Poll |
If it were up to you, Fumbbl R and B would... |
Add all 3 |
|
23% |
[ 36 ] |
Add none |
|
37% |
[ 57 ] |
Add just Khorne |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Add just Bretons |
|
5% |
[ 8 ] |
Add just Simyin |
|
2% |
[ 4 ] |
Add all BUT Khorne |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
Add all BUT Bretons |
|
1% |
[ 2 ] |
Add all BUT Simyin |
|
27% |
[ 42 ] |
|
Total Votes : 154 |
|
koadah
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/11621913544284994cadd9f.gif)
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 21, 2018 - 22:28 |
|
|
mister__joshua
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/3535374255f3401a3a52cd.png)
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
koadah wrote: | mister__joshua wrote: |
If I understand it correctly, he said on TFF that they were definitely optional, but then also said, on TFF, that nothing he says on TFF is official ![Very Happy](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif) |
I think it is probably better to keep the "official" pronouncements to an "official" channel. |
Oh I agree, but that's not what they seem to be doing. They're making other rules announcements on TFF, such as petty cash reverting to CRP rules.
koadah wrote: |
I honestly don't see why it is a big deal.
It clearly says "all these rules are optional".
Even if they are "not" "the commissioner's word is law".
It is all "optional" IMO. Mr. Green |
This answer is a total nonsense though isn't it. I know you're kidding, but it's an answer that's been given by the rules team many times.
Again, referring back to D&D, in 5th edition they've been a lot more loose with the rules and there's a number of places where 'it's up to the DM' is the response, but a lot of players still want to know what the original rules intent was (the RAI rather than the RAW) so they've created a channel for the designers to feed back rulings.
With Blood Bowl it's even more important, as we have organised leagues and tournaments. Copping out with 'it's up to the commissioner' puts a lot of the work back onto organisations like the NAF who then have to make all their own rulings.
If you're going to do that, why bother with a new rules edition? They could have just re-released the box with a CRP reprint, then thrown all their optional fluff bits like stadiums and refs into expansions. |
_________________ "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Garion
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/155697392353a7e973f1d5a.jpg)
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Aug 22, 2018 - 11:04 |
|
mister__joshua wrote: |
If you're going to do that, why bother with a new rules edition? They could have just re-released the box with a CRP reprint, then thrown all their optional fluff bits like stadiums and refs into expansions. |
^this... a thousand times this. Why even both making a new edition if you then say do what you want. Why make a change to the rules where you move cards to Extra rules instead of them being at the back of the rule book in extra rules, why change MVP do pick 3 players and so on.
It is a total cop out answer. |
_________________
![Image Image](https://fumbbl.com/i/567119) |
|
Christer
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/212093185457642fe6c6ee4.jpg)
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
I could hazard a guess as to why things are the way they are.
GW wanted to do a refresh of BB for business reasons. Inherently, companies are designed to make money and for whatever reason they wanted to do a new release of Blood Bowl (momentum from Cyanide or whatever), and the decision to do it in installments makes sense from a business perspective. Get people to buy the game once, and keep buying the accessories including minis, death zone seasons and spike magazines.
Now, that doesn't mean that their primary focus is to annoy people who buy and play the game by making it confusing on purpose. I think GW, much like most other reasonable companies, are honestly trying to make a good product and people responsible for writing rules are doing everything they can to do as good of a job as possible. Yes, there are inevitably constraints set up based on the business aspect of it. The trickling of teams and the race specific wizards in Spike are more than likely business decisions designed from the start to have content for these additional publications. I completely understand why this is the way it is, although I'd be very happy if there was a more clear distinction for the three different types of rules (simplified/basic, Official and Optional). The almanac concept is great and in my mind should be the annual (or whatever period suits GW) consolidation of rules and clarifications.
As for the policy to make calls whether or not a rule is official or optional on random community forums or social media.. If that's done, it should be under a direct GW umbrella and should be followed by an update to an official FAQ (or in some reasonably regular publication like Spike).
Claiming the cards are optional because there's a line that says the extra rules are optional is a complete joke. The Extra Rules section is designed to be a separation of the "tutorial" version of Blood Bowl and the "full" version. How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond my comprehension quite honestly. The "Extra Rules" section has things like team creation (TV), the Kick-off table, GFIs and hand-offs, assists, interception and fumble mechanic for passing, fouls and most of the skills (there are 6 skills in the basic rules section). Claiming that these parts of the game are optional is simply a joke.
I mean sure, the rules for a game are all optional. People are free to play any game whichever way they want. There's an argument to be made that you could play Chess and call it house ruled Blood Bowl, but that's really not something most reasonable people actually think.
I honestly don't think the cards were intended to be optional, but the backlash from parts of the community resulted in the very reasonable response which more or less amounts to "every rule is optional", and that if you don't like it, house rule it.
Maybe there were/are plans to revise the card system, but for various reasons it just hasn't been published anywhere.
Again, I highly doubt anyone involved is trying to make the game worse or confusing on purpose, and I also doubt that it was ever intended to be an e-sport level competitive game. There are many examples that indicate that it was intended as a bit crazy and more fun than a super serious attempt at a highly balanced "sport". Cards are a prime example of that with them potentially having a HUGE impact on the game and directly adds more randomness to what otherwise could be considered fairly balanced.
In the end, though, the problem still remains. There is no obvious "official" set of rules, and with my goal to have FUMBBL be as close as possible to a reference implementation that becomes a bit of a problem. From our perspective, there's a clear need for an "official" reference but we are honestly a minority in that sense. I doubt Cyanide could implement a reference set of rules in a super precise way. Not because of lack of ability, but because of lack of budget. Blood Bowl is a very niche game after all. |
|
|
koadah
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/11621913544284994cadd9f.gif)
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 22, 2018 - 11:50 |
|
They are releasing new rules editions to make money. I think that is pretty much it.
Nope. I'm not kidding. In the Fumbbl roster creation you can disallow any skill. Most people won't. But every now and then someone says "I'm going to run a league where no player has block".
The NAF is just another commissioner. Though a big one. If they choose to allow pact, slann, underworld, bretts, khorne or the entire Secret League, they can. "Offical" or not.
If a rule is not clear then sure, clarify it. Clarify the 'intent'.
IMO the use of cards is optional. But then, I would still consider them to optional even if the rulebook said they were "mandatory" in 48pt red bold with three exclamation marks. ![Wink](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
mister__joshua
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/3535374255f3401a3a52cd.png)
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Christer wrote: | Claiming the cards are optional because there's a line that says the extra rules are optional is a complete joke. The Extra Rules section is designed to be a separation of the "tutorial" version of Blood Bowl and the "full" version. How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond my comprehension quite honestly. The "Extra Rules" section has things like team creation (TV), the Kick-off table, GFIs and hand-offs, assists, interception and fumble mechanic for passing, fouls and most of the skills (there are 6 skills in the basic rules section). Claiming that these parts of the game are optional is simply a joke. |
I believe it was also stated on TFF, by the devs, that with all these extra rules either coach could veto their use. Does that mean that my Orcs can veto the 'assisting a block' rule when I next play? But then you can veto my Mighty Blow, as that's an optional skill....
Christer wrote: | I honestly don't think the cards were intended to be optional, but the backlash from parts of the community resulted in the very reasonable response which more or less amounts to "every rule is optional", and that if you don't like it, house rule it. |
I believe that's the case. I think the same about the petty cash u-turn. But why not just say that? Why is it so hard for people to admit to mistakes? Unless you don' think they're mistakes, in which case don't change them!
Christer wrote: | In the end, though, the problem still remains. There is no obvious "official" set of rules, and with my goal to have FUMBBL be as close as possible to a reference implementation that becomes a bit of a problem. From our perspective, there's a clear need for an "official" reference but we are honestly a minority in that sense. I doubt Cyanide could implement a reference set of rules in a super precise way. Not because of lack of ability, but because of lack of budget. Blood Bowl is a very niche game after all. |
I think with the official rules being tantamount to 'everything is optional, it's all up to the commissioner' then the NAF is the largest and most recognisable commissioner in Blood Bowl. Sticking as closely to that as possible can't be a bad thing IMO. |
_________________ "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Christy
Joined: Jul 19, 2007
|
  Posted:
Aug 22, 2018 - 21:55 |
|
For a once off you can absolutely veto a skill or rule. I mean the person might not be bothered playing against you but you can try.
For a league or competition the commissioner decides and for fumbbl christer counts as the commissioner for ranked /black box. Now he is willing to listen to feedback but if he rewrote the code to remove might blow there is not much you can do to stop him.
As you say very little is entirely official but we can but make do. I think while Christer wants officialdom that he also takes into account the desires of the community here as well. |
|
|
ph0enyx13
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
  Posted:
Aug 23, 2018 - 04:32 |
|
Garion wrote: | mister__joshua wrote: |
If you're going to do that, why bother with a new rules edition? They could have just re-released the box with a CRP reprint, then thrown all their optional fluff bits like stadiums and refs into expansions. |
^this... a thousand times this. Why even both making a new edition if you then say do what you want. Why make a change to the rules where you move cards to Extra rules instead of them being at the back of the rule book in extra rules, why change MVP do pick 3 players and so on.
It is a total cop out answer. |
I think it was a copyright thing? I know their tournament used LRB5 and not CRP. All BB2016 does is remove pilin' on, change the names of positional, legitimize Pact/Underworld, add 3 positionals, change the inducements phase, change the inducements phase back to CRP, and convert spiraling expenses to expensive mistakes/seasons.
And they did this all in 4 books, 2 magazines, and countless PDFs |
|
|
mister__joshua
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/3535374255f3401a3a52cd.png)
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
ph0enyx13 wrote: | I think it was a copyright thing? I know their tournament used LRB5 and not CRP. All BB2016 does is remove pilin' on, change the names of positional, legitimize Pact/Underworld, add 3 positionals, change the inducements phase, change the inducements phase back to CRP, and convert spiraling expenses to expensive mistakes/seasons.
And they did this all in 4 books, 2 magazines, and countless PDFs |
Haha, that's a nice summary! It won't have been a copyright issue though as GW produced, released and own CRP. |
_________________ "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Garion
![](./modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/upload/155697392353a7e973f1d5a.jpg)
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
Aug 23, 2018 - 20:42 |
|
ph0enyx13 wrote: | All BB2016 does is remove pilin' on, change the names of positional, legitimize Pact/Underworld, add 3 positionals, change the inducements phase, change the inducements phase back to CRP, and convert spiraling expenses to expensive mistakes/seasons.
And they did this all in 4 books, 2 magazines, and countless PDFs |
haha best post in a long time
I like all their released so far mind. the biggest issue is that the rules aren't clear on 2 pretty important areas. |
_________________
![Image Image](https://fumbbl.com/i/567119) |
|
|
| |