Talk Fantasy Football

Here's something to throw the cat among the pigeons...

Which is the official reference for Blood Bowl rules.

Is it the LRB?
Is it the 2002 Annual?
Is it the all-in-one handbook?

Woody, over in Woody's FAQ, has claimed that the LRB right at the time of writing is identical to the all-in-one handbook.

This may be true, but it will not remain that way, by defninition because it is the Living Rule Book. Therefore it will be updated and changed.

Jervis Johnson, the creator of the game, used to have an email address which went " it ain't official until it's in print."

Going by that motto, I'd like to substantiate that the 'most' official source is the all-in-one handbook. Because it's the most recent in print.

But hang on, I hear you say, isn't on the website in print?

Well, Obviously Jervis didn't think that an email was 'in print'. Otherwise the signature was pointless.

Here we have the scale:

Emails
Websites
treeware printed manual.

Now if an email isn't in print, how about TalkBloodBowl - is this post 'in print' or not? Is it 'in Print' if Andy answeres a question onthe official forum on the official BB website?

As far as I'm concerned, there's enough doubt in my mind about hte LRB, combined by the fact that by definition it changes, that to me the most official rules are those that are printed through GW's printing press.

That places them above the LRB. Why? Because we all know the LRB has problems and get's changed. The fact that it needs an addendum sheet about what's been changed abotu it shows you that it's not a static source.
Also, to refer to the LRB can be confusing without referencing to editions. This can be confusing to newbie.

So for me, I'm quoting from the BB Annual as my official reference point, until I get my hard print all-in-one rulebook.

It's all a bit of a moot point, because as I understand it, the LRB right now and the rulebook are the one and ther same thing.

Don't get confused about this - this is my opinion and not that of the BBRC...

My understanding of it is as follows.

The livingrulebook will be the most up to date of all the rules, things being added to it to clear things up after things like questions and answers, so in this regard i see it as the official rules.

Now the 1.3 rulebook will be the same as the printed rulebook, which I assume will be the same till the rules review next year. After each rules review i am assuming that a new rulebook will get printed which is basically lifted from the current incarnation of the LRB at this point. So it will include all the clarifications that have been added for whatever reason and then all the rule changed from the rules review.

I also assume that any changes made to the LRB will only be clarifacations of the current ruleset. This is because the rules are only going to get changed at the annual rules review (this is the point of it after all). Now if the LRB is essentially the same rules as the latest printed material with some clarifacations, its not really different to the printed rulebook, just a bit clearer on the explanation of those rules.

If this is the case then why can't the LRB be considered "official", its only updated by Andy Hall (if i am correct). Also I thought the whole point of the living rulebook was to keep a record of the latest rule changes and clarifacations that occur. In this regard seeing as its the most up to date, it makes sense (well in my mind) that it should be regarded as offical.

The trouble with the theory is this:

Grumbledook stated:

its only updated by Andy Hall (if i am correct).

The trouble is that Andy ends up making changes which are _not_ a part of this process, as Galak has correctly shown in other threads.

. After each rules review i am assuming that a new rulebook will get printed

I don't think that will be the case due to costs. A new LRB will be compiled, but I think the official changes will need to be in the BB Annual, like they were in the first 2002 BB Annual.

The livingrulebook will be the most up to date of all the rules, things being added to it to clear things up after things like questions and answers, so in this regard i see it as the official rules

In a perfect world Grumbledook, in a perfect world. I raise the topic because
a) We may yet see inconsistencies between the all-in-one printed Rulebook and the LRB - what then?
b) Quoting the LRB can be confusing - which version?
c) the LRB keeps changing.

But sound argument otherwise.

Yes fair enough, having one printed rulebook makes life a lot easier but with one a year your likely to have the "whatversion" problem here as well, unless people are made aware there is a change. This would be easiest if there was a whole reprint of the rules in the annual, shouldn't be hard keeping track of which year you're meant to be in ;]

Then from this point the annuals would be the single offical source of rules, to have bits of the rules and ammendments scattered all over the place is a hassle. Even just having the rulebook from the box and then say the ammendments in the annual is a pain as far as i am concerened, especially if the rules from hte annual contradict the rules from the rulebook.

Basically the bottom line as I see it, is that there should be all the current offical rules all collected together in one resource and that it should be clear that this set is the current offical rules and what they say goes. These should also last till the next set of rules are printed out and any other tid bits of clarifcations should just be in the LRB and any rule changes in here in the meantime, should be regarded for house rules until they come out in print.

I feel this is the easiest, clearest and hopefully simpliest implimentation from the players perspective. I don't know anythng about actually getting stuff to print so can't really offer views from that perspective.

One final point, the new reprint shouldn't cost too much either, I like the idea of being able to print out the LRB like i currently have done.

As far as I'm concerned, there's enough doubt in my mind about hte LRB, combined by the fact that by definition it changes, that to me the most official rules are those that are printed through GW's printing press.

I think the LRB should be viewed as the most recent official version of the rules (if it follows an approved update process, which is the real issue). The fact the LRB can change is a great benefit, and just because it is electronic doesn't mean it's not "printed". IMO a PDF is as good as a paper book, it's a compiled document like anything else. The fact it is distributed electronically is just a sign of the times. If I have an electronic copy of Moby Dick, is it any less valid?

The only problem I see is that not everyone has internet access (gasp!). But ignorance is bliss, and I don't think it would matter much to them anyways. I think for the sake of clarifications to official rules, the LRB is a great tool that we should exploit to its full potential.

As I understood things, the LRB is the source of official rules. At the time of writing, the LRB is identical to 'one book'.
After each rules review, the changes will become official with the publication of the annual, and presumably, the LRB will be updated.
So the official rules should comprise, at any given time:
Online: The LRB
Printed: The Handbook and the current Annual.

I guess the trick is to make the 2 identical, but Andy Hall has already stated that he was unable to change the LRB to differ from the printed version, so the intention is clear at least. It's a pretty good situation, obviously far preferable to the old Handbook, DZ, WD 182, Annual etc.

It isn't a bad situation, as anybody who's read Andy Chamber's piece on updating 40K Codices (Codexes?) in WD 270 will testify.
(Talking about leaving corrections to Q&A or updating books)
"..the problem wth changing the books is all the players who've already bought them. They all curse us roundly when they hear the news and complain bitterly about changing the rules just being a conspiracy to make them buy new books. Uncertaincy and confusion avalanche and before we know it maddened crowds are roaming the streets bearing burning torches, pitchforks and "Kill Andy!" banners."
So the current policy with 40K is to make minor changes to incorporate any Q&A into any future print runs of any particular codex, publish the errata in WD in the form of 'cut out and stick into your book' sections, post it on the website and put it in the Chapter Approved annual. Andy Chambers refers to it as "a hopelessly optimistic policy of getting things right at all costs."
So, in comparison, one book and one annual, or one definative (printable) online source is simplicity. Problems will only arise when one source conflicts with the other. Keep them in step and we're on easy street.

Actually my spin on this.

The LRB online should be the only official document for Blood Bowl. (Remember the cries of 1 1/2 ago for one ring to rule them all).

So my take: The Handbook is just a periodically printed LRB. IF a new LRB was released online it would supercede the old printed source.

The Annual is wonder for experimental rules and guidance. Q&A are great to put into the Annual ... BUT these Q&A should be immediately incorporated into the LRB. I should NEVER EVER have to quote a reference for a rule to anything other than the LRB. This is simply the wrong direction.

Now as Babs pointed out Andy needs someone to beat him with a stick about changing the LRB. Hopefully part of the review process is the BBRC coaches telling Andy that going forward any changes to the LRB require a changelog that can be released with it and another BBRC member to review them before the new PDF gets posted.

There is little to no reason to offer the LRB as a PDF if the stance is to be maintained that it is not official. Better than to remove it altogether. However, as I said before .... I think the online PDF SHOULD be the one ring.

Galak

Thats what my initial thought on the LRB was when i came across it back in August. I would certainly go along with that idea Galak, would make life very easy for me and I suspect a fair few others. Like babs said some people will get confused with version numbers and others don't have net access. Well to be honest if they can't get it then i am sure these players will be fine using the latest printed handbook until a new one is printed. As for the version number if anyone has a problem they only have to go to the site and check the rules directly from the latest version on there.

GalakStarscraper wrote: I should NEVER EVER have to quote a reference for a rule to anything other than the LRB.

This would be the ideal situation. A rulebook with everything contained, available from anywhere with an internet connection.

I agree. I think thee LRB should be the official source. I assume most groups will have at least one person with access to the net, and if Andy if convinced/forced to make changelogs (or better still cut & paste wherever possible) there can be no excuses like " I don't want to print it all out again".

Here we are, all agreeing about the LRB being the best thing to be official.

THe question is not about what should be, but what _IS_.

We're not in dreamland.

So we come up with a 'take over the world plan' which as it's first step is to drown Andy Hall in a petition docunment 5,000 pages in size signed by all the people who think that the LRB should follow protocol and be updated immediately following any changes.

On the other hand, we work out which is best to quote from.

I think we're a little self interested. I mean, of course all the net savvy people on a bulletin board which requires a good connection are going to want the offiical version to be the online .pdf It's as ironic as all American baseball teams getting together and deciding to play the World Series. Oh - that's right - they do.

The issues are:
* Andy makes changes when Andy can (There's no direct financial benefit in a .pdf, although you can argue a lot of indirect benefit)
* The 'in print' version and the LRB will most likely differ, even now. (Unless someone can vouch for me by seing firsthand that the LRB and the Rulebook are the one and the same word for word - Woody?)
* The LRB corrects mistakes and makes changes to the official rules. It needs a changelog (right Galak?) It's in a state of flux. How many people will always have the latest version if it's being updated?


The point I really want to make is not casting doubt on the authenticity of the LRB as an official source (although I've had a halfhearted attempt) but rather to show why I try to quote material from a hard copy.

At least there is a version number on the LRB!

And I agree with all the sentiment really. THe LRB is the ideal solution - it's just not happening properly yet (although this may be the point where it does).

And Galak - just sent an email to Andty Hall with the 'beat him with a stick' bit. Hopefully he'll get the point - so consider it done as part of the BBRC process


[/b]

Err... if the Annual is official, why does the link on your site that says "New Official Blood Bowl Rules!" go to the LRB?

Well, in my League(s) the LRB is the official rulebook. No IFs ANDs or BUTs.

But then again... that doesn't mean anything... after all, who am I?

Babs wrote:We're not in dreamland.

Two things:

1) The LRB 1.3 is EXACTLY what was printed for the rulebook. So currently the two are the same.

2) There is really really zero reason why the LRB should not be the single source rule document. The reason that you gave have no weight to me Babs.

I'm not saying the LRB should be immediately updated, but I am saying that I'd rather state that whatever the currently LRB says IS the rules rather than start doing the WD 182 quoting nightmare ever again.

If you are asking me what IS official right now ... its the LRB 1.3 no questions asked ... no other documents count at all.

Blood Bowl needs one rulebook and one rulebook only. IF a member of the BBRC (or heck I'LL volunteer) reviews a changelog that Andy is required to prepare for every item he changes in the LRB, then there is zero problem with the LRB online being the one source.

The Annual and the Magazine are selling out too quickly. If you had put actual rules in the Annual a lot of players would be SOL right now.

So bottom line for me: the LRB online IS the official rules of Bloodbowl. And in my opinion if Andy agrees to have his changes verified before finalizing this is fine.

Galak

To what extent are we jousting with windmills here? Most Leagues IME house rule to some extent anyway.
The recent Spiky, this year's Tiptoe, next year's Dutch Open are/were all advertised in the relevent rulepacks as LRB. As is the new REBBL challenge league. Given that Babs is almost certainly more 'in the know' about the Blood Bowl next March, I'll still wager that the tournament is run 'as per LRB'. If you start running tournaments that require printed copies and amendums, you'll start raising local/regional/international barriers.
Example, most of France seems to be still running modified 3e (for the simple reason that a French translation of 3e was sold).
Now what happens at the BB in March if the ruleset is based on a printed book that has never been available in France? Or Germany?
The LRB route means it doesn't matter is the latest rulebook/Annual/BB mag hasn't/reached sold/out was never available in Wollogong/Timbuktu/Quebec/Iowa/ Uppsala etc.
All it takes is ONE Commish/Tourney Organiser/League member to have internet access, and you have instant 'official' rules anywhere in the world.
It's a brilliant concept and the way forward. Especially in view of the way the 'international' tournament scene is going.

And Babs, you should know that Jervis' sig. was just a catch-all!
" I have here a 2 year old email from JJ in which he states blahblahblah so therefore blahblahblah....oh wait, what's that say at the bottom?"