd by using this sequence:
1st, pushing A behind B, thus giving this:
_AI
_BI
M_I
2nd, pushing B into the crowd cause he doesn't have any more squares free to go.
Does it make any sense to think that could be an option?
Fred |
_________________
Winner of Soup Bowls I, II, III (Chaos Dwarves); IV, V (Dwarves); XIII (Orcs); XIV (Dark Elves) & XVII (Chaos).
Forget the Yankees, forget the Habs: THAT'S a Dynasty!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 19, 2004 - 03:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
The rules don't say either way, so this would be up for your commish to rule.
You should ask the BBRC to rule on this at this year's rules review. They're currently in the process of discussing it, so if you're lucky it's not too late.
If i were the commish, i'd disallow it, but either way is fine, as long as you're consistant. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Xeterog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 19, 2004 - 05:58 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
Texas
Posts: 73
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
| I've always seen it ruled that the multblocker gets to choose which player to push back 1st, following all normal pushback rules. So, yea, you could push B out of bounds by pushing A behind them 1st. |
_________________
-Xeterog
(formerly Gortex)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
spree |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 19, 2004 - 06:22 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 58
Status: Offline
|
|
| I'd probably rule that you should choose which square's the players are going to simultaneously - obviously without choosing the same square. The only problem then would be if the square directly behind player B was the only square available... |
_________________
If puns were deli meat, this would be the wurst.
Al.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2004 - 07:06 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
I can try guys but the agenda is only 1 1/2 weeks away from wrapping up ... I could ask.
But I'm half afraid if I ask that we'll have a vote to just delete Multi Block instead of issuing an FAQ ... 
The question is really should the pushing back be declared simultaneously or sequential chosen by the Multi Blocker. There is no guidance for this in the rulebook. My gut says simultaneously though.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2004 - 07:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: But I'm half afraid if I ask that we'll have a vote to just delete Multi Block instead of issuing an FAQ ...
Damn vault mentality! |
_________________
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: Oct 20, 2004 - 07:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| I think that it has to be sequential due to the nature of how push backs work. I just can't see simultaneous push backs being worked out satisfactorily in all cases. If we were talking about pushing them into a solid scrum of players rather than into the crowd would there be any question about it anyway? I somehow doubt there would be. I think you just have to grin and bear it the few rare times it happens. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SBG |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2004 - 11:35 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Canada
Posts: 772
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
OK, so I think I'll go sequential. Because when pushing into other players, we would go sequential.
Fred |
_________________
Winner of Soup Bowls I, II, III (Chaos Dwarves); IV, V (Dwarves); XIII (Orcs); XIV (Dark Elves) & XVII (Chaos).
Forget the Yankees, forget the Habs: THAT'S a Dynasty!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2004 - 12:12 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: GalakStarscraper wrote: But I'm half afraid if I ask that we'll have a vote to just delete Multi Block instead of issuing an FAQ ...
Damn vault mentality!
Its not the Vault Zombie. Wish I could say more ... but this fear is VERY MUCH not driven by anything or anyone that has been involved with the Vault.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2004 - 12:30 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
| if the Multi-blocker has frenzy....does he have to follow? since multi-block and frenzy don't work together? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2004 - 12:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| No, as the use of multi-block has overidden Frenzy. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Apedog |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 21, 2004 - 12:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 146
Status: Offline
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: Zombie wrote: GalakStarscraper wrote: But I'm half afraid if I ask that we'll have a vote to just delete Multi Block instead of issuing an FAQ ...
Damn vault mentality!
Its not the Vault Zombie. Wish I could say more ... but this fear is VERY MUCH not driven by anything or anyone that has been involved with the Vault.
Galak
I'd hate to see it go but I can understand the feeling, it seems to generate a lot of difficult questions and is not even that great a skill most of the time.
As for the question in hand, I'd have to say in sequence seems the only sensible way to work it. If you don't like the 'easy' push out of bounds you could always rule that the player closest to the sidelines has to be pushed first. |
_________________
Munkey
Boom! He's on his back!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: Simultaneous
Posted: Oct 22, 2004 - 03:35 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
I would rule that the pushbacks are simultaneous so you can't use one player to block the position for another.
But if we move away from the sideline it is easy to set up a crowded position where there is only one square free - the same for both. In that case the attacker would certainly be able to select it for one player and not the other. So in that situation we would have to allow pushes in sequence. But if there were different empty squares free then I would make the two pushes together. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Xtreme |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 21, 2004 - 02:13 AM
|
|
Da Boss
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1096
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
I thought there was an offical answer to this was I wrong?
Just found this thread through the search and doesn't really answer the question offically, until I hear otherwise I think I will just have to rule that it is simultaneously. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 21, 2004 - 08:08 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Xtreme wrote: I thought there was an offical answer to this was I wrong?
Just found this thread through the search and doesn't really answer the question offically, until I hear otherwise I think I will just have to rule that it is simultaneously.
Rules Review 2004 says that you fully resolve the first pushback sequence before resolving the second.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
