From: ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB vs GEV FAQ.
Keywords: SFB
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:40:16 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <zl#@byu.edu> $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.110152.25471@st-andrews.ac.uk> ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald) writes:
>[...]
>>>>Is a Rules Lawyer one who KNOWS rules, or one who ARGUES rules for hours on
>>>>end? 
>>>
>>>The latter. I can hear the whining voice complaining even now "Yeeeew can't
>>>dooooo that! Rule 56.2.a says that isn't possible." Especially when the
>>>person is wrong.  And even after the argument is over, I can hear them 
>>>either gloating or complaining. I've nearly given up games because of rules
>>>lawyers...
>>> 
>>>-Shelley Louie
>>>Digital is illusion. Life is analog.
>>
>
>In my definition there are:
>-Novices: They know the rules that you tell them.
>-Players: They have the rules but are not interested in optional/advanced 
>rules.
>-Rules Lawyers: They like to play with most of the rules (there is no way to 
>play ALL the rules). Generally Power-Gamers.
>-Rules Rapists: They argue rules to death trying to do something that really 
>isn't allowed but you let them do it after two hours because you are tired 
>of listening to them. I usually never play with them again and sometimes 
>walk out on them. This person everyone hates.
>
>>
>>Oh damn. I'd like to totally destroy your comments in a witty and incisive
>>manner, but I can't. I like SFB, but, bugger it, I'll come out of the closet
>>and say it...
>>STAMP OUT SUPPLEMENTS.
>>SFB is a nice game (OK, if you limit sides and points :) ) but it's a shame
>>that there are as many different versions of it as there are players. I HATE
>>HATE HATE playing with new people, those moments of fear and tredipation when
>>you fire your shotgun and they say "Oh, we outlawed them YEARS ago.".
>>Nasty, isn't it? Errata I like, if it clears things up, but...
>>Let's all chant: NO MORE ADDENDA, NO MORE ADDENDA.
>>
>>-----
>>Colin
>>-----
>I wonder if we are talking about the same game. The SFB put out by ADB and 
>TFG doesn't have addenda, it has erratta (fixing of mistakes). It hasn't 
>had addenda since Doomsday came out and never will. That was the whole idea 
>of the Captains Edition. 
>House rules are a pain but if I can go to the rulebook and find it and they 
>say it is only a house rule well shucks to them for not telling me to begin 
>with. If you are at a con and they aren't using the Tournement Book 1991 
>then it wasn't really worth going to. That defines all the rules you can 
>use, and gives you the ships to play too. 
>Enjoy,
>______________________________________________________________________________
> Steve Fassmann etc

Precisely my point. ARE we taking about the same game? I do not own the
Doomsday rules (ha ha I don't think) as I am (was) the proud possessor of
the Commanders Rulebooks 1-3, the fighter and PF supplements and lots of SSD
booklets. I didn't feel like paying top whack for a collection of volume 1
and half of 2 just so I could get my boarding party and self destruct rules
rewritten. Ten minutes and a photocopier were quite sufficient, thank you.
SFB DOES have addenda. Not now, but addenda was brought out for it on sheets
tacked on the end of some of the older rules, which I immediately lost.
Do you see where the confusion comes in? If we were to play each other I
would first have to spend some time familiarising myself with the new rules
just to make sure that I did not commit a faux pas. Fair enough if we both
use Doomsday, but we don't, do we? Are we talking about separate games? No,
probably not. But there are enough differences to matter, which is my
original point, and what annoys me most.

Fair enough?

-----
Colin
-----
Newsgroups: rec.games.board