neverborn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 03:32 |
 
|
im with cata on this one
just makes more sense when you read it his way imho.
i cant see why the skill of dauntless wouldn't conceptually work against more than one person. I mean you've got a little nugget who flys in and does crazy things to make blocks effective, same deal when you're blocking two people!
I think Klipp is rules lawyering more than anyone else in the thread personally |
|
|
oeuftete
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 03:39 |
|
Well, it doesn't have any official status AFAIK, but the OBERWALD seems to be generally accepted... and it says that dauntless works with multiple block. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:14 |
|
| cataphract wrote: |
Multiple block allows you to block more than one opponent, and therefore supercedes the normal rules. |
Yes it does, however dauntless works on one opponent. The fact that you get a skill that allows you to block more than one opponent doesn't change a completly seperate skill that works on one opponent. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:17 |
|
| neverborn wrote: |
I think Klipp is rules lawyering more than anyone else in the thread personally |
?!? How in the bloody hell am I rules lawyering by saying that "an" means one, basic english, while the other side is trying to pervert "an" to mean more than one? Do you know what rules lawyering means? |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Wombats
Joined: Oct 31, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:31 |
|
My next Chaos team is getting Mutli Block Dauntless Beastmen.
Note the Plural  |
_________________
Ninja versus Pirate . . . Ninja WINS!
www.realultimatepower.net |
|
cusi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:48 |
|
i agree with klipp. dauntless is psyching yourself to block an opponent stronger than you. you gotta fight mr t you take your shots of whiskey and go after him. going after mr t and arnold schwatrzenhoefer you drink the whiskey and go get your ass kicked your not dauntless just dumb 8?) |
_________________
Check out the latest issue of The Grotty Little Newspaper yet? |
|
Daragor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:50 |
|
That's fine but you are misunderstanding. To get the 2 dice block all that needs to be done is to get an assist on just one of the opponent's players. Example:
an ogre and a human lineman are next to each other. one of your players comes along and lends an assist against the lineman, your dauntless/multiblock boy blitzes or blocks that lineman for 2 dice cos he gets an assist, but under the current workings you also will get a 2 dice block against the ogre as long as you make the dauntless roll. All you have to do is make 1 dauntless roll of 6 or more and that covers for both blocks. That's were the current system is flawed. |
|
|
Wombats
Joined: Oct 31, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:52 |
|
Forget the issue - Kick the ****er to death and be done with it.
Are we not BLOOD Bowl players? If we cut someone do they not bleed profusely? |
_________________
Ninja versus Pirate . . . Ninja WINS!
www.realultimatepower.net |
|
neverborn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:53 |
|
an is a referance to an object, it might imply a singlular but it is not really vital to the definition. You can use an in many contexts when you don't really mean singular, while this might be incorrect, i don't think the good people on the BBRC are that careful about their use of the english language.
You are reading more into the word choice than either english or common sense (in this situation) allows. I think that sounds like pretty lawyer-y behaviour to me.
I think they chose "an" over other words because 99.999% of the blocks done in BB are against a single opponent, and they didn't want to confuse people who are more likely to be exposed to dauntless than multiple block (cause dwarves have it, and no one starts with MB, nor is it a common choice). Hence they assumed the singular, rather than plural, because only in special circumstances does it apply in plural, and those are set out elsewhere |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:56 |
|
| Daragor wrote: | | That's fine but you are misunderstanding. To get the 2 dice block all that needs to be done is to get an assist on just one of the opponent's players. |
I was going to post about that as well, but since you should not be able to use dauntless and multiblock together anyway it should not matter. IIRC, you do have to have an assist on both player for multiblock, it is only broken in connection with dauntless, but it should not work at all for dauntless, so once that is resolved there will be no problem, I'll email Ski about it soon.
If there is a clarification saying you can do it, I'd like to see it, but a common english interpretation of the rule is clear, an=one. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 04:58 |
|
| neverborn wrote: | | an is a referance to an object, it might imply a singlular but it is not really vital to the definition. You can use an in many contexts when you don't really mean singular, while this might be incorrect, i don't think the good people on the BBRC are that careful about their use of the english language. |
Exept it is vital to the definition. That's why I posted the dictionary definition of the word, an does not imply one, it means one. "an opponent" means one opponent. This is basic english people.
| neverborn wrote: | | You are reading more into the word choice than either english or common sense (in this situation) allows. I think that sounds like pretty lawyer-y behaviour to me. |
No, see I am reading it as basic english, an opponent = one opponent. The opposing side is trying to argue for some sort of "special case" an for the sole purpose of gaining a rules advantage. This is practically the defininition of rules lawyering.
| neverborn wrote: |
I think they chose "an" over other words because 99.999% of the blocks done in BB are against a single opponent |
You can think what you like, but for rules interpretations you have to go by what the rules say, not what you think they meant. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
neverborn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 05:19 |
|
If they meant one, and it mattered so much, they would have said one. They didn't.
They were simply refering to the object that is your opponent, so they used an because it reads better and because almost all blocks in BB only happen to one opponent.
Seriously, re-read cata's post, its the last one on the last page. It really seems very simple when you look at it like that.
You are saying that they agree with your definition of 'an' which is the denotation of the word 'an' but isn't always the conotation of the word 'an'. Again, a simple concept of language that says the written definition of a word isn't always what it means, mainly because the person who used the word, wasn't the person who wrote the definition, nor can we be sure that they had the dictionary definition in mind when they used it.
You are assuming as much as we are. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 05:28 |
|
You are still missing the point. My interpretation of that rule is based on the english language meaning of the text. Yours is based on a potential implied meaning. The actual definition of the word is a far stronger argument than guessing at implied intentions.
You are saying that I can't prove that they meant an to mean one, that they could have meant something else. I don't have to prove that they meant what they wrote, you would have to prove that they didn't. Since you cannot prove that they somehow did not mean what they wrote, you have to use the rule as it was written.
Yes, we are both making assumption. I am assuming that what they wrote is what they meant, you are assuming that it isn't. I shouldn't have to point out which assumption holds more weight. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Daragor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 05:39 |
|
|
Davosaurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 06:13 |
|
I think that it is very clear that in the definition of dauntless that 'an' means one single opponant. What I do not find clear is whether the 2 players being blocked by the multiple blocker are treated as one single opponent (i.e. their strengths are added and the suffer the same effects of the block). I think this is what BadMrMojo, Neverborn and Cata were trying to get at. However, I don't think that these 2 skills were ever intended to be used together and I totally agree with Mr-Klipp that dauntless should only be used when blocking single opponents not during multiple block actions. |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
