johnnih
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
|
 Posted:
Apr 25, 2012 - 14:44 |
 
|
| PainState wrote: |
| johnnih wrote: | | For now it seems that PB can be used at least partly. |
Partly huh? Does not seem we will have clarity on this issue. So is the arbitraitor going to split hairs and let the PB player move 1 or 2 squares instead of 3?
 If you guys cannot have some fun with quotes like this then you are way to serious...even a troll would smile at these quotes. |
Glad to be of service! ; ) |
|
|
Erod
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2012 - 17:33 |
|
| johnnih wrote: | Just a small update on the topic:
Tom has responded to part of the question here: http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=36364&p=640541#p640541, and will return with further clarification. For now it seems that PB can be used at least partly.
I'm glad to see things calmed down a bit here, it is not my intent to raise hell again. We have all stated our thoughts on the subject and the two camps disagree. Let us wait for further arbitration. |
Could you quote it here too, since TFF seems to require an account to be able to view the forum. |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2012 - 17:45 |
|
| Erod wrote: |
Could you quote it here too, since TFF seems to require an account to be able to view the forum. |
| GalakStarscraper wrote: |
Pass Block does not require an interception roll to be possible just like a Hand-off action is not required to have a hand-off actually take place.
I need to grab a rulebook.
I am certain that Pass Block can let you move adjacent to the thrower ... I have no doubt on that.
What I want to check is the wording for the starting squares of the HMP pass and make sure the wording matches up to allow a Pass Block on that square.
Tom
|
|
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2012 - 18:21 |
|
One suspects the wording, being very poorly written, will still not "match up". |
_________________
 |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2012 - 20:19 |
|
Well his response makes one thing clear... PB IS SUPPOSED TO WORK on HMP. The only discussion that remains is what are the legal destinations for PB. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 00:30 |
|
We have an answer: http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?p=640625#p640625
| Quote: | After looking it over ... I agree with my previous statement that Dode linked to. Moving a PB player into the starting (ie targeted) square of the HMP (or next to a player in that square) is an okay use of Pass Block. There is no wording in HMP or PB to invalid it being the target square ... its inaccurate after that but it doesn't invalid that you pick a square (ie target) to begin the process.
Tom/Galak |
| Quote: | Now that all said .... I don't know how much I would get excited if an automated version of the program didn't allow PB with HMP. I'm guessing this would rate pretty low on my "concern-o-meter"
Tom |
|
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 00:34 |
|
Well yes that was pretty obvious once you got past the RAW. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 00:38 |
|
Good to get a clarification, but - since the BBRC no longer exists - one can hardly take this as authoritative...
Just sayin. |
_________________
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 00:49 |
|
It's a lot more "authoritative" than all the jokers in this thread (myself included!)
I admit it's nice to know that his answer is exactly what I said it should be umpteen pages ago!  |
|
|
johnnih
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 01:03 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | Good to get a clarification, but - since the BBRC no longer exists - one can hardly take this as authoritative...
Just sayin. |
Come on, will you.. it is as authoritative as it can get - the man was responsible for a lot of the rules as they stand today. Might I add that he was in no way in doubt that you could put a zone on the thrower, the questioned that remained was if you could on the reciever/target square.
There has been enough arrogance and stubborness already. Let's just be glad we got the ruling. |
|
|
dsavillian
Joined: Apr 24, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 01:10 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | Good to get a clarification, but - since the BBRC no longer exists - one can hardly take this as authoritative...
Just sayin. |
true, but I think it's as close to an authority that exists right now. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 01:31 |
|
| johnnih wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | Good to get a clarification, but - since the BBRC no longer exists - one can hardly take this as authoritative...
Just sayin. |
Come on, will you.. it is as authoritative as it can get - the man was responsible for a lot of the rules as they stand today. Might I add that he was in no way in doubt that you could put a zone on the thrower, the questioned that remained was if you could on the reciever/target square.
There has been enough arrogance and stubborness already. Let's just be glad we got the ruling. |
/bollocks. The rules are as the rules are. The view of ONE of those who contributed to them is irrelevant. Interesting, yes. But irrelevant in terms of rule interpretation once the rules are in play. This is how all rule systems, both games and in terms of laws, work. The letter is what is debated and upon which interpretations are decided: the intent does not save poorly written rules. |
_________________
|
|
johnnih
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 01:42 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | johnnih wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | Good to get a clarification, but - since the BBRC no longer exists - one can hardly take this as authoritative...
Just sayin. |
Come on, will you.. it is as authoritative as it can get - the man was responsible for a lot of the rules as they stand today. Might I add that he was in no way in doubt that you could put a zone on the thrower, the questioned that remained was if you could on the reciever/target square.
There has been enough arrogance and stubborness already. Let's just be glad we got the ruling. |
/bollocks. The rules are as the rules are. The view of ONE of those who contributed to them is irrelevant. Interesting, yes. But irrelevant in terms of rule interpretation once the rules are in play. This is how all rule systems, both games and in terms of laws, work. The letter is what is debated and upon which interpretations are decided: the intent does not save poorly written rules. |
They are obviously poorly enough written that this disagreement arose, I give you that. I thought them clear the whole time though, and the situation we had was simply two camps divided on the interpretation. So, now we are told how they are intended and you still won't yield?
Had we agreed the rules was clear, the point you just made was fine. But since we disagreed as we did, this clarification should be embraced. Because what else can we do? Keep yelling "I'm right" from the top of our lungs? We already tried to settle this among ourselves and couldn't. Now it is time to take our answer and move on. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 01:47 |
|
Who is yelling "I'm right"?
I don't care which way things are decided.
I'm just making the point that once the rules are released, they stand on their own. One can't go back and say "Oh, they meant to say something different..." The text IS the rules, and has to be interpreted as they are written. Hence my point that Galak's comments are interesting, but irrelevant to their interpretation by Kalimar and fumbbl. |
_________________
|
|
johnnih
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 26, 2012 - 01:51 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | Who is yelling "I'm right"?
I don't care which way things are decided.
I'm just making the point that once the rules are released, they stand on their own. One can't go back and say "Oh, they meant to say something different..." The text IS the rules, and has to be interpreted as they are written. Hence my point that Galak's comments are interesting, but irrelevant to their interpretation by Kalimar and fumbbl. |
Not much can ever be settled if that is your view. Doesn't matter now, I'm sure Kalimar knows what to do. |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
