SeriliKirico
Joined: Sep 13, 2017
|
 Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 12:23 |
 
|
According to this guide - https://fumbbl.com/BB2025.pdf - this are new hiring rules fumbbl uses:
| Quote: | FUMBBL HOUSE RULE
The strict sequence causes a lot of problems and doesn't add much to the game.
FUMBBL allows any order of hiring and firing of players.
Players can not be fired if the total number of rostered players is below 11. This counts all
players and not only the Eligible ones |
If I'm reading it right, that means if, say, my woodie team that has 10 players right now got their dancer crippled, and they only have money enough to buy just one dancer atm - they won't be able to do the usual "fire and rehire" and will have to keep playing with a crippled dancer, because they can't fire him? What kind of nonsense is that? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 12:44 |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 12:54 |
|
| SeriliKirico wrote: | According to this guide - https://fumbbl.com/BB2025.pdf - this are new hiring rules fumbbl uses:
| Quote: | FUMBBL HOUSE RULE
The strict sequence causes a lot of problems and doesn't add much to the game.
FUMBBL allows any order of hiring and firing of players.
Players can not be fired if the total number of rostered players is below 11. This counts all
players and not only the Eligible ones |
If I'm reading it right, that means if, say, my woodie team that has 10 players right now got their dancer crippled, and they only have money enough to buy just one dancer atm - they won't be able to do the usual "fire and rehire" and will have to keep playing with a crippled dancer, because they can't fire him? What kind of nonsense is that? |
What Koadah says...
Basically GW have ballsed up fire and rehire process... We are hoping this is fixed in the FAQ in May |
_________________
 |
|
BaronBucky
Joined: Jun 07, 2023
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 15:40 |
|
It's exactly as stupid as you think it is. You're better off if your players die.
You also can't do all sorts of things from prone now. Now that you have bought your toys and spent TV on skills or players with abilities it's important that we make sure to limit the fun things you can do with them for some reason.
It's not all bad but there were some bizarrely anti-fun and pro-frustration things done to the core game.
And Brawling Brutes like.... just take fifteen minutes to make a spreadsheet and do some basic math and notice how these lines diverge and think "oh that's how that will play out never mind." And "we don't know how it will place out yet  !!!" is nonsense this is like claiming that nobody can say anything about what the weather will be like tomorrow. Just put effort into thinking things though intentionally.
A bunch of new rules feel like they were thought up by one or two people who were like "oh yea that sounds good to me at this moment" and written down without much reflection and then never revisited. It's really strange. |
Last edited by BaronBucky on Jan 13, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 15:49 |
|
I think this is uncharitable. I think they're reconfiguring their concept of balance from the ground up, and doing so involves a lot of dancing on what would otherwise be third rails. In a vacuum, they've done ten no-nos before breakfast, but if you put them all together, I get the sense that there's a lot more direction to the dynamics.
Accelerating SPP from Brawlin' Brutes, for example: players will go crazy and their TV will skyrocket, but then what? Others with more to gain from stat rolls will deliberately stay super lean, and that skyrocketing TV will be bloat city because they need skills but skills are bad... it actually kinda fits if you consider the inducement shifts, but those seem subtle today because the heavy lifting was done in the last edition. This edition's where it all comes home to roost.
I get not seeing the forest for the trees here, because I think that psychological effect was intentional. But can we, instead of evaluating it on our terms, in relation to what came before, look at it on its terms, and see how it plays out in sum?
Also, any time you're dealing with somebody that you don't trust on ethical grounds, never assume they're just being stupid or shortsighted. That's how you get blindsided. Everyone you don't trust is a mastermind until proven otherwise. Especially companies that have been in the business for a very long time and have grown very large. Not that they might not be just stupid or shortsighted, but that sure makes good cover, and assuming it's true is failing to guard your six.
Also also, as far as I understand, you don't have to play with a busted dancer. You have to play a game missing a dancer. You can fire the damaged guy, but you will have to play a match before replacing him. In an edition where Big 'Uns are 0-2 and get an elite skill, a good skill, and a marginal skill, all for the TV add of the marginal one, it's kinda important.
"Why are you making Bllod Bowl hard?" sounds like that like in Clerks: "you mean I gotta drink this coffee hot?!?" |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.
Last edited by JackassRampant on Jan 13, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 16:02 |
|
@Jackass. We don't even know what GWs intent was with these rules because they're so badly written. We need to see an FAQ before we can tell anything.. the NAF has already written a document on how to interpret the rules which undoes a number of the possible rule changes |
_________________
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 16:04 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | @Jackass. We don't even know what GWs intent was with these rules because they're so badly written. We need to see an FAQ before we can tell anything.. the NAF has already written a document on how to interpret the rules which undoes a number of the possible rule changes |
NAF can't read minds, either. But I don't think it's because they're badly written. I think it's because they affront our salience frame. I also think they meant to do that, to look like a hot mess to the community. They care what we buy, not how we feel.
As long as they keep it 15x26 and don't mess with the block dice or Turnover Rule, they can do all sorts of stuff and get our money. But a big shakeup will mess with the hierarchies for a bit and goose the market until the dust settles. The best way to supercharge that shakeup is to rework a couple principles, and reconfigure based on that, and the best way to keep the level of eek manageable is to spread it across two editions. Voila. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 16:20 |
|
you're giving them too much credit. The hire and fire thing is a clear mistake as written. The ag1+ and Pa1+ are clearly mistakes as written. We just have to wait and see how they back track.
These RAW aren't the rules that were playtested by Andy Davo and others... (only mentioning this play tester because he outted himself)...
and it's nothing to do with our salience frame... The RAW are absolutely broken, as in not usable, in a number of different ways |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on Jan 13, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 16:22 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: |
As long as they keep it 15x26 and don't mess with the block dice or Turnover Rule, they can do all sorts of stuff and get our money. |
15x26 is too short, 15x28 is the right size to make 1TTD harder, promoting passing game too (because running with the ball to hand it off could not be possible at all with few turns left and a deep kick), on the other hand allowing MA 9 players to have MA 10. The same goes for block dice, there are only 5 possible outcomes on a D6 block die. The Turnover rule is awesome, instead. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 16:29 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | ...
Also, any time you're dealing with somebody that you don't trust on ethical grounds, never assume they're just being stupid or shortsighted. That's how you get blindsided. Everyone you don't trust is a mastermind until proven otherwise. Especially companies that have been in the business for a very long time and have grown very large. Not that they might not be just stupid or shortsighted, but that sure makes good cover, and assuming it's true is failing to guard your six. |
What? So they keep P-ing us off so that we keep complaining, so that more and more people hear about it and remember/learn that the game exists and they should buy stuff for it?
That's genius.
Just remind people that they can ignore the rules that they don't like and just buy more stuff and play it the way that they do like.
Just buy it, Baby!
| JackassRampant wrote: | "Why are you making Bllod Bowl hard?" sounds like that like in Clerks: "you mean I gotta drink this coffee hot?!?" |
More a case of "It was good. Why do you keep ******* with it?"
Oh wait. See above.  |
_________________
Secret League rosters, old style skill progression, no re-draft OR full 2016 rules. OR... 4000k All Stars! ALWAYS recruiting! |
|
BaronBucky
Joined: Jun 07, 2023
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 16:47 |
|
It's possible that the process was more sound than I believe it was and there is a next level of chess being played with these changes that I am not seeing until they work in tandem. It is absolutely possible, and not so unlikely as to be unrealistic, that I am being uncharitable.
But while this is possible I think it's much more likely that you're being overly charitable to an extent that feels naïvely hopeful.
[I really got rolling and wrote way too much in response so sorry about that but here is A text wall on why I think this is the case]:
Possibly the biggest change in the rules is matching the teams to the boxes. Given that alone it's not strange to believe that balance and rules quality were not the priority when writing the game (I don't blame them for this they're a corporation sales leads game design of course). And given the many unclear, obviously incorrect, or poorly/ambiguously written (in some combination) sections of the rulebook there are (ag1+ for example), it makes sense to believe this was not produced with the amount of reflection and systematic thinking and QC that one might hope it would be.
It feels a lot more like someone who has played a decent amount of games and enjoys the blood bowl but who is not the expert you hope he would be thought "man these elves and rats score so many more TDs than orcs AND td's are worth more!? That's not fair at all" and just wrote a fix then moved on. Or like "Ok people feel like hypno is a problem so lets just disallow special actions with no TZ; that's a good non-crippling nerf" and did not think though all the other special action players and scenarios. The hiring and firing thing was almost certainly something like this as well.
Also the marketing leading up to and declaring the release does not speak well of their expertise or candor. Or their attention to detail. Examples:
"It has all been exhaustively rewritten for clarity." - Either intentional bullshit or just nonunderstanding what clarity means. Or just having no idea if it's true or not and writing it anyway which counts as intentional bullshit. Nobody would argue that the book was written this way.
"The main aim of these changes is to provide coaches with a new gaming experience. Many coaches have seen Blood Bowl as a ‘solved’ game where the best build for each roster is already determined. " - This is transparently bullshit to make a "we did it for the fans and game quality" label on a change that was made for sales reasons. Absolutely nobody was calling blood bowl "solved". They're not doing things for game quality reasons and they're just treating their player base like idiots lying about what they themselves think.
"I’ve always run a team that includes just two Gutter Runners (spending the savings on a Rat Ogre)" - This is either a total lie or this person has so little understanding of how to play well that he should not be involved with this process.
So yea they're also totally full of shit. This does not give me faith.
TLDR: It's possible that I'm just being uncharitable. But I feel there is more than enough evidence to say the rational and realistic thing to believe is that the rules were simply written in a haphazard way and not reviewed well at all. Again, I like much of the new stuff. It's just much more reasonable to believe that good and bad things are both mostly darts thrown at a board then left there. |
Last edited by BaronBucky on Jan 14, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 21:14 |
|
Hanlon's Razor.
Never attribute to malice what is perfectly explainable by ignorance.
Perfectly explainable that it slipped through QA cracks because of time. They were clearly trying to hit a Christmas shopping period so its reasonable to assume it was rushed. Rushed people make mistakes; not just in logic but even in picking an outdated revision of a page for production and its missed. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2026 - 21:27 |
|
| Carthage wrote: | Hanlon's Razor.
Never attribute to malice what is perfectly explainable by ignorance. |
Ignorance is not an excuse for a bad work.
If you are a game designer, you are supposed to know well the game system you are working on.
They had years to make BB2025, not just few weeks before Christmas.
I'd say ignorance is malice, in this case. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2026 - 02:25 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | I'd say ignorance is malice, in this case. |
Malice is intentional. It is literally a thought, a desire.
Ignorance cannot be malice, definitionally. It's literally the exact opposite of a thoughtful intention! |
|
|
BaronBucky
Joined: Jun 07, 2023
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2026 - 03:19 |
|
Sorry if I came off too aggressive there. That all sounded way to sharp in retrospect. I don't mean to accuse anyone of malice or or ill intent or anything personal like that at all. Everyone involved with designing the game was for sure trying to update the game in a way they thought would make it the best game possible.
I think a lot of the changes are cool. I'm excited to see how the stalling thing plays out for example. I never meant it was all awful or that any person tried to make it worse..
I'll chill the tone next time. |
|
|
|
|
| |
The Stunty Cup
Search
