BBRC members ... please STOP THE MADNESS!!!!

[GalakStarscraper]

Warning ... I'm a little p*ssed off at the moment, so my cap key my be used more than normally necessary here.

Okay, with October quickly approaching ... I would like to please, please, request that someone get control of the LRB.

Look guys, I'm not a rulez guru, but I pride myself in knowing 96.5% of the rules and I'm getting tired of relearning the rules as each version of the Living Rulebook is published.

This week I got nailed as a commish on three questions and that is just plain annoying to me.

First question was:
If I have Horns and Frenzy and blitz one square and get a push back results can I block the player again and do I get the +1 ST bonus on the 2nd hit.

My answer based on the way its always been answered for years. YES you can block again as the dice result is what defines a pushback and NO you cannot get the +1 ST because you have to move at least one square to use Horns.

Player questions my ruling. I do research ... turns out between LRB 1.1 and 1.2, THE RULES CHANGED! So now the correct answer is:
YES to both, you may block again and get the +1 ST .... (Horns now says that any 2nd block with a horns player uses the same mods as the first block)

-----------------------

2nd question: Can I create a goblin team with a starting Fan Factor of 17?

My answer: No, Fan Factor is limited to a maximum of 9 for a starting team.

Player questions my ruling. I do research ... turns out between LRB 1.2 and 1.3, THE RULES CHANGED! So now the correct answer is you can start with whatever Fan Factor you can afford ... (the sentence on maximum FF was deleted.)

-----------------------------------------

3rd question: Can I use my apothecary on my Goblin Fanatic?

My Answer: Yes, Apothecaries can be used on any type of field injury.

Player questions my ruling. I do research ... turns out between LRB 1.1 and 1.2, THE RULES CHANGED! It now says that Goblin Fanatics are the ONLY exception now to the rule that Apothecaries can be used on any on-pitch injury. ..... ...... and I'm going to add an extra on this one ... I think this rule change is a pile of junk ... one more house rule for the MBBL2 against the words of the LRB ... I mean give me a break ... Apothecaries can heal broken necks and death, what POSSIBLE justification could there be to make an exception to the Apothecary rules for the Fanatic just because he has a heart attack! ... I THOUGHT we were trying to get RID of the exceptions to the rules, not add to them.

------------------------------------------------

Now the reason I'm a little put out here is multiple fold.

One: despite numerous requests to do so Andy never made a change log for any of the 3 revisions that he did. Cries about this have fallen on deaf ears. In fact, Andy said there were only typo corrections between version 1.2 and 1.3 ... the Fan Factor change is not a type correction. So being a rules "guru" has become nigh impossible.

Two: Everyone "knows" that the skill roll was supposed to have been changed in the original LRB to say that any stat change could be taken as a normal skill instead. HOWEVER, Chet told me flat-out no questions asked that the rules CANNOT CHANGE EVER without an October rules review and since this was a rules change (even though one a lot of BBRC folks remember agreeing to) it cannot be added to the LRB until next October. I was fine with this. HOWEVER, the LRB keeps sneaking in rules changes OUTSIDE of the October review process. The change to Horns, the change to Treeman standing up, no Apothecary use for the Fanatic, the deletion of the max starting FF (assuming this is not an error) ... all of these were clearly (IMO) rules changes made outside the October process. I believe that the LRB is a great and wonderful thing. I love the concept of the BBRC and the October review. However, I really need the LRB to either have a full change log for every revision OR whoever is changing the LRB should at least mention what he is doing to another BBRC member to get approval that what he is typing is a clarification and not a rules change.

I'm just tired of getting surprised. This is why I'm with Pariah 100% on cleaning up the rules this year with no big changes. I'm having a difficult enough time keeping track of all the little changes that each new version of the LRB brings to the rules.

Galak

[Thadrin]

Qusetion: Is this really BBRC stuff, or is Andy doing it alone, or is this something Jervis is in on?

Pardon my chronic X-files paranoia, but it seems like lots of little changes, which or the most part are NOT good changes, are getting sneaked in without the so called "Voice of the players" getting a say.

[GalakStarscraper]

Whenever I've talked to Chet and JKL, they claim that Andy is doing this stuff in a vaccuum and to talk to Andy.

Now I really like Chet, JKL, and Andy as friends. I e-mail them each at least once every couple weeks .... sometimes more like once a day.

But I do think that its past time that an official system get established for how the LRB is changed.

All the components are there if they were enforced.

Rule changes should not take place outside of the October review. Whoever changes the LRB should have to fully document what they changed ... even if its punctuation.

I'm a programmer. When you work with programs in an organized business, you have to fully document every single change you make to an existing program ... its a pain .. BUT its important. I think the LRB is at least as important as an account payable application.

I know Chet and JKL say talk to Andy, but as members of the BBRC, the LRB is something more under their jurisdiction than mine. I'm just asking for the rule changes to stop outside of the yearly cycle and for the October rules review to be the sole rule change point like Chet told me it was.

Galak

[wesleytj]

Totally right on man. I didn't even know about the FF max deletion thing, and to be honest I actually like it.

However, I also agree with you that that's not the issue. It's about HOW the change appeared...like a fart in a car. Nobody knows who did it, there was no announcement, there's no escaping it, and it stinks.

I just made that analogy up. You like it?

[Dragoonkin]

It wouldn't be as bad if there was that changelog we all ask for so we could keep track of the spontaneous changes...

But yeah, they shouldn't be happening.

[GalakStarscraper]

Actually Wes ... I agree with you.

I don't see the reason for putting a limit on the starting FF you can have once I think about it. Especially now that the rule about -1 to the roll for each 10 points of FF is in play.

But like you said whether I like the change or not is not the point. Its the fact that I got blindsided on a rules question because of an undocumented change in the LRB.

So I'm complaining about the change (okay the Apoth/Fanatic one I am complaining about), I'm complaining about the method of the change.

Galak

[Nighthawk]

Galak,

Since you know the BBRC guys, and you're a die hard TBB'er, couldn't you use some extra motivation like : if they don't start using a complete log for every LRB change, I will release all Wild Animal Frenzying TBB members?

Seriously, they should really be concerned about the voices of their gameplayers.

I think the Blood Bowl revival from the past years is great but if they continue with this "who cares" attitude, they might be facing players all around the world just playing it their way (since they can't keep up with all the great or idiot changes).

Nighthawk

[Ghost of Pariah]

I've said this already! My league is grumbling...more like foaming at the mouth pissed that the damn rules keep changing every month!

How many times do I have to say, "Leave the rules alone! Work on extra, optional stuff. Let the core cool off!"?

Ya know most of us would like to at least play the rules before they are changed. It's getting ridiculous and I'm having an impossible time convincing my coaches that the LRB is a good thing. It makes a Commish look very weak when he doesn't even know the rules to the game!

[Dangerous Dave]

I 100% agree. I don't mind Andy H putting in typos or clarifications (however, these should always be logged and in a different colour). However, making rule changes / additions is not right. Now maybe Andy H believes that he has only made clarifications here. However, I am damn sure that most long time players have been using most of the rules in the "pre-carification" way. I agree with Galak on all bar the horns / frenzy ruling:-

I believe that moving the additional square on the push back - ie following up is moving one square - it is not the same as a straight block where you start next to the opponent.

So this one I can see is a clarification...

However, in no way can the FF be a clarification since it has been specifically stated that the max FF in a starting team is 9. In addition, the Fanatic change is a new rule - not a clarification.

I'll add one more to the pot which was raised earlier in another thread - who can get the MVP. The rules now say it can be awarded to any player who was available to play the game - it used to say to whoever took part in the match - again this cannot be deemed a clarification - it is a change.

I'll admit that I have not read all the versions of the LRB since a number of posters have been through LRB 1.1 in detail. However, this would not be necessary if all changes were properly logged and controlled.


Come on Andy H - please, please take this on board (ie produce a log of ALL changes). - if not for the LRB 1.3, for subsequent versions coming out of the October rules review. In addition, can the BBRC please discuss and agree / strike out these changes in October.


My votes are:-

Horns / Frenzy - +1 to ST on both blocks assuming he moves one square before the first block. However, no bonus on the second block against a Stand Firm opponent nor Side Stepper.

No FF more than 9 on a starting team (come on would a BIG crowd watch a rookie team?).

Apoth can be used on a Fanatic.

MVP can be earned by any player available to play... however out of respect any player who dies (and is not apothecaried) during the game will not receive the award out of respect for his family.


Oh - I'm going to email Fanatic about it..... suggest all of us who think that this is BAD do too.

fanaticcs@games-workshop.co.uk


Dave

[Bevan]

I agree with Galak that we must know what changes are made in each revision. I don't mind typos being fixed but if they actually alter a rule then it's not a typo.

I try to pretend I'm a Rules Guru, and I found some of those changes but only by reading every word in v1.3, and I still missed the point about the fanatic not being healed.

The Living Rule Book is great, and far better than the mix of books we had to work through before. I thought the idea of being a Living Rule book was that corrections to errors could be made quickly and easily so we can download a new version as necessary. But if we are told that only typos were fixed then why would we even download it again let alone read every word.

It is possible that some of the latest changes are still typos (e.g. the line about fan factor >9 may have been left out by accident) but we should at least be told if any more typos like that get corrected.

[GalakStarscraper]

Again ... I would like to restate that I'm not advocating rioting in the streets.

I just think that things are getting changed and a lot of them aren't even in blue. Again all I asking is that the organizational rules that the BBRC presented for the ruling be hard and fast.

Dave, I forgot all about MVP change that was the 4th recent rules call I got blindsided on the ruling.

What I would recommend is maybe an official Q&A document where the current clarifications are being collected outside the LRB ... I don't know if this would work, but these "clarifications" making their way into the LRB are just making being an intelligent sounding commish nigh impossible.

Galak

[neoliminal]

I wasn't aware that the FF max was removed. If it was offered as a rules change I would have said no to it.

You're wasting your pixels if you think Chet or I have any editorial control over the LRB. There's one man who has access to those files, and it's Andy Hall.

Contrary to what the world seems to think, I don't have special access to Andy. I send mail to the exact same email address you boys do. If you got a gripe, send it to him.

John Lewis

[Scott King]

I have to join my voice to the throng about this one. I downloaded LRB 1.2, but have since had problems downloading 1.3. That's my problem, not yours, and everyone keeps saying the only difference between the two are typos, so I don't mind. But then I keep getting caught out with rules I don't know about, and can't find in my version of the rules. If the rules are updated, then let's make it clear and concise, and EASY TO FIND!

[Marcus]

Galak:

Perhaps you would like to get an online petition together to send to Andy to let him know that people have all thought about this and need a little change.

Suggested points that have been made include proper change control and version numbering, as well as documented change control procedure that specifies how and when rules get updated and what feedback/input there is.

It should not be a major task, it just needs to be adhered to.

As for the ongoing rash of typos and misprints that appear in GW products, how about a closed release of upcoming LRBs to volunteers who will proof-read and report back errors. I for one would be happy to put my hand up for such work, I'm sure others here would as well.

I think if we all put our names to a document you drafted it might make something of a point. If it's the old issue of "not enough manpower" well, hey, we've got NAF now right? A whole bunch of BB addicted volunteers who I'm sure would be more than happy to lend their unpaid weight to making sure this thing is done right.

The last thing we need is GW releasing the LRB and NAF reprising the OBERWALD to cover all the errors and omissions.

Marcus

[neoliminal]

Marcus... if we have the man power, why aren't we making the change logs without input from Andy?

If the community really wants changes logs, let's make them. We don't have to justify the time spent to our bosses... well... maybe not.