How'd we do?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 3:15 pm

Originally i voted with the majority. Now that i look at Galak's list. . . well its what i was afraid of, they told us what they changed but told us nothing of all the rest.
Did they discuss:
1) Secret Weapons
2) Diving Tackle & Pile On, when to roll for
3) Players with lost tz's assisting blocks
4) changes to Niggle
5) Apothecary to heal to reserves
6) the TTM doom diver idea
7) Free master chef for halflings

and more but im bored with making this list

. In other words are what they posted the total of the things they discussed or just what they decided to decide on at this time? Will they discuss them more next year? Are they dead issues? Or did i miss the questions on the one page review. So my review of the bbrc is at this time, after next years review i will decide once and for all if there is any reason at all for me to pay attention to them (one more chance). As far as im concerned any answers are better than no answers or even answers i dont like.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 3:47 pm

1 Question:

Have you ever thought about sitting down and design completely new Rulebook starting from a scratch ? A true Rules Compendium ?

franck_le_grand · Post by **franck_le_grand** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 9:30 pm

Well I believe it's allright...
Still miss some things maybe, but I would like to discuss them in this forum instead, and I can wait to get the "official" rules.
I voted perfect, although I would like to see something more...
Good work there guys, and don't forget all us BB players, who just loves this game...

Le Grand

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:25 pm

Oh yeah, i forgot about fielding less than 11 players. Another bad decision and i don't see why they changed the rule.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 4:29 am

Zombie wrote:Oh yeah, i forgot about fielding less than 11 players. Another bad decision and i don't see why they changed the rule.

Actually Zombie there is no way you can say which way this one was. The wording of the rulebook never said you had to field 11 players if you could. Trust me, we went through the book with a fine tooth on this one and couldn't say one way or the other.

Not saying it was a good or bad decision, but if definitely was a clarification not a change.

Galak

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 5:03 am

Well there was (is?) a Q&A where JJ said that coaches who can't field 11 players are required to field as many as they can.

The BBRC resolution kinda confuses that.

All in all they did a good job by me. Keeping things experimental scored them big points with me. Alot of those rulings could go either way and it's just niice to have a definitive answer. Now lets' just see if Andy can keep his mits off the book!

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 5:57 am

Yes, it was in an old set of FAQs (released in 1995 i think) where JJ clearly said that you had to field 11, or all that you could if less than that. It said something about 11 being the sacred number of Nuffle. So this is indeed a rule change.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 9:28 am

That was in the old ruleset, the same one where JJ said (in the same q&a) that a person could get 2 casualties from knocking someone offpitch, 1 for getting thru armor and 1 from the crowd. Even JJ can change his mind. At the end of the day its still a different ruleset and therefore irrelavent.

Falc · Post by **Falc** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:22 pm

Reply to Toby: actually, I have. I'm something of a rules lawyer, and the existing rulebook was just so full of stuff that just wasn't clear enough to my tastes. It's a lot less interesting to read (well, the parts that are done. It's still a WIP), but at least everything is completely clear.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:38 pm

sean newboy wrote:That was in the old ruleset, the same one where JJ said (in the same q&a) that a person could get 2 casualties from knocking someone offpitch, 1 for getting thru armor and 1 from the crowd. Even JJ can change his mind. At the end of the day its still a different ruleset and therefore irrelavent.

No, it was back in the days when Jervis still made sense, so a lot prior to what you're talking about. It seems so far back now... When was the last time JJ made any sense?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 5:20 pm

No, it was back in the days when Jervis still made sense, so a lot prior to what you're talking about. It seems so far back now... When was the last time JJ made any sense?

Hhhhmmmm let me think on that.

DaImp · Post by **DaImp** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 1:01 pm

I am happy that there were no major changes to the rules, but in all honesty I can't see what the point of the whole excercise was. All that seems to have happened was a clarification of a few rules. This as I said is fine by me, but why then the long wait for the rules to be announced?

That said I am unhappy that Secret Weapons and a free master chef for Halflings were not added to the official rules.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 1:37 pm

DaImp wrote:I am happy that there were no major changes to the rules, but in all honesty I can't see what the point of the whole excercise was. All that seems to have happened was a clarification of a few rules. This as I said is fine by me, but why then the long wait for the rules to be announced?

That said I am unhappy that Secret Weapons and a free master chef for Halflings were not added to the official rules.

I'll try to answer some of that.

1) Andy's baby delayed the whole process by several weeks
2) A lot of those clarifications that you say seems to be all that happened took a lot of debate. Heck there are several that are causing debate now from their decisions. Its not like they just say should FA work prone let's vote and then move onto the next topic. Also its all done via Email ... not the most condusive conduit for debating quickly.
3) Secret Weapon rules are in BB Mag #5. Free Master Chef ... well Jonathan ... we can just keep lobbying ...

(I'd GLADLY trade the 120k Ogre for a Free Master Chef)

Galak

JackDragna · Post by **JackDragna** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:46 pm

Just what I wanted for the yuletide season. Not. Most of the rule add-ons were all right, with the MB for the Kroxigor and the choice of taking a skill when one gets a stat increase way overdue. The rules claifications were for the most part good..but, once again, the powers that be screwed up by not addressing the most important flaws with the game and adding others that confuse me. It's nice that I know I can't use sure feet when using Pass Block, but I'm more concerned with why players roll to intercept before a pass is even accurate. I'm wondering why nothing is being done about the wave of Piling On big-guys. I'm curious as to why goblins can now buy cheap ogres and why players are fearful of ugly players with their keisters on the ground. I'm wondering what motivated the rules committee to allow teams to give MVP's to players that kicked the can.

Even more annoying than any of this, however, is that the coordination of the people that put out Blood Bowl is hideously poor. True, there wasn't much put on in the rules review that adds-on or contradicts things in the new 'rulebook', but there's enough that it angers me that I bought one. It's bad enough that the rulebooks don't have the amazon, lizardman and norse teams in them. Here's an idea: try to coordinate official rule changes with the release of published material a little better.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:03 pm

Well, I for one am glad Andy had a baby. If that's what it takes for them to slow down and really look at rules then maybe they all need to start working on it. Chet is a newly wed isn't he? C'mon Chet! I think Neo is not allowed to breed by Michigan state law or something so it's up to Chet!

Talk Fantasy Football

How'd we do?

How did the BBRC do on the rules review?

Ho ho ho!