Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 01:38 |
 
|
there is no reason for discussion here
the official rules allow you to use the blitz action to just move if you wish too
i don't see what the problem with it is anyway, you are moaning about someone with st5 not hitting you |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 01:42 |
|
| Quote: |
Blitz: The player may move a number of squares equal
to their Movement Allowance. He may make one block
during the move. The block may be made at any point
during the move, and ‘costs’ one square of movement.
|
Thats what it says in the latest edition of the rulebook. I have put in bold the word may just so you can see that its perfectly acceptable. Feel free to message any of the BBRC to get confirmation. I even did it against one them when we played. |
|
|
Rimmer
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 02:27 |
|
Just to make a few things clear:
If there is a ruling somewhere, which I am not aware of, that states that one does not have to fullfill an action then fine everything is as you say. I´d just like to know where I can find it.
And the reason I am persistent in this matter is because it is obvious that everyone isn´t aware of the official ruling on this. (Note that I didn´t start this thread so I am not alone.)
Now to explain myslef.
The LRB is a written text so we can´t know where the emphasis in a sentence lies until we have had a ruling on the matter. The text which I have been refering to on page 10 is written so that it can only be correctly interpreted as follows: the block is mandatory but the move is optional. And so that I don´t have to repeat myself; It has to do with the gramatical form of the sentence. I work with grammar every day (I have a bachelors degree in english language and is currently working on my swedish language degree).
But the passage which Grumbledook quotes (page 8 ) says something different and I hadn´t noticed that passage when I read this thread and commented on the rule. But note that that passage is also ambiguous. Note the difference:
He <b>may</b> make one block during the move.
He may make <b>one</b> block during the move.
So to you people who claimed my arguments were stupid think again and don´t be so quick to judge.
And finally if you didn´t read my signature before do it. This is a perfect example of it. But could someone please direct me to the official ruleing on "you do not have to finnish a started action" so that I can read it for myself. And afterwards I can post here and say that I was wrong and then everyone will be happy. |
_________________
As always one is always 100% sure about the truth until one learns that it isn´t the truth. Then one is 100% sure that it isn´t the truth. |
|
Tinkywinky
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 03:25 |
|
| Quote: | | I often choose "Foul" just to move a player, just for the fun of it... |
I'm going to start doing that.  |
_________________
Do you play ranked and wonder where all the good coaches are? Are you also from Sweden? Then join the Swedish league! |
|
MattDFan
Joined: Sep 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 04:02 |
|
The rules allow it but it is in complete breach of the idea of the Wild animal rule. Just get rid of the big guy disadvantages and be done with it. |
|
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 05:23 |
|
| Rimmer wrote: |
But the passage which Grumbledook quotes (page 8 ) says something different and I hadn´t noticed that passage when I read this thread and commented on the rule. But note that that passage is also ambiguous. Note the difference:
He <b>may</b> make one block during the move.
He may make <b>one</b> block during the move.
|
Oh, Nuffle help me, I can't resist...my mother is a professional writer and professor of English, and she'd flay me alive for starting so many sentences with 'And.' Not to mention the grammatical error in the sentence where you mention your degree in English...perhaps you should ask for some tuition back? 
But I digress.
You're so right about the emphasis issue...after all, what if we changed it thus?
He may make one block <b>during</b> the move.
Looks like he's out of luck trying to make that block before or at the end of his move!
Or...
He may make one <b>block</b> during the move.
Don't even THINK of trying a dodge or leap during that Blitz action!
Or even...
<b>He</b> may make one block during the move.
Forget trying this Blitz action nonesense with an Amazon player! Blood Bowl is such an Old Boy's Club...
p.s. hey, no offense Rimmer, just trying to lighten the mood in here (slightly at your expense perhaps...) btw I love the nick - from Red Dwarf or just a coincidence? |
|
|
Quod
Joined: May 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 09:23 |
|
This was raised at the BB forums, and galak responded with a "valid tactic, as it pays a penalty of no actual blitz"
I tried looking for it but could not find it sorry. |
_________________
Teams
Vae, puto deus fio! |
|
Rimmer
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 09:53 |
|
CorporateSlave3:
I see what you mean about the "degree sentence" but in my defence I wrote it at 2.30 in the morning. But using "and" in the start of a sentence isn´t wrong it is just low style. But then again I would pick clearity over style when trying to explain something. No offence taken. No coincidence it is taken from Red Dwarf.
Quod:
Thanks for the info I´ll try to find it. I really want to know. |
_________________
As always one is always 100% sure about the truth until one learns that it isn´t the truth. Then one is 100% sure that it isn´t the truth. |
|
Rimmer
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 10:06 |
|
Oh yes, I forgot.
Since the passage Grumblkedook quoted can be interpreted the way he did I can´t continue saying that it is cheating to use your blitz to move your wild animal (even if I still think that it should be interpreted my way, the rules are to vague to argue this any further).
So to conclude: <b>I was wrong.</b> |
_________________
As always one is always 100% sure about the truth until one learns that it isn´t the truth. Then one is 100% sure that it isn´t the truth. |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 10:35 |
|
My thanks for all the comments and sensible replies, especialy the reply from Mully.
As hopefully I made clear when I started the thread, I was somewhat perplexed on this issue, as is probably not unreasonable.
I have now, moved my view to A) based on the replies, if it eats a Blitz, then that in itself is it's own cost.
I had made a thread search on Wild Aminal before posting this but could not find the clarification, others will the same issue should now find this one.
Cheers |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 16:58 |
|
I think the quotes you mention from Galak might be these, here on the FUMBBL forums.
They're actually about declaring a foul and he essentially compares it to trying to move your checkers backwards before they get kinged... it's not a matter of "what do you do when it happens" so much as "Just don't do that because it is not the game that you are playing".
Blitz was mentioned earlier as being acceptable and Galak didn't refute that. I think the "may" in there is the difference... but that is without looking it up at the moment.
Just fyi. Discuss amongst yourselves. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Molt
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 17:10 |
|
| Freefragger wrote: | I often choose "Foul" just to move a player, just for the fun of it... 
"A foul a day keep Wuhan away".
-Wuhans Fouling Bootcamp
ehm, I vote A. |
yeah! do it with your dirty player to keep your opponent pooping his panties every turn! |
|
|
Molt
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 17:19 |
|
oh and i am in the 'A' camp - it comes up alot in 4v4 (where i happened to spectate the game where Rimmer had an unfortunate surprise vs a chaos fling team :p ) Remember the WA player still has to make a 2+ to move at all
i like to think about it as the team's fans screaming 'RUN you dumb brute!' as the Mino stands there looking gormless. |
|
|
Rimmer
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2004 - 22:49 |
|
True. I even went so far as to call my opponent (Buzzrocks) a cheater and were very upset at the time but after seeing the apropriate lines (from grumbledook) I apologised to him and we have moved on.
(I made it into his team bio for that lol) |
_________________
As always one is always 100% sure about the truth until one learns that it isn´t the truth. Then one is 100% sure that it isn´t the truth. |
|
annachie
Joined: Jul 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 07, 2004 - 00:26 |
|
Come to think of it, I did it with a RO to score it a TD, and then appologised for using such a dodgy tactic
But, think about trying to write the rule the way you suggest, allowing for no mis-interpretations and remembering our English as a second, or third, language friends. Whilst it would seem to be not in the spirit of the original rule, I think it works well enough.
The other associated question is whether the same 2+ WA role for fouling? |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
