Throwing Teamates...

dwarfcoach · Post by **dwarfcoach** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:20 am

In the living rulebook it seems to suggest that as long as your Gobbo (or Halfling)is not carrying the ball, it does not matter what happens to him: if he is on target, if he falls over on landing, anything really.

Page 23 under the heading Landing:

'If the throw is accurate the thrown player lands in the target square. If the throw misses,then roll three times for scatter to see where the thrown player ends up as normal. If the throw is fumbled then the player being thrown falls over in their starting square. If the final modified score equals or beats the required roll, then the player lands on their feet and may take an action if they have not done so already. If the dice roll is less than the required total, then they fall over on landing and the opposing coach may make an Armour roll to see if they are injured. A failed roll does not count as a turnover unless the player was holding the ball.'

My only problem is one of a fuzzy memory (surprise surprise) . I think I remember somebody saying that if any roll is a failure (like the throw) or if any result means your player ends up on the floor making an armour check (like the Gobbo in the quote above) then it is a turnover......? The thing is , I can't find this anywhere in the rules!!!

Can anyone help?

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:32 am

Hi Dwarfcoach,
we just had a huge discussion about this.
AFAIK, this hasn't been cleared up by the BBRC - in fact, different members have expressed different opinions.

One understanding is this:
Only the rules for landing (rolls) mention that you do not suffer a turnover. Therefore, if you don't get a landing roll, then the normal rules regarding turnovers apply. This means that fumbling a throw or getting your flyer knovked over in a collission is a turnover.

The other understanding is this:
The TTM rules are poorly worded. What is written about landing rolls is meant to apply to any TTM situation. Therefore a fumble or a collission is not a TO, (unless the player has the ball).

In my personal opinion, any argument starting with "the rules are poorly worded" is a weak one.
But there you have it.
Martin

dwarfcoach · Post by **dwarfcoach** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:40 am

TAK Plasmoid!!!!

Well I have this same topic posted on the GW forum, and the NAF and the first response comes from TBB....

My own personal view is that, strictly to the letter of the rules, it is not a turnover regardless of what happens as long as the ball is not involved.

This is not how I necessarily think it should be, just how it reads at the moment.

How do people reckon it should be?

madhobbit · Post by **madhobbit** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 12:32 pm

My understanding is that if it's a fumble it's a turnover. In all other cases it's only a turnover if the ball is involved.
No ball => just don't fumble and you're ok.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 12:32 pm

Hi Dwarfcoach,
IMO - it should be no TO in any TTM situation (unless the player had the ball). But admitted, I'm a goblin coach

.

But I can't get the "strict reading" to say what you can.
The rules state that you only get a landing roll when the player is thrown to an empty square.
Under the landing heading, the rules then go on to say that a failed roll is not a TO.
How does that cover collissions and fumbles?

Martin

dwarfcoach · Post by **dwarfcoach** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 12:39 pm

plasmoid wrote:
But I can't get the "strict reading" to say what you can.
The rules state that you only get a landing roll when the player is thrown to an empty square.
Under the landing heading, the rules then go on to say that a failed roll is not a TO.
How does that cover collissions and fumbles?

Martin

Because the roll it is refering to is the 'landing' roll. If you fail to land then it is not a turnover and if you land on top of someone you automatically fail to land....

'Ed Basha' · Post by **'Ed Basha'** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:46 am

I've just introduced a gobo team to my league. So far we've gone with the spirit of the rule, as long as the ball is not involved, then it's not a TO. The fumbling odds are just too great. If a fumble was only on a natural one, then I might agree that it would be a turnover. The thrown team mate action is really the only chance stunty's have, at least in the early stages. It's what makes them viable players for the most part. I'm for the spirit of the rule rather than the strict interpretation of what's written there.

sangraal · Post by **sangraal** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:11 am

We play that a fumbled TTM is a turnover, with or without the ball.

Justification coming from the fumble rules in the passing section.

No turnover for a collision though.

sangraal

Alesdair · Post by **Alesdair** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:20 am

The rules are poorly worded for either interpretation...

But fumbles are and always have been turn overs in TTM.

the only debatable thing was turnover for collision or scatter off field when not holding the ball.

Alesdair · Post by **Alesdair** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:23 am

and the 4 page debate where everyone agreed to disagree untill BBRC clarification is only 23 threads down in this forum.

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:42 pm

'Ed Basha' wrote:So far we've gone with the spirit of the rule... I'm for the spirit of the rule rather than the strict interpretation of what's written there.

I don't think that with rules-hard games like BB this is a good approach. Play it as it states, without any complaints about realism, IMHO...

Cooper · Post by **Cooper** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:59 pm

I don't think that there is anything in the LRB about throwing Tea, mate!

W

'Ed Basha' · Post by **'Ed Basha'** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:46 am

I don't think that with rules-hard games like BB this is a good approach. Play it as it states, without any complaints about realism, IMHO...

Just did the Montreal Death Bowl, and out of 19 coaches, I didn't find one who would agree with you. bb is not a rules hard game, most of them don't bother with 90% of the possible IP's allowed, and at least half don't bother with a timer, as long as both players agree to keep the game moving. This also in IMHO[/quote]

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:31 am

'Ed Basha' wrote:Just did the Montreal Death Bowl, and out of 19 coaches, I didn't find one who would agree with you. bb is not a rules hard game, most of them don't bother with 90% of the possible IP's allowed, and at least half don't bother with a timer, as long as both players agree to keep the game moving. This also in IMHO

It of course depends on the bunch of people you are playing with. One rules lawyer is more than enough...

I addressed the fact that there were some threads about the realism of dodging, fumbling during passing, etc... recently. I say, the fluff is just apologizing the mechanics. Although BB is far too complex to judge simple-mindedly (as I'm maybe doing right now

), it's not even pretending to simulate realism. The rules are for the game balance, but if everyone agrees, than it's OK to change it and to accept the (potential) change in game flow (if any). This is what house rules are for.

Imagine chess where the figures represent Warhammer armies and you play a series of battles in a campaign, or Carcasonne (or Settlers of Catan) without the pictures and fluff - with just the mathematical mechanics. You get the difference.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:39 am

Hi Alesdair,
no offense intended, but your reading is the only one that I really don't get:
IMO, either some special TTM rules apply, or the normal TO rules apply.
I can't figure out why the normal TO rules would apply to fumbling, while special TTM rules would apply to collissions.

Martin