Talk Fantasy Football

this one came up at the blood bowl GT and their seemed to be no clear answer. A wild animal has the ball 2 paces fro the end zone and no one in range to blitz. Can he then declare a blitz action and roll 2+ to move into the end zone without making a block?

logically, you can blitz without making a block as part of the action, now where in the description of the blitz action does it say one MUST make a block during your blitz move

Yes you can. There is nothing that says you have to make a block as part of a blitz action. I've done it myself to then pass the RO in the endzone and score

Textbook.

I had a Minotaur with 11 TDs on my Chaos team ....

This may fit into the rules, but I am curious if anyone thinks of it as a loophole. And even though it is most likely intentional, was it ever really discussed to have a blitz end in an attempted block action. Of course it wastes a most useful action, but in the case of moving a Wild Animal with blitz, it just seems more of an abuse.

Flame on!

funnyfingers wrote:And even though it is most likely intentional, was it ever really discussed to have a blitz end in an attempted block action.

It was (briefly), and it was decided the mass of rules that would entail (for example, if you were forced to Dodge, and failed the first roll but passed with a reroll, would you be forced to make a 2nd, etc, etc) just wasn't worth the effort.

I've been doing it at tournaments for years

been a few threads about it too afaik

Just seems more of a loophole than a well thought out plan. The idea of Wild Animal is this beast that doesn't care to much about moving around and wants to hit something. Therefore a blitz that does not end in a block does not go with the essence of Wild Animal.

Coach - "Go blitz that elf!"
Mino - "Argh... I'm gonna get you sucka!"
SKULL - BothDown - Skull ( typical big guy blitz:o) )

Coach - "Go act like you are going to blitz and guard those beastmen!"
Mino - "F&^% you coach! Let me try a blitz and it's a deal."

funnyfingers ... when we designed the rules ... we did keep in mind that it was a game.

In this case ... giving up the team's Blitz action in order to be able to move a Wild Animal was seen as enough of a game penalty for it to be fine.

Seriously ... you don't want to know how bad looking the rules would be if they FORCED you to pass with a Pass Action, handoff with a Handoff action, block with a Blitz Action and fould with a Foul Action. Its a nightmarish set of rules that would have had to be written with no good coming from them.

Galak

the fact it was bought up more than once and has been left the same over at least 2 rules reviews points that it fine

I even had a member of the BBRC attempt to do the same thing against me

it's just a game mechanic like rolling for interceptions first

if you think of it more along the lines of "can do a 2+ move action but you can't do a blitz this turn" if there was a rule written explicitly like that there wouldn't be a problem with it "not making sense for a wild animal"

but it isn't needed cause the rules work fine as it is worded which allow it, just like rolling for interceptions as I mentioned

I'm with Galak, Grum and others on this one. The game mechanics for the different actions are fine as they are, and losing the block part of the blitz is a big penalty.

You can't legislate in practice to force the completion of actions (blitz, foul, pass, hand-off, whatever). For example, a player declares a hand-off and, after moving, finds that he does not have enough movement to make the hand-off. How do you force him to hand-off?

There is a good analogy in the rules already for the Wild Animal blitz without a block, which is the Move Action without a move (for example by a Boneheaded/Stupid/Hypno-Gazed player in order to recover his Tackle Zone).

Hope that helps.

Or Blitz and not move, ie a blocker gets a both down and decides not to dodge away. Didn't really need saying, but thought we should cover the full gamut.

It was just a thought that came to mind. I would not even suggest it for anything but Wild Animal as it is the only one using it to pass a negatrait. It would be completely fine to choose the pass action and then not pass as obviously the ball will not move and nothing is gained from not using the pass action.

Coach - "Go pass that ball you elf!"
Elf - "Aye aye coach."
Elf mumbles to self - "Wow almost stumbled there, since I am not a wild animal and can think a little quicker, I'll not try this pass after all."

But I totally understand it is almost a fair trade, though mostly seems like an abuse. I've done it myself, but just would like to throw my non-counting opposition to it, that is all .

Again I understand this is completely intentional.

Coach - "Go pass that ball you elf!"
Elf - "Aye aye coach."
Elf mumbles to self - "Wow almost stumbled there, since I am not a wild animal and can think a little quicker, I'll not try this pass after all."

Minotaur(with ball) - "Hey look, an Elf"