|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
In QF4-2 at the Las Vegas Regional 2007, a red human player threw a ringer onto a spider leg that 79 had already scored a keeper on.
Red won that match 40-32 and forced match 3. If the human player had instead thrown the ringer onto another ringer, Red would have lost.
01-04-2007 19:53
The Lucas
Same thing happened to us in Philly. I forget which match it was. We placed a keeper on the low row and a HP throw bounced on the same spider leg (I didn't see it bounce but I was told it did). It also was part of a big row and determined the match as a win for our alliance.
01-04-2007 20:08
triggerhappy336|
Same thing happened to us in Philly. I forget which match it was. We placed a keeper on the low row and a HP throw bounced on the same spider leg (I didn't see it bounce but I was told it did). It also was part of a big row and determined the match as a win for our alliance.
|
01-04-2007 20:11
Vogel648Keepers can't be negated.
01-04-2007 20:15
EricH
|
Wait, what am I missing. I thought a ringer put on a leg occupied by the same alliance keeper negated the leg?
|
01-04-2007 20:22
triggerhappy336That's what I thought, but I'm still trying to figure it out. How is it an advantage then to put a ringer over a keeper?
01-04-2007 20:23
triggerhappy336Wow, nevermind. I completely misread the original comment. I thought it said that the round was won because he threw it on the keeper instead of another leg. My bad.
01-04-2007 20:23
The Lucas
|
Wait, what am I missing. I thought a ringer put on a leg occupied by the same alliance keeper negated the leg?
|