| Author |
Message |
Doubleskulls |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Mar 20, 2009 - 11:41 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I wouldn't fix it because it isn't broken. What is unclear, ambiguous or contradictory in the rules?
A stunty with thick skull is KO'd on a 7, Stunned on a 8 and Badly Hurt (or cas) on a 9.
Its just an oddity that a lower value gives a worse result - so an opponent could elect not to use Mighty Blow for example. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Frantic |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 21, 2009 - 01:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Sweden
Posts: 252
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skinhead |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 21, 2009 - 01:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
|
oh okay, it's meant to be that way?
well then there isn't anything to fix. it just seems odd. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 22, 2009 - 09:57 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Skinhead wrote: oh okay, it's meant to be that way? Yes its meant to be that way.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Skinhead |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 23, 2009 - 01:43 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
|
Interesting.
Why did you make it that way? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 23, 2009 - 02:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| Because I imagine if they made it work the "expected" way, it would a) add more lines to the rulebook, and b) be an exception, when one of the goals of lRB5 was to remove as many exceptions as possible. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Skinhead |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 24, 2009 - 09:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
|
The purpose of the rewording is to make a casualty resulting from the stunty skill only badly hurt right?
The fact that the current wording also means that a stunty with thick skill is stunned on an 8 and KO'd on a 7 is merely a side effect of that wording isn't it?
That is basically what i am trying to find out here. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2009 - 02:34 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Skinhead wrote: The purpose of the rewording is to make a casualty resulting from the stunty skill only badly hurt right?
The fact that the current wording also means that a stunty with thick skill is stunned on an 8 and KO'd on a 7 is merely a side effect of that wording isn't it?
That is basically what i am trying to find out here. Its a side effect yes ... but its a side effect we were completely aware of when we made the change. BBRC discussed it and at the end of the day ... the concept that a high roll HAS to result in a worse result isn't anywhere in the rulebook. Its also matches % wise the fact that Thick Skull on a Stunty just doesn't work as well as on a normal player. So is it a side effect ... yes ... but its one that was known about up front and worked for us. There is no rule conflict with it.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Skinhead |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2009 - 04:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
