cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 14:35 |
 
|
yeah, 40K is kind of a nightmare to get to know...  I really think it lets thm down badly that their general standard of rules writing is so low. Not the rules themselves, now, but just the way they're worded. I think somwtimes Avalon Hill get a bit too carried away sometimes, but at least it's clear what they mean. And has anyone played DBA? takes agaes to get your head around the convoluted sentences, but I haven't found an ambiguity yet:) |
|
|
TheLegend
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 21:54 |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 22:21 |
|
| Linke_Wipeout wrote: | So what 'penalty' does the LRB use for a so called Illegal Procedure ?
Isn't that turnover ? so basically i just move him last (using foul action) and when he's in position .. i declare i won't foul .. so it's a turnover.... |
Now in Java this is going to be difficult to automate. But here's the bottom line.
The LRB is very clear ... there is NO MAY in the rules for fouling. So its not an illegal procedurce to declare a foul and not foul ... its cheating. Seriously plain and simple. As an opponent, rules commish of 3 leagues, and referee of the largest BB tournament in North America anyone trying to do this would be required to immediately return the WA to where he was before (even if he rolled a 4+) and get a warning for poor sportsmanship.
Drastic ... mayhaps ... but trying to use this to get a 2+ Move action through this method is against the rules and definitely against the spirit of the games.
| theopacman wrote: | | Geez, is playing the game to the way the rules were intended so alien to you guys that we need lawyers to play a game for FUN!!!!!! |
Agreed. The rules are pretty clear here. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 23:04 |
|
| orochinagi wrote: | IMHO i think the old WA rules was best (not the last rule). Okay the rule might seem overpowered but if a coach wasn't careful he could step into a WA trap or something like that.
| gken1 wrote: | | if you can't complete the action then it's not a foul action. you need to foul for it to be a foul action period. there is no option not to foul. |
So according to what you are saying... let's imagine this situation:
I declare a blitz action. since i can't complete the blitz action (block) it's not a blitz action? Or with blitz it's different? if it's different how come?
I never thought i'd say this... but i agree with Britnoth on this one.
well... but if you declare your foul action and don't foul it's a tactical loss. okay... there are coaches who don't foul at all. Good for them. In their case the WA would have no negatrait but to the many other coaches who DO foul it would prove nasty. What would you do if you had the opponent's star runner/catcher/whatever prone on the ground, DP in range and you also had your WA down... how would you use your foul action? it's a tactical issue...
I suppose that they thought about all this when they changed the rule. Leave it be... |
because in the blitz action it says may block, it doesn't say may foul under fouling.
Hell we just had a BBRC member come in and give thieir stance...guess that's not enough for some people. |
|
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 01, 2004 - 23:36 |
|
I actually had someone trying to use the declare foul action with a Minotaur but don't foul in a game today. That isn't in the Java App yet...but apparently is already something people are likely to do.
I still suggest that if WA is going to be modified that they just drop the fouling at 2+ bit. People aren't going to foul with their BG that often anyway, and IMO, not being able to blitz is the whole real reason for the change, isn't it? |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 01:28 |
|
| Quote: |
Drastic ... mayhaps ... but trying to use this to get a 2+ Move action through this method is against the rules and definitely against the spirit of the games.
|
Well what about the coaches who declare a foul action when dodging away from a player with diving tackle. If the player doesnt use diving tackle then he cant foul. So is this illegal procedure ?????? |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 02:37 |
|
| Mully wrote: | | Quote: |
Drastic ... mayhaps ... but trying to use this to get a 2+ Move action through this method is against the rules and definitely against the spirit of the games.
|
Well what about the coaches who declare a foul action when dodging away from a player with diving tackle. If the player doesnt use diving tackle then he cant foul. So is this illegal procedure ?????? |
Big difference between using the foul to cheat and getting stopped in a process of the action.
If you get stopped by Tentacles, fail a Stand Firm dodge, or get knocked down by a Diving Tackle hit while legitimately trying to get to an real foul, that's fine. The action doesn't give an option, but these events override the foul at the end of the movement. Does this mean Stand Firm on a WA is a good use of Doubles to get 2+ move actions through a Foul attempt ... maybe ... be what if you don't fail the dodge rolls ...  ... you have to put the boot in.
Now please note that delibrately going through a TZ you didn't have to get to the foul target would again count as avoiding the spirit of the rules and as an opponent, commish, or ref, I'd not allow it.
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 |
|
|
Twahn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 03:00 |
|
| swilhelm73 wrote: | | I still suggest that if WA is going to be modified that they just drop the fouling at 2+ bit. People aren't going to foul with their BG that often anyway, and IMO, not being able to blitz is the whole real reason for the change, isn't it? |
Swilhelm has hit it on the head here. Everyone just wants the Wild Animals to be able to Blitz once more, and it is in line with the fluff of the Wild Animals (being killing machines let loose on the field and just attacking everything in sight).
Don't let them foul on a 2+. Simple. Animals tend to ignore prone targets when there're fresh ones around, yeah?
I'm sure somebody else must have suggested this somewhere in the 15 pages that this thread has grown to... |
|
|
poodle-man
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 03:47 |
|
Truly an amazingly long thread huh?
I just have a quick question. Does anyone actually think that using the +2 to the roll for fouling and then not attempting to foul is legitimate? I know that you may be able to find an interpretation of the wording so that doing so isnt actually cheating, but does anyone actually believe that gw intended it to be used this way?
It is like someone playing a game of bb online and losing, so he decides to take three or four hours each turn. Its not actually against the rules, but that certainly dont make it legitimate.
That whole line of reasoning stems from "what isnt illigal is allowed" and that is not a workable way of interpreting any laws... |
_________________
The Tr th. |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 03:59 |
|
Galak - My example wasnt that he was tackled while attempting to foul. But that he declared "foul" for the sole purpose of STOPPING the diving tackle attempt. Thus when the opponent didnt use diving tackle, the player moved normally and did not foul.
This is a very common tactic in stunty. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 04:22 |
|
We're arguing whether a player can declare a foul action and not finish the action fouling. However this isn't really the problem. The problem is this apparent new wild animal rule. As far as the rules are concerned a player CAN use the foul action and not end his action with the foul as seen in the example of stand firm, tentacles a miscount in the nimber of squares etc. The problem IS the wording of this new rule that a player can declare a foul action thus getting a +2 to the WA roll and not foul and therefore not suffer a ref roll... the solution is to fix the wild animal rule before publication |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 04:50 |
|
| cataphract wrote: | | the solution is to fix the wild animal rule before publication |
Funny ... we thought that was what we were doing from the outcry about the WA version in the RR.
Whether foul is still in there when its made official when there really isn't a REAL issue with it I cannot say. But the spirit is clear here. You can declare 2 blitzes in the same turn ... but the rules say you cannot so if it happens you need to deal with it. Same for a player trying to declare a foul action when a foul is impossible. Incomplete actions ... they don't bother me a single shread of a single iota ... incomplete actions happen in BB all the time.
Galak |
|
|
Gibbering_Gambits
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 06:49 |
|
Hey could someone ask Mr Thornton to fix all the gramatical nuances in the LRB3? that would pretty much solve everything. I have spent about 20minutes of my life reading how people are justifying broken english which could honestly mean any number of things. The fact is that when the LRB was written they just cu and pasted (for) the most part and added sentances which have turned up contradictory
IMO The sprit of the rules would entail that if you're gonna declare foul... you better foul... if you're gonna blitz... you gotta blitz! It's really simple, and lame of people to try and pawn this off as strategy. (oh I'm making a sacrifice to BLAH BLAH BLAH!!) |
|
|
cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 10:12 |
|
Galak: seriously, what's your reading of the Foul vs Diving Tackle thing? If, at the time I want to declare an action, there are no prone players on the pitch, can I declare a foul? Is it OK to do so purely to discourage diving tackle? I know this is nothing to do with the WA rules, but it's an important question nonetheless, since we're trying to deal with the intended spirit of the rules. I would think it's a perfectly valid tactic.
Other question: (to anyone): If the "foul on 2+" option was taken away from WA's, would anyone have a problem with declaring a foul and then not fouling? i.e. if there was no advantage to be gained from doing so, other than possibly to discourage Diving Tackles? What I' getting at is, do people only object to "not following through on a foul" because WA's can gain a free move out of it? |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2004 - 10:19 |
|
| cthol wrote: | Galak: seriously, what's your reading of the Foul vs Diving Tackle thing? If, at the time I want to declare an action, there are no prone players on the pitch, can I declare a foul? Is it OK to do so purely to discourage diving tackle? I know this is nothing to do with the WA rules, but it's an important question nonetheless, since we're trying to deal with the intended spirit of the rules. I would think it's a perfectly valid tactic.
|
You do know that this isn't an issue with the real BB, right? The client handles DT wrong since it is used before the dodge roll instead of after it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Roster Tiers
Search
