Too many rule changes...

[Dinaturz]

In the last months this forum has become more and more interesting for me because of all the rules updates.

Now it seems to me that all these changes are growing too much, making people confused (look how many posts and topics are about clarifications and/or corrections...).

Don't you think that all this stuff should be considered as "work on progress" or "semi-official" and LRB should be udpated once in a year or less?

[neoliminal]

Don't you think that all this stuff should be considered as "work on progress" or "semi-official" and LRB should be udpated once in a year or less?

The way it works is this:

1. Someone suggests a rule.
2. If the BBRC thinks it has merit, we suggest it gets published as "Experimental". This means everyone should try the rule and see what they think of it.
3. We get feedback on the rule.
4. If the feedback is good, we vote in October on making the rule official or not.

Make sense?

[Dinaturz]

Yes, that makes lot of sense to me when we consider the "BB Lab".
My message was about official rules (in less than two months I downloaded three versions of LRB (1.1->1.3)) and people who starts playing in a league or in single matches using every kind of rule read somewhere...

[GalakStarscraper]

Dinaturz ...

I really like Andy Hall ... but to be honest your problem comes from the fact that Andy is NOT playing by the rules.

As JKL said the rules are only supposed to change once a year and then only after the vast majority of said rules have gone through an experimental period unless they are just too simple to not change (ie Mighty Blow to the Kroxigor)

However, Andy has been changing the rules in the LRB without telling anyone and often without placing them in blue.

The list so far since 1.1 is:
1) No limit on starting FF
2) Anyone not missing the game can get the MVP
3) Frenzy+Horns+Stand Firm = the 2nd hit is at +1 ST
4) Treeman standing (actually anyone with MA 1 or 2) is a 4+ roll and can GFI twice after standing.

Now all 4 of these are rule CHANGES definitely NOT clarifications. Technically these are very much against the rules that the BBRC set forward as how Blood Bowl rules were going to work.

However JKL (neo) and Chet (Acerak) are pretty helpless on this note. Andy has the Adobe file and is the sole editor. So all they can do is what we can do which is scream at Andy for making rule changes outside of the proper cycle.

My hope is that as part of this October meeting one major thing happens and JKL/Chet if the 5 non-GW folks don't drive this point home I'll be depressed here because it means the BBRC and the process are really smoke and mirrors. Anytime Andy changes the LRB he has to FULLY document the changes and send them to another BBRC member (one of the 5 non-GW). They will review the changes and agree that there are no rule CHANGES in the list. After which point, Andy can post it to the web. Its called checks and balances folks and if a body such as the BBRC doesn't have it then at the end of the day, Andy is really making the rules for Blood Bowl regardless of what is said otherwise.

Galak

[Zombie]

3) Frenzy+Horns+Stand Firm = the 2nd hit is at +1 ST

Galak, #3 is not a change. I think you will find if you look back in the Oberwald that it's been like that for a long time.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Zombie the Oberwald is not official and the rules for frenzy have been inconsistent for sometime now.

I'll show the thorn in my side once more for good measure...

frenzy+horns+stand firm/push back = +1 on 2nd block because "all bonuses from the 1st block are on the 2nd block" BUT

dauntless+frenzy+stand firm/pushback = rerolling dauntless for the 2nd block. Why?

It's things like this that make the "no exceptions" jabber seem pointless to me.

[GalakStarscraper]

3) Frenzy+Horns+Stand Firm = the 2nd hit is at +1 ST

Galak, #3 is not a change. I think you will find if you look back in the Oberwald that it's been like that for a long time.

Wanna bet, Zombie???

I used the Oberwald for this ruling in my league so that how I knew it changed:

Oberwald 4.01 Dec 3, 2000:

A Frenzying player with Horns will receive a +1 on his ST when blitzing if he moves at least one square before each block roll. He would lose the bonus after the first frenzy against a Stand Firm player.

Oberwald 4.51 May 31, 2002:

A frenzying player with Horns will receive a +1 to his ST when blitzing if he moves at least one square before each block roll. The Frenzying player must move at least one square before the first block to use Horns at all and must also push the opponent back to use Horns on the second block, so he would lose the bonus after the first block against a Stand Firm player.

I know you help edit the Oberwald, but this time you are quoting the Oberwald incorrectly. According to the Oberwald the 2nd hit IS NOT at +1 ST. This was true in the LRB 1.1 ... HOWEVER Andy changed the wording between LRB 1.1. and 1.3 so that now whatever mods applied to the first block of a Frenzy apply to the second.

So Oberwald:
Move, Horns Blitz against Stand Firm, roll pushs = 2nd hit is +0 to Strength
LRB 1.1:
Move, Horns Blitz against Stand Firm, roll pushs = 2nd hit is +0 to Strength
LRB 1.3:
Move, Horns Blitz against Stand Firm, roll pushs = 2nd hit is +1 to Strength

This is the type of stuff I'm talking about that has made begin a commish the last several months impossible. You make a ruling and the rookie pulls out the LRB to show you that what you knew to be true isn't anymore because Andy changed the rules.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

For the record several things here:

1) I really do think Andy is a great guy and he has helped me on multiple occassions with several BB matters ... so my comments here mean zero personal disrepect to Andy.

2) I do not think that Andy is deliberately changing the BB rules to his taste with each edit of the LRB. Instead I think he is a severely overworked individual who honestly thinks he is clarifying the rules instead of changing them.

3) If in October, the BBRC forces Andy to create a change log for EVERY change that is reviewed by another BBRC member before the new LRB can be posted to the web so that there are some checks and balances on the LRB, this problem SHOULD be completely erased.

Just wanted to make it clear as my posts could be misunderstood as anti-Andy. The fact that Fanatic put a consolidated FREE rulebook on the web is something I still have trouble believing most days. So its a new creature that just needs some reigns on it that's all.

Galak

[Zombie]

I was talking about 3rd ed Oberwald, not 4th ed. Too many people want to forget that 4th ed ever existed for me to refer to it.

[GalakStarscraper]

Zombie, I give you credit for a spirited effort here in defending your original statement, but is it too much too admit you misquoted the Oberwald.

Since you are saying that my two Oberwald References don't count because they relate to 4th edition ... fine here a definite 3rd edition one:

OBERWALD v1.09 June 25, 1996

A Frenzying player with Horns will receive a +1 on his ST when blitzing
if he moves at least one square before his first block roll and makes a
follow up move. i.e. the player will not gain the +1 on extra blocks
against a player with Stand Firm. [JJ]

Just for the record its says the exact same thing in OBERWALD v1.08 Jan 18, 1995.

So its been the same ruling from the 1995 to the 2002 OBERWALD. Now I know you almost never admit being wrong ... but come on. Do you agree now that for several years it was +0 for the 2nd hit and only recently ie LRB 1.3 did it change to +1 for the 2nd hit???

If you still maintain that the OBERWALD has for years said that the 2nd hit was also at +1 ... its your turn ... please show me the quote and edition which said so.

Galak

[Zombie]

Now you made me dug up an old version of the Oberwald on my comp. First you use a 4th ed version (Oberwald 4.xx), then you use Dean Maki's old version (Oberwald 1.xx). When i refer to the Oberwald, it's always the 3rd ed version made by the Blood Bowl Central folks (Oberwald 2.xx). Anyway, i made you look first, so now we're all square!

So, i just checked version 2.05 and you're right, stand firm used to stop horns. I must have been confused with frenzy, which wasn't stopped by stand firm until recently, when they changed the wording from "push back result" to "push back" (did they change that back by the way?). You see, with all the changes they keep bringing in through the back door, they're getting even the editors of the Oberwald confused, the people who should know best. The madness has to stop!

For the record, i always admit it when i'm wrong, if at least i agree that i am. And i assure you this happens often enough, no doubt about that.

[GalakStarscraper]

I had checked out 2.06 also before I posted the 1.x reference. I just didn't want to appear like I was being cocky by posting a reference from every single OBERWALD.

As to Stand Firm and Frenzy ... last I read the LRB you could still Frenzy against Stand Firm as they are still treating a Push roll as a technical push back.

So yes, you can still Frenzy against Stand Firm.

Page 34 of the LRB 1.3

3. Some skills refer to pushing a player back in order
to work. These skills will work as long as you roll a
push back on the Blocking dice.

But I 100% agree with you Zombie ... its getting tough even for the folks that study the rules to be sure they are saying the right thing .... Stop the Madness!!! .... INDEED!!!

[Dangerous Dave]

Zombie,

Stand Firm doesn't stop Frenzy. The only things that stops Frenzy in the current rules are:-


Run out of normal movement (or GFIs!)

Roll Block dice

Roll Skulls

Roll 2 blocks

Get the player down on the first block



Dave

PS see Galak has already answered this - apologies for any duplication!

[Zombie]

As to Stand Firm and Frenzy ... last I read the LRB you could still Frenzy against Stand Firm as they are still treating a Push roll as a technical push back.

Yes, they changed that back recently, that i'm sure of. It didn't stay the other way for long (max. 2 years, but i think less than that).

[Korhil]

Just reading through this thread...
Currently according to the 'official' rules, you can have greater than 9 starting FF?
-but in saying that, its also an error.
Right!?

---Korhil