Living Rules version naming suggestion

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 2:41 pm

Deathwing wrote:The rulebook as it stands has gone to the printers. Andy said the other day that he couldn't now change the LRB as it'd differ from the printed version and cause confusion.
My guess is that we may get additional rules becoming official through the BBMag(possibly clarifications/Q &As?) but I wouldn't expect any changes to the core rules until at least the print run has expired. Rulebooks are expensive to produce!

Great so all of those "typo" changes added in by invisible goblins over the last few months under everyone's noses are now going to be official rules eh? Too late to just go back and take em out.

I wonder how accidental that is?

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 6:58 pm

So it looks like the "player input" that was trumpeted about when the BBRC (and Fanatic in general)was set up has quietly been forgotten.

I think we'll take 1 set of rules (probably LRB1.3) and say sod the updates.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 7:36 pm

My question is: With a SCHEDULED YEARLY RULES REVIEW, why send the book off to the printers JUST A COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE SAID REVIEW?

It makes no bloody sense.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 7:40 pm

Dragonkin is correct, it doesn't make any sense. Print up the official rules in a new rule book after the rules review!
The things they do at GW sometimes amaze me.

Scott King · Post by **Scott King** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 3:48 am

Darkson wrote

I think we'll take 1 set of rules (probably LRB1.3) and say sod the updates.

I agree with you on that. I tend to dislike tinkering with rules anyway, as it tends to make them over complicated and often slows game play to a crawl. I'm not saying this in relation to BB, but definitely other games where the rules additions just confuse everyone (Unearthed Arcana, anyone?) But now with the rules additions being quietly swept under the carpet, all the discussion we have about the pros and cons of optional rules seems to have become strictly academic.

bingbong186 · Post by **bingbong186** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:39 pm

I think it would be a great idea to rename the LRB RR200x, Vx.#, and teach everything about this rulebook to someone with a photographic memory, who will then apply to his local court to have his name changed to Living Rulebook. Living rulebook could then sit atop a vast mountain, and Blood Bowl pilgrims could travel to see him and have him impart his wisdom unto them.
Well........ it could happen.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:05 pm

I have to say that I agree Darkson. After this latest load of bull my league voted out the LRB. We will have our own rules review, create our own edition and have rules that only change once a year. We will also give explainations on our rulings.
For example, if a beastman with frenzy can have the +1 on the second block then a troll slayer will not need to reroll dauntless on his second block. See how that's consistent and makes sense? Also if we change it we will have an reason why and everyone will know that it changed.
After all the mess in BB lately, using the LRB was my league's way of giving Fanatic one more chance to do right by us, but they've had it with all the confusion and I don't blame them.

Scott King · Post by **Scott King** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:39 am

It's interestingthat in another thread Andy was being flamed for altering the LRB without input. But now I can understand why, coz I guess he was under pressure from The Powers That Be at GW to have it ready on a publishing deadline. Timing still sucks though.

So back to the original question. How valid will the October rules review be now? Are they official, errataed, or just house rulz? Any BBRC members out there who can clarify?

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:24 pm

Hmm...my understanding was that the RR takes place in October, and the rule/changes clarifications become official the following March with the publication of the Annual. So you need the one book and the current year's annual.
The LRB is a great concept, but at some point is has to go off to the printers. I'm having trouble getting the beef to be honest. Coaches have been crying out for one intregrated rulebook for years. Now it's happening, and while everybody has their pet issues, on the whole it's a ruleset that the vast majority are quite happy with. The book needed to be printed in order to be packaged with the release of the boxed game that people are still moaning is unavailable in most countries.
We demanded the one book, we got the one book and people are still moaning? I just don't get it....
Incidently, this month's WD confirms that the book will be available separately.

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 1:25 pm

I want one book.
Easier to remember, to learn than reading rule book + deathzone +annual...

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:26 pm

I like the IDEA of the LRB. It's not we have though. The rulebook was going to be updated once a year with new rules and input from coaches. Instead it has been changed 3 times with no input and by people who don't play the game. The rules added or changed have not been playtested and in my opinion that is no better than 4th no matter what the big brain of Andy Hall thinks.
My league agreed to play the LRB version of the rules but which version? I'm not going to keep changing the rules on them every month. Especially with untested rules that were made by somebody who doesn't even play the game. Once a year is plenty. That's how we will be doing it with our own book.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:54 pm

If I were running something that had such a wide-spread agreement on its necessity as LRB has, and someone would start to make an LRB of their own after getting frustrated to my system, I would (hopefully) consider it a sign to critically evaluate the process by which I run the system. Something could and should be better if someone does something like Pariah's league did with the LRB.

In the case of the LRB, I think the problems and the cures for them are as follows:

Problem1:The process and responsibilities are not clear to the public
Cure: these should be defined and announced
Problem2: The nature of LRB updates are unclear and misinformed
Cure: LRB updates should be restricted to errata. The process of defining the errata (and rules changes, should they be included) should be clear to the public and preferably run by the BBRC.
Problem3:Updates have to be searched for ad there is no documentation of them
Cure: An up-to-date change history should exist.

Just IMHO