Curro
Joined: Jun 07, 2005
|
 Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 12:28 |
 
|
I agree!
don´t cheat, people of the world! Cheating is bad, cheating is not fun, cheating is.... cheating! |
|
|
Korenn
Joined: Jan 01, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 12:50 |
|
| Rimmer wrote: | Virral:
After reading the threads on WA and blitzing and WA and fouling I have to back of on the being able to stop before you reach the square that fullfills one of the criterias. I had forgotten a vital point about the being able to hold an action after it was declared and to make it short it has got to do with the word "may". As in you may move and block compared to move then foul.
You were right.
So now, too me the rule is that:
You have to move so that you put a tz or can intercept the ball you may not move anywhere you would like.
Anyone still not agreeing with me? |
I do, that doesn't make sense. You're rephrasing it to "You may not move anywhere you want, unless it does something useful". What's the point in that?
I think JanMattys got it right on the mark. On tabletop, you should only move if you will move all 3 squares to reach an intercepting/pass interfering position, or fall down trying. On Fumbbl, you should be allowed to move anywhere you want with the 3 movement, because that's what the client allows. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
It is discussions like this that suck all the fun from playing a game.
It is clear from both the intent of the rule and the name of the rule what the answer is.
It isn't called 'Pass move where you like' or 'Pass have a go at blocking but stop if it looks too tricky' you get the free move so that you can attempt to block the pass, hence 'Pass Block' is it's name. You should move until you can attempt to block the pass, or not at all. |
|
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 12:59 |
|
Hear, hear, purplypecs! For once I agree with you  |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
xlars
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 13:41 |
|
I see it this way: what ever is possible in the client is legal, at least on fumbbl.com. I play to win, and if I can make a move a player where he makes my odds better I will, if the client allows me to. I see this as the same way as the OFAB rule difference that just hasn't been added to the different from board game. Even if it said somewhere in the terms of agreement you sign here on the page that it is illegal, people would just say that they had forgotten that rule. no one can remember all the many rule that apply here on fumbbl. I mean to bloodbowl.
Lets just make the client be our rulebook and be happy that it so clear, all you can do goes.
-XL
edit: language |
_________________
Smurf team in Stunty leeg! |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 13:51 |
|
Xlars, that could be an answer to the "rule" question, but for sure it is a very sad way to behave.
You play to win WITHIN a ruleset, and the official ruleset is the BLOODBOWL LRB set.
The client was/is made at SkiJunkie's best, but that's no good reason to exploit eventual flaws. |
_________________
 |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 14:02 |
|
| xlars wrote: | I see it this way: what ever is possible in the client is legal, at least on fumbbl.com. I play to win, and if I can make a move a player where he makes my odds better I will, if the client allows me to. I see this as the same way as the OFAB rule difference that just hasn't been added to the different from board game. Even if it said somewhere in the terms of agreement you sign here on the page that it is illegal, people would just say that they had forgotten that rule. no one can remember all the many rule that apply here on fumbbl. I mean to bloodbowl.
Lets just make the client be our rulebook and be happy that it so clear, all you can do goes.
-XL
edit: language |
in case of OFAB, it's written as a rule in the differences. Here not. So play to win is ok. Else it's cheating |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
Eghost
Joined: Oct 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 14:09 |
|
| xlars wrote: | | Even if it said somewhere in the terms of agreement you sign here on the page that it is illegal, people would just say that they had forgotten that rule. no one can remember all the many rule that apply here on fumbbl. |
I signed a contract but I forgot what was in it so it doesn't apply anymore....what kind of lame excuse is that. |
|
|
soren72
Joined: Nov 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 14:12 |
|
| Eghost wrote: | | xlars wrote: | | Even if it said somewhere in the terms of agreement you sign here on the page that it is illegal, people would just say that they had forgotten that rule. no one can remember all the many rule that apply here on fumbbl. |
I signed a contract but I forgot what was in it so it doesn't apply anymore....what kind of lame excuse is that. |
Hear, hear! |
_________________
Cheers,
Soren - Back Judge, The Reformed Church of Nuffle |
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 14:19 |
|
| xlars wrote: | | Even if it said somewhere in the terms of agreement you sign here on the page that it is illegal, people would just say that they had forgotten that rule. no one can remember all the many rule that apply here on fumbbl. |
And this from a guy who hates spammers!   |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
xlars
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 14:53 |
|
Maybe I didnt make my self clear, I didn't say I would use it as an excuse. Btw as I read the passblock rules its ok to move the player in what direction you would want to. And as Im not only one the rule are at best unclear. Its a matter of interpretation.
But if the rule was; anything you can do goes, we would have no one complaining about different ways to read the rules. My suggestion was simply a way to make simple easy to understand rules that cant be broken.
@mrmojo. how was my post spam?
-XL |
_________________
Smurf team in Stunty leeg! |
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 15:15 |
|
If no one would read things into rules that do not exist, we would not have the discussion.
Hey, the skill is pass block. So what does that tell you? It´s not take your time, wander around.
I agree that the rule is not written water proof. But I think the interpratations offered by some are just ridiculous. Switch on the rest of your brains apart from the reading parts, especially the apply common sense region! |
|
|
SolomonKane
Joined: Jul 21, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 15:21 |
|
Just to interject my two cents, rehashing a statement I'd made earlier in the other pass block thread...
There IS some leeway for tactical use of Pass Block. There are usually a lot of squares involved along the path of the pass. As long as you are making an effort to get into the path of the ball (or to the catcher's/thrower's TZ), you likely will have lots of squares through which you can move in order to reach the path of the pass. Now consider this probably rare but possible situation:
Is it entirely possible that a player might, for whatever reason, decide he wants to attempt a 6+ dodge while moving a pass block because, if the player FAILS the dodge (and survives the armor roll), it still hampers the opposing team's play somehow. Now, if the player MAKES the 6+ dodge, and is still not in a pass block position, then he'll have to keep moving, the way I read it. You cannot choose to stop simply because you don't want your player moving any further, unless he's already in a position to attempt an interception.
Now another interesting point comes up: is it possible to use your pass block move to get into a position to add a blocking assist somewhere? My answer is yes, AS LONG AS that final position is ALSO in the path of the attempted pass.
Finally, just because you get into position to attempt an interception, are you REQUIRED to attempt the interception? My answer would be no, though why you would not want to attempt it is beyond me. |
|
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 15:31 |
|
| xlars wrote: | @mrmojo. how was my post spam?
-XL |
It wasn't. But encouragin people to cheat is just lame, even lamer than spamming. |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
xlars
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2005 - 15:42 |
|
I don't encourage people to cheat, it wasn't my aim anyway. But is it cheating? If Christer or an other admin said it is, then that's the rule. Otherwise it is open to debate IMO, if the rules are loosely defined. Yes passblock indicate that its a move to block a pass. but other interpretations of that rule could be just as valid. Just saying it is the obvious interpretation does not make it objectively true. I could just say "No it isnt" and now we have an argument
and I agree it is lame to encourage people to cheat. |
_________________
Smurf team in Stunty leeg! |
|
|
|
| |
ramchop takes on the...
Search
