Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 22:41 |
 
|
| 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. |
I can think of 2....
1. Diving tackle is used to cause a dodge to fail... what happens if it is rerolled? You've already used the skill so the player is prone yet you can still pass the second dodge roll...?
2. I select foul and attempt to dodge away from a player with tentacles... if tentacles work, they stop my movement but where does that say I can no longer foul? (the client still lets me blitz if I fail, just with no move) I cannot reach the player I wanted to foul.... I may have another player to foul if it is adjacent, but again it may not be a good choice to do so. |
|
|
BloodRunners
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 22:45 |
|
With as many people who bitch about fouling anyway, I say be happy. Everytime the mino moves, thats a turn you can't be fouled in
I am just happy to have my minos back the way they were meant to be. FEARED |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 22:45 |
|
all skills are used after the dice rolls-they did it for consistentcy...mightyblow, accurate, dirty player, diving tackle, piling on. look in the differences from boardgame read me file that comes with the client...it says it right in there that the diving tackle is handled differently.
But to abuse a rule is just wrong...if they wanted to let u move freely on 2+ they woulda just made move a 2+ roll. Don't be a git!!!!!!!!! if you're gonna click foul with wild animal you should foul!! hell you might not even get caught.
the foul does say you will move and foul a player...nowhere does it say may move or may foul. |
|
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 22:54 |
|
| LtMonkey wrote: | | AeoN2 wrote: | Am I the only one who thought WA was best as they were in the old LRB? maybe a tad overpowered, but not compared to other balance issues in BB...
--
AeoN2 |
Yes, you are |
No he's not, I liked the other one a lot better. Risky, Dangerous, and it had a lot of character. I hate that everything has become a statistical analysis strategy game. Bring back some of the colorful havoc.
| Mixx wrote: | | 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.. |
Subtlety there. "This allows. . . " Just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean that you have to do it.
I am of the same school of thought, that it is a viable strategic option. It is also a viable strategic option for my Elves to knock his Mino down everyturn, so I don't get fouled by his cheap DP's. If, in fact, this rule comes to print, I will definately support it over this last one, but my favorite of the LRB WA, is still the first version of it.
Asperon Thorn |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 23:02 |
|
The LRB says it 'allows' - as in I CAN do what it says in a 'foul action'. Nowhere does it say I will or I must.
Secondly, it is NOT free, it uses your foul action which then cannot be used elsewhere...
Edit: ack beaten to it  |
|
|
AlcingRagaholic
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 23:08 |
|
Or like I said, play a few games, and see if it matters...
Z |
|
|
slackman
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 23:19 |
|
i LOVED the original WA rule, that's why i still kept a rat ogre on my skaven teams. i was hoping the first change was just an oversight and that it would soon be changed back. sure, if you played it right, and got the "unlucky" 1, you'd be better off than if you hadn't "failed" the roll. but you couldnt rely on using him to carry the ball, for fear he would drop it and go tearing off in the other direction. this new proposal seems to be taking a small step back to the original, but i think dropping the +2 on foul actions would be a prudent idea. honestly, i think we'd be fine with rolling a 4+ for any action other than a block, blitz, or unstun. note this still necessitates the roll for standing up, as it is a move action. |
|
|
cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 13:06 |
|
Yeah, after a bit of grammatical analysis...
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.
The word "then" implies that the foul must follow the move, whichI think is where the confusion arises. I think (and this is only my reading of it) that the word "allows" at the start of the sentence takes precedence. It's sloppy English, which is always confusing, but I think this is how it works out (my edits are in [square brackets]):
Foul Action: Th[e Foul Action] allows the player to move [up to] a number of squares equal to his MA [plus gfi] and then [allows the player to] make a foul against an opposing player.
In which case, there is no problem declaring a foul and not following through. Think about it this way: is there any reason why you can't declare a blitz and then not follow through with it? Even if only because you got cold feet?
"Right, I'll blitz that guy and run though to the endzone... ok, declare blitz... move, move, move, blo - ack, no, wait this leaves the ball-carrier exposed, phew, thank god I didn't do that." Or else you spot the guy with guard, or the extra tackle zone, or that the target has dodge, or whatever. Hell, I've even done it by being stupid: moving the blitzer into a tackle zone he could have avoided, and then being forced to abort the attempt to blitz the ball-carrier - although in that instance I just blitzed the owner of the offending TZ instead...
I think there are plenty of valid (if accidental) reasons to declare a blitz and then not actually hit anyone. Therefore, I can't see why it wouldn't be ok to do the same with a foul. |
|
|
neverborn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 13:43 |
|
the new rule change is dumb
either change foul so it says if you declare a foul you must foul, or take fouling out of the wa changes |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 13:46 |
|
right. as I said, I'm not a "native" english speaker, so I wouldn't put too much into that. And if it is generally agreed that the actual foul part of the foul action is voluntary, then I think it is a valid tactic (if somewhat cheesy) to use it to move the WA. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 15:53 |
|
well when u got BBRC member saying you're screwed up (over on the NAF site) then it's not an option not to foul.
If you declare foul you should foul....DON'T BE A GIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
The BBRC came out with a perfectly fine rule to replace a worthless one and the first thing we do is warp it to our advantage.
If they wanted you to move on a 2+ they would have made the rule so. |
|
|
Waiwode
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 16:38 |
|
| LtMonkey wrote: | I often choose foul when dodging from a diving tackler to attempt to persuade them not to dive and sometimes just so I can kick them in the head when they do  |
ROFL. Now there is one I hadn't thought of!
Doug. |
_________________
The only thing players attempt more often than the impossible is the unintended. |
|
Waiwode
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 16:44 |
|
| gken1 wrote: |
The BBRC came out with a perfectly fine rule to replace a worthless one and the first thing we do is warp it to our advantage.
|
Like my Tag says, the only thing players will attempt more often than the Impossible is the Unintended, and clearly this is an unintended aspect of the rule.
Doug. |
_________________
The only thing players attempt more often than the impossible is the unintended. |
|
Tribble_the_Unclean
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 17:52 |
|
Interesting that no once has noticed that the rule doesn't say anything about a loss of a tackle zone. With the foul exploit, this effectively makes wild animals the most useful big guys in the game... which stinks, since the minotaur and rat ogre have so many good traits about them already. |
|
|
bardulf
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 18:26 |
|
Hi all
First i'll like to say that rules, sometines aren't proved in all scenarios. when a new rule apears and produce a diference between win or loose dont last too long. so i say lets wait and try it a bit.
Second As i see, new WA rule adds new tactics with the WA. ok u will loose your action(blitz, foul) but sometimes u will want to win tactical position over your opponent. This is fine but not always is good i'll try to explain why.
with new rule a new tactic was added. All are complaining (incuding me) about u can choose a (foul,blitz) action, but if u can't commit it (voluntary or not) u got your +2 bonus roll loosing your (foul,blitz) action winning tactical position. here all people se a wining position, but this isn't always true. (remeber that your oponent can dodge away or (block/blitz) you again)
In chess like in bloodbowl exists another fact that all are substimating its called tempo, controling the tempo is a very difficult thing but if u controll tempo u can controll the game.
so what u do. u have almost always two options
1.- try to dodge away the WA .
2.- try to block him down, hopping the mino stay in the ground.
With first action u will loose movment but u will always try to win a better field position this makes u a defensive player.
With second option u risk and u try to win an attack position. you always try to keep your position (attaker/deffender) if u loose your position you actually loose a turn and this is calling loosing tempo. and these can be really the difference beteen win or loose.
with this options some think of thesese can happen.
If u can blitz or foul with an WA u usally choose blitz. because you gain, tactical position and usually you can win spp
betwen move and blitz u also choose blitz, because the same reasaon as above.
betwen move an foul. people will choose foul because the +2 will help their roll trying to get a better field position. this tis risky i'll tell why.
to all your movments, your oponent will always react to your action. and if u arent prepared the only thing u win is loosing your movments with no sense. any way in rule book as i understand they think that if u declare a foul is because you really want to doit like in blitz, there are many scenarios in that the oponent or dice can make your action desnt commit. thats why this is only punished when u commit it. I think that if its in your hand to commit u should commit your action. now in real life this is an easy thing the huiman ref will notice that u are abusing the rules. With client will be a hard thing to develop all the logic to let the client decide if u are trying to abuse the rules or not.
By the moment the best we can do is report this abuse to the admins and see if it deservs to be put on fumbbl rules.
I hope like with previous WA they'll notice the error. |
|
|
|
|
| |
killing by fun?
Search
