MX Stanson
msg tools
I play 2 players to a matchup, one is injured during card play and the other is tossed out for cheating in the scoreboard phase. I have participated in the matchup and lost in my mind (thereby earning the loser's spoils), but others say you must have a player remaining on the field during the actual scoring of the match (which takes place after ejection for cheating is done) to get credit for the loss.

Is there a rule that clarifies this in the rulebook (obviously I can't find one)?

Also, Skaven upgrade gives them 2 fans in a loss. Is coming in second in a tournament considered a loss?

TIA

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron Hawkins
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
The game has no memory mechanic.
Thus, if your players are injured/ejected, you do not get the losing spoils. At the end of the week, your presence (or lack thereof) at the match-up is the same as any other coach who doesn't have any players there.


Coming in second at a tournament is considered a loss in a 2-player game, because you get the "Lose" spoils for the tournament. Being the Runner-Up in the 3-4 player game does not make you the loser, and therefore you have not lost the match-up.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal U
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
The rules even say that a runner up in 3-4player game is a winner.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Speed Racer
msg tools
Quote:
The game has no memory mechanic.


I have to disagree with this, at least when it comes to Morg 'N Thorg:

"If one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup, no other manager can commit another copy of Morg 'N Thorg to that same matchup."

The spirit of the rule would seem to be "The two copies of Morg 'N Thorg are never allowed to be present at the same matchup" (and if somebody wanted to house rule it that way, I might be okay with it—which is exceptional, because I usually despise house rules), but the wording pretty clearly implies a memory mechanic to me.

That is (for example), if Manager A commits his Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney and someone injures him, Manager B still could not commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney. Because once "one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup, NO OTHER MANAGER CAN COMMIT ANOTHER COPY . . . TO THAT SAME MATCHUP." Thus, we have a memory mechanic.

Furthermore (for the other example), the rules regarding "Moving a Committed player to a Different Matchup" state:

"There are some abilities that allow managers to move a player committed to a matchup to a different matchup. If a manager resolves this ability, the player is considered 'moved,' not 'committed.'"

Therefore, if Manager A were to commit his Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney and then move Morg 'N Thorg from the Blood Bowl Tourney to Highlight 1, Manager B could still not commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl Tourney, but COULD commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to Highlight 1 (because Manager A's Morg 'N Thorg clearly was not committed to Highlight 1, he was just "moved" there). Thus, a memory mechanic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Speed_Racer wrote:
Quote:
The game has no memory mechanic.


I have to disagree with this, at least when it comes to Morg 'N Thorg:

"If one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup, no other manager can commit another copy of Morg 'N Thorg to that same matchup."

The spirit of the rule would seem to be "The two copies of Morg 'N Thorg are never allowed to be present at the same matchup" (and if somebody wanted to house rule it that way, I might be okay with it—which is exceptional, because I usually despise house rules), but the wording pretty clearly implies a memory mechanic to me.

That is (for example), if Manager A commits his Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney and someone injures him, Manager B still could not commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney. Because once "one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup, NO OTHER MANAGER CAN COMMIT ANOTHER COPY . . . TO THAT SAME MATCHUP." Thus, we have a memory mechanic.

Furthermore (for the other example), the rules regarding "Moving a Committed player to a Different Matchup" state:

"There are some abilities that allow managers to move a player committed to a matchup to a different matchup. If a manager resolves this ability, the player is considered 'moved,' not 'committed.'"

Therefore, if Manager A were to commit his Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney and then move Morg 'N Thorg from the Blood Bowl Tourney to Highlight 1, Manager B could still not commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl Tourney, but COULD commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to Highlight 1 (because Manager A's Morg 'N Thorg clearly was not committed to Highlight 1, he was just "moved" there). Thus, a memory mechanic.


The intent is that while Morg 'N Thorg is a star player that gets around and plays for many, many teams, he can't play in the same game for two teams. So no memory is needed. If you want to play him at match-up A and there is the other copy already there for the other team, you can't. If you play yours to match-up B then the other player can't move his copy to match-up B but you both could move him to match-up C or D (but not both to the same match-up).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Speed Racer
msg tools
dlhammond wrote:
Speed_Racer wrote:
Quote:
The game has no memory mechanic.


I have to disagree with this, at least when it comes to Morg 'N Thorg:

"If one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup, no other manager can commit another copy of Morg 'N Thorg to that same matchup."

The spirit of the rule would seem to be "The two copies of Morg 'N Thorg are never allowed to be present at the same matchup" (and if somebody wanted to house rule it that way, I might be okay with it—which is exceptional, because I usually despise house rules), but the wording pretty clearly implies a memory mechanic to me.

That is (for example), if Manager A commits his Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney and someone injures him, Manager B still could not commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney. Because once "one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup, NO OTHER MANAGER CAN COMMIT ANOTHER COPY . . . TO THAT SAME MATCHUP." Thus, we have a memory mechanic.

Furthermore (for the other example), the rules regarding "Moving a Committed player to a Different Matchup" state:

"There are some abilities that allow managers to move a player committed to a matchup to a different matchup. If a manager resolves this ability, the player is considered 'moved,' not 'committed.'"

Therefore, if Manager A were to commit his Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl tourney and then move Morg 'N Thorg from the Blood Bowl Tourney to Highlight 1, Manager B could still not commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to the Blood Bowl Tourney, but COULD commit his own Morg 'N Thorg to Highlight 1 (because Manager A's Morg 'N Thorg clearly was not committed to Highlight 1, he was just "moved" there). Thus, a memory mechanic.


The intent is that while Morg 'N Thorg is a star player that gets around and plays for many, many teams, he can't play in the same game for two teams. So no memory is needed. If you want to play him at match-up A and there is the other copy already there for the other team, you can't. If you play yours to match-up B then the other player can't move his copy to match-up B but you both could move him to match-up C or D (but not both to the same match-up).


As I already wrote, I agree that that seems to be the intent, but the rules as written pretty clearly spell it out otherwise, do they not? He cannot be committed by two different coaches to the same matchup (page 16). What it means to "commit a player to a matchup" is well defined (starting on page 9). Moving is not committing (page 16). And I don't know why the rule would be written as "If one manager commits Morg 'N Thorg to a matchup" instead of "If one copy of Morg 'N Thorg is present at a matchup" (or something similar) if his presence is what matters and not his committal.

But as for "intent," basing it on committal still makes some sense as far as removal by injury is concerned. How is his playing for team A at matchup A, getting injured, and then playing for team B at matchup A (being the second copy, committed by the opposing coach in the injury-induced absence of the first copy) not "play[ing] in the same game for two teams"?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Speed_Racer wrote:
But as for "intent," basing it on committal still makes some sense as far as removal by injury is concerned. How is his playing for team A at matchup A, getting injured, and then playing for team B at matchup A (being the second copy, committed by the opposing coach in the injury-induced absence of the first copy) not "play[ing] in the same game for two teams"?

I honestly think it's just slightly sloppy wording. I guess we can wait for the FAQ to know for sure, but I'll continue playing it the way Daniel outlined in the meanwhile.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CJ
Germany
Herford
flag msg tools
mb
Speed_Racer wrote:
But as for "intent," basing it on committal still makes some sense as far as removal by injury is concerned. How is his playing for team A at matchup A, getting injured, and then playing for team B at matchup A (being the second copy, committed by the opposing coach in the injury-induced absence of the first copy) not "play[ing] in the same game for two teams"?


You're reading too much into this. Bloodbowl is thematically a game about cheating and dirty tactics. I agree that the wording of the rulebook is sub-optimal but be careful about allowing that to overly influence you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris G
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If Morg'n Thorg exists at a matchup you can't commit the other one to the same matchup. But if you injure him and remove him, he's no longer at that matchup so you can commit yours now. There is no memory. Likewise if you have no players left at a matchup due to injury or cheating then you get nothing for participating in that matchup.

Also coming in 2nd during a 3/4 player tourney does not count as a loss.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Speed Racer
msg tools
kryyst wrote:
If Morg'n Thorg exists at a matchup you can't commit the other one to the same matchup.

So you could move the other one to the same matchup?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Cormier
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Blood Bowl: Team Manager – The Card Game » Forums » Rules
Re: Scoreboard and injured / ejected players and skaven loss
Misreal wrote:

Is there a rule that clarifies this in the rulebook (obviously I can't find one)?

Also, Skaven upgrade gives them 2 fans in a loss. Is coming in second in a tournament considered a loss?



To get back to the original questions for the OP..

Page 13 - Collect Payouts

Under tournament payouts it states "All other managers who have at least one player at the tournament collect the LOSE payout"

And the last paragraph (applies to all matchups) "When only one team has players at a matchup that team's manager collects all payouts shown on the card instead of collecting the payout for his team zone."

So at any matchup, if you don't have a player there during the scoreboard phase you don't get the payout.




Page 16 "Abilities Based on Winning or Losing" explains that both the winner and runner up are considered Winners. Managers who collect the LOSE payout are considered losers.

If there are only 2 teams at the tournament then there is no runner-up and the 2nd place team collects the LOSE payout (pg 16, Tournament Payouts).

So if the skaven were one of only 2 teams at the tourney they'd be considered a loser. If there were more than 2 teams, they'd be the 'runner up' and be able to activate any "winner" abilities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.