Slitherine

Hi guys

A number of rules threads clearly highlight the need for a FOG V2 FAQ before even more people decide to leave the ruleset.

I get the distinct impression that the authors won't be coming on here any time soon to resolve these rules queries so could we possibly set up a group of the more respected and trusted FOG players (excluding ladyboy Ruddock !! ) who can agree the interpretation of particular rules and add them to the FAQ's?

Rob

Wise move.

vexillia wrote:Wise move.

What, excluding ladyboys?

I think he means excluding Dave but it is probably the same thing...

timmy1 wrote:I think he means excluding Dave but it is probably the same thing...

No. I meant forming a Committee to sort stuff out before "more people decide to leave the ruleset". I'll leave the issues of Dave Rudduck and ladyboys to others more qualified to comment.

It's a great idea.
However once the FAQ was written by the panel of experts it would need some sort of official rubber stamp from the authors, otherwise people will still argue.

It would also help if tournament organisers/umpires stated before a comp that they would be using the clarifications set out in the FAQ.

Peter

Based on the current BHGS rankings can I suggest we approach Dave Ruddock, Graham Briggs and Rob Taylor as our three wise men to iron out any wrinkles. I would be happy to accept their combined pronouncements for our bashos in Scotland and imagine that would be the case South of the wall as well. Where there is grey let there be light (light grey)! How's about it D,G and R are you game?
Hunter

spotteddog wrote:Based on the current BHGS rankings can I suggest we approach Dave Ruddock, Graham Briggs and Rob Taylor as our three wise men to iron out any wrinkles. I would be happy to accept their combined pronouncements for our bashos in Scotland and imagine that would be the case South of the wall as well. Where there is grey let there be light (light grey)! How's about it D,G and R are you game?
Hunter

But half of what Ruddock says is rubbish! I'd suggest just use an umpire. 99% of the time there are no debates on the rules anyway. There are bits where the rules are unclear - e.g. orbs fighting (special rules seem to contradict the close combat rules) but umpires can normally come to a judgement.

Just half ...... I take it the other half is gibberish then To be honest we have never had an issue the umpire(s) couldn't rule on to everyone's satisfaction in all my years wargaming North of the Wall (or South come to think of it). I encourage folks to ask the umpire(s) what he/she/they'd rule on a particular issue in advance if someone sees it coming up. Then they can decide what to do. Thanks for your response Graham. A deid duck then.
Hunter

prb4 wrote:It's a great idea.
However once the FAQ was written by the panel of experts it would need some sort of official rubber stamp from the authors, otherwise people will still argue.

It would also help if tournament organisers/umpires stated before a comp that they would be using the clarifications set out in the FAQ.

Peter

You could publish it in a book 3 times as thick as the rule book and call it 'I called Richard last night'

Seriously though, I think sometimes we take being 'correct' to extremes and overly complicate things. Good idea in general, but when I see 'can't turn wont turn' up to it's 12th page of comments it makes me wonder. Sure, a lot of that is probably sledging, but a lot of it is probably a situation that is difficult/impossible to determine under the rules, and if you covered every possible scenario the rules would be something like the encyclopaedia britanica.

FAQ fine, but I'd be wary of it becoming too 'cover all bases'

You just need a big scary umpire like Graham and then there's very little argument

I would be happy to play devil's advocate.
With footnotes.

Can we please confirm that there are currently no FAQs for v2. The FAQs that do exist are for v1 and became irrelevant for v2 when the new rulebook was published.

Can we please confirm that there are currently no FAQs for v2. The FAQs that do exist are for v1 and became irrelevant for v2 when the new rulebook was published.

I think you've asked this question before Steve?

There are no v2 FAQs available that I am aware of.

Personally I still find the v1 FAQs helpful as not all of the original v1 FAQ issues appear to have been addressed by v2.

petedalby wrote:

Can we please confirm that there are currently no FAQs for v2. The FAQs that do exist are for v1 and became irrelevant for v2 when the new rulebook was published.

I think you've asked this question before Steve?

There are no v2 FAQs available that I am aware of.

Personally I still find the v1 FAQs helpful as not all of the original v1 FAQ issues appear to have been addressed by v2.

Yep but I didn't feel my question was answered before. So at Britcon the v1 FAQs will not apply because we play v2.

So at Britcon the v1 FAQs will not apply because we play v2.

Thanks for letting us know.

I thin that Pete's point is valid, where a rule has not been changed from V1 to V2 and a FAQ item exists, that FAQ is a relevant guide to author intent.

That said, the Britcon umpires will of course judge any case on its merits given the position in question.

kevinj wrote:I thin that Pete's point is valid, where a rule has not been changed from V1 to V2 and a FAQ item exists, that FAQ is a relevant guide to author intent.

That said, the Britcon umpires will of course judge any case on its merits given the position in question.

With the previous talk of forming a rules comit-tay of the good and the great, maybe a more practical suggestion is for 'someone' to do a quick edit of the v1 FAQs and cross out those that are no longer relevant, so that we can all be clear about which FAQs still remain valid for v2?

zoltan wrote:Yep but I didn't feel my question was answered before. So at Britcon the v1 FAQs will not apply because we play v2.

Messy isn't it? The FAQs don't say they are just v1. So I'll approach it that where the rule element they clarify hasn't changed they are still relevant. So number 2 on terrain placement is still clearly relevant for example.

grahambriggs wrote:

zoltan wrote:Yep but I didn't feel my question was answered before. So at Britcon the v1 FAQs will not apply because we play v2.

Messy isn't it? The FAQs don't say they are just v1. So I'll approach it that where the rule element they clarify hasn't changed they are still relevant. So number 2 on terrain placement is still clearly relevant for example.

Fair enough. Is it clear cut with all the FAQs that they are either addressed in v2 (so the FAQ is no longer relevant) or they are not (so the FAQ stands)?