Multiple Blood Bowl rulesets

[Bakunin]

So since the other thread was moved and locked, - i'll try again.

So it seems that blood bowl now got multiple "official" rulesets.

* There is the official table top GW BB2016 rules, that will have expansions and add on's in multiple Deathzone's to come.

* Cyanide Studios is going with the old CRP on BloodBowl2 (plus some house rules and rosters).

* Fumbbl has stated that BB2016 will be implemented as much as possible somewhere down the line (but CRP is still used).

* The NAF have become custodians of their own house rules with a mix of BB2016 & CRP & Slann.

* And then there are non-official rulesets that have gained some ground like CRP+/NTBB or gaming groups sticking with the now 'house rule' CRP.


So it is fairly clar, that there isn't or will be just "one" Blood Bowl Ruleset for all of the community.
Some leagues will go with the new rules, some with the old, and if you show up to a (NAF) tourney the rules with be different and its own set.
And online; Fumbbl seems to be going new and Cyanide's BloodBowl2 is doing their own thing.

This has some weaknesses, but I am at least hopeful that this will lead to a more non-conservative orientation about the rules.

[CyberedElf]

And then there are non-official rulesets that have gained some ground like CRP+/NTBB or gaming groups sticking with the now 'house rule' CRP.

I have a lot of respect for Plasmoid and have pushed my league to adopt the BB2016 rules, but I completely disagree with this sentence.
CRP may be outdated, but it is not a "house rule." Equating the official, old rules with CRP+/NTBB is a farce.

Are multiple rulesets good or bad? Both.
I think it is nice to know that wherever you play, you can go somewhere else and play by the same rules is wonderful. But, as long as GW keeps publishing new rules, it is useful for all players to be on their toes to expect changes when playing somewhere different.

[Bakunin]

CRP and CRP+/NTBB is of course not on the same level, as one was official.
But that was just my point, CRP is not the official rules anymore and therefore in the 'house rule' group. Just like playing with 2nd or 3rd edition rules.

[Regash]

Playing by playtested older rules done by game designers or by rules that have been put together by fans is, at least for me, a huge difference.
But CRP being outdated doesn't mean they're not official anymore. Think of people playing Blood Bowlsomewhere without even having internet, 2nd Ed. rules.
Are they playing house rules? Certainly not. But They're in for a surprise when they'll meet other players.

And, I'm sorry, I can't seem to find anything positive in different rulesets.
For me, GW so far !censored! the game up real good and all the others aren't exactly helping.

By what ruleset do I play? I never thought about it because of lack of opponents but I think I'd stick with pure CRP.

[Jorgen_CAB]

There obviously are only ONE set of "official" current rules which is BB2016 rules.

Cyanide use a version of the old CRP rules and the CRP are officially the OLD Blood Bowl rules.

Anyone who play CRP are still playing official rules but an older set of rules like anyone still playing 6th or 7th edition of "Warhammer Fantasy" where 8th are the last rules version.

Just because a rule set is an older version does not mean it is unofficial rules, just an older rule set.

When you start mixing them that is when you can call them house rules or some sort of hybrid rules.

The main issue with BB is with the time past since the last official rules where written versus the new ones. It will take some time for the community to switch to the new rules because the old rules are so ingrained on the older player base. As new players come into the community the new rules will eventually reach critical mass and we will see most people switching to and accepting the new rules.

There is nothing wrong with playing an older rule set, I have done so with many games before and still do. Some rules you just like more than others.

Cyanide are quite likely to build any new iteration of BB (Blood Bowl 3) on the newer rule set eventually too.

[Regash]

There is nothing wrong with playing an older rule set, I have done so with many games before and still do. Some rules you just like more than others.
Cyanide are quite likely to build any new iteration of BB (Blood Bowl 3) on the newer rule set eventually too.

And there is the problem in my eyes.
You have a room full of people, everyone agrees that yes, they all play and like Blood Bowl.
But in the end, everyone is playing something different.

For a game like BB, that has been kept alive by a tournament scene over all those years, a single ruleset is very important, at least, I do think so.
Having all this confusion out there and allowing Cyanide to do whatever they want is just crazy and the !censored! the new GW team made aren't helping either.

[mikeyc222]

As long as the NAF says, "here, this is our official tournament rule set," there is no problem other than what is in people's heads. People have been house ruling Blood Bowl since it came out and it has never been a problem for tournaments before now. People need to stop looking for things to be upset over and just play and enjoy the game. It really shouldn't be this hard...

[Bakunin]

As long as the NAF says, "here, this is our official tournament rule set," there is no problem other than what is in people's heads. People have been house ruling Blood Bowl since it came out and it has never been a problem for tournaments before now. People need to stop looking for things to be upset over and just play and enjoy the game. It really shouldn't be this hard...

I agree. The point with this thread was just to do a status, that Blood Bowl has changed.

[Milo]

For a game like BB, that has been kept alive by a tournament scene over all those years, a single ruleset is very important, at least, I do think so.
Having all this confusion out there and allowing Cyanide to do whatever they want is just crazy and the !censored! the new GW team made aren't helping either.

But, Regash, there are two issues with that:

1) NO tournament has the same ruleset. Every tournament has variations, whether it be different skill packages, starting team value, resurrection/not, kickoff or weather tables, etc.
2) The NAF has already done a great job of standardizing the core rules, so that anyone attending a tournament only needs to pay attention to the specific variations in the tournament rules pack.

Not sure why you have your panties in a bunch about this.

[Darkson]

It IS causing confusion now - not major confusion, but confusion nonetheless.

ARBBL Open was weekend past, so we had to follow the new NAF rules, and we had some (or many) of the coaches not knowing about Argue the Call for example because many existing coaches haven't felt the need to buy the new boxset, so don't have access to the new rules.

I'm not going to say the sky is falling, as a community BB coaches have managed to cope with changing rules, but it is and will cause confusion.

[Milo]

It IS causing confusion now - not major confusion, but confusion nonetheless.

ARBBL Open was weekend past, so we had to follow the new NAF rules, and we had some (or many) of the coaches not knowing about Argue the Call for example because many existing coaches haven't felt the need to buy the new boxset, so don't have access to the new rules.

I'm not going to say the sky is falling, as a community BB coaches have managed to cope with changing rules, but it is and will cause confusion.

I'm glad you've got some perspective on it, because there do seem to be a lot of sky is falling kind of posts. But the Argue the Call item is clearly listed in the February NAF rules here: http://www.thenaf.net/wp-content/upload ... sFeb17.pdf

This seems less like a rules issue and more like a temporary communications hiccup. Maybe the NAF needs to push the information about these new rules on their website more.

[Darkson]

The name "Argue the Call" is in the PDF but not, at GW's request, the wording.
So as a TO I'm being asked to use rules that I don't have* and let others that don't have use.
There was another rule as well, but I can't remember what that was, and I'm not at home to check.

*I do, because I have the pre-pulldown PDF but you see what I'm getting at.

[Bakunin]

Fumbbl going to full BB2016: https://fumbbl.com/n/1941

[voyagers_uk]

has someone done a comparison between LRB6.0 and the BB2016 rules? That would be the best bridging document for leagues and tournaments to start with. That way you can link to that and state which side of the fence your league/tournament falls upon.

The NAF could host that too.

[lunchmoney]

has someone done a comparison between LRB6.0 and the BB2016 rules? That would be the best bridging document for leagues and tournaments to start with. That way you can link to that and state which side of the fence your league/tournament falls upon.

The NAF could host that too.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one thread on that here on TFF...
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=43404
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=43724