Armourroll when GFI?

Pushag · Post by **Pushag** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:14 am

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 ?

neverdodge · Post by **neverdodge** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:48 am

yes you got to roll for it .

Xtreme · Post by **Xtreme** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:33 pm

and if he is an elf he will surely die.

Vero · Post by **Vero** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:47 pm

So an avarage elf will gfi less than six times without reroll or thirty six times with rerolls

Pushag · Post by **Pushag** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:41 pm

ok, thanks

MadLordAnarchy · Post by **MadLordAnarchy** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:45 am

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.

neverdodge · Post by **neverdodge** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:26 pm

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 ..

MadLordAnarchy · Post by **MadLordAnarchy** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:06 pm

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.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:30 pm

The risk of a GFI is a turnover!

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...

Post by **Old Man Draco** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:24 am

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!

Sixpack595 · Post by **Sixpack595** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:25 am

MadLordAnarchy wrote: I guess I am too much of a fluffer...

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.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:28 am

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!

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...

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

R

Longshot · Post by **Longshot** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:37 am

we always rolled for an armour roll!

LRB didnt change it, they clarify it.

Post by **Old Man Draco** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:50 am

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!
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.

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

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.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:52 am

We always played that had to roll armour for a failed GFI... but rereading the 3e handbook, it isn't actually clear.