FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Nov 12, 2015 - 23:48

mdd31 wrote:

It is amazing how upset people get over one simple set of rules. And not even over all the rules, just one TINY little subset that has become known as Clawpomb. Kind of funny and kind of sad all rolled into one.

I can thankfully say from my experience that this is a case of the vocal minority making a big deal out of something most people really don't care about. And thankfully the person in charge is wise enough to see beyond the loud talkers and actually understand what the bulk of the user base (and FUTURE user base) want to see happen. Its not just about making people happy today but making sure there is a player base for the future.

If all the people who seem morally offended by the Clawpomb "exploit" quit tomorrow and it was a large number of people then I am sure that would make an impression. But of course they won't quit and there isn't enough of them that even if they did it probably wouldn't be noticeable to most of the remaining player base. And you know the last sentence is true because if it wasn't then the change to Clawpomb in Box would have already been made to avoid the mass defection of the morally offended players who have been complaining.

At the end of the day people need something to complain about it, if it wasn't this it would be something else. Its just the way of people.

Your experience of 1 year, 100 games and most of which you've lost?

You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

Plain and simple the combo is a menace, particularly when there's too many running around. Sure I get the point that if it wasn't CPOMB it'd be something else like fouling or RSC.

However the game would be better if the cas caused by CPOMB were lessened and distributed to another form of player removal.

This game has been around a long time, with various versions. And for a lot of us it's a life long hobby. So leaving isn't really an option. FUMBBL had it's largest following around 2009ish. If you asked all those that have left if they were happy with the current CPOMB teams, most would not be. Plain and simple in Box particularly it's having an affect on the whole division. That is not right.

Saying this, I'd keep it as it is, but limit it. My idea was always that you needed ST 5 or more to PO. However I have a new idea, which I think is nifty.

You can only PO on the second block of a frenzy block. This limits the amount of CPOMB, makes it more valuable and needs better protecting and give some weaker and inferior player types a leg up. Mino and Khorne finally become a killing roster.

pizzamogul

Joined: Jun 13, 2005

Posted: Nov 12, 2015 - 23:58

harvestmouse wrote:

You can only PO on the second block of a frenzy block. This limits the amount of CPOMB, makes it more valuable and needs better protecting and give some weaker and inferior player types a leg up. Mino and Khorne finally become a killing roster.

That's the most original and fluffy fix I've heard in quite some time. Genius!

_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock

happygrue

Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 00:16

pizzamogul wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

You can only PO on the second block of a frenzy block. This limits the amount of CPOMB, makes it more valuable and needs better protecting and give some weaker and inferior player types a leg up. Mino and Khorne finally become a killing roster.

That's the most original and fluffy fix I've heard in quite some time. Genius!

That _is_ a fun idea!

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

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 07:27

mdd31 wrote:

It is amazing how upset people get over one simple set of rules. And not even over all the rules, just one TINY little subset that has become known as Clawpomb. Kind of funny and kind of sad all rolled into one.

I can thankfully say from my experience that this is a case of the vocal minority making a big deal out of something most people really don't care about. And thankfully the person in charge is wise enough to see beyond the loud talkers and actually understand what the bulk of the user base (and FUTURE user base) want to see happen. Its not just about making people happy today but making sure there is a player base for the future.

If all the people who seem morally offended by the Clawpomb "exploit" quit tomorrow and it was a large number of people then I am sure that would make an impression. But of course they won't quit and there isn't enough of them that even if they did it probably wouldn't be noticeable to most of the remaining player base. And you know the last sentence is true because if it wasn't then the change to Clawpomb in Box would have already been made to avoid the mass defection of the morally offended players who have been complaining.

At the end of the day people need something to complain about it, if it wasn't this it would be something else. Its just the way of people.

You are SO RIGHT. These people won't quit tomorrow BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY QUIT playing the game since CRaP came along and they continue to stay gone OR they find ways to avoid the heinous aspects of CRaP (which means they are as good as gone to the general population).

tussock

Joined: May 29, 2011

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 07:56

harvestmouse wrote:

Plain and simple the combo is a menace, particularly when there's too many running around. Sure I get the point that if it wasn't CPOMB it'd be something else like fouling or RSC.

However the game would be better if the cas caused by CPOMB were lessened and distributed to another form of player removal.

1: It's supposed to be menacing. You're supposed to play differently in response to seeing a lot of it, like you play differently against Guard spam, or an MA 10 sprinter, or a team with six Dirty Player, or that 2+ long bomb thrower.

2: I have also been around a while, and people have always hated on the stuff that hurt their players the most. People hated aging, people hated Claw/RSC, people hated +2/+2 Dirty Player, and people hated getting turned into a frog.

3: But players need to get hurt quite regularly so that we don't end up dominated by a handful of ancient teams full of legends sitting up around 4000 TV and the rest of us can still hope to compete without playing forever.

4: They cut the bank rule at the last minute and that means Chaos, Chorf, and Nurgle teams all survive a lot longer than they were supposed to at high TV, which sees them dominate in numbers up there in open-matching environments like Blackbox.

If there's a problem, it's Ranked, where people can and do choose to avoid all the things in CRP that cause serious damage, because there's no aging or anything else to do it for them. Or it's the lack of a treasury limit in Blackbox that gives us the team discrepancies.

Or it's just that coaches are going to moan about whatever killed their favourite pixels. You spread it out, they'll hate it all. Why not, I do. Smile

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 08:08

Catalyst32 wrote:

You are SO RIGHT. These people won't quit tomorrow BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY QUIT playing the game since CRaP came along and they continue to stay gone OR they find ways to avoid the heinous aspects of CRaP (which means they are as good as gone to the general population).

Those mean old clouds came back didn't they! Awwww, you'll get them this time!

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 13:39

> If there's a problem, it's Ranked [...] Or it's the lack of a treasury limit in Blackbox that gives us the team discrepancies.

There could more than one problem. There could also be more than one thread to discuss them. Anything but bash in Box is also a problematic way to argue in a thread about bash in Box.

***

> They cut the bank rule at the last minute [...]

Who, what, when, and does it mean Box has other rulz than CRP1?

easilyamused

Joined: Jun 06, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 14:02

thoralf wrote:

> The authority over BB is Games Workshop, they own the ip. They took the decision to stop working on the rules and disbanded the bbrc which is why we have CRP.

The second sentence contradicts the first. If they disbanded the only official institution to oversee the rules, GW in effect has relinquished its authority over the game. The NAF became the official body ab nihilo.

The BBRC (Blood Bowl Rules Committee) was a group that GW put together to work on the rules, basically because GW was too lazy to do it themselves. Even though GW disbanded them they still own the IP and therefore have authority over BB. If you don't believe me then try making money off BB and see how quickly they come after you.

From the NAF website

Quote:

The NAF is an international association of players dedicated to Blood Bowl – the Games Workshop game of fantasy football. The NAF acts as a central resource for Blood Bowl coaches the world over – offering news, contacts, discussion, sanctioned tournaments and international player rankings. Whether you are planning to run your own tournament, looking for a league, or just wanting to catch up on the latest from the world of Blood Bowl, NAF HQ aims to provide everything you will need. Browse the menus, or use the Search function to the side or below if you know what you are looking for.

While the NAF are the recognised body when it comes to BB they are in no way directly related to GW as far as I know. They are a self appointed group who took it upon themselves to try and bring BB players and resources together. They do a remarkable job of it but that does make them the official authority on BB.

_________________

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 15:18

> Even though GW disbanded them [the BBRC] they still own the IP and therefore have authority over BB.

Sure, they own the product. By "official authority" I was referring to something that could replace the BBRC. I did not find anything that did, not even the NAF. If GW does not oversee BB activities except for the purpose of controlling their property rights, that means there's no official body to officialize BB competitions.

My overall point is that a rulebook can't stand alone. It needs a governing body that makes the thing official. Otherwise, one could argue that biblical litteralism is the most "official" doctrine, and this is patently false.

***

> While the NAF are the recognised body when it comes to BB they are in no way directly related to GW as far as I know. They are a self appointed group who took it upon themselves to try and bring BB players and resources together.

Exactly like Fumbbl. There's nothing more official in what the NAF does than what Fumbbl does, except that they borrow the legal entity name from GW's fluff. The very fact that they use "NAF" could become a problem unless the rulebooks enter public domain.

Besides, they restrict themselves to tabletop.

***

In the CRP1, there are three types of games: one off, league games, and tournament games. There are thus two kinds of "competitive" activities: league and tournaments. The CRP1 covers league play, and league play is not a secondary citizen in BB's ontology.

This means that B and R are both league play. Their particularity is that they are eternal leagues.
At best one can say that B and R are the official Fumbbl leagues. Most league play I've seen are organized as competitions. They're just not what we call Opens, free-for-alls where everyone's invited, like the Fumbbl Cup.

B and R are mainly pools of teams. The main difference between them is the pairing system. There is nothing competitive in playing there unless there's something to win. This is why "meta-groups" such as ARRR! are so important for these open leagues.

***

The CRP1 may not have been designed for eternal open leagues, and it's quite clear that GW has never tested it for such usage. Considering that GW does not oversee BB activities (perhaps they will for Xmas) and that Fumbbl has more experience in eternal open leagues of online BB, Fumbbl has all the moral rights to move forward on its own authority.

Christer is the final arbiter. He said he's willing to listen, because he wants people to play. Everyone who reads the thread should understand why we're hearing expressions like "voice of reason," "official," "voiceful minority," and "clouds." One would need to be tone-deaf not to hear the political subtext.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 16:16

Quote:

My overall point is that a rulebook can't stand alone. It needs a governing body that makes the thing official. Otherwise, one could argue that biblical litteralism is the most "official" doctrine, and this is patently false.

Really? You don't see the difference between a rulebook whose provenance is known and one whose provenance is disputed?

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 16:28

> Really? You don't see the difference between a rulebook whose provenance is known and one whose provenance is disputed?

I wouldn't call the Bible a rulebook, dode74, but are you suggesting that if we knew the Bible's provenance biblical litteralism would be the most "official" doctrine?

In any case, it's just an example. Do you dispute that rules depend on institutions and that they are not brute facts?

Here's what we can read on BB Leagues in the CRP1:

Quote:

In a league, the Commissioner's word is LAW. He is allowed to modify any of the Blood Bowl rules as he sees fit, including any of the League rules that follow.

Seems to me that the official doctrine of Blood Bowl clearly states that there's no "official" doctrine of Blood Bowl.

Last edited by thoralf on %b %13, %2015 - %17:%Nov; edited 1 time in total

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 16:55

If we knew for a fact that the Bible was written by God then I don't think anyone would argue that Biblical literalism was the official doctrine since we would know that God not only wrote the rulebook but owned the IP for the universe, even (or perhaps especially) in absentia.

I'm all for house rules (or "Optional League Rules", as goes the title of the section containing the phrase you quoted), but if people want to play the "official" game then the only ruleset for TT which could reasonably be described as such is that produced by the IP owner, which is CRP, and arguably LRB6 if we accept the authority was invested in the BBRC. That's not to say anyone who wants to can't or shouldn't house rule things, but if people feel strongly about not having house rules then there's not a lot of option.

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 17:30

> If we knew for a fact that the Bible was written by God then I don't think anyone would argue that Biblical literalism was the official doctrine since we would know that God not only wrote the rulebook but owned the IP for the universe, even (or perhaps especially) in absentia.

Yet most biblical doctrines accept that the Bible is God's word, and only a minority (voiceful or not) subscribe to litteralism. Some of them even accept that God owns the IP, the universe, and everything. He could be Nuffle for all I care.

I'm using this example because biblical litteralism relies on inerrancy, which is not far from the immutability claim we've heard earlier in this thread. The problem with such conception is that dogmas don't come full batteries included, which means it's a fallacy used to hide the fact institutions carry authority, not texts alone, void of agency.

In other words, it is not CRP1 that is inerrant (more precisely infallible), but the League Commissioner, in our case Christer. It is Christer who is the Law. Nuffle first created the universe, then he created Christer, and his Spirit created Fumbbl, an online site where there are leagues and tournaments.

***

> I'm all for house rules (or "Optional League Rules", as goes the title of the section containing the phrase you quoted) [...]

The section I'm quoting is entitled Blood Bowl Leagues, and minimizing the power of the League's commisionner with "house rules" doesn't contradict the fact that he's the Law, that we're in his house, and we abide by the rules he chooses. This is straightforward CRP1, and it's even clearer than the description of the Claw skill.

I stated earlier that there was a political exploit and a procedural exploit. This discussion shows that there might also be a conceptual exploit.

Last edited by thoralf on %b %13, %2015 - %20:%Nov; edited 2 times in total

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 17:45

Institutions enforce authority, and it is their ability to enforce which gives them an authority of their own. Christer has the ability to enforce whichever type of play he chooses, and therefore he carries that authority here and here alone. Without a recognised institution willing to change the rules the rules are, themselves, unchallenged.

Either way, we're moving away from the point I was disputing, which is that unless we knew for a fact that the Bible was written by God then all the institutions in the world would not carry the authority which came with being the IP owner: we know this simply because of the number of religions (and indeed atheists) in the world today. Playing variations of CRP is like having 100 different versions of Christianity (or indeed the 3 Abrahamic religions) as opposed to also having Bhuddism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism etc. Let's not wander down that rabbithole though, eh? Wink

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Nov 13, 2015 - 18:41

> Institutions enforce authority, and it is their ability to enforce which gives them an authority of their own. Christer has the ability to enforce whichever type of play he chooses, and therefore he carries that authority here and here alone. Without a recognised institution willing to change the rules the rules are, themselves, unchallenged.

Thank you for making the conceptual exploit explicit.

I don't think that rules exist as rules if there's no authority to enforce them, at least not in any "official" way. Rules require institutions with authority powers to be, like Robocop and Judge Dredd did. They're institutional facts, not brute facts.

Even if this was false and that the CRP1 came with its own interpreter, it clearly states that the League Comissioner is the law, just like Judge Dredd was. (I don't think that's the case for Robocop, but perhaps I'm wrong.) In other words, applying "rules are rules" to the CRP1 invalidates "rules are rules."

***

> we're moving away from the point I was disputing, which is that unless we knew for a fact that the Bible was written by God then all the institutions in the world would not carry the authority which came with being the IP owner

You never explicitly disputed anything I said except by asking a rhetorical question regarding biblical litteralism. Biblical litteralism emerges from the need to sidestep the Pope as the authority of the Church. The parallel between biblical litteralism and bypassing Christer's authority with "GW owns BB and CRP1's the rulebook" is quite striking.

Even if we knew that the Bible was trademarked by God Himself and that there was a signed agreement between Him and the Pope, there would be people to question its authority, for the simple reason that authority does not follow from a contract, a trademark or a rulebook. It follows from creating events for which the activity has been designed. To be "official," these activities require a following, which might explain Christer's convervatism.

(I'm not against being conservative regarding what should be implemented on B & R, BTW. I'm only against exploits.)

The main activity for which the CRP1 has been designed is called a league. In is in league play that we find injuries, SPPs, skills, TV, inducements, and everything we like about BB.

So yeah, skillz too. And Blood too, because, Blood Bowl.

***

> Let's not wander down that rabbithole though, eh?

I feel for your slippery slope, man.

Christer's not Plasmoid, and any association looks like a smear.