CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:09 |
 
|
| f_alk wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | | As he doesn't have to dodge, he never left my tacklezone and that means he continues to be in my tacklezone. So the next time he moves, no matter if he is adjacent to any of my players or not, he has to dodge? |
No. You know quite well that the rules know several occasions where tacklezones cease to exist.
If that is the only way to make it "logical" for you, then that's how I would explain it to you. |
Tacklezones cease to exist when a player is prone/stunned or boneheaded/gazed. There are other occasions where the effect of tacklezones are ignored, but they never 'cease to exist'. Like Ball&Chain movement, Deathroller movement, leaping or follow ups.
| f_alk wrote: |
Or else: Remember that bit of quantum mechanics that you must have done if doing molecular biology. Things can go from one place to the other without a chance of being "in between" - called tunneling. So, if such things can happen in reality and is covered in the "rules", why should a fantasy game not allow for even stranger things that are covered by the "rules". |
In the BB universe where orcs and elves play the game that we have abstracted by the rules, tunneling or other wierd stuff can happen. But as we have simplified rules, we don't play with such stuff - maybe aside from the interception-before-passing-sequence. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:13 |
|
Another thing:
If players A and B both sandwich C so he cannot get away and B has shadowing. C blitzes A, followes up (is no longer adjacent to B after the follow up) and runs. Is B allowed to follow? |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:25 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | f_alk wrote: |
(CASE 1)
Player A and Player B stand straight to each other. Player A has Shadowing.
Player A is pushed diagonally by Player B. PlayerB follows up. Player B has taken an action, and he has moved from a central tackle zone to a diagonal tackle zone (see Circ's argument).
Now, that fulfills the definitions of Shadowing. You can now jump over the player. No need for sidestep even. |
You are right. In this case shadowing should be allowed, because it's basically the same as dodging from one TZ of a player into another TZ of the same player. |
He is wrong. The player with shadowing is never adjacent to a square that becomes free because a player has left it. Unless the description is really crappy and misleading... perhaps a diagram?
| CircularLogic wrote: | Another thing:
If players A and B both sandwich C so he cannot get away and B has shadowing. C blitzes A, followes up (is no longer adjacent to B after the follow up) and runs. Is B allowed to follow? |
Of course. Notice that player B is adjacent to the vacated square. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:45 |
|
| an older post of CircularLogic wrote: | | As he doesn't have to dodge, he never left my tacklezone and that means he continues to be in my tacklezone. So the next time he moves, no matter if he is adjacent to any of my players or not, he has to dodge? |
refomulated for Circ:
| f_alk wrote: | | (CASE 3 - for Circ) |
| CircularLogic wrote: | | You completely ignore the fact that tacklezones can move under a player without causing dodges. |
No, I agree with you.
Thus in this case, I would say that the tacklezone moved under the player:
Some say:
| RandomOracle wrote: | | It's still not true ... Thus, B never leaves A's tackle zone, as A leaves B's tackle zone first. |
, which is pretty much the same as above with a tackle zone moving under him.
Others say:
| CircularLogic wrote: | | You are right. In this case shadowing should be allowed, because it's basically the same as dodging from one TZ of a player into another TZ of the same player. |
which implies you can move more than one space at once with shadowing, exactly like leap.
I think you can see why I have a problem with a blocked player shadowing his blocker, and that it might not be trivial. |
|
|
Kelkka
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:49 |
|
You should be able to shadow your own players then as well.
Active player leaves players TZ who has shadowing. And you also get the teleport from one of the cards, that should also be shadowable.
Shadowing ball and chain is totally illogical IMO. The players does not "run" or "move", he just spins wildly with the ball&chain. How on earth can you shadow that? Shadowing follow-ups sounds ridiculous too, player can receive block, sidestep AND shadow at the same time? Or assist in a block and shadow? This is a game with simple rules and you guys are making it way too difficult. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:58 |
|
Nothing difficult about shadowing an opponent ball and chain, or opponent followup. You just move the model to follow it. |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 00:08 |
|
| Kelkka wrote: | | You should be able to shadow your own players then as well. |
The rules on Shadowing are very specific there. You can only shadow an opponent who takes an action, so you can never shadow your own player, you can not shadow at all during your turn. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
