cmelchior
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 08:09 |
 
|
Prinz, no offense, but have you actually read the Ball & Chain skill closely?
| Quote: | | Players armed with Ball & Chain can only take Move Actions. [...] no dodge roll is required if you leave a tackle zone. |
It quite clearly state that:
1) A Ball & Chain player is using a Action when moving.
2) He doesn't ignore tackle zones, he just doesn't have to make the dodge roll.
This means the conditions for activating shadowing is fulfilled. |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 09:20 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | hint koigokoro..
just because someone disagrees with you...doesn't mean they're trolling....
get over it...
--j |
Yup, it's fallacy of irrelevant conclusion from my part, but at this point I just want to see how long this will go on. |
|
|
Uomotigre3
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 12:13 |
|
Shadowing (General)
The player may use this skill when a player performing an Action on the
opposing team moves out of any of his tackle zones for any reason.
ANY reason is pretty clear
block is an action, follow up a push allow ur player to move out some of tackle zones of a shadowing player who can use his skill.
Regards ! |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 12:26 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | If a shadowing player shadows a frenzy player, can a player with shadowing shadow the shadowing player and can a player with diving tackle stop the second shadowing player, even if it's a blitz turn and he was in a zone? |
No and no.
You cannot shadow a shadower, because he is not the active player and you cannot use DT, because there is no dodge roll to modify. |
Circ, I was kidding. Was just trying to add some humour to the thread with a silly OTT question, but I guess that failed  |
|
|
stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 19:10 |
|
My word, you go away for a few days and see your thread hijacked. What is the world comng to these days... |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 19:46 |
|
| 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.
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". |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 20:41 |
|
| 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.
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". |
But it's good luck that when we want to know what laws of Blood Bowl mean, we can ask the creator. |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 21:13 |
|
Ok, please ask the creator - who is not Galak  .
Just assume a few cases:
(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.
(CASE 2) Why is it so much more difficult to move into the space vacated by a blocking High Elf Catcher compared to the space vacated by a blocking Treeman?
(CASE 3 - for Circ) A block involves assists from either side. Player A is pushed, Player B follows up. Player B may ignore tackle zones, but all assisting players from both sides are not in the same tackle zones of A or B they were before.
Did they leave the tackle zones? Then all assists have to dodge.
Did they not leave? Welcome to the "the blocked player can not shadow his blocker" argument, which needs exactly the acceptance of that.
So - how can we overcome all this mess? Pretty simple.
As soon as a block action and target is declared, the blocker and their target lose their tackle zones until the block result is resolved and eventually the catching and scattering of the ball handled.
edit: corrected a Letter |
Last edited by f_alk on %b %27, %2010 - %22:%Jun; edited 1 time in total |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 21:30 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | Ok, please ask the creator - who is not Galak .
Just assume a few cases:
(CASE 1)
Player A and Player B stand straight to each other. Player B 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. |
Huh? Player B makes the block, follows up, and then shadows A? That makes no sense on so many levels. |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 22:00 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | | Ok, please ask the creator - who is not Galak . |
Yeah, he is only the Lead Developer of LRBs 5 and 6. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 22:06 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | | Ok, please ask the creator - who is not Galak |
In this case it is Galak (well, the BBRC as a whole). It isnt Jervis. He did not write the shadowing rules and hasnt been involved in clarifying either the intent or meaning of the rules. If you insisted on asking Jervis he would almost certainly tell you to ask Tom or Ian (aka Galak or Doubleskulls).
I know certain FUMBBLers dont like LRB5(+) but please stop pretending that the BBRC is fictional. |
_________________
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 27, 2010 - 22:15 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | Ok, please ask the creator - who is not Galak .
Just assume a few cases:
(CASE 1)
Player A and Player B stand straight to each other. Player B 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.
(CASE 2) Why is it so much more difficult to move into the space vacated by a blocking High Elf Catcher compared to the space vacated by a blocking Treeman?
(CASE 3 - for Circ) A block involves assists from either side. Player A is pushed, Player B follows up. Player B may ignore tackle zones, but all assisting players from both sides are not in the same tackle zones of A or B they were before.
Did they leave the tackle zones? Then all assists have to dodge.
Did they not leave? Welcome to the "the blocked player can not shadow his blocker" argument, which needs exactly the acceptance of that.
So - how can we overcome all this mess? Pretty simple.
As soon as a block action and target is declared, the blocker and their target lose their tackle zones until the block result is resolved and eventually the catching and scattering of the ball handled. |
How about stopping this ridiculousness?
You can not put an inertial system on a BB player, there is NO symmetry here. I.e. a player moving out of a tacklezone and a tacklezone moving out of a player are NOT interchangeable. |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 22:35 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | Huh? Player B makes the block, follows up, and then shadows A? That makes no sense on so many levels. |
I corrected the single Typo: A has shadowing, not B.
And Fela, I still would love to hear why it is so much easier to jump past a strong tree than to jump past a squishy rat. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 22:49 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | | RandomOracle wrote: | | Huh? Player B makes the block, follows up, and then shadows A? That makes no sense on so many levels. |
I corrected the single Typo: A has shadowing, not B.
|
It's still not true, as player A is pushed first, and only then does B follow up. Thus, B never leaves A's tackle zone, as A leaves B's tackle zone first. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 23:03 |
|
| 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.
| f_alk wrote: |
(CASE 2) Why is it so much more difficult to move into the space vacated by a blocking High Elf Catcher compared to the space vacated by a blocking Treeman? |
Why is it as hard to leap over a treeman as it is to leap of a halfling?
Why is it as hard to dodge out of one gobbo TZ as it is dodging out of the TZ of Orcish blitzers?
Why can a gobbo assist a block as well as a blackorc?
| f_alk wrote: |
(CASE 3 - for Circ) A block involves assists from either side. Player A is pushed, Player B follows up. Player B may ignore tackle zones, but all assisting players from both sides are not in the same tackle zones of A or B they were before.
Did they leave the tackle zones? Then all assists have to dodge.
Did they not leave? Welcome to the "the blocked player can not shadow his blocker" argument, which needs exactly the acceptance of that. |
You completely ignore the fact that tacklezones can move under a player without causing dodges. Or else elves would rule. My elf dodged away from your Black Orc. Because your blackorc clearly left the tacklezone of my elf, he has to make a dodgeroll, too! Who needs blocking anymore?
| f_alk wrote: |
So - how can we overcome all this mess? Pretty simple.
As soon as a block action and target is declared, the blocker and their target lose their tackle zones until the block result is resolved and eventually the catching and scattering of the ball handled. |
Or a blocking player becomes a deathroller! He moves without the need to make a dodge roll! |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
