BB2016 Rules - Seasons Completed start at zero or one?

[Jorgen_CAB]

it IS relevant because it supports my interpretation

But it is NOT relevant to my interpretation. You are using an arbitrary and undefined "season end" to make your point, whereas I am not. If I don't have to invoke some arbitrary, unrecorded thing like "end of season" to support my argument then I am reliant on one less thing outwith the rulebook than you. You are house ruling based on "common sense" (which is neither common nor sensible) as opposed to using the rulebook as written. You are welcome to house rule as you see fit, ofc.

Third party ruling on the matter is not enough... I need an official ruling in order to change my stance.

You could just read the rules as written

No I can't if I think there is an error and the intent was meant to be different... that is like reading that Wood Elf Linemen cost 7000gp when I know the intent was 70000gp. Just an example...

I'm arguing that they intended for it to be different and just screwed up the text, therefore I use what I think was intended rather than what is written (as a house rule).

Sure... it is not as written... but neither would 70000gp Wood Elf Linemen be if you just read the book until it was corrected if it is corrected, don't know really.

[dode74]

No I can't if I think there is an error and the intent was meant to be different... that is like reading that Wood Elf Linemen cost 7000gp when I know the intent was 70000gp. Just an example...

Some things are obvious, others are not. Grak and Crumbledungus not having loner, for example, seemed obvious but was not. WE linemen seemed obvious and was. Furthermore, WE linemen were acknowledged as an error as soon as it was pointed out: this example of season counting was not. The opposite, in fact: "your interpretation sounds right" was the comment.

(as a house rule)

Crack on. No argument from me there.

[Jorgen_CAB]

No I can't if I think there is an error and the intent was meant to be different... that is like reading that Wood Elf Linemen cost 7000gp when I know the intent was 70000gp. Just an example...

Some things are obvious, others are not. Grak and Crumbledungus not having loner, for example, seemed obvious but was not. WE linemen seemed obvious and was. Furthermore, WE linemen were acknowledged as an error as soon as it was pointed out: this example of season counting was not. The opposite, in fact: "your interpretation sounds right" was the comment.

(as a house rule)

Crack on. No argument from me there.

The issue of season counting is a more resent issue as far as I know so come after the FAQ was released. That is why there have been no official response yet. Even the game designer seemed somewhat lacking knowledge about the intent or details surrounding the rule.

[dode74]

WE were acknowledged as an error before the FAQ was released. If there is an FAQ 2 I would expect similar errors to be acknowledged.

I feel you are grasping at straws. The words as written are clear and have internal consistency without necessitating the extra arbitrary thing you require for your interpretation whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with them or not, and whether it becomes clarified at some future date or not.

[Jorgen_CAB]

WE were acknowledged as an error before the FAQ was released. If there is an FAQ 2 I would expect similar errors to be acknowledged.

I feel you are grasping at straws. The words as written are clear and have internal consistency without necessitating the extra arbitrary thing you require for your interpretation whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with them or not, and whether it becomes clarified at some future date or not.

No.. not clear... hence there is need for clarifications. My take is that the rules are written in error and the intent was to roll after two seasons and not three. Based on other evidence in the book.

[dode74]

They may be written wrongly but they are clear as to when you roll for WTR and when you change "the number of seasons they have completed".

[Jorgen_CAB]

They may be written wrongly but they are clear as to when you roll for WTR and when you change "the number of seasons they have completed".

Sure... but that is not my argument... I have many times acknowledged this is the way you can interpret the rules, intent is another if you suspect the rules as written is wrong. It is harder to establish true intent though.

[dode74]

You are arguing intent. I am arguing that the wording is clear.

If you suspect the rules as written are wrong then you can assume pretty much whatever you like was the intent...

[Jorgen_CAB]

You are arguing intent. I am arguing that the wording is clear.

If you suspect the rules as written are wrong then you can assume pretty much whatever you like was the intent...

In many cases intent are easier to see than others. In this case not so much if the text as written is wrong... in any case they need to clean up the text to make it crystal clear they mean three seasons before you roll the WTR.

I would say that it is quite common to know the answer to an error before you get an Errata or FAQ.

[dode74]

And in many the intent is not clear. My point is you are assuming intent which the text does not support in order to create the interpretation you want. I am assuming no intent other than what the text states.

[CyberedElf]

<deleted what I wrote>
Damn squabbling over semantics again. All participants appear to agree on what is written and that the other has the right to play it how they believe it is intended. The rest is can we judge intent without official clarification? If we can, should we in this case? No, is the only objective answer. This is a rare case where I accept a subjective opinion based on context.

(I still believe using a literal interpretation a failed GFI into endzone is a turnover before the bouncing ball is caught causing the TD to be scored on the opponents turn, but the intent was explicitly made clear as otherwise.)

[Jorgen_CAB]

And in many the intent is not clear. My point is you are assuming intent which the text does not support in order to create the interpretation you want. I am assuming no intent other than what the text states.

Are you seriously arguing that I can't judge the intent for myself!?!

In my opinion the text support my claim... I have shown many places where the text support my claim... you just ignore or fail to see it. You can easily make the case of the intent being different than what is written, this is a probability call... not a one or zero case. In my opinion the probability is high enough to question the text as written, that is how this work and why the text need to be clarified and cleaned up and the intent be made crystal clear. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

[dode74]

Are you seriously arguing that I can't judge the intent for myself!?!

Yes, and neither can I. The ONLY thing we have with which to assess intent is the written word.

In my opinion the text support my claim... I have shown many places where the text support my claim... you just ignore or fail to see it. You can easily make the case of the intent being different than what is written, this is a probability call... not a one or zero case. In my opinion the probability is high enough to question the text as written, that is how this work and why the text need to be clarified and cleaned up and the intent be made crystal clear. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

You've shown no such thing: you've invoked some spurious variable ("when does the season end?") in order to explain why your interpretation might be right. Thing is, that is not relevant to the question of which number you have to beat when making the WTR roll in the rules as written.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In my opinion the text support my claim... I have shown many places where the text support my claim... you just ignore or fail to see it. You can easily make the case of the intent being different than what is written, this is a probability call... not a one or zero case. In my opinion the probability is high enough to question the text as written, that is how this work and why the text need to be clarified and cleaned up and the intent be made crystal clear. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

You've shown no such thing: you've invoked some spurious variable ("when does the season end?") in order to explain why your interpretation might be right. Thing is, that is not relevant to the question of which number you have to beat when making the WTR roll in the rules as written.

But it is... it shows there "might" be intent other than what is written which make one think that what they actually wrote is in error.

They should NEVER have mentioned "two completed seasons" for example and they should have clearly pointed out that "completed seasons" lag behind actual played seasons. When you couple this with other part of the rulebook that clearly state the off-season is outside the season you clearly start to doubt the written text as what they truly intended.

I guess they might have intended it to be two seasons at first and changed their mind, they then did not clean up the text or explained it properly. Or they do intend it to be two seasons and just messed up the mechanics. You can make a case for both ways which is why there need to be clarifications since it WILL confuse people who read it.

I do refuse to believe they intended it to be three season from the start becasue the way they wrote the text, such an illogical mechanic they truly would have understood would need a better explanation with a good example.

Allot of people will include the current season, at least until they FAQ it.

It is also sort of important to know from a balance perspective.

[dode74]

But it is... it shows there "might" be intent other than what is written which make one think that what they actually wrote is in error.

It's only relevant if you try to explain your interpretation: that's my point.

When you couple this with other part of the rulebook that clearly state the off-season is outside the season you clearly start to doubt the written text as what they truly intended.

Which bit clearly states "the off-season is outside the season"? Regardless, there is a listed procedure for WTR and adding one to "the number of seasons they have completed" and that procedure is unambiguous.

I do refuse to believe they intended it to be three season from the start becasue the way they wrote the text, such an illogical mechanic they truly would have understood would need a better explanation with a good example.

I doubt it. When you write rules and procedures (I've done a fair bit myself in the aviation world) the intent is usually very clear to you, but that's only because you have a prior expectation of the interpretation. That's one reason you give these things to other people to proof-read. With a team of 2 I doubt Andy and James had much leeway in that department.