Melonhead
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 07:47 |
 
|
JJ has decided that rules reviews will concentrate on three things:
Quote:
1. Generate errata to fix contradictions and mistakes in the rules.
2. Generate new FAQ to clarify rules coaches were unsure about.
3. Provide *recommendations* for changes to be made in future editions of the BB game.
*However*, from now on the rules review will not change any exisiting game rules. Instead rules changes would only take place when we published a new edition of the game/handbook (ie, LRB 4.0 will be 'locked' until we publish a new edition of BB).
It's posted at http://www.specialist-games.com/bloodbowl/forum_b/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4711&whichpage=1
What do you guys think? |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 08:01 |
|
[sigh]
on the one hand, I see Jervis' point about avoiding confusion. On all the others, he's dead wrong. Basically, the vault fixes so many problems with BB it (at least things like inducements, the new niggles) should have been accepted as law immediately. As it stands, my league plays with our own house rules (basically vault with liberal tweaks), and the rest of the planet can go play whatever crap they want. It would be nice if FUMBBL made the switch, but given the amount of effort/bitching this would take, I'm not holding my breath. |
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 08:54 |
|
I think as soon as the new rulebook is printed and the inevitable myriad of problems arise, JJ will reinstate the Rules Review and all will carry on just like it is now.
As far as FUMBBL goes, I think the plan is to do a vault division first, and make the full change when the rules become official (ie when the rulebook is actually printed). |
_________________
*This is a public safety announcement. Azurus is a cynical, sarcastic idiot. Please ignore any and everything he may say. Thank you for your attention.* |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 09:01 |
|
Sorry, but in my opinion, the vault sucks. More cons than pros. Only 2 changes should be made on this edition:
1) A tiered handicap table (proposed on TBB).
2) A harsher ref. Just add a modifier to the ref-roll depending on the injury caused by the foul
+1 for a KO
+2 for a BH/SI
+3 for a RIP
6+ on the ref-roll is ejection.
9+ on the ref-roll is MNG
11+ on the ref-roll means the ref send him off and the player gets lynched by the opposing fans ->RIP.
Get the Ref gives +2 on argue the call. |
|
|
Captain1821
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 10:01 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | Sorry, but in my opinion, the vault sucks. More cons than pros. Only 2 changes should be made on this edition:
1) A tiered handicap table (proposed on TBB).
2) A harsher ref. Just add a modifier to the ref-roll depending on the injury caused by the foul
+1 for a KO
+2 for a BH/SI
+3 for a RIP
6+ on the ref-roll is ejection.
9+ on the ref-roll is MNG
11+ on the ref-roll means the ref send him off and the player gets lynched by the opposing fans ->RIP.
Get the Ref gives +2 on argue the call. |
LMAO! You don't like fouling, do you?
I say bring back the best get the ref rule which was both teams get the ref! 
...and stop be so afraid to lose your nice players because of ugly foulers.  |
_________________
STATUS: CLOWN |
|
Jasonian
Joined: Mar 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 10:05 |
|
I'm glad there wont be changes. I like the game as is. |
|
|
monboesen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 10:08 |
|
Captain: With the danger of being repetitive the problem with fouling is not only that its annoying to loose good players to fouls. But that crappy coaches without tactical sense can win games just by having multiple dirty players.
Though randomness is a needed part of the game I prefer that coaching ability also has a big impact on succes.
Disclamer: This does of course not mean that all coaches that take dp and foul are crappy players or that all coaches that don't are stellar tacticians. |
|
|
monboesen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 10:11 |
|
And I like rules tweaks and changes. Part of what keeps me interested in the game. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 10:17 |
|
Captain, you are nearly as wrong as possible. I like fouling, I used to take DP once on every team (before you couldn´t find games with a DP) and I use it as a tacitcal weapon against opposing stars.
This use will stay. You can still foul your opponents star with you cheap lino! It will still hurt being kicked by a DP (in contrary to the vault, were DP is just like MB). This suggestion just changes 2 things:
1) You can´t massfoul mindlessly with multiple DPs and get more players off the pitch than you lose, so you will have to chose your targets (which is a good thing I believe).
2) There is a risk involved for the Dirty Player besides getting ejected. That will decrease the amount of fouling in T16. |
|
|
Zy-Nox
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 12:04 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | .
2) There is a risk involved for the Dirty Player besides getting ejected. That will decrease the amount of fouling in T16. |
I really dont believe that a mass fouler would give a rats if his player is ejected / banned so imo it will not decrease t16 fouls. |
_________________
"Who made that girly Zy-kNox Mod?"
Anarchy Online |
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 13:14 |
|
I think a bit of stability for the LRB will be no bad thing, but 'no more changes to it, ever' is too strong a stance to take. There's room for a few more Rules Reviews yet, albeit much smaller ones than previously. I know many people wanted to tone down Dirty Player (to +1 Av or +1 Inj, a fouling Mighty Blow in effect), and then would have happily proclaimed the LRB as perfect (both pro- and anti- Vaulters).
This decision was intended to prevent too much cross-pollenation from the Vault, which I agree with - the Vault should be considered a separate entity. Please don't turn this thread into a Vault/PBBL discussion - it's really about the current LRB rules. |
_________________
Join The Cult of Tzeentch, mutate randomly! | Hug a newb! Join the Faculty of Academy Instructors! |
|
heinz
Joined: Mar 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 13:24 |
|
hopefully next printed version of rulebook will be followed by increased appearance of bb-stuff in GW-stores. If not, I'm afraid bb will be abandoned all over - the fan addiction only last that long without improved store-promotion. |
_________________
#fumbbl_academy - the old school alternative | #bloodlust - FUMBBL's first Vampire chat |
|
BigMac
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 13:47 |
|
I hate to say this but i emailed JJ with a suggestion for the RR 2005.
He basically said that there will be no more RR, and the LRB will not be availiable for free download anymore.
"Rules Handbooks" will only be published with new editions of the game in the future, only "typos, faq's and clarifications" will be posted online.
In my oppinion that is the end of days for blood bowl, since the free download of the latest rules revived it from virtuall non existence a couple of years ago.
Im starting to question the wisdom of the guys in charge of the game. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 14:03 |
|
| BigMac wrote: | | Im starting to question the wisdom of the guys in charge of the game. |
Seems like you are a little late... 
For various reasons I have stamped JJ as a stubborn idiot long ago... |
|
|
xen7ric
Joined: Jan 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 14:18 |
|
Part of the problem that BB has is that any changes that are made are likely to have little effect on the arguments around the game (see all threads on rules changes). That can only be a sign that it is well balanced.
Because of that (and because I enjoy the game as it is) I don't see any important reasons to change things. My only gripe was changing 'get the ref' last review, I preferred it with both players (but I'm sure I'll live, whether my Skaven do is another matter...). |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
