PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
  Posted:
May 24, 2017 - 23:30 |
|
Iam just throwing this out there for something to chew on and discuss.
Lets just say the new direction of BB2016 goes like this.
BB season #3 expansion comes out and it is 64 pages just devoted to wizards. Every team/race has specialized wizards. No longer Fireball/L.Bolt.
30+ new spells.... Grey wizards for humans who can cast a spell that allows a player to leap 4 squares on a 2+ with no modifiers, as an example.
I think deep down some coaches are concerned that this game is going to go away from the foundation it had built up in CRP and go full monty and revert to a more chaotic approach to BB by adding new Core/Optional rules that introduce a lot of fluff and fun stuff BUT it also introduces a new dynamic of random stuff that is purely based on luck and so forth. Not to mention new fun/Fluff stuff that is borderline OP because it does effect the actual game on the pitch in drastic ways. |
_________________ Comish of the:
Last edited by PainState on %b %24, %2017 - %23:%May; edited 2 times in total |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
  Posted:
May 24, 2017 - 23:52 |
|
I have to agree with the frustration about the 'drip-drip' nature of the new rules releases. It's not such a big deal if it's just 'optional' rules - use what you want and leave the rest. But I don't like it, if they're actually releasing core rules in a drip-drip fashion. I think it could be very confusing for the player base (especially newer players) and there's more risk that they'll release something on a whim, which hasn't been properly play-tested and just breaks the game.
I have mixed feelings about this ruleset so far. I guess most of the changes seem fairly harmless. I like the removal of Piling On and Spiraling Expenses, although I am concerned about this new two-shot wizard thing and the removal of Petty Cash. I find it disappointing (although, obviously, not surprising) that GW's priority, as usual, is on how they can maximize their returns on the game, rather than making the best game they can make. It's a shame that those things don't seem to be aligned.
Seems kind of similar to the recent trend in video games, where you pay for a half-finished game, then buy the rest through 'expansion packs/DLCs'. |
_________________ "Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
  Posted:
May 24, 2017 - 23:57 |
|
What would you think if they reintroduced Tom O Landry and could hire him as your coach and all undead players regen on a 2+ instead of 4+ for the game?
OP?
You guys do know who Tom O Landry is from 2Ed right?
|
_________________ Comish of the:
Last edited by PainState on %b %25, %2017 - %00:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
  Posted:
May 25, 2017 - 00:04 |
|
It actually doesn't take much for this to happen.
My (former) TT league adopted BB2016-DZ1 for the current season -- filtering existing teams through the End of Season process, using tweaked rosters... and drawing the 2-4 cards per side before each match. Recognizing the unbalanced nature of the BB2016 deck we used the 4 50k decks from CRP instead. But even this was too much -- it became a game of "who has the Pit Trap", the cards deciding several matches that otherwise would have been up for grabs. It was not at all the same experience. |
|
|
ben_awesome
Joined: May 11, 2016
|
  Posted:
May 25, 2017 - 00:20 |
|
picked up the 40th anniversary edition of white dwarf containing not 1 but 2 optional star players - the white dwarf and the black goblin. |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
May 25, 2017 - 03:31 |
|
JellyBelly wrote: | I have to agree with the frustration about the 'drip-drip' nature of the new rules releases. It's not such a big deal if it's just 'optional' rules - use what you want and leave the rest. But I don't like it, if they're actually releasing core rules in a drip-drip fashion. I think it could be very confusing for the player base (especially newer players) and there's more risk that they'll release something on a whim, which hasn't been properly play-tested and just breaks the game.
I have mixed feelings about this ruleset so far. I guess most of the changes seem fairly harmless. I like the removal of Piling On and Spiraling Expenses, although I am concerned about this new two-shot wizard thing and the removal of Petty Cash. I find it disappointing (although, obviously, not surprising) that GW's priority, as usual, is on how they can maximize their returns on the game, rather than making the best game they can make. It's a shame that those things don't seem to be aligned.
Seems kind of similar to the recent trend in video games, where you pay for a half-finished game, then buy the rest through 'expansion packs/DLCs'. |
This has been the GW model for several years. I have way too many army books for Warhammer Fantasy and 40K. They will milk this for as long as they can. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
  Posted:
May 25, 2017 - 09:42 |
|
c9805222 wrote: | picked up the 40th anniversary edition of white dwarf containing not 1 but 2 optional star players - the white dwarf and the black goblin. |
Yes these are really cool and fun optional rules. I'm all for this stuff. Its really great to see white dwarf especially in his Blood bowl gear
Fidius wrote: |
It actually doesn't take much for this to happen.
My (former) TT league adopted BB2016-DZ1 for the current season -- filtering existing teams through the End of Season process, using tweaked rosters... and drawing the 2-4 cards per side before each match. Recognizing the unbalanced nature of the BB2016 deck we used the 4 50k decks from CRP instead. But even this was too much -- it became a game of "who has the Pit Trap", the cards deciding several matches that otherwise would have been up for grabs. It was not at all the same experience.
|
indeed |
_________________
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
  Posted:
May 25, 2017 - 13:18 |
|
I don't think I would like it, if the game became significantly more dicey. I feel like there's enough of a luck factor as it is and a lot of work was done in the last few versions to try to make the game more balanced and skill-based. Not sure I'd be as interested in playing it, if it just turned into a giant dice-bag ... might as well go play craps or online poker.
Edit: that's the reason that I didn't like CPOMB in the first place: it removed too much skill from the game and reduced it to 'whoever gets the first couple of lucky hits in wins'. |
_________________ "Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
  Posted:
May 25, 2017 - 17:35 |
|
JellyBelly wrote: | Edit: that's the reason that I didn't like CPOMB in the first place: it removed too much skill from the game and reduced it to 'whoever gets the first couple of lucky hits in wins'. |
Meh, Bloodbowl always has and will always be heavily influenced by removals. Sure, CPOMB put the odds in that players favour but removals(especially early ones) being so decisive is the problem. |
_________________ Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
|
| |