Questions for a Q&A about the new rules - please contribute

[Babs]

I had a go at distilling all that, adding it to the original post.

Galak - is there an 'official' answer from Andy Hoare that you can share about the passing rules and wrestle?

(BTW - timeframe for me emailing Andy is this Friday - AEST).

[Lyracian]

[quote="Babs"]I had a go at distilling all that, adding it to the original post.
[quote]
I think you missed my post -

Quetion: Post Match Sequence (page 24) Section 2 - Update team Stats
Add Cas to Casualties section - only count if they qualified towards earning SPP as per page 21. Which says has to be a completive match and not foul, stab, etc.
Therefore as written you get zero team Casualties in a friendly match as you cannot earn SPP and thus none of your casualties count? Is that intended?

Question:
The wording on Magic Sponge no longer says heal the player. If a player is moved to reserves who is dead are they still dead at the end of the game? If they have -AG or other stat bust it that in effect for the rest of the match and do they miss the next game?

[GalakStarscraper]

Galak - is there an 'official' answer from Andy Hoare that you can share about the passing rules and wrestle?

Official ... not sure I can say official. I do know from talking to the folks working on the rules (not just Andy) that Wrestle and the Passing Rules were both not meant to be changed and will be heading back to the CRP wording. 99.9999% confidence on this. But no ... I have no ability to speak on an "official" answer as I am just a normal citizen.

[Warpstone]

Thanks for organizing this Babs.

My league has a rookie and perpetual division so integrating new teams isn't a problem. However, the perpetual league is dramatically affected by the end of season rules in DZ. Can you recommend a "goldilocks" zone for perpetual play TV so we can migrate our league to the TV norms of DZ?

[celticgriffon]

Can you argue the call on a failed bribe roll?

Thanks,
mb

[Darkson]

(On phone, so will tidy post when on PC)

Hi all - I've just read Babs' collated list of questions about the new edition over on TFF, so rest assured they'll get looked at once James and myself get the two (that's *two*!) books we're currently writing to press by the end of next week.

I notice I'm quoted on that thread as saying the description of how the range ruler works on page 7 of the rulebook is a misprint - this isn't quite true, it's the same introductory description of how the ruler works that's been used since 1994, but people are probably reading it again for the first time since then! The actual rule is on page 18, and is the same wording as the CRP.

The rest we'll get to as soon as possible, so many thanks for your feedback and patience

[Wifflebat]

Andy's additional note was that only one of the two books was a Blood Bowl product...

[GalakStarscraper]

I post this first with the comment that I think Andy's definitely doing the right things ... some bumps in the road at the beginning but overall I'm happy with what it happening so far. I spent 4 years working on the CRP so I can definitely cut him some slack with his first printings.

Okay that said ... I do need to correct a mis-statement by Andy as one of BB's historians.

it's the same introductory description of how the ruler works that's been used since 1994

Actually that is incorrect. That wording was only used from 1994 to 2003.

The BBRC with Jervis Johnson (even before I joined the BBRC) changed the wording of that section in the Living Rulebook 2.0 which was officially released by GW in April 2003. So the wording currently in the rulebook was used for only 9 years with the revised wording referencing the square in the introduction used for the last 13 years.
In Living Rulebook 2.0 ... the wording was officially changed in the introduction at the front of the rulebook to include the phrase:
"If the line between two passing ranges crosses the receiving player’s square, then you should use the higher range."

I fully agree that the new rulebook has the LRB 6.0 rules for the range ruler on page 18 but the introduction has been changed to the wording from the 1994 rulebook as you stated but that is not what it has been for the last 13 years.


....
[EDIT]
And I will gladly read a Did You Know about Galak getting shivv'd by a Snotling.

[celticgriffon]

I also saw the post on FB. It is good to see our feedback and experience is filtering through to the correct people.

As we are all mostly aware there was a long, dark period where fan posted content was destroyed. It was ugly to say the least.

Perhaps they are turning a corner.

Michael

[nivlaps]

Can you argue the call on a failed bribe roll?

Thanks,
mb

I would say no. Wouldn't make much sense, would it?

[sann0638]

Yes, if you fail a bribe and someone gets sent off, you can then argue the call on the original decision.

[DinoTitanedition]

If you have a coaches miniature.

[celticgriffon]

Yes, if you fail a bribe and someone gets sent off, you can then argue the call on the original decision.

Is this an official answer, Mike? The rules in Death Zone on pg 28 Inducements / Bribes don't have a reference. Also, the rules for Head Coaches same book on p 28 don't have a reference.

Cheers,
Michael

[DOA]

Times ago(don't remember which lrb was) when the "argue the call" rule was in you can argue alla the van
But to Be honest, personally i first argue the call And the use the bribe

[hutchinsfairy]

My reading of the rules was that a bribe takes place before being sent off whereas the atc happens after. I don't have them in front of me though.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk