| Poll |
| Which grammar style would you prefer? |
| Previous style - He/His/It/Its/etc. |
|
52% |
[ 23 ] |
| Modified style - The Singular They |
|
47% |
[ 21 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 44 |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
 Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 05:29 |
 
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | Only big guys and lucky CW or NW get get claw? Underworld cries.
Piling on only on ST5+ too? |
underworld is a stupid team anyway. claw should be more limited. |
Do you ever get tired of being cranky and wrong? |
i'll let you know if that ever happens
#notwrongalwaysrightjustlikeyourmum |
_________________
 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 16:39 |
|
Howdy all, thanks for all the great feedback and constructive criticism. I will try and address as much of it as I can.
@Grammar rant: I'll start with this, because surprisingly it was the biggest bone of contention. Thanks xnoelx for explaining the singular they better than I could, your knowledge of the English language far exceeds mine. I will reiterate, as I touched on in the opening notes, this was partly to cover the non-human/non-gender-spcific races in BB, but it was more than tha too. It was not as Jimmy noted, to be PC. I actually prefer this style of writing, it is easier for me to read. I really had no idea it would be so confusing for non-native speakers, a lesson learned. It is also not a recent style, despite its recent growth in popularity. It has been used by many writers much more respectable than myself.
@This is broken/wrong/contradictory/etc. comments: Thanks for these, I appreciate them. As I mentioned in the intro, this is definitely not complete by any means, nor play tested. It is an assortment of ideas and changes stuck in my brain for a long time. I wanted to just dump them out on paper. There are many things, such as spiralling expenses, that I may have worked to fix versus dump were this an actual attempt to write new rules versus and theory-ball exercise. I will try and address some of this below...
@Wreckage: I think you are very passionate about BB as well, and therefore have some strong reactions to my suggestions.  I do want to address one point you made, because it is very important to me.
| Wreckage wrote: | | Oh, and the introduction at the top read as if your changes were sanctioned by the BBRC. That is probably crossing the line to plagiarism, so you may want to outline more clearly that your changes are completely inofficial non-affiliated changes to an official document. |
I will definitely make that adjustment, as plagiarism is a big deal to me. I thought I was clear in the intro that I appreciated the work of Tom and the BBRC, as well as acknowledging many ideas would have come from other players. I wanted to leave them in to ensure credit was given as due to them. When writing the Stunty Handbook I took great lengths to ensure all contributors were credited as best I could. Thanks for the suggestion. |
_________________
 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 17:03 |
|
| Kam wrote: | Where are the pygmies?!
/me boycotts the rulebook. |
I.m. So. Sorry. 
| keggiemckill wrote: | | I find the changes very interesting. They is always criticism to ones efforts. I appreciate that you love the game, as much as I do. The one thing that stands out are the 25, 125 or 105 prices on players and skills. I would prefer it to remain the same as I like round numbers. Im going to keep reading it because I have enjoyed it so far. |
This wa s abig discussion with the Stunty Handbook as well. I find the steps of 5 allow for much finer tuning, though I must admit the 105/95 type costs are uncomfortable for me too. When I post the adjusted values chart you will see I skipped a lot of them. Increments of 25 are much easier for me to do, I see them as "even" numbers almost as they are much more common. Weird how certain numbers affect us.
| Bobs wrote: | I need to call my accountant. I think an adjustment to spiraling would be better than just dumping it. Minuses to winnings roll at TV levels would work better rather than the running costs system they have now. TV400 team with 5 million in cash is quite possible.
Yay for 7th skill again.
Lotsa good changes in there though |
I looked at Spiralling Expenses, thought a bit, my head hurt, and I decided it was easier to scrap it for this exercise. I would address it in detail were this a true rewrite of the rules. Maybe one day...
| mrt1212 wrote: | | WhatBall wrote: | So, I suppose this is what you do when you don't have access to FUMBBL for long stretches. Enjoy, hate, laugh, ignore...
WhatRuleBook 7.0 |
And I shall call it "Hero Ball" |
Not sure if this is sarcasm or you like the rules. Either way, funny post. 
| koadah wrote: | | For the sake of us lazy asses could 'real rule changes' be in a different color to grammar corrections etc. |
I will try and fix that when I get the urge to touch the rules again. Maybe if I had not highlighted the grammar it would have not created such a stir!
| mrt1212 wrote: | Only big guys and lucky CW or NW get get claw? Underworld cries.
Piling on only on ST5+ too? |
Everyone who had Claw can still get Claw. I think my awkwardly written design notes on Piling On (or Mighty Blow) may have confused the issue.
| mrt1212 wrote: | Orcs get 1 less black orcs on the reasoning that the kill stack nerfs benefit them? What? It benefits them relative to chaos, i guess, but so what, it neuters them over all. So many of these changes seem to be towards getting rosters big and fat but kind of generic.
Pestigors go up in price despite not having access to the killstack?
Is the reasoning for these rules and roster changes entirely to facilitate large TV elfball or what? |
On the 0-3 BoBs, I think way back when I wanted to limit them to less positionals. I only did the 0-3 in this case because I wanted a 0-3 to buck tradition and through stubbornness. I would probably go back to 0-4. Pestigors go up, as most Blitzer players do. Almost all were undervalued.
| Roland wrote: | when do we get the "WRB 7"-client?
btw, on the HE roster should be: 0-4 Blitzers (red), fyi  |
Thanks! And if it were 0-4 mrt1212 would have my head!
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Good effort but it reminds me of Plasmoid's changes. |
Ouch!
I am sure there are similarities.
| Stonetroll wrote: | I like some of the ideas, like the kick off table tweaks, claw, fouling stuff, and making amazons not totally bullshit. However, in my opinion these alone would be enough. Some of the roster changes, especially orcs and humans are something that I just plain dislike, especially giving humans both +STR and +AGI boosts for cheap.
Still 4/5 would implement. Sadly the rulebook has been dictated by Nuffle from Heaven and set into stone tablets, so any kind of balance changes have exactly 0% chance of happening. |
Glad you like most of it. My Orc changes are explained above, probably would revert them. The Humans need love, I think this makes them the true jack-of-all-trades team I envision them as. The bridge between Agility and the Bash, but not excelling at either completely.
| Fingard wrote: | Mb is the main bashing skill in BB.
Khemri are by far the best team in your format, on mid-long term. PO and 2 MB is really worse than clawpomb O_O even if TGs don't have access to block and frenzy.
Also, you buffed fouling a lot.
Re-writing the rules would require testing from an adequately large and competitive playerbase.
Nice try anyway ^^ |
Testing? Who needs testing? 
I wavered back and forth on the double-Mighty Blow being only allowed by Big Guys instead of ST5. That way it would represent their immense size and strength, and prevent Khemri and UD from having some crazy-good bashers.
| azyx wrote: | | is this official |
By the looks of it, if it were, I would be going into hiding. 
| Harad wrote: | One loop hole you may want to close... on a double six, can I remove the 'secret weapon' negatrait from my deathroller?
I appreciate this is largely an academic exercise but well done for giving it some serious thought. Like everyone I won't agree with all the suggestions but I like many of them and think most are reasonable even if I don't agree. |
At the end of the Skill section the "Negatrait" skills are marked with an (N), Secret Weapon is not one of them. I could make it more clear though.
| Cyrus-Havoc wrote: | This is a good effort much of it is similar to what I would do.
However (here is the but!) I don't like reducing the cost of injured players particularly as the injuries themselves have been reduced in frequency.
Nor do I like the fouling rules, though they are better than the current ones. I would like to see the return of the 'Eye'.
The real problem of course is that we all have different ideas on how to change the rules. Your effort is the best & most thoroughly thought out I have read but I still would not vote them in sorry. |
Appreciate the comments. Best of the worst works for me!
The Eye is cool, I just wanted to explore a simple solution that was similar, but better than current. Tried to make Sneaky Git a decent Skill. |
_________________
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 17:12 |
|
| the_Sage wrote: | I like a lot of it. PD nerf and blitz de-likely, no touchback if the receiving team touches the ball, apo that is less powerful in-game but more likely to save players, no FF to TV. The idea of primary vs secondary stats is sensible, if a lot of upkeep for a tabletop setting.
I really like big guys may treat 11s as doubles. (not so sure about removing negatrait: also, you need to assign a TV cost to that, probably not 50k)
Would have liked to see overtime fixed: at the very least make it so that if no TD is scored on overtime, the team that kicked for OT wins. =) |
Thanks! I totally missed OT. Food for thought.
| RobRoyDuncan wrote: | | WhatBall: in the injury section, niggles state that the player's value can never go below 5 gp, but the other injuries state that the value cannot go below 10 gp. I'm assuming that one of those is a typo? |
Thanks. I started out with 5 and changed my mine to 10. I will fix it next time.
| the_Sage wrote: | I like the ogre fix, not sure about zons and humans. Claw hasn't been nerfed (*except vs AV10), but PO access has been. How does this help orcs?
Have you considered the increased cost per level (for example adding 5 TV @ 16 SPPs, 10 @ 31, 15 @ 51, 20 @ 76, and 25 @ 176), in addition to the revised skill costs? This would do a lot to alleviate the '2 killers, a baller, and 8 mooks' and 'rule of 5' phenomena. |
Great point on cost per level increases. I admit I had not considered it at all.
| tmoila wrote: | | Changing the pronouns made it unreadable. 0/5 didn't even finish after reading the prologue. |
tl:dr
| RobRoyDuncan wrote: | After having read over the rules, I like a lot of what you are doing. However, I disagree with Claw = No Hands. I mean, sure, I can see the flavour justification for it, but I don't like what it is going to do to the players (and teams) who take it. In several other places you mention that you hope your changes will promote diversity, but this one reduces it. If taking Claw means you can't handle the ball, then sure, it'll discourage Claw as skill, but it means that the players who do take it will specialize even harder. You won't have Pestigors or Beastmen who can hit and also run and also handle the ball; they'll just hit and hit and hit again, 'cause what else are they gonna do?
That is, though, as I said earlier, one dislike among a number of likes. Interesting stuff! |
Yeah, that one was a "feeler" change, to see what people would say. I could go either way on Claw/No Hands. Thanks for the feedback.
| Calcium wrote: | | nice try, but they are flawed imo |
Calcium made me cry, admin ticket sent. 
| zakatan wrote: | I'm not sure about the claws-no hands combo either. It looks like it's not a viable skill any more. Together with the PO changes it feels hitters are underpowered.
It also feels that the new blitz! kick-off is no longer worth considering while setting up the offense, since it's very weak.
I'd like to see the cummulative cost of skills too, like the sage mentioned earlier. Specially since we're back to 7 skills.
Aside from some details, and the odd writing, it's a good effort! |
Thanks. I had trouble determining the number of players who could move in a Blitz!, maybe just moving it on the Kick-Off table is enough, or adding more players able to move. I think I had 5 or 6 before (of a maximum of 8 if the 3 on thr LoS are tied up).
@pythrr: thanks for the laughs! |
_________________
|
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 18:02 |
|
I'm liking what you did to the Ogre team. Definitely gives them an improvement and a bit more interest. Oldheim Ogres were supposed to have won the Blood Bowl once, and yet the Ogre team are the crappest of the crap. Onto a definite winner here in my humble opinion. |
_________________
Selfy_74: Verified Stunty Leeg Master
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 20:32 |
|
I haven't read it yet, but a great effort. Regarding the 5k prices, it's been play tested. I think it's one of the best improvements (maybe I'm biased here) to the Stunty League we've made. It gives so much more control and accuracy to player pricing. I know JJ is really anti it, but in a game that revolves around maths, I think it's silly not to price in 5ks.
Edit: Oops and of course 0-3 positionals! |
Last edited by harvestmouse on %b %30, %2015 - %21:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 20:40 |
|
RE: Hero Ball
I think the end result is going to be a lot of juiced up heroes playing well beyond 2500+ TV which sounds like a lot of fun to me (WHALELFS) but might not be everyone's cup of tea.
RE: 0-4 HE Blitzers
on a pike! ON A PIKE! |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:02 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | RE: Hero Ball
I think the end result is going to be a lot of juiced up heroes playing well beyond 2500+ TV which sounds like a lot of fun to me (WHALELFS) but might not be everyone's cup of tea.
RE: 0-4 HE Blitzers
on a pike! ON A PIKE! |
how about the 0-4 throwers then? |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:13 |
|
| Roland wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | RE: Hero Ball
I think the end result is going to be a lot of juiced up heroes playing well beyond 2500+ TV which sounds like a lot of fun to me (WHALELFS) but might not be everyone's cup of tea.
RE: 0-4 HE Blitzers
on a pike! ON A PIKE! |
how about the 0-4 throwers then? |
You're gonna give licker a stroke.
|
|
|
krytie
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:26 |
|
I may comment further on the book if and when I manage to get through it all, though I do like the move away from big chunks e.g. smaller increments than 10k, and 0-3 positionals, etc.
For now though I just want to point out a few grammar notes:
Despite sentiment to the contrary, there is in fact a perfectly fine genderless pronoun which has been used many times in this thread. It achieved some measure of fame as one of the words the Knights of Ni cannot hear!! It also happens to lend itself perfectly to BB's non-human element. For some reason though, Humans prefer not to use it when referring to people.
xnoelx quite rightly points out the usual alternative - using "one of <group>" to refer to an unspecified individual.
The use of they as a singular is indeed widely used among native English speakers. This does not make it grammatically correct or acceptable. (Until some time passes and then it is subsumed into canon.  )
WhatBall you have fallen foul of one other type of grammar failure which catches out many native speakers but this one is easy to fix. Simply Find-Replace all occurances of "try and" with "try to" and all will be fine. This error is usually a consequence of dropping syllables out of speech and later trying to spell/write text based on what you say/hear rather than what the word actually was before it was mangled. |
_________________
There are three types of people in this world -- those who can count and those who cannot! |
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 21:44 |
|
'Ere matey, I does be liking yer style, but I be reckoning in that there final paragraph there be a comma missing after the name WhatBall. |
_________________
Selfy_74: Verified Stunty Leeg Master
|
|
Xeterog
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 22:16 |
|
Interesting changes. Not sure I'd want them all implemented though.
On the human roster...why not give the Throwers Accurate instead of AG 4? |
_________________
- Xeterog |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 22:16 |
|
I love the fact that the coaches getting their panties in a twist re the grammar are ones who are not native English speakers. Personally I couldn't give a toss about the grammar issues highlighted here |
_________________
 |
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 22:48 |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2015 - 23:11 |
|
| Xeterog wrote: | Interesting changes. Not sure I'd want them all implemented though.
On the human roster...why not give the Throwers Accurate instead of AG 4? |
The main issue with Humanity is AG3 across the board.
Giving Throwers AG4 solves their #1 issue, they now can reliably pick up the ball with their main ball handler.
Also accurate is AG4 out to short range passes on a human AG3 passer, that is not a upgrade.
My only complaint of the Human roster buff is there is not a 0-4 halfling option upgrade. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
