Interceptions totally different now?!?
Moderator: TFF Mods
- daloonieshaman
- Legend
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:58 pm
- Location: Pasadena California
- Contact:
Interceptions totally different now?!?
pg 31 of the rulebook Interceptions
the interceptor must now be closer to the thrower than the thrower is to the target
and
the interceptor must be closer to the target than the thrower
so
if the thrower is 2 squares away from the target the interceptor cannot be 2 squares away, he must be one square away
(side by side to the thrower or target is no longer an option)
big change
the interceptor must now be closer to the thrower than the thrower is to the target
and
the interceptor must be closer to the target than the thrower
so
if the thrower is 2 squares away from the target the interceptor cannot be 2 squares away, he must be one square away
(side by side to the thrower or target is no longer an option)
big change
Reason: ''
- lunchmoney
- Legend
- Posts: 8892
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:59 pm
- Location: The Dark Future
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Is that from the new book? Unless I'm missing something that hasn't changed:
CRP wrote:Interceptions
One player on the opposing team may attempt to intercept a
thrown ball. To be able to make an interception, the player must:
• have the plastic Range Ruler pass over at least part of the
square the intercepting play is standing in, and …
• have a tackle zone, and …
• be closer to the thrower than the thrower is to the target
player/square of the pass, and …
• be closer to the target player/square of the pass than the
thrower is to the target player/square of the pass.
Reason: ''
Hired Goon for the NAF (rep for South West England)
lunchmoneybb@gmail.com
TOs! You do not need multiple copies of rosters. It's a waste of paper.
Bribe level: good coffee.
#FlingNation find me on page 95
lunchmoneybb@gmail.com
TOs! You do not need multiple copies of rosters. It's a waste of paper.
Bribe level: good coffee.
#FlingNation find me on page 95
- daloonieshaman
- Legend
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:58 pm
- Location: Pasadena California
- Contact:
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
that is correct
but it has been played that if you are next to a player or the passer you may intercept the ball
cant remember the exact thread
XtX
XXX
XRI
x=empty square
t= thrower
R=Receiver
I+ interceptor
the only way to intercept according to your verbage and the verbage from the new rules is
xTx
III
xRX
but it has been played that if you are next to a player or the passer you may intercept the ball
cant remember the exact thread
XtX
XXX
XRI
x=empty square
t= thrower
R=Receiver
I+ interceptor
the only way to intercept according to your verbage and the verbage from the new rules is
xTx
III
xRX
Reason: ''
- Loki
- Legend
- Posts: 2562
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Bristol, UK
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Interesting, when I'm TOing I've always said you shouldn't be trying to intercept if you are side by side with Thrower or Catcher when they are 'straight' which was based on what was written in CRP. It changes if they are not 'straight'. Fairly certain I had to talk to this with someone at a tournament last year before BB2016 came out.
from your example
although
xTx
xxx
XRI
is a no to intercept
xxT
xxx
xRI
is yes as I is closer to T than R is to T.
from your example
although
xTx
xxx
XRI
is a no to intercept
xxT
xxx
xRI
is yes as I is closer to T than R is to T.
Reason: ''
- Wifflebat
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:56 pm
- Location: Ohio, USA
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
The second way is the way I've always played it based on the CRP rules.
Maybe people think of Pass Block and sort of lump the adjacent player in because that would be a legal square to move to?
Maybe people think of Pass Block and sort of lump the adjacent player in because that would be a legal square to move to?
Reason: ''
I was Puzzlemonkey, but now I'm Wifflebat. Please forward my mail...
- Vanguard
- Super Star
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:27 am
- Location: Glasgow
- Contact:
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
This all depends on how you are measuring distance for the purposes of closer. In the second example the Interceptor is closer to the thrower by absolute distance. However, if you're counting squares then they're both equidistant from the Thrower.Loki wrote:Interesting, when I'm TOing I've always said you shouldn't be trying to intercept if you are side by side with Thrower or Catcher when they are 'straight' which was based on what was written in CRP. It changes if they are not 'straight'. Fairly certain I had to talk to this with someone at a tournament last year before BB2016 came out.
from your example
although
xTx
xxx
XRI
is a no to intercept
xxT
xxx
xRI
is yes as I is closer to T than R is to T.
Normally I'd argue that the base measurement in a squares-based board game is squares. However, Throwing in Blood Bowl is already an oddity in that way in that it ignores the board and uses a template.
So I'm agreeing with Loki here that the range ruler would be the measuring reference but it's not explicitly clear.
Reason: ''
-
- Super Star
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:37 pm
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Whether board or template, the scenario I've highlighted red has I closer to T than R surely? When using the throwing chart, you have a set number of squares forward, which then influences how many lateral squares you can throw the thing.Vanguard wrote:This all depends on how you are measuring distance for the purposes of closer. In the second example the Interceptor is closer to the thrower by absolute distance. However, if you're counting squares then they're both equidistant from the Thrower.Loki wrote:Interesting, when I'm TOing I've always said you shouldn't be trying to intercept if you are side by side with Thrower or Catcher when they are 'straight' which was based on what was written in CRP. It changes if they are not 'straight'. Fairly certain I had to talk to this with someone at a tournament last year before BB2016 came out.
from your example
although
xTx
xxx
XRI
is a no to intercept
xxT
xxx
xRI
is yes as I is closer to T than R is to T.
Normally I'd argue that the base measurement in a squares-based board game is squares. However, Throwing in Blood Bowl is already an oddity in that way in that it ignores the board and uses a template.
So I'm agreeing with Loki here that the range ruler would be the measuring reference but it's not explicitly clear.
The only time that the lateral squares doesn't matter is when moving.
Reason: ''
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Passing uses the range ruler, which is an absolute distance. This suggests (although it is not certain) that absolute distance is what matters for interceptions as well.
Reason: ''
- daloonieshaman
- Legend
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:58 pm
- Location: Pasadena California
- Contact:
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
I know passing has been jacked forever
(Intercept before pass roll, odd angles of "circular distance on a square grid from an angle, inside the passing range ect)
at a 45degree angle one could argue that the Interceptor is closer by absolute distance (easier to see at such an angle)
xxxxxxxxT
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxRIxxxxxxx
and with the range ruler and all it gets real squrelily if the Interceptor is next to the Passer
For cleanness, ease of play, BETTER PLAYER EXPERIENCE, (there is no realism in the game so lets try to stay out of that as tackle zones making it harder already account for the guy being next to you making it harder to catch) I personally think it SHOULD be
TTTTTTTT
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
RRRRRRR
not
TITITITITITI
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RIRIRIRIRIRIRI
ahhhh
thought on next to reasoning
you may NEVER attempt to intercept a handoff
the players are next to each other and it accounts for tackle zones for the catch the potential Interceptor is right there
ITI
RII
-2 to catch why no Interception attempt BECAUSE ALL OF THE INTERCEPTION RULES ARE NOT SATISFIED (and it is a hand off action not a pass action)
(Intercept before pass roll, odd angles of "circular distance on a square grid from an angle, inside the passing range ect)
at a 45degree angle one could argue that the Interceptor is closer by absolute distance (easier to see at such an angle)
xxxxxxxxT
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxRIxxxxxxx
and with the range ruler and all it gets real squrelily if the Interceptor is next to the Passer
For cleanness, ease of play, BETTER PLAYER EXPERIENCE, (there is no realism in the game so lets try to stay out of that as tackle zones making it harder already account for the guy being next to you making it harder to catch) I personally think it SHOULD be
TTTTTTTT
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
RRRRRRR
not
TITITITITITI
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RIRIRIRIRIRIRI
ahhhh
thought on next to reasoning
you may NEVER attempt to intercept a handoff
the players are next to each other and it accounts for tackle zones for the catch the potential Interceptor is right there
ITI
RII
-2 to catch why no Interception attempt BECAUSE ALL OF THE INTERCEPTION RULES ARE NOT SATISFIED (and it is a hand off action not a pass action)
Reason: ''
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Yeah, I think you've emphasised the less important bit thereBECAUSE ALL OF THE INTERCEPTION RULES ARE NOT SATISFIED (and it is a hand off action not a pass action)
Reason: ''
-
- Super Star
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:21 pm
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Tip, use the code tags for asciiart:
You will have to use preview a lot, or copy paste from an editor with fixed font or tweak the edit box (force it to use fixed font). But at least the result will look clearer.
Code: Select all
TTTTTTTT
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
RRRRRRR
xxxxxxxxT
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxRIxxxxxxx
Reason: ''
-
- Legend
- Posts: 5334
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
- Location: Copenhagen
- Contact:
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Isn't that just the CRP rules?
I doesn't say to measure in Squares. It's "closer" in actual distance.
I doesn't say to measure in Squares. It's "closer" in actual distance.
Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
- Vanguard
- Super Star
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:27 am
- Location: Glasgow
- Contact:
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
For the sake of argument, I'd say no. By absolute distance (direct line from centre of square to centre of square as implied by Throwing rules) the the interceptor is closer to the Thrower. However, if you decide that squares is the unit of measurement then both the Catcher and the Interceptor are two squares away from the Thrower.mawph wrote: xxT
xxx
xRIWhether board or template, the scenario I've highlighted red has I closer to T than R surely? When using the throwing chart, you have a set number of squares forward, which then influences how many lateral squares you can throw the thing.Vanguard wrote: This all depends on how you are measuring distance for the purposes of closer. In the second example the Interceptor is closer to the thrower by absolute distance. However, if you're counting squares then they're both equidistant from the Thrower.
Normally I'd argue that the base measurement in a squares-based board game is squares. However, Throwing in Blood Bowl is already an oddity in that way in that it ignores the board and uses a template.
So I'm agreeing with Loki here that the range ruler would be the measuring reference but it's not explicitly clear.
The only time that the lateral squares doesn't matter is when moving.
Going back to the original post, I don't believe anything has changed from CRP rules.
Reason: ''
- Wifflebat
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:56 pm
- Location: Ohio, USA
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Rules-wise, it doesn't seem like anything has changed since the last time you guys had this conversation:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=29833
(In which measurements were to be based on distance, not squares as if you were moving)
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=29833
(In which measurements were to be based on distance, not squares as if you were moving)
Reason: ''
I was Puzzlemonkey, but now I'm Wifflebat. Please forward my mail...
- lunchmoney
- Legend
- Posts: 8892
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:59 pm
- Location: The Dark Future
Re: Interceptions totally different now?!?
Which has been stated several times, now.Wifflebat wrote:Rules-wise, it doesn't seem like anything has changed since the last time you guys had this conversation....
Reason: ''
Hired Goon for the NAF (rep for South West England)
lunchmoneybb@gmail.com
TOs! You do not need multiple copies of rosters. It's a waste of paper.
Bribe level: good coffee.
#FlingNation find me on page 95
lunchmoneybb@gmail.com
TOs! You do not need multiple copies of rosters. It's a waste of paper.
Bribe level: good coffee.
#FlingNation find me on page 95