34 coaches online • Server time: 01:38
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...goto Post NBFL Season 32: The ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Verminardo



Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 16:52 Reply with quote Back to top

Entering serious rules lawyer mode!

Chainsaw wrote:

Those saying it is correctly implemented are making an assumption.

Quote:
Fend (General)
This player is very skilled at holding off would-be attackers. Opposing players may not follow-up blocks made against this player even if the Fend player is Knocked Down. The opposing player may still continue moving after blocking if he had declared a Blitz Action.


That is ambiguous about the order.


Let’s look at the other relevant rules passages.

LRB6 p. 10 wrote:
Follow Up Moves: A player who has made a block is allowed to
make a special follow up move and occupy a square vacated by
the player that they have pushed back. The player’s coach must
decide whether to follow up before any other dice rolls are made.


LRB6 p. 23 wrote:
Unless otherwise stated in the skill description, the following
rules apply to all skills:

1. All bonuses/modifiers from skills can be combined.
2. All skills may be used an unlimited number of times per Action.
3. Some skills refer to pushing a player back in order to work. These
skills will work as long as you roll a result of ‘Pushed’, ‘Defender
Stumbles’, or ‘Defender Down’ on the Block dice.
4. Skill use is not mandatory.
5. You can choose to use a skill that affects a dice roll after rolling the
dice (e.g. Diving Tackle does not need to be used until after seeing
the result of the Dodge roll).
6. Only Extraordinary skills work when a player is Prone or Stunned.


So how do you interpret that? It is ambiguous, verbally, yes, but the logic is quite stringent nonetheless.

1) After rolling a block, the order of decisions is (a) picking the block die, (b) if it’s a pushback, deciding in which direction to push back, (c) deciding to follow up or not, (d) rolling dice (armor rolls, scatters etc.)

2) Skill use is not mandatory, which should be interpreted as saying that the coach of the player who has a skill, at the time the skill would be used, may opt not to use it.

(For example, the blocking coach chooses Powskull, now you have to decide whether to use Wrestle, but not before he picks block dice. For example, the moving coach dodges out of your tackle zone, now you have to decide whether you want to use Shadowing, but not before he makes the move.)

3) The Fend skill prevents follow-ups.

--> Combine that together and you get: At the time Fend would be used, the coach may opt not to use it. At what time would it be used? When the opposing coach decides to follow up. No follow-up, no Fend use. Simple, really.

So I do confirm in my capacity as superior rules lawyer, the OP has the rules interpretation right. Wink

Edited to add: I understand Kalimar's reasoning, thought, and therefore see no need to change how the client works. Else we could have a discussion tomorrow whether the client should ask you before it uses of Thick Skull!


Last edited by Verminardo on May 14, 2012 - 18:35; edited 1 time in total
johnnih



Joined: Feb 26, 2012

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 17:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Irgy: You are missing a couple of things here. As Hito pointed out back at page 1, the caoches can have different motives. One might follow up to mark a player that could otherwise blitz his ball carrier. The other coach may welcome this because here cares more about killing all mens than winning the game.

Also, you are leaving out mind games, ie. the fending coach mixing it up by not using fend in some situations where he had a very small preference for no follow up.

pythrr wrote:
No one is denying he has a point.

People (including Kalimar) have just pointed out that is his point is a very minor one, and was considered (and rejected) in the client design.

Ah, but the point I refered to was the one from the post just above mine. Chainsaw argues that the game flow could be just as (or more) fluent with fend choice after follow up choice, challenging the reason the current design was chosen over the alternative.

I will repeat that this is merely for discussions sake and that I think this issue should take low priority for the programmers.
The_Murker



Joined: Jan 30, 2011

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 17:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Irgy builds atomic power plants. So, what he said. LOVE the Parkinson's Law reference BTW. That went straight into the bookmarks to remind me what we all do at work when we change the rule book. Very frustrating at times when you know others are doing it ( often with good intentions, or THINKING they have them ) and good to be on guard against doing it yourself. Thanks Hito.

_________________
Image
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia!
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 17:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Kalimar wrote:
That said, I could imagine changing it to a SIMULTANEOUS question to both attacker and defender with play continuing once both sides have answered.
An elegant solution! Make it so. Wink
Chainsaw



Joined: Aug 31, 2005

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 19:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Hitonagashi wrote:
Wow.

Bikeshedding at it's finest.

As it happens, I agree with the order change, but seriously, it's not worth this effort. There are *far* more important things to be done, and in any software project, there is *always* far more important things to be done.

Finished is a term only non-programmers use.


It isn't bikeshedding. That would be arguing over whether the teams should be red and blue or indigo and yellow.

It is a legitimate discussion about a specific feature that affects play.

Saying that, everything else you said is spot on. Compared to having pass block, hail mary pass, vamp bugs fixed, and other things I'm missing, it is a trivial issue. I don't recall demanding it be fixed immediately or urgently. I simply pointed out what I feel is incorrect and have tried to get sensible rebuttals to the contrary.

And, yes, finished is a term only non-pogrammers use. Wink

_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community
pythrr



Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 19:52 Reply with quote Back to top

Irgy wrote:
It's like I'm in some strange crazy land.


i vote for this

_________________
Image
Image
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 20:20 Reply with quote Back to top

Chainsaw wrote:


It isn't bikeshedding. That would be arguing over whether the teams should be red and blue or indigo and yellow.

It is a legitimate discussion about a specific feature that affects play.


DHH wrote:

And that's really the crux of this. It's not that most bike shed discussions have zero value, it's that they don't have value proportional to the energy expended debating them. They're energy inefficient. Even if you "win" a bike shed discussion, you still lost because the benefit derived will never repay the expense squandered to get it.

(from a blog post)
pythrr



Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 20:53 Reply with quote Back to top

Kinda like arguing on the internet full stop, no? :O

_________________
Image
Image
Ruiner



Joined: Mar 25, 2010

Post   Posted: May 14, 2012 - 21:55 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree with Chainsaw.

It would make Fend a better skill.

It would quicken the game, like we have it now, it implies fend will be used/needed on every push/pow/stumble. With this new way, it would only ask when the player is being followed up. Otherwise the client is coming to a conclusion already, saying the player will always follow up. If the person doesn't choose to follow up then that's a pop up saved.

I thought the FUMBBL client was trying to be as close to the TT game as possible? All the trolling implies maybe it's not all that important.

Yes this is low priority but I wouldn't say it wasn't a good implementation.
RedDevilCG



Joined: Jan 09, 2010

Post   Posted: May 15, 2012 - 13:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Have the fend dialogue box only pop-up if an opponent follows up would speed things up.
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: May 15, 2012 - 13:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Since I don't think it matters either way, as discussed at length, the above would be fine for me. I don't like people losing over forgetting what skills players have, so that would be my only, minor, quibble.
pubstar



Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Post   Posted: May 15, 2012 - 13:25 Reply with quote Back to top

I rather think the 'bikeshedding' argument is invalid here. Whether it is or isn't bikeshedding, the danger in it is not getting back enough return for one's investment of time, yes? It seems like this applies to activities with real world value*, like work or government. Blood Bowl, being recreation, doesn't need to be 'cost efficient' in regard to time spent/benefit gained. Some people (myself included) enjoy discussing the minutia of game. It doesn't cost anything to do so, because it is -again- recreation.

*Obviously, coding/programming has real world value, but neither side of the argument seems to think it's a high priority, so again, the 'bikeshedding' doesn't seem to have a negative impact on anything other than free time used to browse board game forums.

_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid!
johnnih



Joined: Feb 26, 2012

Post   Posted: May 15, 2012 - 13:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Pubstar: My thoughts exactly. I only discuss because I'm interested in doing so. It has no cost for me. It is not like I attempt to be productive with my life all the time.
The_Murker



Joined: Jan 30, 2011

Post   Posted: May 15, 2012 - 15:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Good post by pubstar. Excellent point.. time designated towards recreation can NEVER be time wasted, unless you arn't enjoying it.

The forum gets quite unfriendly at times tho, when some people engage is discussing the minutia, and certian other members find it uniteresting and go out of their way to let tham know their forum ramblings don't actually matter or won't change things. These are usually the members who take it upon themselves to read absolutely everything posted, and aim to lighten this self imposed burden, concisously or not, by attempting to limit forum traffic to topics that only interest them. Effectivly telling people to shut-up and post less.

But if this isn't a place for discussing the fluff and minutia, what is it a place for? A place for the SERIOUS discussions about goblin football? Should anyone really be that serious around here? Should anyone really be unfriendly in the slightest on FUMBBL?

I'm reminded of a radio call in show about gardening where the caller asked the expert what the biggest waste of time was in the garden. Weeding, clipping, etc. The expert obviously replied, if it's your passtime that you enjoy, none of it is a waste of time. You should be enjoying it.

So enjoy your gardens. Stop looking at you neighbors garden if you don't like it. Their is certainly no need to tell them how to enjoy themselves.

_________________
Image
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia!
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: May 15, 2012 - 16:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Okay, I'll bite.

I think I just bikeshedded a discussion, by introducing the concept of bikeshedding. Meta or what?

Let's first be fair, this discussion hasn't got too bad yet, at least not to the monster threads that some of us participate regularly in. If you *really* want an example of a monster thread that's 90% full of useless back and forthing, the Stunty Forum and the horror that is the Horrors thread should satisfy every need.

I've not posted this in any other forum thread for the reason that this forum is different. Most of the time, it's useless bantering on the nature of skills, and hell, I enjoy that as much as anyone. The key difference here is that Kalimar has to read through everything we post and come to a decision on which way to proceed. The very nature of community discussions is that we tend to defend our points, even when they aren't valid, and it is *very* rare I ever see anyone outwardly agree that their point was wrong.

Currently, we are on 6 pages, and by the end of page 2, all the arguments that were going to be made have been made.

It perked up a bit again by page 5, when Kalimar posted some suggestions and thoughts...and I'd say once again, there's no serious input to be made into the thread, merely repeated rehashings of the same point.

Ideally, the community and Kalimar will come to some consensus on what the "correct" approach is (taking into account time to code and technicalities), and then that will be implemented when he has time to.

The original bikeshedding posts were all posted to do with recreational programming, for free projects to aid their respective communities. As a programmer, when I work, I want to do it once, and I want to do it right. Rehashing old work irks me because of my wasted time.

If I have to read a forum full of "I'm right because I say I am!" followed by "NO! IMBECILE, I am the one that is right!", it adds noise to the issue, and adds emotion to what should be simply a matter of deciding the correct course to proceed.

For example:

A potential issue that Kalimar raised that has been completely jumped over is that (presumably due to a shared code path), if it's changed for Fend, it has to be changed for Stand Firm and the related skills too. Is this worth it? I'd be willing to bet the reason it hasn't been raised is that people have read page 1, and jumped straight to the reply button, due to the back and forthing diminishing the utility in reading the pages in between.

Flaming can be fun, but can we do it in other subforums? I'd like the best client we can have, and I have a tremendous level of respect for what Kalimar and Christer do day to day in maintaining this wonderful site we have.

_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
Image
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