MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Aug 31, 2022 - 14:34 |
|
Hello, I've just played this game:
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=4402237
where Bomber Dribblesnot was hired by my opponent (Black Orc team with Bribery and Corruption special rule).
After I scored he argued the call to prevent Bomber's ejection, he rolled 5 but Bomber was banned anyway, I paste the log:
"The ref bans Bomber Dribblesnot for using a Secret Weapon.
Argue the Call Roll [ 5 ]
The ref bans Bomber Dribblesnot from the game.
Would have succeeded on a roll of 5 (Roll >= 6) "
according to the client log a 5 would have been successful to argue the call. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
  Posted:
Aug 31, 2022 - 14:47 |
|
Bribery and Corruption special rule just means you can re-roll an Argue roll of 1, once per game, right?
So the client was right, but it just displays the wrong text?
Also! look at this dwarf! https://fumbbl.com/p/player?player_id=14666880 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Aug 31, 2022 - 15:06 |
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but it should be 5+ AtC with Bribery and Corruption, not 6+?
Either the client log is wrong and the rule right or the other way around.
About the Dwarf: an example of how much BB2020 rules are stupid, stat boosts should be capped at +1 max per each characteristic.
In my ruleset they would. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
  Posted:
Aug 31, 2022 - 15:29 |
|
"stat boosts should be capped at +1"
That's not a BB2020 specific thing, there wasn't a cap in previous rulesets
This saurus from 2016 stands out to me: https://fumbbl.com/p/player?player_id=10385240 or debog before him
AtC is always a 6+
B&C just lets you reroll a 1
So the client was correct but the log is wrong |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Aug 31, 2022 - 15:32 |
|
There was a MA cap in previous ruleset, max stat value 10 and max +2 stat boosts, but in previous ruleset getting stat boosts was not automatic, like now, you had to get lucky and roll 10 or higher.
Now if you spend the SPPs required, you will get a stat boost. It's ridiculous.
Thanks, so, the client log is wrong, well, still a bug (minor, but a bug). |
|
|