FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

MixX

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:31

Mully wrote:

...no where in the rule book does it say you have to go through with the action. Same with declaring pass, but then deciding against it. You lose the action for the turn, but that's it.

nowhere in the rules does it say you are allowed to NOT make the foul..

It may be going too far into detail, but in the passing rules it says you may move up to your MA, and then may throw the ball. The fouling rules state that "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". I don't see the little word "may". But then English is not my first language, and I don't always understand all of the subleties of it..

EDIT: If it's true that you don't need to go through with the action, then I think it's a valid tactic.

gken1

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:35

MixX wrote:

Mully wrote:

...no where in the rule book does it say you have to go through with the action. Same with declaring pass, but then deciding against it. You lose the action for the turn, but that's it.

nowhere in the rules does it say you are allowed to NOT make the foul..

It may be going too far into detail, but in the passing rules it says you may move up to your MA, and then may throw the ball. The fouling rules state that "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". I don't see the little word "may". But then English is not my first language, and I don't always understand all of the subleties of it..

EDIT: If it's true that you don't need to go through with the action, then I think it's a valid tactic.

if you look under pass action (pg 8 ) at beginning of rulebook it says at end of move you MUST pass the ball

Last edited by gken1 on %b %27, %2004 - %16:%Feb; edited 2 times in total

MixX

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:36

it does?

**MixX goes to look it up**

lord_real

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:43

Cant the same coding used for pass block be used for the new Wild animal. Prohibiting it to use the foul action if it doesnt actually make a foul?

MixX

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:43

True, it does. I wonder which is takes precedence, then? May or must.. well well, we always played that if you didn't feel like passing then you'd just wasted the action. (just like the Client. Well, the client doesn't waste the action actually). I don't know, I don't like this new rule anyway, the "old new" Wild Animal was finally negative enough that people didn't take BG's as a no-brainer. But then I'm anti-big-guys, so I'm not to be trusted on this Smile

gken1

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:45

LOL
can u declare a foul if there are no players on lying on the ground?

AlcingRagaholic

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:49

I am ambivalent to big guys, and personally, I think the new one is better than the previous, and in some cases, better than the first. 2+ for all, 4+ for moving, passing, or handing off. The fouling 2+ is a little awkward, but its not that big of a deal. Sure, he will not foul at the end of his move. But then he cannot make another foul for the rest of the turn. And if he does foul with him, there's a 1 in 6 he wont be doing it again. So, let it stay, and play it first... If it seems that unbalancing, well then, we can call Jervis again...

Z

quota

Joined: Nov 24, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 16:49

gken1 wrote:

LOL
can u declare a foul if there are no players on lying on the ground?

Yes, you can.

_________________
the only good undead is a dead, uhm, undead...

gken1

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 20:52

if people abuse the rule they should be punished....period.

AcheronStyx

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 21:24

so just declare the foul, then "try to get there" and run out of movement...i see no problems with this

it's not an "abuse" it also doesn't implicitly say you HAVE to foul, unlike a pass where you do

olivers

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 21:32

Apart from the foul looks good

Britnoth

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 21:39

You can hardly call it abusing a rule.... the rule is the RULE it is not there to be interpreted as you see fit. If it doesn't say you have to foul when you declare a foul action you don't have to. Saying it doesn't explicitly say you can choose not to is pretty byzantine.

I can see lots of instances (involving diving tackle etc) where you may want to bluff a foul... or you may initially want to foul, but your opponent decides not to use diving tackle... or uses it with the wrong player and you don't wish to foul him instead of another... all these have been part of the game - who has complained about them?

Conversely to some teams using your foul to give a +2 on the WA roll is a significant (if not critical) sacrifice. If they do, go ahead - it brings back WA to where their cost and av 8 would expect them to be.

Mr-Klipp

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 21:41

Britnoth wrote:

I can see lots of instances (involving diving tackle etc) where you may want to bluff a foul... or you may initially want to foul, but your opponent decides not to use diving tackle... or uses it with the wrong player and you don't wish to foul him instead of another... all these have been part of the game - who has complained about them?

This should NOT be a part of the game, because the ONLY time a player with diving tackle should go down is when the -2 would be enough to cause the dodge to fail. This only occurs because of a flaw in the way that diving tackle is handled by the client. I certainly can't think of any other skills that could result in this situation.

_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.

The Finishing Touch

swilhelm73

Joined: Oct 06, 2003

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 21:45

gken1 wrote:

just add it to the fumbbl rules that if you declare foul and don't you'll be placed on probation or something.

Hmm, well, I know I have clicked foul, or even blitz, by accident before when I didn't mean to click it...

If we are going to do this, perhaps specifically tie it to WA players in the rules?

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 - 22:08

Mr-Klipp wrote:

Britnoth wrote:

I can see lots of instances (involving diving tackle etc) where you may want to bluff a foul... or you may initially want to foul, but your opponent decides not to use diving tackle... or uses it with the wrong player and you don't wish to foul him instead of another... all these have been part of the game - who has complained about them?

This should NOT be a part of the game, because the ONLY time a player with diving tackle should go down is when the -2 would be enough to cause the dodge to fail. This only occurs because of a flaw in the way that diving tackle is handled by the client. I certainly can't think of any other skills that could result in this situation.

Is this true!? I searched the forums but didn't find an answer in the threads it turned up. Having read the LRB - it sure seems to me like diving tackle is something you have to declare before the dice are rolled! The wording is a bit amiguous, but making the -2 dive a 'sure thing' knockdown and turnover doesn't fit very well with the roll the dice and pray (you know the modifiers, and thus the risk, but not the final roll) spirit of Blood Bowl!

I mean, how bad is diving tackle anyway in that case - sure you're down, but it was a turnover (most likely - unless Stand Firm) so you can get right back up again...unless there is something that I am failing to consider?

If this is something Jervis has said explicitly, could someone provide me with a link to it? I only ask because I try to stick with his rulings in table top, and if this is the way he wants it now, fair enough...but I may need it in writing to prove it to other players!

(Granted MB and DP work on an 'as needed' basis - but in that case it is a single skill choosing between two dice rolls, but applying to one or the other for sure - and there is no 'choice' involved - it WILL apply to one or the other, as needed. And I am still a little confused about the current official ruling on Piling On...it is just a RR of the armor roll if it fails now?)