shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 15:13 |
 
|
wow...
just wow...
god you people are dense sometimes...
it is amusing as hell to see all of these people that are deliberately ignoring the fact that the rule book specifically lines out what is, and is not, an action...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 15:18 |
|
Has there really been so much argument about something which is directly specified in the rulebook?
There is an FAQ section at the end. One of the questions covers this. |
_________________
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." |
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 15:24 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | Has there really been so much argument about something which is directly specified in the rulebook?
There is an FAQ section at the end. One of the questions covers this. |
The only one who seems to be arguing the case is Shadow and I'm still not sure if he isn't just trolling as his 'the block part of a BLOCK ACTION is an action and the follow up movement part of the BLOCK ACTION is not'-theory is unbeliebvably absurd. |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 15:35 |
|
um....it's not trolling, fela...
just because you're incapable of reading & comprehending the rule book, doesn't mean that i'm trolling...
the rulebook specifically states that the chain of events that composes a block is an action, and the specific step within a block action called 'followup", is not an action...it is simply a component of the block chain of events...
it doesn't make it absurd just because you want to intentionally twist the rules around and selectively ignore whatever part of the rulebook that you don't like
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 15:48 |
|
Well Shadow, what a beautiful mixture: Being unable to read the rulebook yourself and being arrogant towards others! Awesome! At least it seems you dont have any problems with self-sonfidence... |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 16:13 |
|
bravo sir...excellent use of the "i know you are, but what am i??" defense...
in the long run, though...this doesn't change the fact that people need to quit selectively picking and choosing what rules they wish to use
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 16:31 |
|
Shadow has it right, imho... |
_________________
 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 16:34 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | Shadow has it right, imho... |
(in regards to shadowing blocks)
He is wrong. As stated by the guys who wrote the rulebook.... its well documented. |
_________________
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." |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 16:48 |
|
feel free to post said "well documented" citations
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
cmelchior
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 16:56 |
|
| Quote: | So #B blocks #d, who sidesteps to #a. #B then decides to follow up. Can the defender, from #a, use shadowing to move to the now vacant #B? Yes.
That would apply if there were a different player at #a too who had shadowing. |
By DoubleSkulls on http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=27597&hilit=shadowing+side+step?
Don't let the fact that he is a member of the BBRC get into your way of claiming he is wrong as well... |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 17:08 |
|
don't think i ever claimed he was wrong...i will say that i was not aware that he was a BBRC member, though, and i'm not all that willing to take the word of some joe schmoe who's looking for an easy loophole...thank you for the specific citation...i'll concede the point...
with that being said...it is a pretty huge bastardization of the rules, and opens the door to other exploitations....
example...
what happens if B blocks X to a...does that mean that X now gets a shadowing roll, and in effect giving him a free leap action?...technically, he's moving out of someone's tackle zone....
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 17:13 |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 17:14 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | feel free to post said "well documented" citations
--j |
Well, look at any of the TBB or cyanide links.... its been by Ian Williams and Tom Anders multiple times.
I cant find the appropriate FAQ in the CRP but its obvious that those questions have been modified before release, its possible that the question got cut in favour of questions such as "this rulebook tells me to use a D8 for things other than ball scatter... should I really use a D8?". I'll swear it is in the LRB5 FAQ but I cant find a copy of LRB5 (my physical copy is lost and the computer where its saved is currently broken). I'm very sure because the FAQ gave me the idea to use shadowing in a tournament specifically to follow up blocks.
Edit: whut? Your example isnt terribly clear. |
_________________
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." |
|
Hero164
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 17:29 |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 25, 2010 - 17:32 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | don't think i ever claimed he was wrong...i will say that i was not aware that he was a BBRC member, though, and i'm not all that willing to take the word of some joe schmoe who's looking for an easy loophole...thank you for the specific citation...i'll concede the point...
with that being said...it is a pretty huge bastardization of the rules, and opens the door to other exploitations....
example...
what happens if B blocks X to a...does that mean that X now gets a shadowing roll, and in effect giving him a free leap action?...technically, he's moving out of someone's tackle zone....
--j |
Obviously the Follow Up Move in your picture cannot be Shadowed as it doesn't start from anyones Tackle Zone as X is Pushed Back to position "a"
If your X player Side Stepped next to B, then X could use Shadowing to enter the position from where B starts his Follow Up Move. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
