Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Blood Bowl: Team Manager – The Card Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Morg 'N Thorg rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Speed Racer
msg tools
Moving this over from the other thread, because I'm curious how others read this and/or play(ed) it, and it's diverged pretty far from its thread's title:



"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." (page 16)

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 rulebook wording (above) says something different, since "committing a player to a matchup" is a clearly defined (on page 9 and onward) action.

Meaning, 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."

Furthermore (for another 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 "is considered 'moved,' not 'committed'").

Similarly, if Manager A commits the first copy of Morg 'N Thorg to Highlight 1 and then Manager B commits his copy of Morg 'N Thorg to Highlight 2, Manager B could then move his copy to Highlight 1, since he is not committing his copy to Highlight 1 (which is what is explicitly prevented by the Morg 'N Thorg rule).



I'm willing to believe this was not the intention of the designers (which is why I'd probably be okay with the house rule), but the wording of the rulebook seems clear enough to me, and certainly playable.

The only thing that I might consider contradictory to my interpretation above is (again) on page 16, under "Abilities Based On Winning or Losing":

"Note: A manager must commit at least one player to a matchup in order to be considered either the winner or the loser."

This could lead to some quirkiness and questions if a manager only has a "moved" player (into an open team zone) and never committed a player to the matchup.



My best guess is that there was originally no such thing as a player at a matchup who had not been committed there, but then the "moving" cards were introduced and the language was never updated in a few instances.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Garramone
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would concur with your observation that the spirit of the rule would be that Morg N' Thorg could not be at the same match-up, period, even though the wording of the rules seems to make it seem that technically he could if he was "moved", because he wasn't "committed". A technical loophole to be sure. I would just house-rule it, but you don't like house-rules---lol
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The difference between moving and committing is that you don;t go through the skill set and abilities a second time when you move them. But the intent is that Morg N Thorg cannot have 2 copies at the same match-up no matter how they got there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Speed Racer
msg tools
ColtsFan76 wrote:
The difference between moving and committing is that you don;t go through the skill set and abilities a second time when you move them. But the intent is that Morg N Thorg cannot have 2 copies at the same match-up no matter how they got there.

It's partly because there is this established difference between "moving" and "committing" that the rule for Morg 'N Thorg (as written) fails to achieve this intent, but I'll lean towards playing it as "The two copies of Morg 'N Thorg are never allowed to be present at the same matchup" and hope the FAQ says something similar.

(Admittedly, after my first read through the rulebook, I took it in the house rule way. It was only after reading it again that I realized it was rather specifically—and apparently mistakenly—saying something else.)

Thank you!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Speed_Racer wrote:
"Note: A manager must commit at least one player to a matchup in order to be considered either the winner or the loser."

This could lead to some quirkiness and questions if a manager only has a "moved" player (into an open team zone) and never committed a player to the matchup.


*sigh* It's so annoying that FFG writes stuff like this. Obviously they mean a manager must "have" at least one player at the conclusion of a matchup to be considered the winner or loser. What difference does it make (in theme or game balance) as far as how or when the player got there?

As worded, if I "commit" a player, I can now be the winner or loser, even if my player is knocked off the pitch before the end.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Speed Racer
msg tools
Rubric wrote:
Speed_Racer wrote:
"Note: A manager must commit at least one player to a matchup in order to be considered either the winner or the loser."

This could lead to some quirkiness and questions if a manager only has a "moved" player (into an open team zone) and never committed a player to the matchup.


*sigh* It's so annoying that FFG writes stuff like this. Obviously they mean a manager must "have" at least one player at the conclusion of a matchup to be considered the winner or loser. What difference does it make (in theme or game balance) as far as how or when the player got there?

As worded, if I "commit" a player, I can now be the winner or loser, even if my player is knocked off the pitch before the end.


Agreed on the annoyance, but the rulebook has more than one statement (page 10 has two of them) that one of the manager's players must be present during the Scoreboard phase in order to get the payouts, so I disagree with your "as worded" conclusion. It doesn't say "A person who commits one player to a matchup is automatically considered a winner or loser," it just says it's a requirement (not necessarily the only one) for consideration.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Keesvanloomacklin wrote:
I would concur with your observation that the spirit of the rule would be that Morg N' Thorg could not be at the same match-up, period, even though the wording of the rules seems to make it seem that technically he could if he was "moved", because he wasn't "committed". A technical loophole to be sure. I would just house-rule it, but you don't like house-rules---lol
Then consider this possibility:
Player A commits MNT at Highlight 1.
Player A moves MNT from Highlight 1 to Highlight 2.
Player B holds MNT#2...

I'd say MNT#2 has no business in either Highlight 1 or Highlight 2 playing for two differents teams in he same highlight. (It would mean MNT switched teams in the middle of the action.)
It sounds pretty rare to be able to occur, but you'll never know!
 
 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.