| Author |
Message |
mikeyc222 |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 01:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
| well, if you had bought the 2002 annual then you would have it written and documented. since you didn't(apparently) then you are playing by incorrect/house ruled rules(depending on how you look at it). |
_________________
Because everything in life is just another Dumb Distraction!
http://www.dumbdistraction.com
Free the West Memphis 3!
http://www.wm3.org
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 01:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
The most recent LRB is supposed to be all that you need to play the game. That's what we've always been told. The annual is often outdated before it's even out. Currently, the rules don't include the FAQs you're mentioning.
And even if they did, that FAQ would contradict the rulebook and you'd have to pick one rule and reject the other, no matter how you look at it. I choose to reject the FAQ, you choose to reject the rulebook. You and i are doing the same thing.
There's one thing i despise above all else in Blood Bowl. It's not unbalanced rules, though they come close. What i really hate is FAQs that directly contradict what the rulebook says, without changing the rules in the book. If they want a rule changed, they should do it in there. Piling on + multiple block is an example, and this is another. There are more. In all cases, you have to either pick the rulebook or the FAQs, because they're in contradiction so it's impossible to pick both. In all cases, i'll use the rule in the book. If they want the rule changed, then they should change it there and get rid of the contradiction. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 01:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
well, actually the FAQ doesn't contradict the rule. the rule in the current LRB makes no consession for the ball going out of bounds. the FAQ addresses this, otherwise there would be no need or cofusion in the matter. to you it makes more sense to try and scatter the ball back in bounds, to me it makes more sense to not try and scatter where there are no squares. in this case the BBRC agreed with me and ruled back in the 2001 RR...which brings me to point 2. show me ONE place where it says that a FAQ clarification is null and void because a new FAQ came out that doesn't even address the topic. and yes, in theory, the current LRB is supposed to be all you ever need to play but come on. how often is that the case?
i agree that the rule changes and clarifications SHOULD be put into the rulebook with the next available version but haven't we been asking for a totally rewritten rulebook for a couple of years now?
anyway, the point is, the last time any official clarification/change was brought up about the rule, it said to stop rolling if the ball scattered out of bounds.
it's perfectly OK to house rule it but it's a little silly to tell members of the BBRC that they are wrong and you are right when they make the freakin rules. |
_________________
Because everything in life is just another Dumb Distraction!
http://www.dumbdistraction.com
Free the West Memphis 3!
http://www.wm3.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 02:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
Most of your better board games/RPGs nowadays you can download the rules, errats or FAQs. If you're lucky enough has a message board where you can ask questions. I know it can be a pain in the beautox to keep up and it would be wonderful if the updates were all in one place. The great thing about most games are house rules but you need to be careful. If you teach a new player incorrectly it may come back to haunt them if they play at an official event.
Also, the few games I have found that does post erratas/FAQs for the game, BB is about the only one that does a yearly online update of their rule book.
With all the talk of posting the older FAQs along with the newer ones maybe the editors this year will just put the FAQs in the back of the LRB. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 02:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
mtn_bike wrote: With all the talk of posting the older FAQs along with the newer ones maybe the editors this year will just put the FAQs in the back of the LRB.
that would be a great addition but personally i am hoping for an all new rulebook with ALL of the confusing elements removed/changed. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 03:30 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
One: The FAQs should always override the rules. The whole point of the FAQ is that people find a piece of the rules confusing, and the FAQs are there to clarify.
For example: If I am scattering the ball 3 times because of an inaccurate pass and it scatters somewhere there is no square (OOB), what do I do? Do I keep rolling and pretend that there are squares there? Or do I just treat it as out of bounds? That was a Frequently Asked Question once upon a time, and it has been answered.
Two: That the older FAQs haven't been rolled into one big documen is a Bad Thing, but it doesn't invalidate the nature of the ruling. The LRB is free, yet it is created by someone getting paid. It is a money sink for GW (or whoever), and so gets low priority.
Three: IIRC, Jervis has veto power over the BBRC. I might be wrong about that, and it seems like bloodbowl.com is MIA today, so I can't even look into that. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 04:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: The most recent LRB is supposed to be all that you need to play the game. That's what we've always been told. The annual is often outdated before it's even out. Currently, the rules don't include the FAQs you're mentioning.
Actually, it was the LRB and the latest annual, but seeing as they haven't added the FAQ's to the LRB yet, it would have to be both of them [annuals].
And c'mon Zombie, you've been told by 2 BBRC members that the RR 2001 was correct in that the ball stops scattering as soon as it goes out of play. If you want to houserule it that you continue to count squares all power to you, in fact that's a house rule I'd happily live with, but that's what it is, a house rule. The official rule is as soon as a scatter takes it out of bounds you stop there.
As for the FAQ's not being valid because their not in the LRB - I'm sorry, that just makes you sound like someone desperately trying to find a way out of being wrong. Yes, they should all be online on the GW site; yes, they should have been/dhould be added to the LRB; but as someone said, GW is under no obligation to even produce the LRB, so if they decide not to "waste" time on updating it, that invalidates the whole reason for the BBRC? Does that mean you'll ignore the cahnges to WA/PO if they don't make an LRB 3.0 any time soon? |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 23, 2004 - 04:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Don'tget me started on the changes to piling on. It's all right, if you don't mind not seeing a single player with the skill ever again. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 03:28 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: Where is the rule written? It isn't in any document i have and isn't available anywhere on the internet. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll forget to add it to the pack when they finally do add the FAQs to the rules.
Presumably (I don't have it to hand) it ought to be the in 2002 Annual. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 03:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: Where is the rule written? It isn't in any document i have and isn't available anywhere on the internet. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll forget to add it to the pack when they finally do add the FAQs to the rules.
http://membres.lycos.fr/asbbowl/download/
And yes, it's in the 2002 Annual. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 07:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: Don'tget me started on the changes to piling on. It's all right, if you don't mind not seeing a single player with the skill ever again.
Again, not true. Claw plus Piling on is better than the old piling on alone, most of the time. But I digress... |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 08:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: So where are the "many things that do happen in real life that cannot take place during a BB pass action"?
I think that you are just being deliberately unimaginative here. There are a whole variety of things that happen in real life that obviously could never happen on the BB field. They may be accounted for overall in the mechanics, but they still don't occur. We're talking a whole variety of deflections, passes that go way too short, or too long (more than the equivalent of 3 squares scatter), 2 players catching the ball and ending up in a tug-of-war for it. A player going for an interception missing, falling over and as a result neither distracting nor marking the eventual receiver.
Quote: Players on the passing team not being able to try for an intercept.
This was a mechanistic way of describing a player trying to catch a pass that was meant for a teammate further along the flight trajectory. Technically an interception as the pass was not aimed at him.
I don't really want to write an essay on the subject, so I'll leave it there.
Oh, and the idea of having more than one player allowed to try for interceptions really will put people off anything other than a safe pass. One player with a 1/6 chance of an intercept is fine with me, but four or five? Forget that! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 10:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 07:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
pfooti wrote: Zombie wrote: Don't get me started on the changes to piling on. It's all right, if you don't mind not seeing a single player with the skill ever again.
Again, not true. Claw plus Piling on is better than the old piling on alone, most of the time. But I digress...
Only players with claw can use the new piling on with any kind of consistency. The only other times when the skill has better chances of helping you than hurting you is when you have mighty blow and the opponent has AV7, or when the opponent has AV6 or less. And even then, it's only slightly more often useful than harmful. It's a waste of a skill now unless you have claw or mighty blow and jump up. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2004 - 07:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Mordredd wrote: Oh, and the idea of having more than one player allowed to try for interceptions really will put people off anything other than a safe pass. One player with a 1/6 chance of an intercept is fine with me, but four or five? Forget that!
It would increase the value of safe throw, an underused skill at the moment. It would also increase the frequency of interceptions, which i thought was what people wanted after all? Heck, they have a dumb rule that's impossible to explain to a newbie (intercept before passing) just to increase interceptions by tops 20%. Drop the dumb rule and allow for more than one interception, that might solve your problem right there. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
