Grak and Crumbleberry

[JT-Y]

I like all new stuff! But why put Dirty Tricks at 1 point when picking cards? Is that playtested? Compared to Miscellaneous Mayhem 4 points!

Hmmm....

The value of the cards in particular is something we've thought long and hard about. Handling the variant rules the way GW does is also good because it means costs can be added to the download when new decks are released, rather than having to wait on a new printed supplement.

Using cards in any way other than as Inducements is new though, and something we'll never not be talking about. If you want to discuss values, please start a thread about it. It will get read.

[faust_33]

I like all new stuff! But why put Dirty Tricks at 1 point when picking cards? Is that playtested? Compared to Miscellaneous Mayhem 4 points!

Hmmm....

The value of the cards in particular is something we've thought long and hard about. Handling the variant rules the way GW does is also good because it means costs can be added to the download when new decks are released, rather than having to wait on a new printed supplement.

Using cards in any way other than as Inducements is new though, and something we'll never not be talking about. If you want to discuss values, please start a thread about it. It will get read.

I guess I missed this, where are these optional rules? Were they included in one of the packs? If so, then I luckily have it, and just haven't used it yet.

[JT-Y]

In the download section on the Blood Bowl website.

[garion]

yes back in Lrb1 to LRB3, 2001 - 2003, what's your point? Andy was too.

Just a correction, here, Andy Hoare was never a member of the BBRC. That was a different Andy, Andy Hall.

Ah right, interesting, I though it was Andy Hall again. My bad.

Okay, there's a lot to unpack here. I'm not sure you can find any instances of me "dismissing" seasoned pros, here, so I think that's the wrong foot to start off on. I have always tried hard to listen to different opinions and I don't tend to dismiss people just because they believe differently. But I'm human, so if I have indeed done it, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent.

So, based on feedback from the release of BB2016 and DZ1, Andy and James have assembled a rules review and playtest group, of which JT-Y and I are both a part of. (There are others, as well, but I leave it up to them if they choose to out themselves or remain anonymous.) Two things to take away there: Andy and James LISTENED to the feedback, realized that a change was necessary, and implemented it; and the playtest group wasn't in place during the time BB/DZ1 and some other rules were written, and so have no responsibility for those rules.

Next, please understand that production timelines are a very real thing, and many of the items you have seen up to this point (including Grak and Crumbleberry, and the Human Nobility/Savage Orc teams) were written long ago. They predate the involvement of the playtest group.

What you have been seeing up to this point is largely rules that were written prior to the release of BB2016 and all of the feedback. I think James and Andy have both listened to the feedback and now recognize that those "seasoned pros" you refer to expect a different rules balance than WH40k or AOS players do, and have adjusted their style as a result.

I can point to four items that the playtest group was involved with so far: DZ season 1 errata, DZ season 2, the WD/BG rules, and the optional rules for the Special Play cards. So you can judge our impact, for better or for worse, on those items, at least so far. Generally speaking, the feedback to those items I have seen has been positive.

I'm glad you have got playtesters. I just hope they are people with screwed on heads - the geggsters, purplegoo, Joemaji's, spubbbba etc... of the world, rather than the cyanide crowd....

Anyway - on the whole I think this edition is really good and has for the most part made steps in a direction i like. Its just the minutiae that seems to be going wrong. For me at least.

I guess listing it is appropriate -
Positives
+Piling On removal - Has made the game more about positioning again, less about coin toss dice rolls (although I think just toning it down would have sufficed)

+Argue the call - so happy this is back although player should remain on the pitch to foul again. We need more on pitch attrition now that PO is gone and fouling is still weak after the post LRB4 nerfing.

+Expensive Mistakes + good fair way to keep cash pretty even, much better than the Bank rule that was always being pushed.

+The rosters have mostly remained the same.

+Timmm-ber - As a flings player i love this. it is a rule I always wanted brought back.

Neatural
*Seasons - I don't mind it, I liked LRB4 ageing, so this is relatively tame really. Though I think moving back towards off the pitch attrition is going to prove unpopular in the long run, when it could have been achieved in on pitch ways.

*No wizards - I'm pretty sure this is temporary thing, in fact I think I read somewhere they are returning soon. I just hope Zaapp is brought back. Just like lrb4 zap, the only difference being the times in which you can use the spell, i.e. it should work the same as fireball and lightning start and end of turn (a la lbr5). fingers crossed I suppose.

Negatives
-Weeping Dagger - Wasn't needed, I know it has very very little impact, but its just clunky and not needed.

-Player and team names - I know its a tiny thing, but I personally don't like them. Also seems at odds with JJs wish to move the game back towards the 2nd edition naming conventions. but hey ho, not too much of an issue.

-Human Catchers - Don't think this is needed really, i think the price decrease was miss placed. Humans have always been a solid low TV team, this doesn't really add much to high TV play. It just seems a bit pointless really.

-Big guys have all kept their inflated CRP prices. Lrb4 pricing for Big Guys was fine. Even meeting in the middle would be preferable.e.g 130 Ogre

-Loner on Goblin trolls still. Really surprised this hasn't been removed yet.

-Decay still on Tomb Guardians, and Blitz and Throw Ras still missing Thick Skull (yes I know they have magic helmets, but they are over priced, they should have their thick skull)

-No SW rolls, this is the biggest one for me personally. I hated its removal.

-Flat skill costing doesn't do it for me either. Would much prefer cumulative cost increase, like lrb4 albeit simplified, something like 20, 20, 30, 30, 40, 40. Or just skills priced by strength. But again this isn't a big problem, just the finer detail really.

-This is the softest version of the game ever. We need some on pitch attrition back. Just a couple of suggestions - bring back fouling self assist +1 to Av, maybe not PO is gone bring back a weaker version of RSC/Fang (+1 to injury or something), Argue the call should leave the fouler on the pitch. Secret Weapon rolls desperately need brought back. APO and regen dont work on crowd surfs. To name a few ways we can get blood in the game again without silly Pile On.

-I guess the thing that worries me is this is all very reminiscent of 2001 in which we had 4 editions(1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 IIRC) of the rules and it became incredibly hard work keeping track of things. After this period we had the box set with 1.3 which never got updated again, and the rules online. I just hope as others have said we have a living rule book with all the up to date rules in.
___________

Thanks for putting my mind at ease about a few things though. I look forward to seeing the new releases. What ever happens its great to see BB in such good health again even if my wallet is getting battered and it is making my mrs cross Haha

[faust_33]

Haha, had to laugh to myself that you mentioned being a Flings player, but are also interested in seeing more blood! How much more blood can you get?

i think someone has mentioned the possibility of a consolidated rulebook. That's definitely a necessity for me at this point. I haven't read all the new rules, but by the time I get around to painting up 2+ teams (say 2019..., I'll definitely want them all in one easy to reference book.

[MacHurto]

Just my two cents: I think having brought WD/BG to BB for exhibition play on its anniversary was also a good idea. Some stuff before (PO, Kick team mate, ball rules) I wasn't too crazy about (redrafting/expensive mistakes were good, tough) so I am happy there is a playtesting group with experienced people helping steer the ship.

Personally, I don't feel there is a need for a rule overhaul (back to lrb4 or not) but if they are going that way (new wizards, for example) better to have good advice. In any case, no matter what, somebody will not like it

[Digger Goreman]

GW ain't your enemy guys, Andy and James love BB as much as we do.

Said with a straight face?

Given granny's past, I would have to see a LOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNGGGG, well-paved road of responsible, well-written, no-nonsense rules.... This is still a publicly traded company, beholden to stock holders that place their dividends above all else.... All involved will legally bow to their bidding.... I have no problem dealing with that reality.... The white-washing is a whole 'nother thing....

Everything so far has been, at the best, wild-n-wacky, and consistently shoddy....

No matter how much mustard you slather on "spit", it still tastes like "spit"....

[Milo]

I'm glad you have got playtesters. I just hope they are people with screwed on heads - the geggsters, purplegoo, Joemaji's, spubbbba etc... of the world, rather than the cyanide crowd....

I assure you that we have some of those type of people. But that said, there are good players in the FUMBBL and Cyanide crowds as well, and I would be happy to have them provide feedback as well. Blood Bowl is not JUST a tabletop game, anymore, and smart coaches with "screwed on heads" are not found exclusively in the UK.

*Seasons - I don't mind it, I liked LRB4 ageing, so this is relatively tame really. Though I think moving back towards off the pitch attrition is going to prove unpopular in the long run, when it could have been achieved in on pitch ways.

We are never going to make everyone happy on this one. On the pitch attrition means injuries, and they affect certain teams more than others. EVERY team plays seasons and every team has an offseason to manage. That means this form of coach's-choice attrition affects everyone equally (or pretty close) and puts the control in the hands of the coach rather than the dice. I think it's a great step in the right direction, and I wasn't involved in writing it at all. I think most people haven't actually experienced multiple seasons yet, but when they do and have actual real-life feedback (as opposed to theorycrafting), we'll listen.

-Weeping Dagger - Wasn't needed, I know it has very very little impact, but its just clunky and not needed.

I'd concur that a mistake was made here. But how much negative impact is it really going to have? Probably not enough to justify all of the complaints about it.

-Player and team names - I know its a tiny thing, but I personally don't like them. Also seems at odds with JJs wish to move the game back towards the 2nd edition naming conventions. but hey ho, not too much of an issue.

I don't really have an opinion on team names. Does it matter if they're shambling horrors or necromantic undead? I do think it would be great to standardize some of the names, but don't consider it a big deal.

-Big guys have all kept their inflated CRP prices. Lrb4 pricing for Big Guys was fine. Even meeting in the middle would be preferable.e.g 130 Ogre

And yet virtually every team who can have a Big Guy will have a Big Guy, which proves the old adage that something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. The teams without access to Big Guys aren't generally dominating the teams WITH BGs, so I think this is a slight tweak towards a better balance between them.

Your other points are noted.

-I guess the thing that worries me is this is all very reminiscent of 2001 in which we had 4 editions(1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 IIRC) of the rules and it became incredibly hard work keeping track of things. After this period we had the box set with 1.3 which never got updated again, and the rules online. I just hope as others have said we have a living rule book with all the up to date rules in.

How so? We currently have a main rulebook and one expansion book, which is roughly EXACTLY what we had circa 1994 when 3rd Edition and Death Zone was released. There's a supplementary list of teams which are, by and large, identical to what we've known for years. There's a pinned thread here where I've tried to collect all the new rules that have come out, although I admit I do need to update it some.

Consider this: we have never before had a Blood Bowl game that has been an ongoing product for sale from GW, only one-off short term releases. Sure, they've released miniatures, but BB's fatal flaw has always been that it simply DOESN'T make money. People buy one game, one expansion, maybe 2-3 teams on average -- but there's also plenty of people who just buy a team and play with friends who own the game. With that design, GW has no financial incentive to support the game very long; let's be honest, GW is a business, and they have to pay employees, return value to shareholders, etc. It's not that they don't personally love the game, but at some point financial realities have to be considered too.

The big two GW games, Warhammer 40k and WHFB/AOS, are continually updated and new rules come out for the all the time. Sometimes the rules are army-specific, like new codexes; sometimes they introduce entirely new ways to play the game, like the Apocalypse 40k rules. Yes, change means that you will need to occasionally reference multiple rulebooks, but it also means the game will never become stale. It means that the product remains financially viable, with a continuing return on investment, which gives GW an incentive to not treat it like a red-headed stepchild.

GW has a long-term plan for Blood Bowl. It is not going to be a flash in the pan. You may or may not like all of the fluffy optional rules posted in WD and online, but other players may, and I think we can all take some enjoyment from seeing glossy articles about BB in White Dwarf again. Isn't it fun to have new things to discuss, argue about, test out? We don't have those if BB isn't a viable long-term product.

Now, if GW is smart about it, they'll start doing things like periodic collections of BB-related materlal, like the annuals of old. For them, it's a no brainer to sell content they've already produced a second time. For coaches, it will give them a chance to get collected materials in a single package -- if they want. If you already have all of the books and don't care about the convenience of one location, then no big deal.

I will caution people not to expect too much too quickly. The new Specialist Games group will branch out to more than just ONE specialist game, and they will have some growing pains. They are not superhuman. They've hired more sculptors, but it takes time for these products to come to fruition. We do need to be patient. But there's a lot of good stuff coming down the pipeline and from what I've seen and heard, I think people will be happy.

[spubbbba]

-I guess the thing that worries me is this is all very reminiscent of 2001 in which we had 4 editions(1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 IIRC) of the rules and it became incredibly hard work keeping track of things. After this period we had the box set with 1.3 which never got updated again, and the rules online. I just hope as others have said we have a living rule book with all the up to date rules in.

That is a concern of mine as I remember needing multiple books and photocopies when attending 40k tournaments back then. There was always confusion about how "official" stuff was that appeared in magazines or online.

I have no issue with crazy rules for optional stuff like Grak or the White Dwarf and Black Gobbo. Just like I wouldn't mind if new player tested skills, teams or stars were added in the future.
Am less keen on adding skills for the sake of it that only apply to specific models without a really good reason. It just clutters the rules up and causes confusion. There are 24 teams and 57 stars in crp some of which have never had models from GW. So plenty of scope for models, I like the idea of extra kits like the bright crusaders and new skaven positionals too.

[Darkson]

So Milo, are you saying that even though I know I don't like any off-the-shelf attrition, and therefore the new seasons rules are rubbish for me, can't be proven because it's "theory craft", and I would have to force myself through a few non-fun seasons before I can say "that's not fun"?

[Milo]

We are never going to make everyone happy on this one. On the pitch attrition means injuries, and they affect certain teams more than others. EVERY team plays seasons and every team has an offseason to manage. That means this form of coach's-choice attrition affects everyone equally (or pretty close) and puts the control in the hands of the coach rather than the dice. I think it's a great step in the right direction, and I wasn't involved in writing it at all. I think most people haven't actually experienced multiple seasons yet, but when they do and have actual real-life feedback (as opposed to theorycrafting), we'll listen.

So Milo, are you saying that even though I know I don't like any off-the-shelf attrition, and therefore the new seasons rules are rubbish for me, can't be proven because it's "theory craft", and I would have to force myself through a few non-fun seasons before I can say "that's not fun"?

I don't believe I said that, so I copied the relevant part of my post. I stated up front that I don't think we're ever going to make everyone happy. If we stick to just on-the-pitch attrition, bash teams will take over most ongoing leagues over time -- they simply get to keep their players longer. I've heard plenty of complaints about that in the past. If we introduce attrition (and Jervis was adamant that we should have some when I was on the BBRC) off the pitch, there will inevitably be people who complain about that, too (such as yourself.)

I did say I was interested in hearing real-life feedback, but I didn't state that I was unwilling to listen to theory-crafted feedback. I'd love it if you took some of your past teams, calculated how much you would have had under the new rules to spend off-season, and gave some real-life examples of what you don't like about it. I never said you should force yourself to do something you didn't think was fun (although I do think it's pretty hyperbolic to say that you would consider the entire seasons "non-fun" -- it is Blood Bowl you'd be playing, and the off-season changes are really very minor compared to a full season of Blood Bowl. You might find that the difference is as minor as losing one lineman off your team, comparable to the impact of a slightly higher injury roll once during the season.)

I would say that I would give real-life feedback a little more significance in consideration, but I'd say the same about actually playtesting any rule as opposed to just running the numbers. And again, I happen like those rules, but I wasn't involved in reviewing them before they went into the rulebook. I would fully support you, or any commissioner, modifying or removing those rules if you and your league mates see fit.

[Darkson]

"As minor as losing one lineman" - that's one to many.

I still prefer LRB4 to LRB5/CRP but getting rid of off-field attrition was one of the best things the change did do, and bringing it back in any format is a step backwards imo.

BB2016 with houseruling out seasons (and the awful PO change) etc = might as well stick with CRP (which is what I've done).

[JT-Y]

You prefer the old version and have stuck with that.
That's fine. A great many players, long time, returning, and new, like the new seasons, but you aren't alone in preferring the old way. Both opinions are fine.

What's the feedback here? Would you like to see a variety of league options printed for players and commissioners to choose from for greater personalisation?, or do you just want it changed back because that's how you like it?

Let's assume the latter won't happen. How can we expand the game to accommodate everyone? I could see the CRP style presented as a basic, one season league. Simple, solid, and easy. And then other stuff suggested for players who want to follow a narrative through several seasons, appendices to that simple league if you like.
How would you do that, what would you include?

Complaints are easy, but I must admit to being more interested in suggestions that allow printed content to appeal to as many as possible and exclude no one. In an ideal world.

[faust_33]

One thing I hope the powers that be, will take into account "Please, don't print rules and/or relevant material on the game packages.". The Dwarf/Skaven pitch is the best example of this. The rules for the weather table are printed on the outside of the box. Which leaves you with the choice of cutting out the rules and packing around a piece of cardboard, scanning/printing it, retyping it, etc. I don't tend to keep boxes around due to lack of space, so it would be nice if they just included a sheet of paper with the rules.

Not the end of the world, but certainly something I hope they take into consideration.

[Milo]

One thing I hope the powers that be, will take into account "Please, don't print rules and/or relevant material on the game packages.". The Dwarf/Skaven pitch is the best example of this. The rules for the weather table are printed on the outside of the box. Which leaves you with the choice of cutting out the rules and packing around a piece of cardboard, scanning/printing it, retyping it, etc. I don't tend to keep boxes around due to lack of space, so it would be nice if they just included a sheet of paper with the rules.

Would you be okay with it if they printed it on the package (so that everyone who bought one would have them), but also made it available as a downloadable, printable PDF online?