f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 20:46 |
 
|
What if an opponent who stands in my tackle zone blocks me, SKULLS and BH himself.
He clearly left my tackle zone - can I shadow and move to where he just stood?
Hmmmm? |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 20:53 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | What if an opponent who stands in my tackle zone blocks me, SKULLS and BH himself.
He clearly left my tackle zone - can I shadow and move to where he just stood?
Hmmmm? |
He clearly didnt leave the tacklezone... the splatter is still there. Duh?  |
_________________
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." |
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 20:56 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | What if an opponent who stands in my tackle zone blocks me, SKULLS and BH himself.
He clearly left my tackle zone - can I shadow and move to where he just stood?
Hmmmm? |
No, he is not moving out from your tacklezone. The main part here is that you are moving when doing a follow up move.
My first reaction was "NO" on the thought about shadowing into the square of your blocker, but after reading the rules, it is clear that you are allowed to shadow into a player who just followed up a block it became clear to me that you are indeed allowed to follow up the block.
I don't see why people are trying to bend the rules and coming up with strange ways of defining what a tacklezone is. This case was closed a few pages ago. |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 21:02 |
|
No, you haven't read the rules then. Page 8.
It states twice, in bold face and italics, that Leaving requires a Dodge roll.
So, yes, a follow up move moves. But you don't leave any tackle zones.
And the logic to counter the above was "he is not inside the tackle zone later, so he must have moved out".
My example here was to show the implication of that. A player who was in my tackle zone and now is not: if he must have moved then the SKULLed blocker also "moved" out because he was in the tackle zone before and now is not. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 21:22 |
|
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? |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 21:25 |
|
| 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. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 21:37 |
|
| f_alk wrote: |
It states twice, in bold face and italics, that Leaving requires a Dodge roll.
|
By your logic, a player leaping out of someone's tackle zone should make a dodge roll. Or does leaping mean you magic the opposing player's tackle zone out of existence? Or when the player is chainpushed out of someone's tacklezone?
It seems to me that the portion of the rules you quote is explaining the basic rules of the game and listing all the exceptions would just make things too confusing. You also conveniently left out the last part of the quote:
"Note that you must always make a Dodge roll when you leave a tackle zone; even if there aren’t any tackle zones on the square you are moving to (see the slow-motion replay)."
The point of the sentence is that the dodge roll needs to made regardless of where you are dodging. |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 21:45 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | f_alk wrote: |
It states twice, in bold face and italics, that Leaving requires a Dodge roll.
|
By your logic, a player leaping out of someone's tackle zone should make a dodge roll. |
that would be true...
if the leap skill did not specifically state that a dodge roll is not necessary to leave the starting tackle zone...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 22:27 |
|
So a player enters a tacklezone of my player and gets blocked out. 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? |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 - 22:28 |
|
|
Prinz
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 00:50 |
|
That rather does seal the deal in who to take seriously.
Someone who suggests that you can shadow a ball and chain player is not someone i'd want to reference in rules disputes.... |
_________________
 "Canadians like it on top."  "The MOST recognized name in violence..." |
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 01:52 |
|
| Prinz wrote: |
That rather does seal the deal in who to take seriously.
Someone who suggests that you can shadow a ball and chain player is not someone i'd want to reference in rules disputes.... |
If Galak is not someone who you would refer to in BB rules, you're taking the trolling bit too far  |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 02:28 |
|
hint koigokoro..
just because someone disagrees with you...doesn't mean they're trolling....
get over it...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
Prinz
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 02:35 |
|
| Koigokoro wrote: | | Prinz wrote: |
That rather does seal the deal in who to take seriously.
Someone who suggests that you can shadow a ball and chain player is not someone i'd want to reference in rules disputes.... |
If Galak is not someone who you would refer to in BB rules, you're taking the trolling bit too far |
Soooo... You're going with someone who says that shadowing can be used to shadow a ball and chain player, and I'm trolling? |
_________________
"Canadians like it on top." "The MOST recognized name in violence..." |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 27, 2010 - 08:03 |
|
Yes you are.
I'm not sure why this is even being debated or whats so incredibly wrong with shadowing a ball and chain. Or why you are criticising Galaks judgement, declaring that poor judgement in one case invalidates all his other judgements...... and then taking shadows side of the argument  There are plenty of reasons to take shadows side of the argument but thats not one of them. |
_________________
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." |
|
|
|
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
