How to play WEs against Guard cages?

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:25 pm

Hi Ian,
that's the first time I've ever heard that.
Where did you get it from?
Martin

Post by **Dave** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:52 pm

some rules clarification .. it might even be in LBR now. You can only Multiple Block two opponents that are next to eachother

Juggernaut · Post by **Juggernaut** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:20 pm

That's right. The only thing U can do to block those 2 is to push guard a little and then block them both. but it's a little bit harder.
Juggernaut

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:36 pm

Hi Dave,
but they are next to each other.
They are in adjacent squares.
Qou could move from one players square directly into the others square.
That's got to be "next to".
Martin

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:42 pm

plasmoid wrote:Hi Dave,
but they are next to each other.
They are in adjacent squares.
Qou could move from one players square directly into the others square.
That's got to be "next to".
Martin

Unfortunately diagonal is near, not 'next to'. They have to be 'side-by-each' as they say in Quebec

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:00 am

Now I thought that was in the 2002 rules review, but I can't find it anywhere.

I am fairly sure (75%) that I've seen either official or BBRC member clarify that "next to each other" does not mean diagonnally.

Galak? Neo?

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:42 am

Hi Ian Williams and ScottyBoneman,
If diagonal is not "next to", then multiblock is fatally flawed!

Quoting the skill description from (recently updated) memory:
"The opposing players have to be next to the [attacker] and next to each other".
I.e. - both relations are based on being "next to".

Now, imagine this situation:
_12_
_3__

In my example, player 1 attempts to block 2-3.
If he can't, because player 2 is not next to player 3 - then watch what happens when:

New situation - player 3 attempts to block player 1 and 2.
But player 2 isn't next to player 3, so he can't block him with multiblock.

The result is that multiblock can not be used to block 2 players! Ever!
That sounds very wrong.
In short: diagonals must be "next to".
Martin

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:55 pm

plasmoid wrote:The result is that multiblock can not be used to block 2 players! Ever!
That sounds very wrong.
In short: diagonals must be "next to".
Martin

Code: Select all

12_
_M_

You can only use multiple block when they are like this.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:25 pm

Martin i think you are right and proved it perfectly ...

here's the exact wording:

LRB 2.0 wrote:The player is allowed to block two opposing players at the same time. The opposing players must be next to the player making the block and next to each other. Their strengths are added together and both suffer the effects of the block equally. Both sides may use assists normally.

It says "next to" for all connections ...

In this case

Code: Select all

.12.
..M.

1 and 2 would be next to each other, but 1 would be diagonally next to M, so if you argue that diagonally is not "next to" this would be forbidden.

In this case

Code: Select all

..2.
.1M.

1 and 2 would be diagonally next to each other.

There is no way to set up a multiple block without one of the 3 relevant connections (M-1, M-2 and 1-2) being diagonal, so if the skill should be of any use, the only correct conclusion has to be that diagonally = "Next to".

The only difference is that in the later case there's an empty square of M's tackle zone "between" 1 and 2 if you have a rotating view from M'S square. But there's nothing in the LRB that says anything about that ...

(Oh, i hate this skill and the way it creates loopholes in the rules ... can't we just drop it?)

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:40 pm

Actually, we play it you can use it against adjacent (or next to, which is by my counting the same) players standing diagonally as long as you are adjacent to both of them. If the word "adjacent" does not mean diagonally, then we would have to clarify the whole of LRB - blocks, leaps, handing-off, etc.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:57 pm

Hi Ian,
did you not read what I wrote?

Thanks to Tim for repeating/elaborating.
Martin

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:38 pm

http://forums.specialist-games.com/bloo ... PIC_ID=258

This same question about square/diagonal came up on the GW BB forum, and Galak agreed that diagonals was OK.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:04 pm

I'll consider my wrists slapped. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere though.

@Martin -

I didn't read it carefully enough. Its one of the problems when snatching bits at work.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:39 pm

Now it gets interesting:

.G1.
.2M.

That would mean that M could multiblock 1 and 2 with an assist of the Guard skilled G.

Combine that with Frenzy, Mighty Blow and Claw on M and shadowing on G and you have a BBRC entry test question