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.