| Poll |
| How do you like your BloodBowl? |
| Just the way it is. I LOVE IT, leave it alone. |
|
18% |
[ 30 ] |
| I love it but it could use some minor tweaking. |
|
60% |
[ 97 ] |
| I like it but it needs some major changes. |
|
13% |
[ 22 ] |
| Needs a complete overhaul. Scrap the current ruleset and rewrite it. |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| I don't care as long as I can kill your pixels and shirtcopter as you ragequit. |
|
6% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 160 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:49 |
 
|
But it IS true that GW is rereleasing a new box set of BB in 2017, right? And... iirc by the words of another thread 'an adapted version of LRB5' which may be understood to be the CRP ruleset or something the like. But in any case would present an opportunity for a rule change. Or am I wrong with that? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 10:09 |
|
The only known truth in your post is the first sentence. Everything else is the Internet enjoying making things up, because they do not know. Chinese whispers, some guy said this here, a bungled communication (before correction) said that, there. You're apparently a good example of speculation becoming 'fact'.
It's an opportunity to make pitch squares four times as big (or insert anything else) too, but that's less incendiary for forums, so no one debates / makes that up.
Anyway, quit poking me, go back to the madness.  |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 16:31 |
|
Well this got me thinking what would be the next step to improving skills and skill selections.
This idea is not about changing how the skills work, redoing them.
The main idea is to take core skills and transform them into a Skill groupings. Inside these skill groupings is when the secondary skills show up as add on's for getting better at your skill group.
We also bring back the 2ed. idea of levels of skill into these skill groups.
Here are a few examples.
block
Block
Block Lv2
Block Lv3 Dauntless
Block Lv4 Pro, Fend
So here is how it works. We will assume a linemen (rookie). At 6spp he takes Block, then at 16SPP he takes Block Lv2 at 31SPP he takes Block lv3 and picks up Dauntless to go with it and finally at Block Lv4 He picks up Pro and Fend.
Now how the levels work is that if both players have block then the player with the higher Block Level breaks the block skill of a player at a lower level.
So, a Block Lv2 negates any player he blocks who just has block on the blocking dice. Level 3 block can only be negated by a player with Lv 4. I think you guys see where Iam going with this.
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge lv2
Dodge lv3 Sure Feet
Dodge lv4 Jump Up and Side Step
Tackle only negates dodge on the blocking dice and for dodging away IF the other players Tackle Level is equal to or greater than your dodge level.
So if you have Dodge LV2, the tackle skill is negated. The other player would have to have Tackle lv2 or greater to not have his skill negated.
Dodge negates tackle if it is a higher Level.
Tackle
Tackle
Tackle Lv2
Tackle Lv3 Block
Tackle Lv4 Diving Tackle and Wrestle
For this group I explored the idea of adding on a core skill like block later in the development and threw in a double for most players at the highest level.
How tackle works, re read dodge.
Mighty Blow
Mighty Blow
MB Lv2
MB lv3 Dauntless
MB lv4 Juggernaut and now it is a fixed +1 AV check and +1 Injury check. No longer a either/Or skill that Mighty Blow currently is.
Well, you can see where this is going.
I do not think we would need to make endless skill groupings. Just have the core skills have groupings and the secondary skills can start getting lumped in there with them.
Also when you skill up you can still choose any skill. Some skills will not have a skill group, it will just be a stand alone skill.
As with everything you could make a skill group for every skill. That, like anything else would lend itself to the idea that some groups are good and some groups are poor, thus most coaches never advance down the groups that are considered poor.
Thus I think you only make skill groups for the tier 1 skills.
Also, you can promote some of the skill combos like blodge by allowing some of the skill groups to give for free a double only access core skill. and also nerf some skill combos like PO/MB by having both those skills in two different skill groupings.
The bottom line for me is this presents more choices now. Do you make specialist players who try to max out a skill group and get some bonus skills OR do you just keep taking the base level skill from many groups of skills just to you have access to that skill? just like right now.
Final thought.
The idea of bringing up skill levels on some skills on TT is usually a issue of keeping track of it. But we are not playing TT so the idea of using skill levels is automated so it would not be a big deal. It would just make you make sure you "mark" the players with skills greater than level 1. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 16:38 |
|
Here is my idea on improving mutations.
You expand out the list some more, make more of them.
Split claw apart again into claw (AV) and razor sharp claws (inj)
Also I think bringing back the 2ed idea of mutants as a positional would be something to look at.
So all teams currently with M access would lose that on all the players and have it replaced with a 0-2 or 0-4 mutant positional. Only that player can get mutations and or skills. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 17:03 |
|
You sound like a spokesman for Creative Assembly. "We are cutting down how you cn play the game but really tust us it's more choice." |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 17:18 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | You sound like a spokesman for Creative Assembly. "We are cutting down how you cn play the game but really tust us it's more choice." |
Well, mmm, Got any feed back on why my idea is bad or cuts down on choice? |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 17:36 |
|
Railroading people into having to take 3-4 of the same skill before it works better than what one might face and has therefore a point taking it. It's forcing one particular playstyle and skill evolution down people because of the meta it creates. For example I qite like a bit of SS as an option on Dwaves, but between block tackle and mighty blow that's got all the skill level picks covered. Veriaty is pointless since the meta will be I need at least three levels in these skills to make them work over others who have block or dodge. So instead of taking SS as a 1-3 level skill the incentive is to probably not take it at all and get a combination of the block/tackle/MB trees. Making taking a skill thats not maybe optimum now becomes a greater liability instead of being a bit of fun and thus provodes a greater disincentive to have veriaty in skill choices. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 17:50 |
|
It also strikes me as fundamentally un-BB like. The beauty of BB is the simplicity sometimes. This is a step away from the idea that we're 90% of the way on the rules too - this is like reworking 20-25% of the rules and to what end? I don't really know other than it introduces more opportunity cost in the skill phase of the game, something that is already a major factor in skill selection. |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 17:58 |
|
I agree this topic has diverged from the original path but I don't believe this belongs in House Rules.(For the record, I did state this was not the place for Cpomb talk and linked everyone to the thread)
Someone had linked me in chat, a blog or in one of the threads a link to twitter of game designer stating they were going to be writing the rules for BloodBowl. If this is the case, I would think they would look to "experts" of the game if they have ANY idea of the fan-base for the game. If they go off with some cockamamie set of rules it could really fracture the communities and set everyone down divided paths. Maybe a thread is not the place to change the world but at least it shows the passion and thoughts so many of us have for the game.
Millions of deaths have occurred here with some pretty clear data. I don't see why someone would not want to use the data to tweak things for the better. |
_________________
 |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 18:21 |
|
There have been some really good thought and I have been compiling most of them so I can summarize it in the opening post. |
_________________
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 18:22 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | I agree this topic has diverged from the original path but I don't believe this belongs in House Rules.(For the record, I did state this was not the place for Cpomb talk and linked everyone to the thread)
Someone had linked me in chat, a blog or in one of the threads a link to twitter of game designer stating they were going to be writing the rules for BloodBowl. If this is the case, I would think they would look to "experts" of the game if they have ANY idea of the fan-base for the game. If they go off with some cockamamie set of rules it could really fracture the communities and set everyone down divided paths. Maybe a thread is not the place to change the world but at least it shows the passion and thoughts so many of us have for the game.
Millions of deaths have occurred here with some pretty clear data. I don't see why someone would not want to use the data to tweak things for the better. |
Unfortunately, nothing that GW has done in the last 20 years indicates they think much of anything outside of selling miniatures. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 18:24 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | | If they go off with some cockamamie set of rules it could really fracture the communities and set everyone down divided paths. |
That right there is the real issue of discussing how to evolve Blood Bowl to the next level.
If I took the time and came up with my own version of the rules, some would scream to the heavens in rage and flame me, others would like the new rules and then others would say I like that and I do not like that.
Then some dude in the back will be screaming about meta's
When CRP came out and was brought to FUMBBL there where a lot of coaches on FUMBBL who stood on soap boxes yelling about this cockamamie set of rules and bailed.
So at some point in the future there will be a new set of rules come out and many, not just on FUMBBL will scream to the heavens about another cockamamie set of rules!!!
The real question in my mind is this.
It seems to really matter who the author of the new rules are. Iam out by default because Iam just a fan who has played since 1988. Not good enough.
So, who is the magic author? Who will it be to take Blood Bowl to the next level? Since it is very clear that a new rule set will have to be forced onto FUMBBL from outside of FUMBBL by a single author or a very very small group. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 18:33 |
|
I am that magic author. My technicolor dreamcoat proves it. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 18:43 |
|
In the end I do not think the issue really is the CRP. CRP is perfectly fine. The issue IMO is that there are certain aspects of CRP when it comes to the league section of the rules pack that do not mesh well with FUMBBL.
The friction comes from a set of rules not designed for perpetual play.
We can come up with all kinds of tweaks here and there. I do not like how gold and how the inducement phase works BUT that is because it does not work really good on FUMBBL. On Table Top it is a non factor mainly, so, yeah it works awesome in TT.
The problem with tweaks though is that leads to other tweaks some like and some do not like.
I can live with all the little stuff. Heck, I, actually do not think anything is wrong right now but Iam obviously in the minority of that position.
There are 3 BIG issues though that are the root cause of this. We all know what they are. One of them has it own thread.
So FUMBBL has two choices to fix that.
#1 Have a new rule book show up that solves all the problems and is dropped on our heads.
#2 Do not mess with CRP but rather address how to fix those issues internally on FUMBBL. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 18:55 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | | Someone had linked me in chat, a blog or in one of the threads a link to twitter of game designer stating they were going to be writing the rules for BloodBowl |
The Tweet in question (which I can't put my finger on from here, I'm sure someone will help) was a photo of a White Dwarf with the text (I think near enough verbatim to make the point) 'This is the first copy of White Dwarf I ever bought. I could never have imagined I'd be writing Blood Bowl'. That is, unless, you're referring to something else I have not seen. There was also this 24 hour Internet meltdown when GW bungled an announcement regarding their WW tournament, which led to much grief and rules speculation.
Take 2, add 2, come up with any number you like. In this case, you've / we've extrapolated two things. Firstly that 'writing Blood Bowl' means that the new boxed set will ship with new rules. Secondly that those new rules will be new rules for Blood Bowl the wider game, and not that boxed set release.
First things first, any new release will, surely, involve some 'writing'. Rules were not mentioned, and when you think about it, nor would they be (why set that bomb off again). The WW event will use CRP, less the minis you can't have bought from GW. No controversy there, other than a crap announcement (prepare for more of those).
Second things second, that is quite the assumption. Take the Dreadfleet box (it was called Dreadfleet, right?). Those rules covered the bits in the box, and were nice and simple, such that a newcomer could buy the box and quickly play a stand alone game based on the Man O' War theme. They were not new Man O' War rules to replace those that came before. When you think about it, do you think GW, a company that focuses so much on their core products would really go to the trouble of rewriting all of the BB rules, producing 24 new mini lines and then go through that huge product development process for every SG game in the range? Or do you think the more logical option is a 4 team box with some simple, naf (no pun intended) rules to get the kids in and make a quick few quid, with no real challenge to CRP or their licenced video game by hugely revolutionising the rules?
I tell you this - what they will do is what they think will make the most money. If the rules for all of BB are up for grabs, what scenario makes the most money? Mining FUMBBL for gradual, slight CRP tweaks for the existing, hardcore nerds likely too old to go out and buy 24 new teams, or a totally new, whacky, nonsense first ruleset that will set the tongues of fourteen year olds wagging on the playground? I think you'd rather the rules were left alone, and that you're envisioning a best case scenario that likely will never exist, even if it's desirable the rules change at all (an argument for another time).
But, I think, you think, we all think. I apologise for being grumpy, and I expect another 9 months of 'I read a thing, someone's brother rummaged through a bin of a GW employee, and there was a draft blog written on a pizza box, Black Orcs are going to be AV 10!'. I just wish we'd asterisk our thoughts as speculation. If we don't, we get infinitely more people confused and mislead.
I did say I'd given up being sensible. Never give up giving up! |
|
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
