Talk Fantasy Football

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 7:27 pm

Toby ...

I understand the playability aspect ... and to be honest I could really care less about the rule change .... the game is still the one I love.

No what is pressing my buttons is that the fact that small changes like these are being introduced into the LRB without announcement, highlighting, etc., etc., etc.

I care about this game a great deal. Since I help program one of the more widely used electronic methods of playing it I pride myself on fully understanding the rules as they currently are.

These makes the second change to the rules that had no notification or was not highlighted in the last two months. I don't like that. I do not like being asked a question as a commish and giving an answer and then having to retract it because the latest copy of the LRB changed the rules without showing that it did.

So if MVPs can be earned by anyone not Missing the Game or Niggled (I assume Chet that handicap Miss Game results cannot earn either???) are the new rule ... then I'll program it into the tool. However I'd don't like being ambused by the rules and lately that's how I've been feeling.

I'm going to spring clean the BBRC hot topics page on my site and hopefully the gang will seriously clean up the vague stuff (like rookie Ogres on halfling teams and base vs square interceptions etc. etc. etc) in October.

Galak

SBG · Post by **SBG** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 7:30 pm

In our case, we added a column to the roster sheet called "Games Played", and you add 1 every time the guy steps on the pitch. This way, you know who played or not. I agree with Galak on this one : if you don't play, you don't deserve to be named MVP. It's simple logic. A player isn't named the Super Bowl's MVP if he didn't take part. There's a limit to fantasy, I think...

Fred

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 8:21 pm

Tom - Right on the Handicap table. Yes, we're going to get these items cleaned up in October. I'll just chalk this up to "Andy forgot to highlight it blue," and I hope it doesn't happen again. But I don't have access to the source files, so there's little I can do aside from mailing Andy. And this isn't a material issue, I think, so there's little point in releasing v1.4 until 2.0 comes out after October.

Thanks for the work on the October site. I'm looking forward to the cleaning

-Chet

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 8:24 pm

Thanks Chet ... I'm not requesting version 1.4 ... I just don't like being surprised. The game is complex enough to be a rules commish for without getting nabbed by a hidden rule change.

Galak

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:02 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
Now I realize that someone is going to argue that "took part in the match" and "available to play" are the same .... bull hockey ... if I went into a locker room after a game and said that I took part in the game after sitting all match .... I'd be laughed out of the gym.

Well, I'm not going to argue, but we always interpretated "took part in the match" as the starting team, whether they set foot on the field or not. We've been keeping track of who actually played and who didn't in our tabletop games, but we genuinely believed we were 'house ruling'.
I guess the point is that there was obviously room for different interpretations, and now it's clarified.

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:18 pm

God....I didn't even notice that treeman thing...the rule hasn't specifically changed, but.....

No. thats wrong. The whole point of the rule was that treemen were too inflexible to stand up easily. Put it right guys.

The other rule, to be honest I could care less. A guy who has been sat in the Reserves box all game getting the MVP is no stupider than the player who scores three TDs and a Casualty NOT getting it (and I had that happen in a solo game...that Blitzer had a knack of being in the right place at the right time. For once.)

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 11:04 pm

I agree 100% with Galak EVERY and be it oh so minor change to LRB should be logged. It would be perfectly ok to only say "clarification on page 99" or "page 199 updated".

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 12:27 am

Thadrin wrote: (...)
The other rule, to be honest I could care less. A guy who has been sat in the Reserves box all game getting the MVP is no stupider than the player who scores three TDs and a Casualty NOT getting it (and I had that happen in a solo game...that Blitzer had a knack of being in the right place at the right time. For once.)

The player who sat the whole game in reserve box can't have made any blood bowl actions.
But other players on the pitch can have make some useful things (like blocking and being blocked the whole game the opponent minotaur) which don't give any SPP. SPP are not perfect to attribute the MVP !! I prefer the randomly selected player (who have on the pitch).

So I don't like this change on MVP rule.

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 2:58 am

Toby - I'm not in control of the source file, and I don't get paid to do what I do. If you're so gung-ho about a log, why not write Andy Hall and volunteer to log the changes? I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard.

-Chet

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:01 am

If the person typing up the changes makes a note of them in a different document, it takes only a few seconds. There's really no additional work there.
If someone else does it, he has to find the changes first, unless he has a list of changes. But wait a second - we are asking for a list of changes, so then there would be no work to do.

There's no point in asking Toby or anyone else here to volunteer for making a list for future versions, as the most effective, most accurate and least time-consuming way of doing it is to have the person who writes up the changes make the change list at the same time.

Just IMHO.

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:30 am

Mestari I understand you but I understand Andy Hall too, if don't want take these "few seconds" cos with the amount of minor change, perhaps it will take him few hours.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:44 am

Isn't there any sort of change control on the LRB anyway? If so the author should already have a list of the changes they are going to make before they even start editing the document.

Or does the author just make any old changes they feel like?

Ian

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 9:06 am

I don't know how the LRB is modified as to Rulz guruz

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 10:10 am

Acerak wrote:Toby - I'm not in control of the source file, and I don't get paid to do what I do. If you're so gung-ho about a log, why not write Andy Hall and volunteer to log the changes? I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard.

-Chet

Chet, i dont know who here is GW Staff and who not, and i wasnt aiming at you. I think who ever CHANGES the file should log what he did.

Everything else is plain SILLY.

HEY LIVING RULEBOOK 4.0 RELEASED !

What changed ?

I DON'T KNOW.

Sorry, stupid, isn't it ?

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 1:17 pm

Mail Andy Hall. His address is on the inside of the LRB. But saying it over and over and over in this forum isn't going to do you a bit of good.

-Chet