Afro
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 19:48 |
 
|
Hm. I don't get it. It is said in the rules that if you have declared a passing action, you have to make the pass (and can't avoid a Pass Blocker making the pass or catch more difficult). But it not explicitly said with foul or blitz, so why should it be the same ?
And speaking about real life, i sometimes decide to do something and change my mind after i think about the different options i have. Why should it be different in BB ? In my opinion, as long as it isn't against the rules (as it is with passing), nobody can be punished for changing his mind.
And using the foul action to move a WA is a sneaky tactic, but also sneaky is using the rule of chain pushing to get opponent players off the pitch. Ask Wuhan if he wants to give up his foul action to move a WA. It's only a price that has to be payed, like if you want to use TTM, you can't pass the ball to the Right Stuff Player. |
_________________
Luck is only for dumb people |
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 19:59 |
|
everyone agrees that you don't have to block on your blitz...who cares if you waste your blitz and don't hit anybody.
As for foul the only reason they wrote may move because if they wrote must move you couldn't foul someone adjacent to you because you would have to move. May move means you can just stand there and foul an adjacent player. No where does it say may foul. it says you may move up to your MA and foul a player on the ground so I don't see an option not to foul there if you pick a foul action. |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 20:27 |
|
Neither does it say you must foul. It does however use the word allow at the start of the sentence. Some people should stop making very pedantic arguments about the english language just to try to stop a rule they don't personally like. Saying that fumbbl should take action against those that will follow the LRB is rediculous.
 |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 21:04 |
|
I agree that their is confusion over the exact rules and the version of them that fumbbl implements. In a RL game I have never seen anyone declare a foul, and then not foul. The reason that such incidents are not covered in the rules is because they only happen on javabbowl! Also, in the client currently you must gfi to foul if you run out of movement. At least in the boardgame version I am sure this is not the case. javabbowl bug?
Anyway, with the new rules, WA become more effective than really stupid, and only slightly less effective than bonehead, as doing everything other than a simple move is a 2+ (no WA have throwable players in open sides?), and really stupid creatures need helpers to get 2+ rolls which never seem to be around after the first few drives after a kickoff... Plus WA keep their frenzy! If they keep their tacklezone when they roll a 1, then they are even better than boneheads... |
|
|
Tribble_the_Unclean
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 21:39 |
|
I have declared many an action and decided to not actually follow through with the action, effectively wasting that type of action. It's not something that only occurs in FUMBBL. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 21:40 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | Neither does it say you must foul. It does however use the word allow at the start of the sentence. Some people should stop making very pedantic arguments about the english language just to try to stop a rule they don't personally like. Saying that fumbbl should take action against those that will follow the LRB is rediculous.
|
the allow is refering to the move. if it didn't, the player wouldn't be able to move to foul. HOW WOULD U PHRASE IT TO ALLOW A MOVE and foul?
the word "AND" separates the two fragments of the sentence. The allow does not apply to the 2nd half. Please go back to high school and learn English. |
|
|
Wichtel
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 21:51 |
|
@AeoN2: NO, you are not the only one... |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 22:02 |
|
I didn't go to 'high school' because I am English. Telling me how my language works? 
The words allow + and show declaring a foul gives you the options to do both, with the foul action happening after the move (if you move).. The rules for passing explain you have to pass once declared - fouling does not have this explicitely mentioned, so it is fair to assume it would have been if it was intended to.
Maybe you should go back to whatever excuse for a school you had and learn some grammar or manners.[/i] |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 22:13 |
|
just because you are english doesn't mean you know how it works
if you can't complete the action then it's not a foul action. you need to foul for it to be a foul action period. there is no option not to foul.
the player is allowed to move....yes he can move AND foul an adjacent player.
that is you don't have to do part A (the move) but you have to do part B the foul.
the move only let's you get into position to complete the action. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 22:20 |
|
This allows the player to move a number of squares equal to his MA and then make a foul against an opposing player who is both prone and in an adjacent square.
Allows does not refer to the 2nd half of the sentence. It is refering to the ability to MOVE.
"And" separates the 2 sentence fragments.
"then" means you cannot foul then move...you must perform the move first. |
|
|
Mordachai
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 00:37 |
|
And I hope you will allow me to stop reading this thread AND read something worthwhile instead... 
Seriously guys, try to keep the thread on a more serious level since it is about such a serious topic... please.
Mordachai
with english as a second language |
_________________
"I love this show!!!" - Gir |
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 05:20 |
|
The point of this discussion is that it a poorly-worded rule, like many in the LRB, and apparently LRB 3.0 is being formulated as we speak. Please, PLEASE, I ask that those currently rewriting the LRB make their language clear and unambiguous, so as to prevent squabbles like this one. |
|
|
BloodbasherMasher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 05:28 |
|
| LtMonkey wrote: | I often choose foul when dodging from a diving tackler to attempt to persuade them not to dive and sometimes just so I can kick them in the head when they do  |
Different situation. The WA rule is to power down Minotaurs & rat ogres. Declaring a Foul action to bypass the negatrait doesn't power them down 
I say that SkiJunkie should program Block and Blitz and leave the whole Foul thing out of the program entirely. |
|
|
Matt_wyeth
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 06:32 |
|
i'd say make the ref spot the foul even if the player didn't actually hit an opposing player. that'd be fair and balance and keep people from deciding to take a foul action to just dodge away from a diving tackler, also nowhere does it say that you must make hit a player with a foul to be spotted for the foul action. I.E; i think if you fail your go for its i think that you should still be spotted, this won't stop me from fouling, but i think that'll it'll stop people from abusing the rule. |
|
|
neverborn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2004 - 06:34 |
|
also
anyone have the email of the guys who are making the changes
i wanna let em know that they are leaving the rule open to massive exploit, in essance, giving wild animals bone head even tho they get frenzy, better movement, ag, etc |
|
|
|
|
killing by fun?
Search
