55 coaches online • Server time: 15:09
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Are You Faint Hearte...goto Post Picon Expansion Proj...goto Post XFL Season XII 2517-...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
sann0638



Joined: Aug 09, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 20, 2017 - 22:36 Reply with quote Back to top

If you read the link in the OP, the TFF screenshot specifies the overdog chooses spending first.

_________________
Image
NAF Ex-President
Founder of Cakebowl, Wiltshire's BB League @ cakebowl.co.uk
happygrue



Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 20, 2017 - 22:46 Reply with quote Back to top

sann0638 wrote:
If you read the link in the OP, the TFF screenshot specifies the overdog chooses spending first.


Ah, I had missed that.

_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
Image
muaddib68



Joined: Apr 27, 2014

Post   Posted: Dec 20, 2017 - 23:29 Reply with quote Back to top

did they really taken ....18 month (or not so far ...)for ..those ...really was not a facepalm ...just lol
tussock



Joined: May 29, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 01:42 Reply with quote Back to top

That reads like someone at GW looked up an old internal FAQ for how inducements work when responding on facebook. It's obviously got nothing to do with the BB16 rules and is just the LRB6 rules.

_________________
ImageImage
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 06:19 Reply with quote Back to top

This seems like a bit of a mess, tbh. Either their rulebook is very unclearly worded, or they have just 'clarified' the situation by stealthily reverting back to the LRB6 petty cash rules, because they felt like it. Either way though, it begs the question as to what the point of Expensive Mistakes is. Or, it could be a genuine mistake, like tussock said.

Two thoughts:

1) Should we really be taking a Facebook post as 'official clarification'?

2) I wish we didn't have to trust GW with the responsibility of maintaining the rules for their own games ... xD

_________________
"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!!" Razz
sann0638



Joined: Aug 09, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 08:06 Reply with quote Back to top

It's as official as we're going to get, I believe.

_________________
Image
NAF Ex-President
Founder of Cakebowl, Wiltshire's BB League @ cakebowl.co.uk
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 08:11 Reply with quote Back to top

The rule as FUMBBL interpreted it was bad and widely disliked. If we’re on the way to fixing it up / reverting it to inducements primarily being there to level up games a bit rather than letting the overdog get even further away, then great. There is apparently to be an official FAQ in time.

Rather than taking the view GW look a bit silly and it’s a mess, I’d rather focus on the fact they’re fixing / clarifying things. BB2016 isn’t done yet, if they keep making good decisions, then yey.

_________________
NAF TD.
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 13:12 Reply with quote Back to top

@Purplegoo: I'm not saying it's a bad decision to go back to the LRB6-style petty cash, which I agree is probably fairer. But, I would prefer something a bit clearer and more official from GW than a Facebook post. Also, if they are making a change or fixing something, then they should make it clear that it is a change and admit to getting it wrong, as opposed to trying to cover it up and pretending it was that way all along.

(hang on .. did Donald Trump buy GW recently ... Wink )

_________________
"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!!" Razz
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 13:36 Reply with quote Back to top

There is apparently an FAQ item coming, so I imagine that will get hosted on the website alongside the other FAQ stuff and the box / DZ1 errata, etc. that we all see as ‘official’. Perhaps like the errata this will make it into one of the books in future? I suppose they could just have not answered this Facebook query and published the FAQ quietly in the background, but if you choose to look at it in a glass half full sort of a way, isn’t it nice they’re engaging?

In other areas where they’ve made errors, such as with some of the box / DZ rules that got misprinted, I think they admitted fault? When I read this rule in the BB2016 book, I (like you, Christer and most other people) thought it had changed. Since fault has been admitted elsewhere, I guess I am more open to believing they think the form of words in the book means the same the CRP rule did, and it’s been widely misinterpreted?

I guess I’m saying that communications are apparently hard and so long as we get the right answer in the end, I’m happy enough. I hope the news continues to be this positive!
sann0638



Joined: Aug 09, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 13:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Started on the Christmas spirit early? Wink

_________________
Image
NAF Ex-President
Founder of Cakebowl, Wiltshire's BB League @ cakebowl.co.uk
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 14:29 Reply with quote Back to top

Ho ho… Ho? Wink

Listen, I get it. This episode has added ambiguity to a rule, it seems to have been discussed in a vague way and it hasn’t followed a perfect sequence of events. We’re all nerds, we like things to be just so and human nature means we’re all probably thinking ‘Grrr… I would have got this right in the first place’ (shakes fist).

However. The game is being changed (or clarified, delete as applicable) for the better, that’s worth a bit of internet pain. GW are talking to Blood Bowlers about Blood Bowl (I am not a GW nerd, but I have heard a decade of people whining this was not happening, so yey?). Isn’t it all positive in the end?

This rule was a major bugbear for me. Having seen this progress and read comments from GW bods about other bugbears (‘cards are optional’, for instance), in other places, I am happy with the direction of travel. I’m not Christmas drunk yet, but I am looking forward to being positive and drunk! Smile

_________________
NAF TD.
gpope



Joined: Jun 04, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 16:34 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
This seems like a bit of a mess, tbh. Either their rulebook is very unclearly worded, or they have just 'clarified' the situation by stealthily reverting back to the LRB6 petty cash rules, because they felt like it. Either way though, it begs the question as to what the point of Expensive Mistakes is. Or, it could be a genuine mistake, like tussock said.


Yeah, the combination of Expensive Mistakes + "free" treasury spending seemed like a conscious decision to encourage a "use it or lose it" system. Omitting the wizard also seemed like a calculated decision in the same vein, since most inducements give you way less bang for your buck and there's a lot less abuse you can get away with when there's no wizard to induce.

Moving back to CRP means it is now effectively a "lose it" system and inducements are an afterthought again. Which, while arguably fairer, is certainly much less interesting than incentivizing both players to spend. And I'd argue that it's not even really noticeably fairer, at least as far as open play is concerned--as a modest underdog being able to spend some change to "round up" to bigger inducements felt a lot better than being stuck with a consolation keg or two. Even if it meant occasionally letting the overdog have a keg or apo, since buying much more than that is pretty prohibitive with Expensive Mistakes looming over you.
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 17:07
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I agree

In complete contrast to Goo, I prefer the new rule (as we thought it was) and hope we carry on that way.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 18:14 Reply with quote Back to top

The current rule on fumbbl isn't perfect but it's still much better than the old CRP rule.

The old rule was to complex (rules should be simple) and it also encouraged extremely boring and tedious micromangement in tournament games where you had to calculate what your opponent was getting every time you considered spending money on inducements.

I do think that in the current rules spending cash on inducements is a bit to overpowered but that could easily have been fixed by halving the amount of inducements you get for cash so that 100k cash give you 50k inducements and so on.

Of course the above statement that spending cash is only a bit to overpowered in the current rules relies on the fact that the wizard has been removed. If they bring back overpowered wizards then you should only get 1/4 the inducements of the cash you spend.


Last edited by Tricktickler on Dec 21, 2017 - 19:28; edited 3 times in total
Arktoris



Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 21, 2017 - 19:12 Reply with quote Back to top

how is that simpler?

Simple would be...got cash? Buy stuff. Which is what we have now.

_________________
Hail to Berserker Eric! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Norscan Warrior!
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits