How'd we do?

[neoliminal]

You've had a chance to look over the rules review (if you haven't you should.) Now's your chance to tell us what you think.

http://www.games-workshop.com/Warhammer ... es_rev.htm

[Marcus]

Some rules different to how I would have played them (eg: Foul Appearance) and I'm still a bit frustrated about the whole Wild Animal thing. On the whole tho, I'm happy. Even if stuff was different to how I would have had it at least it's clarified now and we can get on with our lives Cheers lads.

[Thadrin]

I haven't been through Tom's list with a fine tooth comb looking at what you missed. The only things I WISH you had changed are the hopeless Dwarf Wizard and the addition of the Chef to the Halfling team as Head coach. The major things - a skill instead of a characteristic increase and the Krox getting MB are there at least, and most of the major rules queries seem to have been sewn up. Just preliminary impressions though.

[GalakStarscraper]

Neo ... when you get a second would answer these remaining items just to have official clarification for the Hot List site so I can update it and show the answers:

1) Do tackle zones or foul appearance effect a Hail Mary Pass roll?

2) What happens if you can only field 1 or 2 players for a drive (ie less than the required 3 on the LOS) is it an automatic concession or does the game go on? What if a team has NO players in reserve to field? I've seen the scenario where Wood Elves are up by 2 TDs with 3 turns left in the 2nd half but the entire team is either KO'd or Injured ... what happens? We've played that the opposing team takes the field alone and continues playing, but is this correct? ... need some clarification for guidance.

3) Can a stat be decreased below 1? Also there is no wording in the
LRB about decreases of 2 being the max on the aging table (only the
injury table has limiters defined as -2 max). What happens if an aging
roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?

4) Can a player use 2 MA stat increase rolls and Very Long Legs
to get +3 improvement to MA? Or does the max 2 increase apply
across all possible permanent effects?

5) Can you leap to an empty adjacent square?

6) Can the 3-4 arrow of the Throw-in template be aimed diagonally
when moving a Goblin Fanatic (ie does the line that says sideline have
to still be lined up with a sideline when using it to move the Fanatic)?

7) As Shadowing currently reads it applies ANY time an opponent leaves
a player's tackle zone. Does this mean Shadowing is supposed to apply to each of the following:
a) During your turn, if an opponent uses Pass Block
b) During your turn if you push an opponent from a block
c) During your opponent's turn if they follow-up from a block
d) During your opponent's turn if he uses Leap

8) Can an adjacent level opponent intercept? (ie in the below if T is thrower and
C is catcher, can O intercept) ... he's under the range ruler, so the clarification
needed here is what qualifies as BETWEEN the passer and catcher?

Code: Select all

..T..
.....
..CO. 

Chet thought you could answer these so if you could then I'll have everything I need to update the site.

And Marcus, by upset about WA ... you mean the fact that for at least one more year its the same as it is... or did I miss a change that you didn't like.

Galak

[Marcus]

Upset that it stays silly for another year.

Yeah, there's some stuff missing from the review that I would like to have seen. At the end of the day that's what you've got commissioners and judges for though, so it's not too bad.

As for the Foul Appearance thing. Oh baby am I going to have a field day with that one. No more shall players blitz and block my evil smelling rodents out of the way.

[Thadrin]

I sense a Blister of Plague monks and a pair of snips could be having a coming together in South London.

[Deathwing]

I'm a little surprised that ogres don't cost double for the stunties (reversing what Chet said, I've changed the FAQs on here), and the FA working while prone, but yeah, no big changes was the popular opinion. It gives us another year to see how LRB aging etc pans out. Ain't nothing like the test of time!

[Grumbledook]

I concur with the foul appearence while prone ruling being a surrpise, most of it makes sense to be honest

[Zombie]

There are some rulings that i very strongly disagree with. These are the passing range, the reroll for big guys, secondary pushbacks and foul appearance. There are some others that i don't agree with, but they're minor (e.g. fielding 11 players and ogre cost, you'll never see a goblin team with trolls anymore).

Contrary to some other people, i don't think anything was missed. Everything Galak brought up is perfectly clear to me in the current (and former) rules.

[Mestari]

At least you kept the promise that there won't be any big changes - and apparently, as noted by previous posters, some questions that were presented have been left open for the time being.
I'm disappointed about the PassBlock with Jump Up ruling, though.

All in all the list is very modest. I'm happy with the outcome.

But I think it's about time to start "Galaks List 2003" then...

[GalakStarscraper]

There are some rulings that i very strongly disagree with. These are the passing range, the reroll for big guys, secondary pushbacks and foul appearance.

I'll agree with Zombie on the FA one ... the other 3 I agreed with the BBRC ruling.

There are some others that i don't agree with, but they're minor (e.g. fielding 11 players and ogre cost, you'll never see a goblin team with trolls anymore).

The not having to field your entire team I was fine with the ruling. The whole Ogre doesn't cost double ... I agree with Zombie ... nice way to make Trolls and Treeman basically obsolete to a great extent. This is one of those I hope after another year could get overturned ... wouldn't bother me one bit.

I'll note that the only other ruling that I didn't really agree with is being able to roll for the GFIs after taking the Leap square ... I really thought this should be like a Block .. roll for GFI before trying .. failure drops you in your current square not the go to square.

Contrary to some other people, i don't think anything was missed. Everything Galak brought up is perfectly clear to me in the current (and former) rules.

Footnote .... I think most of my questions above are clear to me as well ... however, I've had some difficulty defending my answers to certain folks here and at the end of the day, I've been hit with ... you're not an official source. So all I want is to have JKL come back and put a nail in these issues' coffins by giving me a printed ruling from the BBRC on this items so that I can bury them.

I'd be curious Zombie if what is perfectly clear to you is what is perfectly clear to me:
1) No neither effects the roll
2) The game continues if the coach with 0-2 players doesn't conceed. You'll still need to kickoff the ball to an empty side of the pitch if the other team has no players.
3) No a stat cannot go below 1. The aging table should have said this which it doesn't.
4) No a stat cannot go more than 2 above starting no matter what rules are mixed to cause the effect.
5) Yes you can leap to an adjacent square.
6) Yes you can aim the template diagonally. The sideline bar is only there for reference for throw-ins not for moving the Fanatic.
7) a) No b) No c) Yes d) Yes
8) No, although O is under the range ruler ... beside <> between

However, I've had several folks disagree with my read of the rules on the above ... that's why I'd like to just bury these 8 and be done with them.

Now I need to reprogram the PBeM tool for several of those rulings ... FA prone and the change from bases to squares for passing being the two biggest changes.

Galak

[Zombie]

I disagree with you on #1 and #7a. It is to be noted also that if you switch catcher and interceptor in #8, he's now within range to intercept.

[Falc]

Well I really don't like that whole mess with the range ruler to begin with so I'll refrain from comments on that.

The only things that bother me:

1) Not using Pass Block against Throw Team Mate

2) Rerolls for Big Guys. The reasoning doesn't quite make sense to me...

3) Please fire your webdesigner. Black text on dark blue background isn't readable.

[Skummy]

Very much appreciate the resolution of dangling rules questions, and look forward to playing with the official version of them. Your work is appreciated!

Though I'd like to second the call for a change in WA

[Munkey]

I thought it would be nice to see WA changed but perhaps there is not enough general concensus as to what to change it to.

I would have to say that I don't like the Foul Appearance, Re-rolls for Big Guys, or cheap Ogres (any at all in fact) on the stunty teams. There are a couple of other rulings I would have gone the other way with but which aren't earth shattering.

Don't want to end this post on a negative note as I think the BBRC have done (and will continue to do) a great job. It's great to have someone who listens to player feedback and is willing to improve and clarify the rules.

Thanks guys