cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 06:52 |
 
|
the phrase is "an opponent who is stronger than you" I think we should be discussing the clause not just the word an.
Do two guys whose combined strength is more than mine constitute "a stronger opponent", I would say yes. |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 07:19 |
|
| cataphract wrote: |
Do two guys whose combined strength is more than mine constitute "a stronger opponent", I would say yes. |
Well, most people with a complete grasp the use of plurality in the english language would say that "a stronger opponent" is clearly singular.
Plural
------------
"The player is allowed to block two opposing players at the same time. The opposing players must be next to the player making the block and next to each other. Their strengths are added together and both suffer the effects of the block equally. Both sides may use assists normally."
Singular
------------
"A player with this trait is capable of psyching themselves up so that they can take on even the very strongest opponent. The skill only works when the player attempts to block an opponent who is stronger than himself. When the skill is used the coach of the Dauntless player rolls two dice and adds them together. If the total is greater than the opponent’s Strength value, then the Dauntless player’s Strength is counted as being equal to his opponent’s when he makes the block, before any bonuses for skills and defensive or offensive assists are added. If the dice roll is less than or equal to the opponent’s Strength value, then the Dauntless player must use his normal Strength for the block." |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch
Last edited by Mr-Klipp on %b %02, %2003 - %07:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
cusi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 07:23 |
|
seems like one group is arguing what they want it to say
wizards first rule
and klipp is arguing what the rule says |
_________________
Check out the latest issue of The Grotty Little Newspaper yet? |
|
Davosaurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 07:29 |
|
Not really. Two guys whose strengths add to more than yours are still two guys and not a single opponent. They could be treated as a single opponent by a player using multiple block. The skill description for multiple block doesn't make this explicit. |
|
|
Bendrig
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 09:09 |
|
from the BBRC Hot topics for discussion list 2002:
( http://www.blood-bowl.net/BBRC_HotList2002.html )
| Quote: |
# Better clarify Multiple Block. Explain how Frenzy and Dauntless work or don't work with it (the straightforward normal block thing confuses the heck out of Joe Normal). What happens if one of the 2 opponents has Foul Appearance? Also include a couple diagrams to show how assists and counterassists are supposed to work with the skill as this endless debate needs officially addressed (include Guard for either side in the a couple examples to make it clear)
# BBRC response: Frenzy cannot be used with Multiple Block. Dauntless can be. If one or both players have Foul Appearance, you must roll for each player. Any failures means that player cannot be included in the block however any successes allow you to continue blocking against that specific player. As for Guard and examples, we'll try to post a picture diagram on TalkBloodBowl.
|
not quite official, but "officially" enough? |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 09:22 |
|
Depends. Was this an officialy published answer from the BBRC, or another "I know some of the BBRC guys so I asked them and this is what they said." I can't tell from that page, but I do note that that isn't from the official bloodbowl site, and the tone of the answer points to option 2. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Bendrig
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 09:58 |
|
it's why I called it "officially" instead of official.
iirc, it was in the list of clarifications that came with the rules review of 2002.
Of course, with the publication of the 2003 RR, the 2002 version dissapeared of the official site *rollseyes*, leaving me with no actual proof of that.
bleh. here I thought I could end the discussion with an official answer and it turns out you'll have to take my word for it anyway.
That's no good.
what's the point in having an official FAQ if they don't keep it easily accesible... *grumble*
Anyway, it's true! Believe me! :p |
|
|
Franz
Joined: Sep 13, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 10:35 |
|
In the Oberwald 2002 for the 2.0 LRB Dauntless is allowed with MB.
But why not E-mail the fanatic studio with a clarification request? |
|
|
zenemuse
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 10:55 |
|
Ooo... my Catcher with MB is famous. 
Hopefully he won't be too much of a target now, as most of my opponents seem to completely ignore him... until he knocks out their Ogre and lineman in one fell swoop.
And yeah, block is next.
a deadly WE catcher... just sounds funny. |
|
|
EgorKDie
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 11:08 |
|
Personally (having been on the receiving end of him before) I agree with Klipp. The arguing over semantics of the sentance is silly (and if you do that with most of GW games, NONE of ANY armies special rules would work because they superscede other rules).
The way the fluff in the rules are written suggests that they can't be used together (without explicitly saying that), however they DO work together... So I suggest another way of looking at it...
A player with Dauntless blocks a Treeman (ST 6), a BIG scary target... So he psychs himself up for it... hence dauntless... Now the same player has Multiple Block and is facing two Orc Linemen (2xST 3 = ST 6) together they make a BIG scary target... to take them on together he's going to have to psych himself up...
Different situations, same response on the player... which is why the skills should be used together...
Flame away...
Gk. |
|
|
Jugular
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 11:25 |
|
I think it is clear. Dauntless should, by the rules, be useable with Multiple Block. By adding both players strengths together and the dice roll affecting both players equally, the player blocking is treating them as a singular opponent. Dauntless is used after a block has been declared and therefore at that point you are essentially blocking 'an' opponent.
Skill choices in the game are used to gain rules exceptions. I believe applying Mr. Klipp's logic to many skills would cause problems. Closer to the argument in question take for example Multiple Block. Surely this skill is completely unuseable as it allows you to block two opponents with a single block. The rules however state that a block is only against 'an' opponent. I'm certain that Mr' Klipp would not argue this point and by induction there is no reason why a skill should not cause an exception within an exception. Therefore Dauntless should be useable with Multiple Block.
Well thats my view on it anyways  |
|
|
Tripleskull
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 11:32 |
|
I am not from an english speaking contry so my interpretation of the word opponant might be wrong, but...
I would say an opponant does NOT equal an opposing player, cuz the opponant part could consist of all sorts of things.
Just like an enemy doesnt equal a single person or something, could easyly be a group of any number of persons.
The singularity is about something having identity. My two opposing players are one opponant cuz they are both being block by me atm. Thats the quality they are mesured by atm, and that makes them ONE. |
|
|
Zhluhur
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 11:34 |
|
Is it right that "an" opponent can be a single player or a single team of players?
"My teams opponent is Team X"
My dauntless players opponent is a "pair of two players".
I am not a navtive speaker, so I cannot say wheather this could be right.
IMHO dauntless should be allowed with MultiBlock, because it adds some cool combinations to the game.
And the chance to fail that roll while blocking two players is quite high. |
_________________
*-* Let the games begin! *-* |
|
Zhluhur
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 11:35 |
|
haha "nix" we had the same idea |
_________________
*-* Let the games begin! *-* |
|
stark
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2003 - 12:45 |
|
I don't know,
I thought the background behind dauntless was that a player with the skill had the ability to not be intimidated by an opponents size, thus being able to hit him on a equal footing. This as far as the rules go mean all as said above, however surely the spirit of this skill is purely for 1 on 1 blocks. Dauntless otherwise should be renamed something like "Random Bursts Of Strength" or whatever.
StarK |
|
|
|
|
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
