BBRC members ... please STOP THE MADNESS!!!!

[Trambi]

Please let us the time to learn the rules before change them !

[Marcus]

My point was mostly that if we put this forward to Andy we might be able to get it done at the source. The one thing I was afraid of was the official LRB being released by Fanatic and then NAF's change/errata document released separately - OBERWALD style.

Marcus

[neoliminal]

My point was mostly that if we put this forward to Andy we might be able to get it done at the source. The one thing I was afraid of was the official LRB being released by Fanatic and then NAF's change/errata document released separately - OBERWALD style.

Marcus

What's NAF got to do with anything? The NAF isn't going to change any rules, nor will it have errata or anything of the sort.


John Lewis
NAF Prez.

[Marcus]

For NAF read NAF/Community-at-large.

If there are enough people interested in pitching in to make sure the LRB gets proofread and changelogged before release then it's worthwhile approaching Andy with this to ensure it goes up on the site as a polished document.

Having a community-based changelog released separately (NAF site being ideal for this, although it could be anywhere as long as people could find the damn thing) is a definite possiblity but would run a poor second.

Marcus

[Acerak]

Ah, you've heard all this before, but here goes:

* Andy is responsible for the content of the LRB. He's got the source files. No one else has access outside of GW.

* The Horns/Frenzy bonus, Tom, is a simple clarification. Your original answer was right - you can't stand up or start a blitz, use Frenzy, and then use Horns on the second block. Why not? Because the bonus only applies to the second block if it applied to the first.

* The Fanatic clarification is there to handle a player who never falls over any other way. We'll revisit it again in October, but it's not a major problem to say that you'll allow Apothecary use in your league.

These are known issues - the larger issue is the frequency of changes and the introduction of changes and the missing change list - and we'll handle them as best we can. But neither John nor I are in any position to handle them right now, so please bear with us for a little while longer. Operations of this sort are always roughest in the beginning.

Cheers.

-Chet

[GalakStarscraper]

Now I'm completely confused ... sorry .. this doesn't happen very often.

Let's do the Horns/Frenzy/Stand Firm one more time and Neo/Acerak set me straight here.

IF I'm reading the LRB correctly, here would be my ruling:

Run 3 squares, blitz with Horns against Stand Firm and get all Push results: The player can make a 2nd block and the 2nd block gets the +1 bonus

This is a change from what I understood before and I thought was part of the Oberwald. I thought that Horns always used to require at least one square of movement so that the 2nd block the way it used to be would NOT have gotten the +1 ST since the Horns player did not move at one square before the block was thrown.

If the rules have been changed from this old standard answer that used to be given ... that's all I'm trying to discover. I understand that the wording is there to prevent a player from blocking and then following up and trying to use Horns because he's blitzing and just moved one square, but in order to make this clarification, did the old ruling on Stand Firm/Frenzy/Horns get pitched?

Galak

And I'm sorry if I'm busting your chops JKL/Chet. Its just I'm under the mistaken belief that Andy listens to your requests a little more than mine.

[Acerak]

Ah, I didn't see "Stand Firm" somewhere in there. This is what happens when you try to read 4 days of posts in a lunch hour

Anyway, I don't recall an official answer on this. The OBERWALD claimed no, eh? I'm inclined to say yes, however:

1. Did the player move at least one square before throwing the block?
2. Did the player throw the block as part of a Blitz action?

These two answer are "yes," and as I never saw a clause that said you had to move a square directly BEFORE the block, I don't think Stand Firm should stop the Horns.

(Think about it using Johnson's Razor. Stand Firm has clearly defined limits and bonuses. Stopping Horns from working on a Frenzy is simply not one of them.)

Hope this helps.

-Chet

[Deathwing]

FWIW Galak, we've always played that you get the +1 Horns bonus on the second Frenzy block.
From the Oberwald (Chucking Fans):
"A Frenzying player with Horns will recieve a +1 on his ST when blitzing if he moves at least one square before his first block roll and makes a follow up move. i.e. the player will not gain the +1 on extra blocks against a player with Stand Firm." -credited JJ.
So again, similarly to the MVP eligibility thing, I see this as a clarification rather than a rule change. And I agree wholeheartedly that a LRB change log is essential.
Interesting that Chet's last post re: Stand Firm contrasts directly with the above Oberwald quote though. Clarification required October I think.

[GalakStarscraper]

Thank you DW .... like I said the Chucking Fans Oberwald is many years old. So this item in the LRB was a CHANGE for me from the way I've always known the skill worked in combination with the others.

AGAIN, I don't have a problem at all with this intrepretation. Just didn't like gettting blindsided by it as a commish.

Galak

[wesleytj]

Thank you DW .... like I said the Chucking Fans Oberwald is many years old. So this item in the LRB was a CHANGE for me from the way I've always known the skill worked in combination with the others.

AGAIN, I don't have a problem at all with this intrepretation. Just didn't like gettting blindsided by it as a commish.

Galak

I've always found the Oberwald to be completely worthless. I read it once a few years ago, and many of the "official" rules were wrong, and some of the "semi-official" rulings on there were very silly. People would try to use that as an "official" source with which to argue with commishes and such, and we had to explain to them again and again that the Oberwald was not an official BB thing in any way. "If it's not in the White Dwarf..."

Anyway, hope I'm not stepping on toes here, and it HAS been several years since I looked at it so it could be better now, (also means I can't give specific examples about what was wrong) but that's what I remember.

[GalakStarscraper]

Agreed the Oberwald is not a source I normally use but for this case of a weird skill interaction, I did read it a while back. So that doesn't change the fact that the way I (and a people beyond me) thought it worked out altered between 1.1 and 1.2 ... ah well. Forget it ... it was really the deletion of the max FF of 9 that set me off anyway.

Galak

[Longshot]

The only thing that i want is: not a lot of change.
Please try to get the game like this for some years before another edition and selling others minis....(we can buy minis even if you dont change the ed...).

Thx

[Zombie]

I've always found the Oberwald to be completely worthless.

Thanks a lot.

Bevan, Chaosslipper aka Digem aka Moriarty (did he ever post here?) and i spent tens (maybe hundreds) of hours working on that thing. Good to know it's appreciated. :(

Up to the Chucking fans edition, which was done by other people, it was pretty much just a collection of house rules. That edition ended in 1996. Starting with the Crazy coaches edition, which was done by the three of us starting in 2000, it became a crucial document for any self-respecting commish, or so i thought anyway. Give it another chance before you give up on it. Here's where to find it:

OBERWALD

[Thadrin]

Zombie - Chaso SLipper has posted here. I think hes registered as "Slipper". Haven't seen him on here in ages though, unless he switched name. He might still be lurking.

[DoubleSkulls]

I'd like to say that Galak is right. Andy/BBRC/whoever shouldn't go around changing the rules just because they consider it a clarification. IMO only changes that ought to be made between BBRC meetings should be typos. Otherwise, as Galak has said, it becomes impossible to know what the current ruleset actually says.