Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » General Discussion » General Chat




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:45 pm 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:53 pm
Posts: 1142
Location: Chorley, where the police tazer blind people rather than look for the actual sword wielding lunatic
The cards are optional.

_________________

"It´s better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Erick Wujcik


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:01 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star

Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:12 am
Posts: 1595
Not optional - extra rules (like loads of 'standard' rules) :-)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:07 am 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:59 pm
Posts: 1579
stashman wrote:
Not optional - extra rules (like loads of 'standard' rules) :-)


Indeed, everyone seem to understand this apart from the guy above. We've been through this before in another thread too. In fact here is the quote from the previous thread to back this up.

In short though - 'Extra Rules' are not "Optional Rules" There is a BIG difference. Extra rules are the slightly more advanced than basic rules that EVERYONE uses to play the game.

garion wrote:
Quote:
EXTRA RULES
All of the following extra rules are optional. This means that both coaches must agree which extra rules (if any) they are going to use before the match starts. However, they are all highly recommended and you’ll find that using them provides an even more exciting and interesting game without slowing down the mayhem and destruction much at all! Give ’em a try!


This quote which JYT keeps talking about precedes all player costing, kick off table, star players, the weather, going for it, handing off the ball. All the player skills. So please stop with the cop out replies. We all use all everything in the aforementioned list as part of the core rules.

After the rule book we have DZ 1 - after the team rosters which in JYTs opinion are option rules apparently, we have in block letters along the top of the page -NEW OFFICIAL RULES, on this page there are a number of quotes I could pull from this page if I was so inclined, that point at the things from rule book 1 Extra Rules section that have to be followed to use these NEW OFFICIAL RULES.

Then after this section another clear delineation for OPTIONAL LEAGUE RULES and it clearly states - free fan factor is one of these OPTIONAL rules. Thus not a core rule.

Lets take a look at the new book again DZ2 it clearly separates "NEW OPTIONAL RULES" from the rest of the rules. There is a very clear and deliberate delineation here. Then after the "NEW OPTIONAL RULES" it says "NEW RULES" where it has more core inducement rules.

This delineation is true throughout each LRB and 2016 edition. There are the core rules, which i would describe as the recommended way to play the core game and standard leagues.

As you can see above there is a clear separation of the 'optional rules'.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:29 am 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:53 pm
Posts: 1142
Location: Chorley, where the police tazer blind people rather than look for the actual sword wielding lunatic
Honestly I understand perfectly well. The cards are optional. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Cards, IP, 4 minute turns, they are all optional.

Quote:
EXTRA RULES
All of the following extra rules are optional...

_________________

"It´s better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Erick Wujcik


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:39 am 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 971
garion wrote:
stashman wrote:
Not optional - extra rules (like loads of 'standard' rules) :-)


Indeed, everyone seem to understand this apart from the guy above. We've been through this before in another thread too. In fact here is the quote from the previous thread to back this up.

In short though - 'Extra Rules' are not "Optional Rules" There is a BIG difference. Extra rules are the slightly more advanced than basic rules that EVERYONE uses to play the game.


Enh, I'm going to disagree with you on several levels.

First of all, I don't consider the game to be better, more fun, or more strategic to play without cards. I think they add an unknown element that a good coach needs to be aware of and strategically try to minimize the impact of. I played for years with the 3rd Edition cards, which are far more powerful than the current versions, when they were just part of the game. I find their inclusion in the current rules very well balanced (if you use the optional Special Play Card rules, which I always would.) I recognize that there are a lot of people who don't like them, but it's a fallacy to say that's true across the board.

Second, as you've kindly quoted already, all of the "extra rules" come with the clause that they are "optional" and must be agreed upon by both coaches. Of course, leagues or tournaments can modify this clause to either restrict or enforce their usage, but by default, if one coach objects to it, you would play the game without them. This is true of all of the other rules in the "Extra" rules as well -- as you mention, most of them are uncontroversial and are assumed to be accepted on both sides, but the rules as written do allow for any of them to be negated if one or the other coach doesn't want to play with them. (Of course, this may mean the other coach cancels the game entirely -- but to say they aren't optional just because "everyone uses them" isn't strictly accurate.)

That said, your point is reasonable: I agree with you that the rules should be clearer about what is core, standard, extra, and optional rules. Of course, it's too late to change in the BB2016 rulebook, DZ1 or DZ2, but I'll keep it in mind when other rulebooks are worked on by the playtest group and try to get the group to make these clearer.

_________________
Milo


Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:34 pm 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:15 pm
Posts: 120
Can we not having pissing contest over the relative merits of the cards (old system was fine) and help with the original query?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:45 pm 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 971
fanglord13 wrote:
Can we not having pissing contest over the relative merits of the cards (old system was fine) and help with the original query?


You mean, your request to have us share copyrighted information with you? I'm sorry, but I personally do not feel comfortable with doing that, regardless of whether or not the cards were including in the rules before.

_________________
Milo


Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:49 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:10 am
Posts: 1735
Location: Bristol, UK
Milo wrote:
fanglord13 wrote:
Can we not having pissing contest over the relative merits of the cards (old system was fine) and help with the original query?


You mean, your request to have us share copyrighted information with you? I'm sorry, but I personally do not feel comfortable with doing that, regardless of whether or not the cards were including in the rules before.

+1

_________________
Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana.
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:39 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:13 pm
Posts: 1688
Location: Cambridge
Milo wrote:
Second, as you've kindly quoted already, all of the "extra rules" come with the clause that they are "optional" and must be agreed upon by both coaches. Of course, leagues or tournaments can modify this clause to either restrict or enforce their usage, but by default, if one coach objects to it, you would play the game without them.


I find arguments like this at the edges of the debate difficult to sympathise with. Yes, strictly speaking, by default and playing rigidly by the book, one coach could nope any of the 'extra rules'. But in reality, until cards reappeared in this section of the rulebook, when has that ever happened to anyone? By that logic, I as a Khemri coach can veto (for instance) the weather table or handoffs because I’m playing against High Elves and I like them moving the ball on 2+ little and the rain troubling my pickups even less. But (to Garion's point), no-one does that, it's not a thing.

As a hardcore Blood Bowl nerd who has been around for a few editions, I looked at the presentation and positioning of cards in the rule book(s) when they arrived and drew exactly the same conclusion as Garion. JT-Y’s logic of ‘cards are optional’ would be absolutely fine with me if everything in that section was practically treated in the same way, or if the term ‘optional’ in BB rules discussion wasn’t a loose pseudonym for ‘it gets a bit funky in this section at the back, guys, we’re getting away from standard now’. When someone says ‘optional’, you think home stadium or picking your own MVP, not GFIs or assisting a block. Of course, there are a vast number of people that have bought BB2016 that are not hardcore Blood Bowl nerds, and the leagues and games they participate in will likely have bespoke rulesets (we’ll never see) that cherry pick whatever they like from the rules and add in whatever they’ve made up on top. With that in mind, the argument ‘cards are optional’ (or 'all extra rules are optional') sort of works, but it's hardly strong.

I can see why cards exist. I think some players like a bit of randomisation, perhaps there is an argument newer players are drawn in by crazy things happening, they’re creative and fluffy, they’re collectables, they're revenue streams… There are a lot of good points to them. However, I would guess there are significantly more experienced BB coaches (whatever that means to you) that dislike the game becoming more random than those that welcome card effects. Garion is right, the game becomes less strategic when the cards are in play by default; whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of taste. ‘Cards used to be a thing’ is an argument I’ve seen elsewhere, but so did a lot of things. BB has matured to a really good spot where skill, strategy and luck have struck an uneasy balance that is largely successful, cards (in my opinion) are an unwelcome addition to that equation. They’re fine as inducements, no argument there, underdogs getting a welcome, impactful surprise is a decent mechanic. But every game, as standard? And that’s before you get into what the card rules actually are; the box is different to DZ 1 is different to an optional (there’s that word again) document on the website; even if you have it all infront of you it’s not super clear. I think it safest to assume that the majority of people that bought BB2016 are playing with the decks from the base box to the base box rules, not everyone is driven to keep up with iterations as they arrive over different formats. And that is…. Well. Going to produce some mental Blood Bowl. I'd love to know how I can strategically minimise Blackmail and it's ilk happening multiple times, every game.

Local ‘not in the system’ leagues can happily do as they please with universal blessing. The unease comes when you’re playing in a large, perhaps national or international (perhaps online) league or tournament. In such an environment, there is commonly a necessity to resolutely use ‘core’ rules faithful to the book; the thing falls apart when you’re including thing x you like and thing y you don’t because there will always be a percentage of the player base that kicks off at your choice and it spirals out of control (that’s true of some local leagues too, of course. The easy default position for any LC or TO in any dispute is ‘we’ll do as the standard rules say’ because that is a rock solid, inarguable and unbiased position). There has to be an accepted standard, and commonly that is everything but the optional rules. I think that’s why this matters to people; regardless of what is said on the internet about the intent of cards and who says it, those of us that play in those environments are likely going to have to play with cards because of how they sit in print. It surprised me that the NAF have sidestepped using the cards because the principled argument is probably that they should be 'in', but I'm certainly not complaining!

Not having a go at anyone here or being argumentative for the sake of it - cards are just my BB2016 trigger. I think Garion can be a little bit forceful while discussing the rules, but practically he's not wrong here, I don't think.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:56 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:59 pm
Posts: 1579
fanglord13 wrote:
Can we not having pissing contest over the relative merits of the cards (old system was fine) and help with the original query?


Its not a pissing contest, we cant post the rules here. I'm sure if you just chatted to people on discord though someone might be able to give you some short hand info about what they do roughly....

I also think this is good time to offer constructive criticism on the current rule set specifically relating to cards.

Milo wrote:
That said, your point is reasonable: I agree with you that the rules should be clearer about what is core, standard, extra, and optional rules. Of course, it's too late to change in the BB2016 rulebook, DZ1 or DZ2, but I'll keep it in mind when other rulebooks are worked on by the playtest group and try to get the group to make these clearer.


Yes it would be excellent if the rules could be sorted out as they are messy as heck currently.

Basic Rules , Advanced rules which should include all the things I mentioned in my previous post that everyone uses. Player Costs, Rosters, Passing, GFIs, FF, Coaches, Cheerleaders etc.. Then optional which should include things like cards, stadiums. etc...

Basically like things were ordered in CRP.
JT-Y wrote:
Honestly I understand perfectly well. The cards are optional. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Cards, IP, 4 minute turns, they are all optional.


Good, glad that's the case. Now if you can just get the rule book to clarify, currently lumping cards in with Passing does not suggest they are optional, it suggests they are Extra rules or Advanced rules (which imo is a better name). I know Extra rules is prefixed by a sentence declaring they are optional but this is a complete nonsense when passing, GFIs, player costing is included there. So it does need sorting out imo.

Milo wrote:
First of all, I don't consider the game to be better, more fun, or more strategic to play without cards. I think they add an unknown element that a good coach needs to be aware of and strategically try to minimize the impact of. I played for years with the 3rd Edition cards, which are far more powerful than the current versions, when they were just part of the game. I find their inclusion in the current rules very well balanced (if you use the optional Special Play Card rules, which I always would.) I recognize that there are a lot of people who don't like them, but it's a fallacy to say that's true across the board


I also played 3rd ed and the game was a different animal then, it was no where near as balanced then you are comparing apples and oranges really. I also look back on that era with rose tinted specs but really the game has improved massively since then in every sense. Which you will know being a big part of the stream lining for the rule set between 2000 - 2003. At which point lrb3 was in very good shape, and then lrb4 even better.

I'm not saying that everyone likes the game without the cards more some people like the crazy and just enjoy throwing dice. But they are poorly balanced in the current rule set, they were handled better in CRP although still not perfectly. Though instead of building on that good foundation and re-pricing the card like trampoline trap, pit trap etc.. we have been given something completely different more akin to 3rd ed cards. Not only that but the cards were clearly marked as an optional extras in CRP whereas now there is confusion because of the poorly worded Extra Rules section that includes plenty of core rules, and also subsequent rule books clearly say the extra rules are core rules.

I just expect better editing really and better clarity. Again this is nothing personal, I just find this type of thing very concerning. I know this isn't the case, but it sometimes seems as though the people writing the rules just don't know the game that well.

edit: seems as though Purplegoo has Ninja'd me with a more eloquent post


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:00 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star

Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:12 am
Posts: 1595
Milo wrote:
fanglord13 wrote:
Can we not having pissing contest over the relative merits of the cards (old system was fine) and help with the original query?


You mean, your request to have us share copyrighted information with you? I'm sorry, but I personally do not feel comfortable with doing that, regardless of whether or not the cards were including in the rules before.

+49


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:25 pm 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 11:47 pm
Posts: 143
I think the cards are crazy fun.

If you don't like random, go coach a team consisting of pawns, knights, king and queen.
fanglord13 wrote:
Can we not having pissing contest over the relative merits of the cards (old system was fine) and help with the original query?

Normally yes but the complaint about price made me hesitate.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:00 am 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 971
Purplegoo wrote:
Milo wrote:
Second, as you've kindly quoted already, all of the "extra rules" come with the clause that they are "optional" and must be agreed upon by both coaches. Of course, leagues or tournaments can modify this clause to either restrict or enforce their usage, but by default, if one coach objects to it, you would play the game without them.


I find arguments like this at the edges of the debate difficult to sympathise with. Yes, strictly speaking, by default and playing rigidly by the book, one coach could nope any of the 'extra rules'. But in reality, until cards reappeared in this section of the rulebook, when has that ever happened to anyone? By that logic, I as a Khemri coach can veto (for instance) the weather table or handoffs because I’m playing against High Elves and I like them moving the ball on 2+ little and the rain troubling my pickups even less. But (to Garion's point), no-one does that, it's not a thing.


True, most of the other "Extra Rules" (agree with Garion that it could use a name change to "Advanced Rules") are uncontroversial aspects of the game that most people consider as "core game functionality". I'm simply stating that the rules already allow for one coach to veto the cards if they are strongly opposed to them.

Purplegoo wrote:
I can see why cards exist. I think some players like a bit of randomisation, perhaps there is an argument newer players are drawn in by crazy things happening, they’re creative and fluffy, they’re collectables, they're revenue streams… There are a lot of good points to them. However, I would guess there are significantly more experienced BB coaches (whatever that means to you) that dislike the game becoming more random than those that welcome card effects. Garion is right, the game becomes less strategic when the cards are in play by default; whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of taste. ‘Cards used to be a thing’ is an argument I’ve seen elsewhere, but so did a lot of things. BB has matured to a really good spot where skill, strategy and luck have struck an uneasy balance that is largely successful, cards (in my opinion) are an unwelcome addition to that equation. They’re fine as inducements, no argument there, underdogs getting a welcome, impactful surprise is a decent mechanic. But every game, as standard? And that’s before you get into what the card rules actually are; the box is different to DZ 1 is different to an optional (there’s that word again) document on the website; even if you have it all infront of you it’s not super clear. I think it safest to assume that the majority of people that bought BB2016 are playing with the decks from the base box to the base box rules, not everyone is driven to keep up with iterations as they arrive over different formats. And that is…. Well. Going to produce some mental Blood Bowl. I'd love to know how I can strategically minimise Blackmail and it's ilk happening multiple times, every game.


Let me explain what I mean by strategically minimizing the impact of cards, and please forgive me if I use some 3rd Edition card references here -- they are the ones I remember the best and I don't have the new cards in front of me at the moment. There are a number of cards which could allow you to move extra distance, always succeed with difficult blocks, even get an extra blitz on the ball carrier when they step into the end zone. If you know your opponent has a card that could be one of these, you may choose to make extra defensive moves before scoring, and you might not wait until the last turn to score your touchdown. You might choose to avoid the sidelines because your opponent could have a card that has a negative effect for you near the sidelines. Of course, some cards can't be minimized. That's true.

I personally think the cards make for a better narrative experience in Blood Bowl leagues. That's what I play in leagues for -- not just the competition of trying to win, but the stories that come out of individual games and amazing feats or disastrous luck. Of course, in a tournament, a greater emphasis is placed on fair competition -- hence the popular Resurrection format -- and I agree that cards don't have a place in that format. Tournament play is ALL about strategy, and while Nuffle will always bestow his blessing on someone, it's very reasonable to try to minimize the luck factor in those events. But I've yet to see a tournament NOT have a rules pack, and it's very simple for a TO to simply say "no cards are allowed". In fact, most of the time that is part of the pack, and it's no more a significant effort for TOs to say that as for them to explain the resurrection format. I don't see this as a major concern.

In league play, a commissioner should have his finger on the pulse of the league, and should know how his coaches feel about them. Again, I don't know that I've ever seen a local league that doesn't have some level of house rules, and it's simply for a LC to simply say "no cards", as you mention below.

IMO, if there was one egregious error with the cards, it was with including two different decks in the base game with wildly variable power levels, and no rules to distinguish between the two. The variant card rules posted on BloodBowl.com fix that problem, but -- as you mention -- only if a coach knows about the site and goes looking for them, which means there are likely a lot of "beer and pretzel" leagues that may never see those rules. I would love to see them included in the future official rules. This wouldn't have been a problem if GW had decided to include two similarly-valued decks of cards in the game, but hindsight is 20-20.

Purplegoo wrote:
Local ‘not in the system’ leagues can happily do as they please with universal blessing. The unease comes when you’re playing in a large, perhaps national or international (perhaps online) league or tournament. In such an environment, there is commonly a necessity to resolutely use ‘core’ rules faithful to the book; the thing falls apart when you’re including thing x you like and thing y you don’t because there will always be a percentage of the player base that kicks off at your choice and it spirals out of control (that’s true of some local leagues too, of course. The easy default position for any LC or TO in any dispute is ‘we’ll do as the standard rules say’ because that is a rock solid, inarguable and unbiased position). There has to be an accepted standard, and commonly that is everything but the optional rules. I think that’s why this matters to people; regardless of what is said on the internet about the intent of cards and who says it, those of us that play in those environments are likely going to have to play with cards because of how they sit in print. It surprised me that the NAF have sidestepped using the cards because the principled argument is probably that they should be 'in', but I'm certainly not complaining!


You make some good points here. I agree that the special play cards should probably have been organized differently. There are three rules in the "Extra Rules" which are probably the most commonly house ruled out: Illegal Procedure, four minute time limit, and the Special Play cards. Each of them is couched in very conditional wording (emphasis mine):

"The Illegal Procedure rule can be used when keeping track of turns is absolutely vital or coaches keep forgetting to move their Turn marker along."
"In competition games when it is vital to keep the event moving along at a fair pace, many people like to impose a four minute time limit on each player's turn."
"This important aspect of Blood Bowl can be incorporated into the game with the Special Play cards."

Other extra rules generally do not have this type of conditional wording, even the Star Players (which is another frequently house-ruled Extra rule.) I think it probably would have made sense to separate these three out (maybe the Star Players too) into an "Optional Rules" section, with some boilerplate text saying that you can feel free to include or exclude them as you wish. (And again, I lament the fact that the vastly superior variant Special Play card rules weren't included here instead.) But it's incorrect to put these three rules on the same level as the kickoff, weather, fans, interceptions, handing off, etc. because NONE of those rules (that I can see) have the same conditional wording:

"The kick-off table opposite is used to recreate these unforeseen but fairly common events. After both teams have set up, follow this sequence in the order below:"
"At the start of the game, each coach should roll a D6. Add the results together and refer to the Weather table to find out what the weather is like for the day."
"The Hand-off Action is added to the list of Actions such as Move, Block, Blitz and Pass."
"One player on the opposing team may attempt to intercept a thrown ball."

It's a false equivalence to say that just because these Special Play card rules are included in the same section, they are not presented as optional. The wording is distinctly different for them.

_________________
Milo


Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:25 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:59 pm
Posts: 1579
Milo wrote:
The variant card rules posted on BloodBowl.com fix that problem, but -- as you mention -- only if a coach knows about the site and goes looking for them


Where? is there a hidden part to this website, as you have directed people here a few times and when I go there i see nothing of use? Only a facebook wall (a social media platform I will not use) and some art work you can download for desktop themes and some very very basic info about the starter teams.

Milo wrote:
It's a false equivalence to say that just because these Special Play card rules are included in the same section, they are not presented as optional. The wording is distinctly different for them.


I strongly strongly disagree with you here. Especially when subsequent rule books point to this section of the book with reference to these rules as core rules and non optional and almost everything else here is so integral to playing the game.

In previous editions cards were correctly clearly partitioned and prefixed with clear warning that they were optional which read as "these will unbalance things".

Milo wrote:
I personally think the cards make for a better narrative experience in Blood Bowl leagues. That's what I play in leagues for -- not just the competition of trying to win, but the stories that come out of individual games and amazing feats or disastrous luck.


That's all well and good I enjoy the narrative too. Though as I have mentioned before keep the core game strong and YOU can use all the "optional" rules you wish, rather than pushing the luck factor in the game up for everyone. It shows disregard for how many many people play the game. Especially the long term competitive players. There are many worrying things about the current rules that could and absolutely should have been avoided. Keeping the rules strategy centric for the competitive player and silly for the funsters are not mutually exclusive. Both can easily be achieving with well thought out rules and organisation of the rules.

Milo wrote:
I don't see this as a major concern.


But many many people do, this is a hotter topic than I think you realise.

Milo wrote:
I think it probably would have made sense to separate these three out (maybe the Star Players too) into an "Optional Rules" section, with some boilerplate text saying that you can feel free to include or exclude them as you wish. (And again, I lament the fact that the vastly superior variant Special Play card rules weren't included here instead.


So if you can please fix it in the next release.
Also move the new Character Coaches should be moved to the Option section so that we no long have to suffer the new wizard that is again pushing the game further into a luck-fest game like dreadball which requires zero skill once you've learnt the rules.
Also the inducement phase is a mess with the TV leader benefiting more than the underdog - it really needs fixing.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rules for new card decks?
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:32 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:13 pm
Posts: 1688
Location: Cambridge
So in summary (directed at Milo, it appears Garion has faster fingers than me. I'll read that shortly), the ‘extra’ (advanced, whatever) rules are all of the following: mostly considered ‘core game functionality’, all optional, some optional, some conditionally optional and a Chinese restaurant style menu from which you select according to whether you’re playing in a progression league, a resurrection tournament or format x? Crikey, if you’ve managed to bash out four definitions in two pages (plus the book text of ‘all highly recommended and you’ll find that using them provides an even more exciting and interesting game’), it’s no wonder this debate could go round and round for tens of pages, is it?

It shouldn’t. I personally think you’re on really rocky ground if you start italicising the odd word or two in a sentence and suggesting that emphasis trumps the wider context of where that sentence sits (I'd wager someone of the mind to play that game throughout the rules could have a field day if they chose to), but it’s not really that important because it's apparently not clear enough to be universally accepted. It appears the point both ‘sides’ agree on is that cards have landed in an unfortunate place in the three section format of the rulebook (whatever you want to call them – essentially the sections are first game basics, full rules, optional stuff you take from as you please). That they have only really matters to you if you play the game in a format where there needs to be a commonly dictated, almost dispassionate adherence to the rules and a clear cut-off after that second section, which I suspect is why you get people like Garion and I arguing the point. We're likely to get stuck with the cards at some point because we play in those formats, and no level of clever drilling into sentence structure or volume of learned fellows on the internet stating what they think the proper intent is is going to fix that while print is as it is. Who cares? Well - a (sizable-ish) minority, as you outline, each local league has it's own way (and hooray for that). Is it important, then? Perhaps it's not the end of the world, but it doesn't feel like an insurmountable task to overcome and keep everyone happy while the rules are 'live'.

I'll leave the discussion / pissing contest (delete as applicable) to others now. I've had my TFF trigger moment for summer / autumn 2017. ;)


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Board index » General Discussion » General Chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: