To Galak: list of clarifications

[Zombie]

Why did you put these in there?

"If Dump Off cannot be Pass Blocked then change Pass Block to say "usable when your opponent declares a Pass action during his turn". Also clarify in the Dump Off skill that the pass can or cannot be intercepted."

Admit it, you're not asking for a clarification here, you're asking for a change in the rule. It says that a pass block works on a pass, and dump off is a pass. You may not want it to work that way, but it's clear as water right now.

"Can a stat be decreased below 1? Also there is no wording in the LRB about decreases of 2 being the max only increases. What happens if an aging roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?"

It's always been clear in the rules that a stat cannot be decreased to zero and that the decrease is ignored. No mention has ever been made about decreasing by two or more, which means you can. Again, you're not asking for clarifications here, you're asking them to change the rules to fit your taste. At least admit it and present it as such.



There are many other points in there that i don't agree with, but this is the most major:

"Add the experimental kicking rules to the advanced section rules of the game. The only arguments against have come from leagues that didn't test the rules so far, and the leagues that have tested them liked them a lot ... looks like it has legs. They've seen over 250 test matches, the data backs them as balanced and adding new flavor to the game. Also as a rule set, it is easily removed if a league doesn't wish to use them. Finally, it gives us a use for those cool 2nd edition kicker models."

Of course leagues that tried them, liked them! It's because leagues that liked them, tried them. Some people don't want anything to do with those rules. Why on earth would they want to try them? Personally, if the kicking rules become official, i'm officially retiring from Blood Bowl. I hate them just that much.

<i>Edit: Huge typo. I initially wrote "No mention has ever been made about decreasing by two or more, which means you can't", while i meant the complete opposite. Sorry about that.</i>

[Heiper]

Of course leagues that tried them, liked them! It's because leagues that liked them, tried them. Some people don't want anything to do with those rules. Why on earth would they want to try them? Personally, if the kicking rules become official, i'm officially retiring from Blood Bowl. I hate them just that much.

At last someone that agree with me on this. The kicking rules should never be official imo. They are good as they are as experimental rules.

[Cervidal]

Z, once again, you come off as pretty grating and I don't think it's earning you any chums around here. I know you as a player and have had conversations with you, so I know you can be more personable than that.

Scolding aside...

Yes, the kicking rules, as an official rule, is a rotten idea. It fundamentally changes the game at a time when many important rules aren't even clear enough for universal consent. Why the rush to bring them in? Does the game really need another added layer of complexity just as the game seems to be making a comeback?

That said, though, I think the list compiled is pretty darn good otherwise. I happen to disagree with how Galak would want the rules to go on a few points but it's definitely a promising list. Just one slight problem...

The poisoned dagger issue and how it would work on Thick Skull and Iron Man? It seems pretty obvious to me. Thick Skull gives you a 4+ to ignore KOs. Since the dagger causes automatic KOs, it'd give you a 4+ chance to resist the poison. Iron Man works the same way. NO casualties worse than a stun. Guess what? Poison just ain't affecting the brave soul that day.

That's the only one that seemed rather obvious to me, personally. Most of the rest I can understand.

[christer]

No mention has ever been made about decreasing by two or more, which means you can.

Page 39 of the LRB, just below the SI table:

-1 MA, ST, AG, AV: Miss next game as above. In addition, record the characteristic change on the team roster. However, no characteristic may be reduced by more than 2 points, any injuries that could reduce it further are ignored.

.. And as for the other point regarding this:

It's always been clear in the rules that a stat cannot be decreased to zero

Could you please provide the page number where this is stated? I have been trying to find this as it has happened to a Mummy who got a -ag injury.

-- Christer

[GalakStarscraper]

Why did you put these in there?

"If Dump Off cannot be Pass Blocked then change Pass Block to say "usable when your opponent declares a Pass action during his turn". Also clarify in the Dump Off skill that the pass can or cannot be intercepted."

Admit it, you're not asking for a clarification here, you're asking for a change in the rule. It says that a pass block works on a pass, and dump off is a pass. You may not want it to work that way, but it's clear as water right now.

Yah know Zombie, I just love it when you think I have agendas. Surprise, I could give a flying fig less about this one. So nice to see your warm and cuddly personality is still there. There was a thread discussing this on TBB. There were definite strong opinions on both sides. That's the type of discussion point that I've tried to accumulate on my time to make sure gets cleared up. So if you can PB a DO then that cool and fine by me. My leagues even when I was not commish ruled for years that the it meant Pass action and my league was not alone.

So I'm not asking for ANYTHING other than an official Q&A on DO and PB as to whether its a Pass or Pass action ... thank you so very much. I'll change the wording on this item to appease your political correctness. And if its a Pass Action, YOU can believe that it was a rule change; there will be others that will just find it a clarification long overdue ... sort of like if they clarify Leap to say "including adjacent squares" .... you'll feel like this was a clarification ... the way the rule always worked as will I .... others will consider this a rule CHANGE. There is another side to every discussion other than yours ... try to remember that.

"Can a stat be decreased below 1? Also there is no wording in the LRB about decreases of 2 being the max only increases. What happens if an aging roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?"

It's always been clear in the rules that a stat cannot be decreased to zero and that the decrease is ignored. No mention has ever been made about decreasing by two or more, which means you can. Again, you're not asking for clarifications here, you're asking them to change the rules to fit your taste. At least admit it and present it as such.

Again you assume an agenda that I don't have. I misquoted the LRB as Christer pointed out so I'll modify it on the less than 2 to say its only on the injury table. However the question was raised before on both points. No where in the LRB does it reference what happens if a stat could go to 1. Also while the injury table talks about more than 2 decreases, the aging table DOES NOT! So the argument has been made that Aging ignores this -2 maximum. It is an item needing CLARIFICATION! I'm not asking for a rule change ... I don't think there should be any rule change at all here ... what I think IS needed is some mention on the freaking aging table about what to do if the stat is 1 or already been nailed twice through injury and/or aging. I doubt the intent here is that you get a free ride on the aging roll which is why there is no mention of decrease limits but that doesn't match up well to the injury limits so ... point to me where I missed the need for clarification here, Zombie

.... oh and kiss off Zombie on the whole tone of your thread. I've trolled through the boards for the last year trying to pull together all the items for discussion based on threads so that this year the coaches would have a better chance of getting the topic they are confused about addressed. For you to accuse me of putting forward my agenda when I'm trying to just make sure it all gets covered is the Zombie I'm used to compared to the one I was beginning to think had hope as a discussion rather than a muckraker.

One that same note, thanks Bud/Cervidal.

There are many other points in there that i don't agree with, but this is the most major:

I'll tone this down to remove any personal bias here to just say consider the Kicking rules. The process is supposed to consider all experimental rules after a year of testing so I don't see you arguing with that ... at least I think you wouldn't.

Personally, if the kicking rules become official, i'm officially retiring from Blood Bowl.

A certain line from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail could be inserted here.

Finally, Zombie if you want to take this "discussion" to PM ... fine by me. You felt entitled to take a public potshot at me ... I returned one public fire back. This is the type of thread that should have started as a PM in the first place, but that's not your style, fine. I'm asking you nicely that if you want to get personal with your reply then you can do it privately.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

I updated the Dump Off question, the Stat Decrease aging question, and the Kicking point .... I was serious when I meant I didn't want personal bias in the list ... if there are any others that need changed let me know.

Galak

[Norse]

A whole lot of hidden agendas going on around here I guess....

The worst thing they ever did was make the members of the BBRC known...

why?

because people that were not invited to join now have big mean old axes to grind...

Play nicely boys...

[GalakStarscraper]

Z, once again, you come off as pretty grating and I don't think it's earning you any chums around here. I know you as a player and have had conversations with you, so I know you can be more personable than that.

Again thanks for this Bud!

Yes, the kicking rules, as an official rule, is a rotten idea. It fundamentally changes the game at a time when many important rules aren't even clear enough for universal consent. Why the rush to bring them in? Does the game really need another added layer of complexity just as the game seems to be making a comeback?

Just as a footnote on this one ... I really don't expect the rules to become official this review. If you've seen the threads on kicking. Chet revamped the rules just recently (within the last month) to work out some of the issues that testers had with the rules. I'm guessing that Chet's league and mine and anyone else who grabs the revisions will be running them through the grinder for another year to see how the revisions work. So this point in the BBRC will probably be mostly like this:
"Dean: Kicking rules for this year?"
"Chet: Revisions have been made and another year of testing is needed."
"Dean: Okay noted ... anything else?"
"Chet: Hey Jervis if they are made official in Oct 2003, are you willing to create new kicker figs and/or resurrect the 2nd edition Kicker models?"
"Jervis: Hmmm ... let me think about that and get back to you ... next topic"

At least this is my belief that this is about how much time will be spent this October on kicking.

That said, though, I think the list compiled is pretty darn good otherwise. I happen to disagree with how Galak would want the rules to go on a few points but it's definitely a promising list.

Okay, like I said ... I've really tried to avoid personal bias in there. HECK, I don't even LIKE or AGREE with several of the suggestion on this ist ... that's how fair I'm trying to be. A lot of times, I posted the suggestion right out of the mouth of the questionaire. So if you preceive bias still in list let me know, if its my own I'll remove it, if its the original requestors who was not me, I'll let you know or try to clean it up some more.

The poisoned dagger issue and how it would work on Thick Skull and Iron Man? It seems pretty obvious to me. Thick Skull gives you a 4+ to ignore KOs. Since the dagger causes automatic KOs, it'd give you a 4+ chance to resist the poison. Iron Man works the same way. NO casualties worse than a stun. Guess what? Poison just ain't affecting the brave soul that day.

The Iron Man is pretty clear ... however in my league we had a lengthly discussion on "timing" ... my only guess was that it was a former Magic player.

The argument went like this: Injury Roll, Result=Stunned, Thick Skull checks to see if KO, no ... so no effect; apply Poisoned Dagger, Stunned gets upgraded to KO.

This point of argument assumes a linear thought and that it would fire in that order ... its pretty easy to switch the PD and TS checks in this sequence and get the right answer. However, there were folks in my league who agreed with the PD wins argument so it went on the list as the MBBL2 tends to be a fairly diverse slice of the world's BB population.

I agree with you Bud that its not that difficult; however I know that there are several folks who got on the PD wins over TS argument in my league which means that there are more out there.

Galak

[Moonsong]

Galak, if there's danger of someone thinking the BBRC might have "personal agendas", since I don't think you all will meet in a real room, around a real table (pretty expensive, I guess), why don't you post somewhere a log of the discussion after a week or so? Might be fun and educational.

Moonsong

[GalakStarscraper]

Galak, if there's danger of someone thinking the BBRC might have "personal agendas", since I don't think you all will meet in a real room, around a real table (pretty expensive, I guess), why don't you post somewhere a log of the discussion after a week or so? Might be fun and educational.

Moonsong

Moonsong .... you're under the mistaken belief that I'm a member of the BBRC. I'm a coach just like you. I started the BBRC list because a year is a long time for items to get brought up. I wanted to collect a place so that the items needed discussion where not forgotten. IE... I didn't want ... Review to come out and someone to say was such and such addressed and realize that it wasn't because the original topic had been bantered about in January.

Galak

[Ghost of Pariah]

Zombie you are under the mistaken assumption that all members of a league have the same opinion of every rule. I'm in Galak's league right now and I personally can't stand the kicking rules. I loathe them only slightly less than the allies rules. (I will however admit that these are the best allied rules presented yet to date).
What league are you in where everyone holds the same opinion? Must be a league of one.

Yes, the kicking rules, as an official rule, is a rotten idea. It fundamentally changes the game at a time when many important rules aren't even clear enough for universal consent. Why the rush to bring them in? Does the game really need another added layer of complexity just as the game seems to be making a comeback?

I couldn't have said it better. I really wish the rules guru's would act more like Galak and polish the gem they have instead trying to add lace to it.

[Lucien Swift]

if there's gonna be personal agendas in the review cheat sheet, it should be BASE RINGS!

[Moonsong]

Galak: I'm sorry, too much work and too little sleep...

Could then I address the matter to whoever on this list is on the BBRC?
Do you think it would be an acceptable thing?

Moonsong

[GalakStarscraper]

if there's gonna be personal agendas in the review cheat sheet, it should be BASE RINGS!

Hey I added the Base Rings in there for you Lucien ... its in there ...

Galak

[neoliminal]

Galak, if there's danger of someone thinking the BBRC might have "personal agendas", since I don't think you all will meet in a real room, around a real table (pretty expensive, I guess), why don't you post somewhere a log of the discussion after a week or so? Might be fun and educational.

This is simply not going to happen. Aside from the fact that the logs are literally megs and megs big, there would be no reason to post them. The only effect I can see from posting the logs would be to generate a lot of disagreement and splinter the community as they started siding with specific BBRC members. I can only imagine the chaos such a move would cause.