BBRC Hot List - 2003

[GalakStarscraper]

Okay guys the 2002 Hot List was printed out and used by the BBRC last year to address the needed questions of the BB community. So it worked ... so lets get it ramped up again.

I finally got time to gather up the events of the last few months and revamp the page for 2003. If I've missed relevant rule debates that need added let me know.

Oh and last year, Zombie hit me with my accusation of bias in the listing. I try to post everything that was given points for merit whether I agree with it or not. If something there has too much personal bias, I'll make it more generic ... just let me know. The goal is not to bias ... just to ask the question.

http://www.midgardbb.com/BBRC_HotList2003.html

Galak

[Anthony_TBBF]

All great stuff, but I disagree with the last two points being on the Hot List. IMO, the list should be for clarifying badly worded rules or offering suggestions and alternatives to some rules (ie. COFAB). I don't think we should use it to suggest new experimental rules. That should be the domain of BB Mag. If we open it up to everything, it just invites a loooong list of crazy stuff that is largely irrelevant to improving the game.

[Zombie]

Yeah! My crusade appears as the first item on the list! Seriously, with the results of the poll we had, i think the chances of it happening are pretty good.

[Zombie]

Some problems with your list:

1. "Players with lost tackle zones cannot lend offensive assists (polling of the BB community indicated that a large majority of leagues already played it this way, greatly simplifies lost TZ blocking problems)"

It already works this way. I believe what you mean is that you want them to not be able to stop opponents from assisting.

2. "Okay everyone and even their neighbors who don't play Blood Bowl appear to hate the 1/6 rule for Fan Factor rolls ... can we lose it?"

Huh? When was that discussed? I know i don't have anything against it!

3. "Nowehere on page 39 or 41 does it say that a stat cannot be reduced below 1. Several leagues have ruled that this is because a stat can go zero and that kills the player. Since last year, Chet said that a stat cannot go below 1, if this is true; then add this to page 39 and/or 41."

I haven't checked in the rulebook thoroughly, but i know for sure that in 3rd ed, it was clear that a stat "simply remains at 1".

3. "There is no wording in the LRB about decreases of 2 being the max on the aging table (only the injury table has limiters defined as -2 max). What happens if an aging roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?"

You already mentioned that in the section above.

4. "If I get 2 MA stat increases, and then suffer aging or a serious injury that removes a point of MA. If I get an MA increase for my next skill roll, can I take it? (IE ... does the 2 limit to increases the number of increases or the current real change in the stat value?)"

Does that really need answering? Sorry, but that's really a dumb question. Knowing the BBRC, they'll read it, say "that's a dumb question, we won't even answer that" and then be less inclined to answer the other questions on your list.

5. "What happens if you can only field 1 or 2 players for a drive (ie less than the required 3 on the LOS) is it an automatic concession or does the game go on? What if a team has NO players in reserve to field? I've seen the scenario where Wood Elves are up by 2 TDs with 3 turns left in the 2nd half but the entire team is either KO'd or Injured ... what happens? We've played that the opposing team takes the field alone and continues playing, but is this correct? ... need some wording for guidance."

This one is already answered in the rules. You may surrender without penalty but don't have to.

6. "Can a Fireball hit a prone/stunned player in the blast radius. The wording of the spell can be easily read to believe this is true. However it very vague in both directions. Text needs cleaned up to make sure its clear how it works."

To me, it's 100% clear, both from the text and from common sense, that it can hit them.

7. "Aging ... working ... other system, EXP, etc.?."

Rephrase this question to include the description of all other systems proposed to date (EXP, WAT, AF, salary cap, etc). This is important because i'm pretty sure they haven't even read them.

8. "Re-review the "MUST try to catch the ball rule". This creates a situation where I might use a team re-roll to FAIL a roll to make sure the wrong player doesn't get the ball (like the blitzer that just knocked it lose). Is the only reason this is there is because of the "must pick-up the ball rule" seems wierd to have situations where I'd want to reroll to fail. In hand in hand with this is of course the question, why do I HAVE to try and pick up the ball?"

This is not the only situation where you might want to reroll in order to fail. Another one was presented here, but i can't remember what it was.

And i agree with the poster above. The last two points have no place in there. A lot of people would even fight pretty hard to keep them from happening.

[Relborn]

a much better list than last year ... good job so far

[narkotic]

Great list!
A remark I want to make is about the question concerning forced pick-ups.
I see a new loophole coming if picking up the ball is optional: I can see only one situation where you don't want it - if there are several opposing players standing around and you want to make it scatter so another of your players can pick it up without being in TZ. In the current rules you have either block an opposing player and push him onto the ball (which requires a successfull block roll) or go there and pick up the ball and if it fails it's a turnover. I do not like the idea of moving the ball to another square without any dice roll involved (block/pick-up). Any other action requires a roll but such a vital ball handling situation should not? I'd say leave the auto-pick up, but remove the auto-catch. The auto-catch hits you hard bc you get the ball scattered on you by pure randomness, whereas you can utilize the non-forced pick-up.
But I see that the BBRC wants a coherent rule for auto-pick up/catch.

[Redfang]

If you don't have to pick up the ball might also help on Blitzes; I have often not been able to make a blitz because the only reachable square from which I could make the blitz was occupied by the ball. If that is in several tacklezones, you can forget about making the blitz that way...

R

[Balrog]

Do that many people really hate the FF 1/6 rule? I don't find it that bad.

-Balrog

[Tim]

Would you care to raise the "Blunderbuss fired ball not catched = turnover?" question.

I think most ppl agreed that it should be the same as a pass, but the rule say differently (not explicitly at least). It would be enough to add a little "Failure means turnover" sentence.

Without the turnover it opens up some cheesy tactics ...

[narkotic]

Would you care to raise the "Blunderbuss fired ball not catched = turnover?" question.

Yes, that's very important. I almost forgotten that, as it sounds just too much like an obvious mis-ruling to me (and many other people).

Maybe additionaly the question "Does a caught Blunderbus pass gives Completion SPPs in case that SW rules get official status and you can equip non-star player with these?"

[GalakStarscraper]

Zombie's review was the one I was waiting for:

Some problems with your list:

1. "Players with lost tackle zones cannot lend offensive assists (polling of the BB community indicated that a large majority of leagues already played it this way, greatly simplifies lost TZ blocking problems)"

It already works this way. I believe what you mean is that you want them to not be able to stop opponents from assisting.

Huh? Actually they don't stop opponent's from assisting but they can lend assists if they are not in TZ and that's just counterinitutive even for me as a long term player.

Code: Select all

....
.X..
.AO.
....

X is ST 3 opponent, A is an ST player, O is an Ogre for on player A's team that has lost his TZ.

The rules currently say that A blocking X is a 2 dice block and X blocking A is 2 dice with A choosing. However when I've run polls and such asking how this works 80% of the respondents said that its a one dice block in both directions. So basically, what I'm trying to say is that lost TZ players should be treated as not there as a lot of players that I talk to already do that in their leagues cause its what makes sense.

2. "Okay everyone and even their neighbors who don't play Blood Bowl appear to hate the 1/6 rule for Fan Factor rolls ... can we lose it?"

Huh? When was that discussed? I know i don't have anything against it!

Guess I'm tried of winning and have 3 TDs and 2 Cas and losing a point of FF, and since I see the game files and comments from coaches from two different leagues. I've seen a lot of negative comments from my coaches, coaches in other leagues, and coaches on TBB against this rule. I'll remove the personal comments and just ask if it really needs to be there. To me it takes away a lot more than it adds and I was pretty sure that this was one of those that was a clear majority on one side of the fence. I'll run a TBB poll on it and see if I've missed the bus trying to read between the lines.

3. "Nowehere on page 39 or 41 does it say that a stat cannot be reduced below 1. Several leagues have ruled that this is because a stat can go zero and that kills the player. Since last year, Chet said that a stat cannot go below 1, if this is true; then add this to page 39 and/or 41."

I haven't checked in the rulebook thoroughly, but i know for sure that in 3rd ed, it was clear that a stat "simply remains at 1".

Could not find it anywhere Zombie ... if its in there and I missed it I'll remove the item.

3. "There is no wording in the LRB about decreases of 2 being the max on the aging table (only the injury table has limiters defined as -2 max). What happens if an aging roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?"

You already mentioned that in the section above.

No I didn't ... I asked what if a stat could go below one ... that's different than the fact that the aging table doesn't talk about anything with what happens with stat decreases. A simple reference to the SI table rules would clear this up.

4. "If I get 2 MA stat increases, and then suffer aging or a serious injury that removes a point of MA. If I get an MA increase for my next skill roll, can I take it? (IE ... does the 2 limit to increases the number of increases or the current real change in the stat value?)"

Does that really need answering? Sorry, but that's really a dumb question. Knowing the BBRC, they'll read it, say "that's a dumb question, we won't even answer that" and then be less inclined to answer the other questions on your list.

Sorry that I lack your intelligence ... I don't know the answer to this one for sure. If you do, I compliment you on your knowledge. See I'd rule that the player could get take the 3rd MA increase as I'd say its the movement of the stat from its starting point. But I could make a pretty good counter argument that that is a 3rd increase and not allowed. I definitely do not see the black and white here that you do.

5. "What happens if you can only field 1 or 2 players for a drive (ie less than the required 3 on the LOS) is it an automatic concession or does the game go on? What if a team has NO players in reserve to field? I've seen the scenario where Wood Elves are up by 2 TDs with 3 turns left in the 2nd half but the entire team is either KO'd or Injured ... what happens? We've played that the opposing team takes the field alone and continues playing, but is this correct? ... need some wording for guidance."

This one is already answered in the rules. You may surrender without penalty but don't have to.

Actually its not ... again show me where in the rules it says anything about having less than 3 players and I'll remove the point. I checked the 3 different places I would expect to see it and its not there.

6. "Can a Fireball hit a prone/stunned player in the blast radius. The wording of the spell can be easily read to believe this is true. However it very vague in both directions. Text needs cleaned up to make sure its clear how it works."

To me, it's 100% clear, both from the text and from common sense, that it can hit them.

Chet and I agree with you ... but I've had multiple players get quite aggressive telling us that we are plain nuts for that viewpoint. Which means its a legit question for clarification.

7. "Aging ... working ... other system, EXP, etc.?."

Rephrase this question to include the description of all other systems proposed to date (EXP, WAT, AF, salary cap, etc). This is important because i'm pretty sure they haven't even read them.

I'm willing to create a sub page linke for this item, Zombie if you or someone is willing to help me put together all the suggestions. Again I try to remove my bias from the list (not easy, but I try). Just the facts, ... just the facts.

8. "Re-review the "MUST try to catch the ball rule". This creates a situation where I might use a team re-roll to FAIL a roll to make sure the wrong player doesn't get the ball (like the blitzer that just knocked it lose). Is the only reason this is there is because of the "must pick-up the ball rule" seems wierd to have situations where I'd want to reroll to fail. In hand in hand with this is of course the question, why do I HAVE to try and pick up the ball?"

This is not the only situation where you might want to reroll in order to fail. Another one was presented here, but i can't remember what it was.

The other one was related to a Wild Animal with Stand Fim dodging away to come back and blitz the player he started next to. If this is allowed, it creates the other situation where you might try to reroll to fail. As you will see, the whole Wild Animal dodging away to blitz back is another question on the list.

And i agree with the poster above. The last two points have no place in there. A lot of people would even fight pretty hard to keep them from happening.

Point conceeded ... I'll remove all new experimental rules suggestions from the list, and keep it to cleaning up what is already there only.

Galak

[Cervidal]

I really can't find fault with what is on the list. It's a solid list. Even the experimental rules mentioned have merit.

The one question I personally would ask, regarding the 'new' skills mentioned at the bottom is the same thing a friend in the OBL always asks when something is introduced: "Just what are you trying to accomplish with this new rule/tweak/change?"

Thanks Galak.

[Hox-ii]

Something that you may want to add when discussing the re-wording of the turnover list (this seems to be brought up a lot, and I have been confused on it before):

When exactly is a pass NOT caught? The wording in the LRB should be something more along the lines of "A turnover occurs when a pass or handoff does not end up in the hands of a player on the moving coach's team" or something to that effect. When they say "is not caught," it brings up the question of if the ball hitting the ground ends the turn or not.

I understand that this is covered later in the passing or the bouncing balls section of the rulebook, but I do believe it would make more sense to place this in the turnovers section.

[Zombie]

Zombie's review was the one I was waiting for:

Thanks for the compliment.

Some problems with your list:

1. "Players with lost tackle zones cannot lend offensive assists (polling of the BB community indicated that a large majority of leagues already played it this way, greatly simplifies lost TZ blocking problems)"

It already works this way. I believe what you mean is that you want them to not be able to stop opponents from assisting.

Huh? Actually they don't stop opponent's from assisting but they can lend assists if they are not in TZ and that's just counterinitutive even for me as a long term player.

Yeah, sorry. I totally screwed up on this one. I guess it's been too long since this happened to me. That and it was 4 am when i posted this!

3. "There is no wording in the LRB about decreases of 2 being the max on the aging table (only the injury table has limiters defined as -2 max). What happens if an aging roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?"

You already mentioned that in the section above.

No I didn't ... I asked what if a stat could go below one ... that's different than the fact that the aging table doesn't talk about anything with what happens with stat decreases. A simple reference to the SI table rules would clear this up.

Read your list again. I'm not talking about this point, but a point from the first section.

4. "If I get 2 MA stat increases, and then suffer aging or a serious injury that removes a point of MA. If I get an MA increase for my next skill roll, can I take it? (IE ... does the 2 limit to increases the number of increases or the current real change in the stat value?)"

Does that really need answering? Sorry, but that's really a dumb question. Knowing the BBRC, they'll read it, say "that's a dumb question, we won't even answer that" and then be less inclined to answer the other questions on your list.

Sorry that I lack your intelligence ... I don't know the answer to this one for sure. If you do, I compliment you on your knowledge. See I'd rule that the player could get take the 3rd MA increase as I'd say its the movement of the stat from its starting point. But I could make a pretty good counter argument that that is a 3rd increase and not allowed. I definitely do not see the black and white here that you do.

You're right, that's how it should read. That was half my point. The other half is that this is too minor for the BBRC to even consider answering it. You'll see.

5. "What happens if you can only field 1 or 2 players for a drive (ie less than the required 3 on the LOS) is it an automatic concession or does the game go on? What if a team has NO players in reserve to field? I've seen the scenario where Wood Elves are up by 2 TDs with 3 turns left in the 2nd half but the entire team is either KO'd or Injured ... what happens? We've played that the opposing team takes the field alone and continues playing, but is this correct? ... need some wording for guidance."

This one is already answered in the rules. You may surrender without penalty but don't have to.

Actually its not ... again show me where in the rules it says anything about having less than 3 players and I'll remove the point. I checked the 3 different places I would expect to see it and its not there.

Again, must have been the late hour! I was totally wrong. There is no concession that's possible without a penalty.

It doesn't say anything about it being an automatic concession, therefore it's not. It doesn't give any special rules for that circumstance, therefore there are none. You just keep on playing normally. No need for clarification.

[GalakStarscraper]

Zombie's review was the one I was waiting for:

Thanks for the compliment.

Hey we may not agree often ... but I appreciate someone with a solid critical eye even if it doesn't match mine.

3. "There is no wording in the LRB about decreases of 2 being the max on the aging table (only the injury table has limiters defined as -2 max). What happens if an aging roll would decrease a stat more than 2 below its starting value?"

Read your list again. I'm not talking about this point, but a point from the first section.

Ah ... now I see it ... I'll get it fixed. Thanks.

It doesn't say anything about it being an automatic concession, therefore it's not. It doesn't give any special rules for that circumstance, therefore there are none. You just keep on playing normally. No need for clarification.

However, the LRB says this on page 7:
"At least three players must be set up next to the half way line, on the line of scrimmage."

This is where the confusion enters. I've seen many coaches insist that the "must" means that if you cannot you automatically conceed and concession as you stated has no special rules. However, the majority of leagues I've played in have ruled the following. If you get to only 1 or 2 players able to play, you can continue the game or conceed without penalty. I'm thinking this should be in there somewhere ... or at least something with more explanation then "must be set up".

Galak