Page 1 of 2

Armourroll when GFI?

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:14 am
by Pushag
If I fail to go for it and falls over; should I roll an armourroll or does the player just fall and no roll is made ?

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:48 am
by neverdodge
yes you got to roll for it .

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:33 pm
by Xtreme
and if he is an elf he will surely die. :roll:

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:47 pm
by Vero
So an avarage elf will gfi less than six times without reroll or thirty six times with rerolls :)

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:41 pm
by Pushag
ok, thanks

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:45 am
by MadLordAnarchy
Just thought I'd say here that we don't use armour rolls on GFI. I guess I am too much of a fluffer as it seems a bit odd to have the same effect for falling over and for being smacked by a Chaos Warrior.

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:26 pm
by neverdodge
That s perhaps true (been a lond debat btw) but then, where s the risk of making a gfi ?? If i know my player can be hurt, or die, i ll gfi less than if i know he ll just fall and cause a turnover ..

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:06 pm
by MadLordAnarchy
I don't want to draw GFI into another long debate but a failed GFI is a risk in itself and in my league they are vulnerable to being fouled. The fact that fouling has been toned down in LRB would be a problem ror balance but I just choose to ignore those rules.

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:30 pm
by Joemanji
The risk of a GFI is a turnover! :D I think failed GFI and dodge rolls should cause Armour Rolls, but a -1 to the roll. I think this was the rule in 2e anyway...

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:24 am
by Old Man Draco
In 3rd ed. you did not roll for armour but just put the player prone. In LRB that changed and I like it. It makes a GFI more risky! :smoking:

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:25 am
by Sixpack595
MadLordAnarchy wrote: I guess I am too much of a fluffer...
:o


I guess it depends on how you view the fluff. You can look at it as a reason for a rule, or as a rule based on the fluff. GFI injury rolls can be justified by one look at the figs... All those spikes and blades are bound to leave a mark.

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:28 am
by Redfang
Draco wrote:In 3rd ed. you did not roll for armour but just put the player prone. In LRB that changed and I like it. It makes a GFI more risky! :smoking:
In 3rd edition you did roll for armour. At least I always played that way. It has just been clarified more recently.
MadLordAnarchy wrote:I guess I am too much of a fluffer...
:lol:

Just had to repeat that one more time... Almost as good as the infamous Troll-fluffer joke...

R

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:37 am
by Longshot
we always rolled for an armour roll!

LRB didnt change it, they clarify it.

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:50 am
by Old Man Draco
Redfang wrote:
Draco wrote:In 3rd ed. you did not roll for armour but just put the player prone. In LRB that changed and I like it. It makes a GFI more risky! :smoking:
In 3rd edition you did roll for armour. At least I always played that way. It has just been clarified more recently.

R
Sorry to say but then you played it wrong, unless there are more 3rd editions. It stated clearly that if you failed a GFI your player fell over and was placed prone on the pitch. :o

Maybe it was you insight in the game that you allready played it with making an armour roll before the rules where changed! :D

I know about the 3rd edition GFI rule because the old and dusty group in Almere still play it that way! that's why I joined you guys in the first place and up till now no regrets. :P :smoking:

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:52 am
by Joemanji
We always played that had to roll armour for a failed GFI... but rereading the 3e handbook, it isn't actually clear.