The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: jmeyer43 on August 05, 2004, 01:35:08 PM
-
I'm not sure why I haven't noticed this before, but I noticed sort of an oddity in the rules...
When a team gets 3 strikes and the other team steals, in the Karn version, they're trying to do exactly that, steal the points in the pot. And if they succeed, it doesn't matter how many points the additional response is worth, because all they're doing is stealing the other team's pot. But in the Mexican version, "100 Mexicanos Dijeron" (a Freemantle show, according to the credits), the stealing team also gets the additional points from the stealing response. I noticed that just the other day when Marco pointed out that those additional points would be enough to put their total over 300 for the win (there was only 1 response left unrevealed, and it was the #1). Has the US version always had this rule, or did the Mexican version get their rules fom an older US version?
Other than that one oddity, I have to say the Mexican version is MUCH better, even though I don't understand half of it because my Spanish is still so weak. Regil is a better host than Karn, Anderson, or Dawson (yeah, I know, ANYONE could be better than Anderson). I like that they remind the contestants that 100 people were surveyed, etc. like Dawson used to do. Karn only does it when it's something other than "100 people" (such as "100 women"). I like the bonuses for #1 responses in fast money. I like the board in that it doesn't try to mimic the old style, and gives room for multi-word responses. The lollipops are a cool spin. I also like the questions and old clips going to commercials. The old set actually looked Mexican, which makes it cooler than the current one, IMO.
-
The US version used the steal rule that the Mexican version has, from 1992, when Combs Feud started using the Bullseye round, up to 2003. Incidentally, when Combs Feud began using the Bullseye round, that was also when the main game was no longer played for cash, but rather for points.
-
Didn't the "steal bank points plus stolen answer's points" rule last until the rule change at the beginning of this season on 9/15/04?
-
Umm no, because September 2004 isn't here yet. lol It did go till 2003. You're right there.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 01:49 PM\'] The US version used the steal rule that the Mexican version has, from 1992, when Combs Feud started using the Bullseye round, up to 2003. Incidentally, when Combs Feud began using the Bullseye round, that was also when the main game was no longer played for cash, but rather for points. [/quote]
An interestingly enough, this system was in place on the original 1976 pilot with Richard Dawson. Some minor differences from the pilot besides that and the set were that only the team captain came up for the face-offs and that all the rounds were single value. I guess they realized that unless they doubled (and eventually tripled) points, it could take forever for a team to reach 200 points.
-
which system was in place in the pilot? The points system, or the steal adds points to the bank system? It wouldn't take forever for a team to reach 200 points using the single round only. It would take 4, maybe 5 questions.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 02:36 PM\'] which system was in place in the pilot? The points system, or the steal adds points to the bank system? It wouldn't take forever for a team to reach 200 points using the single round only. It would take 4, maybe 5 questions. [/quote]
The system for the 1976 pilot added the revealed answer during the steal to the bank to the team that stole. Clearly you haven't seen the pilot. I have. Maybe it was just me, but it just seemed like they had several rounds before anyone reached the 200 point goal. I'll have to go back and see how many rounds it was..... After viewing it, they played a total of five rounds. But, I guess the potential always existed to play at least 6 and that's a lot for a half hour show, especially with Richard's shmoozing with everyone in the early years.
-
I have seen clips of it, but it has been a while.
-
One more question I forgot in my original post...
If there's a tie in the faceoff, I thought I remembered that on the Dawson version they would go to the next member of each family for an answer, but the other day the person buzzed in and gave the number 2 answer, the other person gave the number 3 answer but it had the same point value, he went right to the family of the guy who buzzed in. I'm wondering if the rule is that the player who buzzed in wins such a tie and the computer can flip-flop the answers to make it look right to anyone ignoring the point values (by putting the first given answer in the higher position on the board).
And one oops in my original post, I left Combs out of my list of US FF hosts
-
[quote name=\'jmeyer43\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 04:35 PM\']One more question I forgot in my original post...
If there's a tie in the faceoff, I thought I remembered that on the Dawson version they would go to the next member of each family for an answer, but the other day the person buzzed in and gave the number 2 answer, the other person gave the number 3 answer but it had the same point value, he went right to the family of the guy who buzzed in. I'm wondering if the rule is that the player who buzzed in wins such a tie and the computer can flip-flop the answers to make it look right to anyone ignoring the point values (by putting the first given answer in the higher position on the board).[/quote]
I'm sure I'll be corrected, but it's always been board position in the event of tie numbers--which goes back to when the answers were on the cards loaded into the trilons. Whoever's got the higher-positioned answer always wins the face-off. How they decide which answer gets loaded first, I don't know.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 01:40 PM\']I'm sure I'll be corrected, but it's always been board position in the event of tie numbers--which goes back to when the answers were on the cards loaded into the trilons. Whoever's got the higher-positioned answer always wins the face-off. How they decide which answer gets loaded first, I don't know.[/quote]
I think the answers with the same values were loaded in alphabetical order to determine 'board position'.
-
Seems to me when I saw that happen, it doesn't matter what the position was. Ties went to the buzz-in player, even if the listed position was lower than the second.
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 04:05 PM\'] Ties went to the buzz-in player, even if the listed position was lower than the second. [/quote]
More accurately (albeit only slightly), the first player to give a tied answer gave their family control.
-
[quote name=\'Card Shark\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 01:46 PM\'] Maybe it was just me, but it just seemed like they had several rounds before anyone reached the 200 point goal. I'll have to go back and see how many rounds it was..... After viewing it, they played a total of five rounds. But, I guess the potential always existed to play at least 6 and that's a lot for a half hour show [/quote]
It seems to me that Feud was originally meant to straddle, as evidenced on some early episodes when they'd bring out the family at the end of the show who would play on the next episode when time allowed
-
Since you mentioned it Zach, does anyone here think Feud would have been successful as it became with Dawson, as well as in subsequent versions, had it used straddling?
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 05:40 PM\'] [quote name=\'jmeyer43\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 04:35 PM\']One more question I forgot in my original post...
If there's a tie in the faceoff, I thought I remembered that on the Dawson version they would go to the next member of each family for an answer, but the other day the person buzzed in and gave the number 2 answer, the other person gave the number 3 answer but it had the same point value, he went right to the family of the guy who buzzed in. I'm wondering if the rule is that the player who buzzed in wins such a tie and the computer can flip-flop the answers to make it look right to anyone ignoring the point values (by putting the first given answer in the higher position on the board).[/quote]
I'm sure I'll be corrected, but it's always been board position in the event of tie numbers--which goes back to when the answers were on the cards loaded into the trilons. Whoever's got the higher-positioned answer always wins the face-off. How they decide which answer gets loaded first, I don't know. [/quote]
Adding to what others have said, I know I've seen an episode where the second person in a face-off gave the "number one answer" and Richard gave control to the first person's family because her "number two answer" had the same value.
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 12:56 PM\'] Didn't the "steal bank points plus stolen answer's points" rule last until the rule change at the beginning of this season on 9/15/03? [/quote]
It did. And it was a shame to get rid of that rule, because...
What if the team that plays doesn't get the number one answer, but gets some of the others, then strike out, and then the stealing team gets the number one answer, but not the points for it?
It just looks awful. I saw one episode this season, where by the time the playing team struck out, there were 5 lousy points in the bank. The stealing team managed to get an answer up there, but all they got were the 5 lousy points, and were not credited with the points for the answer they stole with.
Now, how are they gonna get to 300 without being credited with the stolen answer's points in any round?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 08:22 PM\'] Adding to what others have said, I know I've seen an episode where the second person in a face-off gave the "number one answer" and Richard gave control to the first person's family because her "number two answer" had the same value. [/quote]
Now, in that case, shouldn't the host be informed before the question that the top two answers are tied, and that the first contestant should immediately be given credit for a face-off win in the event of coming up with either?
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 11:07 PM\'] Now, how are they gonna get to 300 without being credited with the stolen answer's points in any round? [/quote]
By earning 295 more.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 11:11 PM\'] [quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 08:22 PM\'] Adding to what others have said, I know I've seen an episode where the second person in a face-off gave the "number one answer" and Richard gave control to the first person's family because her "number two answer" had the same value. [/quote]
Now, in that case, shouldn't the host be informed before the question that the top two answers are tied, and that the first contestant should immediately be given credit for a face-off win in the event of coming up with either? [/quote]
Theoretically, yes, but if you saw the "Wheel" special this week, you'd understand why that wouldn't happen.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:05 AM\'] [quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 11:07 PM\'] Now, how are they gonna get to 300 without being credited with the stolen answer's points in any round? [/quote]
By earning 295 more. [/quote]
Haha! That's pretty funny.
By now, they have a sudden death round after the triple round to take care of that. And along the lines with this, I've seen a family earn only three points in a round.
Going back to the face-off discussion, I've seen an ocassion where the two face-off players both recieved strikes and when they turned to the next person in the family's, both recieved strikes as well. When that fourth person answered the question wrong, Richard just called out to reveal all answers on the board and they brought out the next question. Is this a common rule (four strikes and the question's out)?
Steve, to answer your question, if #1 and #2 are both the same value, it doesn't really make a difference. If the first face-off player gets the #2 answer and the second player gets the #1 answer, the first player answered first and would gain control of the question. If the first face-off player gets the #1 answer, it wouldn't matter if the second player guessed #2 or not; the first player answered it first anyway and gains control. Whoever guesses the tied answers first gets control. Does that make sense?
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 07:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 11:11 PM\'] [quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 08:22 PM\'] Adding to what others have said, I know I've seen an episode where the second person in a face-off gave the "number one answer" and Richard gave control to the first person's family because her "number two answer" had the same value. [/quote]
Now, in that case, shouldn't the host be informed before the question that the top two answers are tied, and that the first contestant should immediately be given credit for a face-off win in the event of coming up with either? [/quote]
Theoretically, yes, but if you saw the "Wheel" special this week, you'd understand why that wouldn't happen. [/quote]
I didn't see it. Can you explain to me why it wouldn't happen?
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 07:45 AM\']Going back to the face-off discussion, I've seen an ocassion where the two face-off players both recieved strikes and when they turned to the next person in the family's, both recieved strikes as well. When that fourth person answered the question wrong, Richard just called out to reveal all answers on the board and they brought out the next question. Is this a common rule (four strikes and the question's out)?[/quote]
Back in the Dawson days, I recall at least once four players missing and having to go to a third player on a team to get an answer on the board.
During the Louie Anderson run, there was at least one instance of a question thrown out when the initial *Face-Off* players didn't get an answer on the board. The current rule, if correct, seems to be taking the happy medium in this instance.
And yes, there was at least one instance of no one in a Face-Off not buzzing in at all during the Dawson days. The players looked at each other, Dawson started humming and ten seconds later the strike buzzer hit. After a wipe to indicate time passing (probably because they hadn't finished loading another question on the other board), Dawson declared the question too difficult, threw it out and went to the next question with the same players in the Face-Off.
-
Adding to what others have said, I know I've seen an episode where the second person in a face-off gave the "number one answer" and Richard gave control to the first person's family because her "number two answer" had the same value.
Now, in that case, shouldn't the host be informed before the question that the top two answers are tied, and that the first contestant should immediately be given credit for a face-off win in the event of coming up with either?
From what I can remember, there were a few occasions where the host said that the top 2 answers were tied. In those cases, whoever gave either answer first (whether it be loaded No. 1 or No. 2 on the board) would get control and the other person wouldn't even get to answer because there was no way to beat the answer that was up there.
If there was an instance where both players answered, it must have been an oversight. Sometimes oversights happen - witness the first season Bergeron "Squares" episode where a contestant won with SIX squares in a game. I think the board looked like this:
O X O
X X O
O O O
Nothing to do with "Feud", but just pointing out that sometimes these things happen.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 09:35 AM\'] [quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 07:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 11:11 PM\'] [quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 08:22 PM\'] Adding to what others have said, I know I've seen an episode where the second person in a face-off gave the "number one answer" and Richard gave control to the first person's family because her "number two answer" had the same value. [/quote]
Now, in that case, shouldn't the host be informed before the question that the top two answers are tied, and that the first contestant should immediately be given credit for a face-off win in the event of coming up with either? [/quote]
Theoretically, yes, but if you saw the "Wheel" special this week, you'd understand why that wouldn't happen. [/quote]
I didn't see it. Can you explain to me why it wouldn't happen? [/quote]
It was on last night and you still haven't seen it?
-
I wasn't even aware it was on last night.
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 05:45 AM\']Steve, to answer your question, if #1 and #2 are both the same value, it doesn't really make a difference. If the first face-off player gets the #2 answer and the second player gets the #1 answer, the first player answered first and would gain control of the question.[/quote]
Yes, it does make a difference. The opposing team has revealed another answer. The reason for giving the opponent a shot is because that person has a chance to win control. If a "number two" answer that's tied for the top is given by the first player, the second has no such chance. Why help the family with control because they happened to pick the answer in the second position?
-
[quote name=\' Steve Shuffield\']It was on last night and you still haven't seen it?[/quote]
I didn't see it, and I'm interested to know what the fuss is about, and how it relates to Family Feud. Just because it pertains to game shows doesn't mean I have to watch it, or put it at tops of my list when I get a TiVo. Go easy on him.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:34 PM\'] Why help the family with control because they happened to pick the answer in the second position? [/quote]
For the same reason the family that lost the face-off helps the family that won control of the board if lower answers are tied for position. If anything, the family in control gets more help if the lower answers are tied and revealed than the top answers as it's usually more difficult to guess the lower answers.
-
I can see another reason to allow the second player to give their futile answer--there are people in the audience who are going to be confused and/or angry after the host explains that the #1 answer isn't going to do any good, trust him.
I'm not saying that said people are very bright, but it's still a consideration.
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Aug 7 2004, 11:05 AM\'][quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:34 PM\'] Why help the family with control because they happened to pick the answer in the second position? [/quote]
For the same reason the family that lost the face-off helps the family that won control of the board if lower answers are tied for position.[/quote]
No, the reason that the face-off-losing family helps the winners if lower answers are tied is because they're trying to *beat* the first answer, and have a chance to do so, just like if the first player gives a non-tied #2, and the second happens to give #5.
All I'm saying is that if the top two answers are tied, why should the first answerer's family be helped if he happens to come up with the answer in the second position, but not if gives the answer listed first?
-
Or they could just not use questions where #1 and #2 are tied. No, that makes too much sense.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Aug 7 2004, 09:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Aug 7 2004, 11:05 AM\']
No, the reason that the face-off-losing family helps the winners if lower answers are tied is because they're trying to *beat* the first answer, and have a chance to do so, just like if the first player gives a non-tied #2, and the second happens to give #5.
All I'm saying is that if the top two answers are tied, why should the first answerer's family be helped if he happens to come up with the answer in the second position, but not if gives the answer listed first? [/quote]
I understand what you're saying and can see you're very animate about your take on this. I'm just not going to argue over it.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 12:28 AM\'] Or they could just not use questions where #1 and #2 are tied. No, that makes too much sense. [/quote]
Yes, but you could have a question where 1 and 2 are NOT tied but 3 and 4 ARE tied (and it just so happens that both family members peg those two answers on that particular face off). Or pick any two consecutive numbers you like--the same problem could exist. And if you got rid of all questions with ties somewhere, you'd be losing a lot of questions.
It's a trick bag, I tell you.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 10:30 AM\']
Back in the Dawson days, I recall at least once four players missing and having to go to a third player on a team to get an answer on the board.
[/quote]
Today's 9:30AM EST 1981 SYndie Feud airing had a question "Name a type of sandwich recognizable by its smell" that had the first five players(three on one team, two on the other team) getting a strike before someone got it right and won the Face Off.
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 07:46 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 12:28 AM\'] Or they could just not use questions where #1 and #2 are tied. No, that makes too much sense. [/quote]
Yes, but you could have a question where 1 and 2 are NOT tied but 3 and 4 ARE tied (and it just so happens that both family members peg those two answers on that particular face off). Or pick any two consecutive numbers you like--the same problem could exist. And if you got rid of all questions with ties somewhere, you'd be losing a lot of questions.[/quote]
What I think he's saying (and I know I'm saying) is that it's even more awkward when it's the top two. Presumably, they don't want the host to reveal the "#2" answer, then tell the other team they can't win the faceoff. And it seems to me that for the sake of fairness, the second team shouldn't be helping the first when they have no idea that they aren't helping themselves.
At least if the tie is lower, the other team has a chance to win, just as you could have the first player get #3, then have the other try to beat it, but help their opponents by revealing #5 as well. In this case though, they actually had a reason to give an answer.
-
In the interest of saving bandwidth, I'll just say: Good point, Gameshowsteve (and apologies to Jay--I didn't realize where you were going).
Doug -- soon to celebrate 600 posts