Page 1 of 2
Fouls, Apothecaries rules queries
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 pm
by Lord Zlob
Does the +2 penalty for subsequent fouls apply only if the referee spotted the original fouls? A literal reading implies that it applies always ("any subsequent fouls"), but the text seems to imply that it's only if he was caught ("this represents the referee keeping a close eye on the offending team after they commited a foul" - if he didn't see it, surely he wouldn't do so?)
Also, can the apothecary's ability to ignore an injury be used retrospectively, ie at the end of the match, or must you use it as soon as the injury is caused?
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:03 pm
by Grumbledook
you have to use the apothcary right after the injury roll, thats quite clear in the apothcary section
as for fouls i don't know where you got 2+ from, if the ref isn't watching you then you get sent off on 6+
when you commit a foul the ref will then be watching your team, if you commit a foul when the ref is watching then its a 4+ to get sent off
if the other team does a foul then the ref is then watching that team so then you go back to only being sent off if your opponent rolls 6+ again
the ref gets reset at half time
hope thats all clear ;]
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:30 pm
by Lord Zlob
The LRB refers to IGMEOY as a +2 modifier to subsequent rolls. I recently played someone who claimed that it applied only once a player was sent off for fouling, not simply once a foul had been made. His logic made sense to some extent, and we didn't want to waste time trawling through the book at the time.
"At any time during the match the Apothecary may attempt to cure one injury (including death!) that has been suffered by a player in his team."
That's quite ambiguous as to when you do so ('at any time during the match').
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:43 pm
by DoubleSkulls
LRB pp 28 - "Apothecaries must be used immediately when the player suffers an injury."
Its not listed in the numbered list, just the general text.
LRB pp 24
"This modifier represents the referee keeping a close eye on the offending team after they have committed a foul. "
So its buried in the text that its committing the foul (not getting caught).
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:48 pm
by Lord Zlob
Thanks.
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:52 pm
by Grumbledook
yes its +2 to the sending off roll you roll a 4 then +2 to it and you get 6, which is a sending off, that applies any time the ref is watching that team no just after a player has been sent off
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:57 pm
by Thadrin
ianwilliams wrote:LRB pp 28 - "Apothecaries must be used immediately when the player suffers an injury."
Its not listed in the numbered list, just the general text.
Not sure how LRB this is, but we always allow the player to find out HOW serious the injury is before making the Apoth decision. If its just a MNG they'll often not bother.
I know FUMBBL works that way too, but that might just be the way the tool works.
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 8:08 pm
by DoubleSkulls
That's the way ECBBL plays it too - find out what sort of Serious Injury it is before using the apoth.
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 9:19 pm
by Dave
we do as well, I think Galak 'ruled' it that way too
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 9:45 pm
by Puckohue
Thadrin wrote:we always allow the player to find out HOW serious the injury is before making the Apoth decision.
Yep, we too.

Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 10:32 pm
by Zombie
The serious injury roll is part of the injury roll, so that's actually the official rule, not just a house rule.
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 11:47 pm
by Skummy
Not making it until the end of the game would be a helluva way to increase turnover, though.
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 11:48 pm
by Grumbledook
how you work that one out skummy, can still apoth one player and then you get to choose to use it on the best one
Posted: Tue May 27, 2003 2:16 am
by Skummy
Again, that was poorly worded. Not rolling the type of serious injury inflicted on the player until the end of the game (when it's too late to use the apoth) would increase the amount of player turnover.
Posted: Tue May 27, 2003 2:35 am
by Grumbledook
ah right yes that makes more sense ;]