Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Blood Bowl » Rules Queries




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:22 am 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 115
harvestmouse wrote:
Why is 2nd ed irrelevant?

Because this isn't 2nd edition...

You are reading 2nd ed rules and assuming intent from that, then applying your intent to the way you choose to read a different ruleset. I can see why someone might take the approach of trying to parse the rules in the context of the evolution of the game but it's a very subjective argument with a lot of assumptions.

harvestmouse wrote:
"Roll the D6 again, a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the other player down, with obviously fatal results for the latter. On a roll of 2-6 the other player squirms free and should be placed prone......."


As an example of the subjectivity, I read this as being the Troll's roll.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:49 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 440
It's an evolution of the 2nd edition rule, streamlined by the same author. The action is exactly the same, so why would the intent change?

It's not me assuming intent, it's the intent of the game's inventor and the designer of the rule in question. At no point has there been a clear change of intent, just wording. I think a lot of gamers now are unaware of GWs original premise (and I'll be paraphrasing here). They set out to produce games where actions were believable and you could imagine real creatures performing those actions (or where not possible in turn based games) producing believable results. So from this premise (a premise that JJ believed in and made games upon) his intent was how you would imagine it to happen if you had a real troll and a real goblin. The wording in 2nd edition is clearer than 3rd, probably due to streamlining and not being necessary to describe any more due to 3rd edition it not being necessary to differentiate. However the 3rd edition rule, is the same rule as it is now.

A dice has 6 sides, and 5 sides of this dice are the goblin being successful. Only 1 is the Troll, and that is a 1. That's a fundamental rule of BB 'A 1 is always a fail'. If it was meant to be a success, why is this not a 6? On a 1 you fail 2-6 you pass roll. On a 1 the goblins fails 2-6 the goblins passes the roll. The same, where as the Troll is successful on a 1 (a fail in blood bowl) and unsuccessful on a 2-6 (the opposite of what you are rerolling, and therefore your adversary on this roll.

Is it the word 'successfully', because that doesn't mean much either. The word successfully could and should be applied equally to the verb 'scoffs' and 'squirm'. In the case of one sentence and 2 clauses it's the norm in writing to apply the adverb to the first verb and let the reader take it for granted it applies to the equal second verb. Rather than reuse the adverb twice (extremely bad in writing) or force a synonym, which appears contrived and overly complex.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:19 pm 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: Near Reading, UK
harvestmouse wrote:
The action is exactly the same, so why would the intent change?

Because the wording changed. Your assumption of continuity of intent is flawed.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:23 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 115
harvestmouse wrote:
It's an evolution of the 2nd edition rule, streamlined by the same author. The action is exactly the same, so why would the intent change?


The wording changed, neither you nor I know the intent for the either version. Even saying the rule was "streamlined" is you second guessing.

harvestmouse wrote:
It's not me assuming intent


I disagree. The fact that you have knowledge of the history of the rules and their original author does not get away from the fact that you are making assumptions. You have literally no idea if JJ or anyone else intended for the Troll or the Goblin to make the roll in either edition.

harvestmouse wrote:
A dice has 6 sides, and 5 sides of this dice are the goblin being successful. Only 1 is the Troll, and that is a 1. That's a fundamental rule of BB 'A 1 is always a fail'. If it was meant to be a success, why is this not a 6? On a 1 you fail 2-6 you pass roll. On a 1 the goblins fails 2-6 the goblins passes the roll. The same, where as the Troll is successful on a 1 (a fail in blood bowl) and unsuccessful on a 2-6 (the opposite of what you are rerolling, and therefore your adversary on this roll.


The Troll fails to follow orders, or fails to TTM, whilst successfully scoffing him. It is not hard to reconcile the Troll doing the rolling and the 1 being a fail.

harvestmouse wrote:
Is it the word 'successfully', because that doesn't mean much either.


It means simply that the Troll is trying to achieve something. It proves nothing but is at least as suggestive as "squirms".


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:43 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 440
"Even saying the rule was "streamlined" is you second guessing. "

No, it isn't. The complaint with the rules of the late 80s was that they were too complex and time consuming. So GW made huge changes to the rules of all their core games to streamline them at every opportunity. Here 3 scenarios were streamlined into 2. The description was streamlined to what was necessary.

"The wording changed, neither you nor I know the intent for the either version."

Why has the intent changed? Why would it change? If you can't show me or prove to me the intent of the rule changed, then why would it? The action is the same, what it's trying to replicate is the same. So why would the rule or the intent of the rule change? There's just no reason for it.

The reason for the wording, is the wording is as necessary as it needs to be for 3rd edition. There was no Big Guy or Loner for 3rd ed, so it didn't matter about who you perceived made the reroll, thus it wasn't necessary to word it. As the rest of the Always Hungry roll is about the troll, the troll is referred to as 'he' as the troll is already mentioned. It comes first in the description as that's the order (1 for the troll/2-6 for the goblin). The wording is as concise as it needed to be, there was no reason to word it in a way to differentiate the 2 players for the reroll.

"does not get away from the fact that you are making assumptions. You have literally no idea if JJ or anyone else intended for the Troll or the Goblin to make the roll in either edition."

True I am making the assumption that the intent hasn't changed. However I will say it again 'Show me where the intent was changed, for what reason, and validation for changing the intent and yeah fair play'. As the action is the same, what is trying to be replicated is the same..............why would the intent change? 2nd ed was still used for the core of the rules and changes were made only where changes were needed. 2nd ed to me it is clear that the goblin wriggles free.

"The Troll fails to follow orders, or fails to TTM, whilst successfully scoffing him. It is not hard to reconcile the Troll doing the rolling and the 1 being a fail."

What are you basing this on? The word 'successfully' or the 'he' pronoun? Why would it be the troll's roll when he's passively successful? The goblin is the active player here. If the wording of the rule was something like "on a 2-6 the Troll comes to his senses and realises he's about to scoff part of the roster and releases the little guy" Then yes, I'd agree it's the troll's roll, he's active. However the little guy is active here 'It squirms free' a rewording of the 'wriggle free rule' of 2nd ed. How can the Troll be the dice roller here when he passively fails and is therefore successful...........I don't get the logic.

"Because the wording changed. Your assumption of continuity of intent is flawed."

The wording had to change. 3 rules were streamlined into 2. However where was the change in intent? The action of both players is still the same. The troll trying to hold on/The goblin trying to wriggle free.

The wording is archaic due to now having loner rolls. I guess it never changed as nobody thought it was necessary or could foresee this debate.

TLDR

Why would the intent change if it is trying to replicate the same action? The wording is flawed due to the change in big guy neg traits and can't be trusted as an interpretation.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:22 pm 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: Near Reading, UK
Quote:
However where was the change in intent?
That would be in the wording. Wording conveys intent.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:47 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 440
And where is the proof in the wording? Zero, it's ambiguous for reasons l mentioned. No intention to change the rules has been shown, therefore I see no reason to change the original intent.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:05 pm 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 851
Location: Glasgow
harvestmouse wrote:
And where is the proof in the wording? Zero, it's ambiguous for reasons l mentioned. No intention to change the rules has been shown, therefore I see no reason to change the original intent.

It's unambiguous in CRP:
CRP: Always Hungry wrote:
On a roll of 1 he attempts to eat the unfortunate team-mate! Roll the D6 again, a second 1 means that he successfully scoffs the team-mate down, which kills the team-mate without opportunity for recovery

There is nothing there to suggest that the roll is being made by anyone other than the active player. Where such cases do occur (Shadowing, Tentacles) they are very explicit.
Original intent or even CRP intent are irrelevant. The rules are what the rules are, and nothing there suggests that it is not the Troll making the roll.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:16 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 115
harvestmouse wrote:
Why would the intent change if it is trying to replicate the same action?


"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that you knew exactly what JJ was thinking (down to the minutiae) when he wrote the 2nd ed rules and have continued to keep your ESP laser focused on this tiny detail in the intervening years.

Slightly less facetiously;
if by "intent" you mean exactly what was going on in another person's head then you are scaring me and I will probably start pretending to agree with you.
If by "intent" you mean your personal interpretation of the rules as written then I refer you to the preceding posts.
If by "intent" you mean something like the self-evident quintessential meaning underpinning the written rules then you actually don't. You mean your personal interpretation.
If you mean something else entirely then I think your autocorrect is on the fritz and I'm going to assume you mean Unicorn.

harvestmouse wrote:
The wording is flawed due to the change in big guy neg traits and can't be trusted as an interpretation.


So now we should be actively disregarding the rules as written in favour of your interpretation of the designers' Unicorn?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:47 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 440
@hutchinsfairy get f****d. How dare you personally attack my English ability and my sanity because we disagree about a BB rule.

@Vanguard If it was unambiguous why are we having this debate?

@Vanguardand others One thing I thought is, if it's the troll making the roll..............why would he reroll it at all? He's already successfully scoffed the goblin and therefore wouldn't want to reroll it....right?

So the BBRC (bless them) changed the wording, which makes it less clear it's the goblin (the original intention) making the roll and ok more likely (with the wording the Troll). If they changed the rule to be the Troll, what was the reason for doing so and where was it clarified? Was JJ aware of this or ever explained his original premise?

Rules shouldn't be changed due to a change of wording, when the mechanics and intention of the rule remain the same (IMO).


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:52 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 115
harvestmouse wrote:
@hutchinsfairy get f****d. How dare you personally attack my English ability and my sanity because we disagree about a BB rule


I think you have misconstrued my intent.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:24 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:58 am
Posts: 2077
Location: Pasadena California
hutchinsfairy wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:
@hutchinsfairy get f****d. How dare you personally attack my English ability and my sanity because we disagree about a BB rule


I think you have misconstrued my intent.


ROFLMAO
the irony about talking about intent then using intent as a defense
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Image
2014 Chaos Cup Stunty Cup


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:09 pm 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: Near Reading, UK
harvestmouse wrote:
And where is the proof in the wording? Zero, it's ambiguous for reasons l mentioned. No intention to change the rules has been shown, therefore I see no reason to change the original intent.
No, it's clear. It's just some people who don't like the words as written want to apply a different interpretation based on an interpretation of an outdated set of rules which are not in effect here.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:32 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 440
And at this point we are going around in circles.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Always hungry and Loner
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:04 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:52 am
Posts: 226
harvestmouse wrote:
Rules shouldn't be changed due to a change of wording, when the mechanics and intention of the rule remain the same (IMO).

And this is the root of why I disagree with you. It is your assumption that the unicornion remained the same. I actually think you have made a good case for this. Even if your argument is persuasive, it is still an assumption. The "mechanics" are what is actually under debate, so it is incorrect to use the mechanics you prefer to prove your point. Rules/mechanics do change when there is a substantive change in wording. The change in wording was unicornional. Unless an accepted authority joins the conversation, I find the current wording of the rules to be much more persuasive than your argument, because I believe the wording of the rules is the best arbitrator of unicorn than reliance on a previous edition. Asking the question of the authority because you think it might be different is perfectly acceptable.
harvestmouse wrote:
@Vanguardand others One thing I thought is, if it's the troll making the roll..............why would he reroll it at all? He's already successfully scoffed the goblin and therefore wouldn't want to reroll it....right?

You can re-roll a successful catch of a bouncing ball if you do not want that player to have the ball. The choice of re-roll is the coaches choice in determining fate, not the players choice. "Success" does not negate the choice to re-roll.
harvestmouse wrote:
So the BBRC (bless them) changed the wording, which makes it less clear it's the goblin (the original intention) making the roll and ok more likely (with the wording the Troll). If they changed the rule to be the Troll, what was the reason for doing so and where was it clarified? Was JJ aware of this or ever explained his original premise?

You appear to acknowledge that the CRP rules as written make it more likely that it is the troll rolling. The rest of this appears to be, "If it is not clear to me why a rule was changed, I am free to ignore the change." Your understanding of why something changed is not relevant the rules. The words are the rules and the rules are the words. Arguing otherwise without authority is claiming that authority for yourself. I do not accept that you have that authority.

_________________
Image


Last edited by CyberedElf on Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Blood Bowl » Rules Queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: