35 coaches online • Server time: 01:51
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
cthol



Joined: Nov 10, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 11:41 Reply with quote Back to top

I think it's still an issue: it's irrelevant when the dice are rolled: it's a matter of intent. At the time I declare the foul action there are no players prone. I signal my intent to move. The opposing player declares whether or not to use Diving Tackle. The dice roll is resolved. I kick him in the head (if I'm still standing...). The question is whether it's "ethical" to declare a foul action at a time when there are no eligible targets, in the expectation that there might be one soon Smile
RandomOracle



Joined: Jan 11, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 12:12 Reply with quote Back to top

cthol wrote:
I think it's still an issue: it's irrelevant when the dice are rolled: it's a matter of intent. At the time I declare the foul action there are no players prone. I signal my intent to move. The opposing player declares whether or not to use Diving Tackle. The dice roll is resolved. I kick him in the head (if I'm still standing...). The question is whether it's "ethical" to declare a foul action at a time when there are no eligible targets, in the expectation that there might be one soon Smile


It is different in the board game because the diving tackler can choose not to use the skill if the dodger was successful in any case. This means usually that if the diving tackler goes down, so does the dodger.
m0nty



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 12:49 Reply with quote Back to top

GalakStarscraper wrote:
Bottom line ... play the game without your beard please.

PLEASE note ... I'm not saying any of these things are illegal procedurces ... its just playing the game wrong ... no different than trying to take a 2nd blitz during a turn in my opinion.

Galak, you are being illogical. I was under the impression that a second blitz IS an illegal procedure. In this thread, you have admitted that using up a foul action to move and not foul is not an illegal procedure - you say it's "cheating", or "bad sportsmanship". This is ridiculous. If it's legal, people will do it.

I have never heard of a board game where a move is legal, but "against the spirit of the rules". I mean, do you see admins at Scrabble tourneys coming over and slapping players on the hand just because they blocked a triple word square?

The responsibility should not be on the players to second-guess what the rule authors are intending as the "spirit", it's on the rule authors to make the rule seamless and idiotproof. Please reword the rule so it makes perfect sense.
Franz



Joined: Sep 13, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 13:18 Reply with quote Back to top

It is legal if you read literally what is written on the rulebook.

But it's not what the GD wanted the rules to be. IMHO!!!!
carunt



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 13:20 Reply with quote Back to top

AsperonThorn wrote:
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


You are incorrect and miss the "subtlety" of our beautiful language. The rules do use the word "allow" and you are correct "allow" does not mean "must". However the rules state that "This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player", the use of the word "allow" before both of the following statements means that if you are allowed to move and foul then you must either move AND foul, or not move and foul. Simply put that if you declare a foul and move then you must foul, and that if you do not foul then you are NOT ALLOWED to do the action (ie move).
carunt



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 13:25 Reply with quote Back to top

cataphract wrote:
There are times when you declare a foul or pass action and are genuinly unable to complete the action... ie if you miscounted the distance or if the player failed a dodge and had stand firm! Should there be a punishment in these instances?

These changes are retarded...
I say let them roll over for free. And make them declare an action from lying prone if the fail their 4+ roll they simply stand a yell.


You have hinted upon WA beign truly a wild animal. Yes if you declare a foul and then are frustrated so that it is not possible, then it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the wild animal might lose it and storm into the crowd. It would add some risk to the rule and would be in keeping with the theme for "off for a bite".
m0nty



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 13:26 Reply with quote Back to top

As I have said before, and I will keep saying, the point of this whole discussion is not to discuss in 1000-word essays exactly what the word "allows" means, or other such beardiness. The point is that the proposed new rule is open to interpretation. PLEASE, PLEASE, before you make it official, rewrite it to make it clear and unambiguous.

Don't blame players for complaining that the rule is weak. Strengthen the rule.
carunt



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 13:42 Reply with quote Back to top

m0nty you are right the rules do need to be strengthened (though GW releasing faqs for almost every book they have ever released has not lead to a strengthening of the rules so far, so i am not sure what ever would).

Often the easiest fix is the best. Simply set the fumbbl rules to make exploiting the WA rule against them. That would be sufficient to stop people from exploiting the rule and those who attempt to break it will get called out by their opponents, and that would also fix the problem with people declaring a foul and being unable to complete the move due to circumstances beyond their control.
DoubleSkulls



Joined: Oct 05, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 13:57 Reply with quote Back to top

m0nty wrote:
I have never heard of a board game where a move is legal, but "against the spirit of the rules". I mean, do you see admins at Scrabble tourneys coming over and slapping players on the hand just because they blocked a triple word square?

The responsibility should not be on the players to second-guess what the rule authors are intending as the "spirit", it's on the rule authors to make the rule seamless and idiotproof. Please reword the rule so it makes perfect sense.


Confused Not played any other GW games have you? All their games require a lot of interpretation because they want the rules to be readable by members of the public, not just lawyers. Also this isn't scrabble - its at least 10 times more complicated.

Someone who abuses a game mechanic to get a 2+ roll instead of a 4+ is cheating regardless of what the rules say. As someone else said, if Jervis wanted WA to be able to move on a 2+ that's what rule would be. It is certainly gamesmanship to play any other way.

_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Eucalyptus Bowl
Gibbering_Gambits



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 15:15 Reply with quote Back to top

They just need to shell out a good amount of money for a good old fashioned rules lawyer, hand them the LRB3, and let him rip it to shreads while thier faces turn three shades of red as he describes what is allowed and what isn't according to thier english. (How do ya like that sentance?).
Then, they need to kick everyone in the nuts who has ever just made sh*t up and decided it should be a rule with-out testing.
Then, everybody who doubted my genius interpretation of; foul=foul and blitz=blitz can just: "Neener-Neener have-a-taste of my Oscar Meyer Weiner'


Last edited by Gibbering_Gambits on Mar 02, 2004 - 15:36; edited 1 time in total
cthol



Joined: Nov 10, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 15:21 Reply with quote Back to top

So, if I have this right, the generally accepted intention of the rule is this: that WA's are ferocious killing machines, so getting them to hit someone is pretty easy. Getting them to play the ball or make tactical runs is pretty hard. So, have the following rule: if the wild animal attacks someone (i.e. actually rolls the block dice, or whatver), be it a block, a blitz or a foul (they don't much care whether they hit somone on the ground or upright) then fine. If they don't, then roll a die: on a 1 - 3 they run into the crowd and kill some fans instead
Jarnageddon



Joined: Nov 04, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 15:44 Reply with quote Back to top

What everyone seems to be missing is that if you use your foul action to move your WA you cant foul that turn.
This to me (and probably others) is a lot to lose. Its not lets move the WA on a 2+ for free there's a cost and the people who dont think it costs them much to lose their foul action aren't using their fouls properly.

Just my opinion.

_________________
Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with something bigger and heavier.
Mr-Klipp



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 22:13 Reply with quote Back to top

LtMonkey wrote:
What everyone seems to be missing is that if you use your foul action to move your WA you cant foul that turn.
This to me (and probably others) is a lot to lose.


I have to disagree. While losing your blitz would be a big deal because you generally do blitz once every turn, the foul action just isn't the same.

You simply don't use your foul action every turn, not even close to that. In the majority of games you are going to make one or two fouls per half for the most part, unless both players are determined to foul every turn or you are willing to see players kicked out left and right. Because of this, a foul action is a throwaway action for the majority of turns.

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

The Finishing Touch
Severian



Joined: Dec 12, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 22:28 Reply with quote Back to top

If I didn't hate the WA rule before, I'm really beginning to now.

Some three people should make their best judgement call, impliment it, and the rest of us can live with it. 8 pages of dialogue isn't taking the discussion very far. We are a bunch of rational, logical people trying to determine how to best represent the behavior or an irrational, illogical beast.

I guess this thread is the result! WE JUST CAN'T COMPREHEND THESE DA*N WILD ANIMALS!!
AsperonThorn



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 01:05 Reply with quote Back to top

carunt wrote:
AsperonThorn wrote:

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


You are incorrect and miss the "subtlety" of our beautiful language. The rules do use the word "allow" and you are correct "allow" does not mean "must". However the rules state that "This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player", the use of the word "allow" before both of the following statements means that if you are allowed to move and foul then you must either move AND foul, or not move and foul. Simply put that if you declare a foul and move then you must foul, and that if you do not foul then you are NOT ALLOWED to do the action (ie move).


I disagree, It is well accepted that when a Blitz Action is declared, that the block does not have to occur. And the language is similar.

Blitz Action: A blitz allows the player to move and make a block.

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 "and" is no different then the word "then" in this case. The reason for the difference is that "and" allows you to block move, move block, or move block move, while "then" only allows you to move block.

I think it really only allows for two options. Start enforcing the must block on a blitz, (ie, you cannot declare blitze unless someone is within range, and if you must GFI twice to get there then you must.)

Or, change the rules for Fouling to "A foul action may only be declared if an opposing player is prone and within movement range of the player. When a foul action is declared the player must end thier move adjacent to a prone player of the opposing team."

If a foul action is declared, a foul does not have to be committed but the player doesn't have much control over where he can go. AND if his opponent has good positioning, he could force dodges from someone declaring a foul.

Asperon Thorn
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic