82 coaches online • Server time: 22:06
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Best team for a 8-10...goto Post Minotaur or Minotard...goto Post Born to Win Forever?...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Carnis



Joined: Feb 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 10:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Beerox wrote:
FUMBBL can do better
And cursedone, I support your Khemri comments. Don't be AV 8'ing my Tomb Guardians, it makes no sense.

On a side note, this stuff shouldn't be published so much, it has changed constantly. Publish it when its proven to work well.

Excuse me, proven? Doesn't make sense (with no explanation) ? Wink How can there ever be proof in a dice game.. Is CRP working well?

Regardless, it seems very clear that there isn't any fumbbl-interest on the matter, though reasons seem to be rather random or just general hostility.
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 10:28 Reply with quote Back to top

Amazons even more broken - well done plasmoid!

_________________
Image
Ehlers



Joined: Jun 26, 2006

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 11:15 Reply with quote Back to top

Interest from FUMBBL? I think there is and people would be interested in giving input if heard and taking seriously. But due to history I think their might be some grudges here and there.

And beside when it come to FUMBBL as a community, then there has been done some effort into changing the rules and teams, but never an agreement could be found. Everybody want it to have it their own way.

And the lack of interest in this thread now is mostly due to that these changes wont affect FUMBBL. Does not seem like GW will use these changes right?

To me this thread is just another "lets talk about changing CRP" thread. I only play here on FUMBBL, so I honestly dont see how this is going to affect me.
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 11:41 Reply with quote Back to top

Carnis wrote:
Regardless, it seems very clear that there isn't any fumbbl-interest on the matter, though reasons seem to be rather random or just general hostility.


Steady. 

There is (understandably) a reticence to get stuck into yet another rules thread by many – remember we haven’t actually got a plasmoid or a VoodooMike (or, insert name) turning up and stirring the pot, driving the thread along, winding the populous up. The last time plasmoid showed up and discussed these rules (which have changed, but not by a lot in the mean time), there was a huge thread, largely because he was here driving it along in a way it appears you aren’t up for (and that is good feedback, trust me). In this case, the reticence is understandable because a) we’ve had this chat (both these specific rules and the ‘oh, woe is me, the rules’) any number of times before, and b) because they’re house rules. At the end of the day, when will house rules ever matter to us? It’s never been FUMBBL’s bag. 

The day that someone makes a new rules committee, I guarantee you, many will get as stuck in (in detail) as it takes. The thoughts of some guy and two of the old members who have agreed to house rules in principle as house rules (and made those disclaimers very clear elsewhere)? I’m not sure it’s huge news. There is a relevant piece of history (and revisionist history by others) around the rules committee, but I think it’s safe to say any future membership would be composed differently, so between that and disclaimers, these views should be taken with several truckloads of salt. 

My issue with this is the over-arching idea. I could sit and pick apart change after change (and some of them, boy, I hate), but the idea is the major issue. 

Discussion? Great, to a certain extent, great, get stuck in. But I don’t think it’s as easy as to dismiss concerns of members of the forum as ‘old scores’ or ‘you’re being a bit flippant’ because not everyone sees it as a good use of time getting into the detail. You have to understand responses as a backdrop to 18 months of LRB6 noise. Either way, I agree there is little appetite. Good news, for me.

_________________
NAF TD.
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 12:21 Reply with quote Back to top

Carnis wrote:
Regardless, it seems very clear that there isn't any fumbbl-interest on the matter, though reasons seem to be rather random or just general hostility.


I'm sure there may be interest if there are still no new rules in X amount of years time in fumbbl creating their own house rules for league etc... and as much as I and possibly many other dislike CRP Fumbbl should never move their two main divisions away from the proper rules.

(Not talking about the roster changes here, which almost all of which are horrible imo, with one or two bits that are okay)But if we were to take these rule changes seriously as a sort of unofficial LRB7 as DS and Galak seem to be implying they could be (as they did last year with a different 5 equally uninspiring rule changes); with their official endorsement of them (what ever that means?)Do they actually change anything in the rules that we play anyway? Not really is the answer, they are just changing the amount of damage one skill combo does. Also the PO change makes no sense fluff wise, the opponent gets knocked over and your player can't bring him self to Pile On if they havent broken their armour? LRB4 version made sense as it was hitting the opponent again in which case you had to try and break armour again. CRP version makes sense like it or loathe it, but this change doesn't, you can't explain it with any fluff and it still doesn't change the fact people will be Pilling On all over the place remaining safer on the ground than they would be standing up, and the change also gets rid of the risky Pile On; the time you may use it when av isnt broken the first roll which means there is less risk versus reward.

The sneaky git change - changing a worthless skill (sneaky git) in to a skill that may have worth is a good idea. But this change makes no sense what so ever from a fluff perspective?

wizard change - yeah fair enough, not bothered either way really.

The fouling change hardly makes a difference really.

Do these changes stop many of the big concerns about this rule set that fumbbl find promblems with in BB or Ranked. Not really, min maxing etc... would still be rife, the concerns Purplechest and Janmattys wrote about in regards to skill costing etc... still havent been looked at and there are a large number of people that hate the lack of traits too.

I don't know, if anything these proposed rules changes have just confirmed my feelings that had the BBRC been allowed to continue then the game would move even more in the direction of a two tiered system (all teams, and sunty teams), it also seems to me that they would continue down the path of making the game truely devoid of fluff in a quest for perfect balance between race, if thats even possible? Personally I don't know if it is or care really, it is imo the wrong direction for a game like this to move in.

Or as Ehlers puts it better -

Ehlers wrote:
And the lack of interest in this thread now is mostly due to that these changes wont affect FUMBBL. Does not seem like GW will use these changes right?

To me this thread is just another "lets talk about changing CRP" thread. I only play here on FUMBBL, so I honestly dont see how this is going to affect me.
bigGuy



Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 12:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Some changes looks OK. For example, I would love Sneaky gits change.
But some looks terrible. Fend on Wardancer instead of Dodge..? Guy who though its "small nerf" clearly doesn't play WE.
jarvis_pants



Joined: Oct 30, 2008

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 13:13
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

This-

3. Sneaky Git: When a Sneaky Git is sent off by the Referee (including for carrying a Secret Weapon) he is sent to the K.O. box of the dug-out, and may recover in the normal manner.

-Is an awesome idea.

_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher
Carnis



Joined: Feb 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 13:19 Reply with quote Back to top

I need to hold back a bit on the rant I spose Wink.

Good post from Pgoo & Garion on the matter. Fluff-perspective doesnt matter to me as much, what matters to me is whether or not the games are enjoyable, this houseruleset would've made games more enjoyable to me (on paper).

For instance, I dont care if piling on makes sense fluffwise or not. Fluff can be made to fit the rules as it is.. Maybe he can only PO when he gets the block right, if the oppo is too far away/the block is only a minor trip instead of a total knock over he can't reach to PO. Also when he does get to PO there's always an injury of some sort.

I didnt rightly care about the bank changes, or the SE changes. Most of the roster changes while I acknowledge none are BBRC endorsed (save the last three, buff to humans, change to khemri & some of Plasmoid's buffs to ogres) were such that they seemed to make the tiers narrower (except for amazons.. which were buffed in the worst way, meh!).

I always hated traits & fluffbased rules.
bigGuy wrote:
Some changes looks OK. For example, I would love Sneaky gits change.
But some looks terrible. Fend on Wardancer instead of Dodge..? Guy who though its "small nerf" clearly doesn't play WE.

The point of that is to tone him down towards the other elf blitzers, he can still skill dodge first. He will still be 1 skill ahead of all the other elf blitzers as far as blodge/leap/strip goes. The entire point there is to stop a 1020k team from havign a WD with blodge leap strip dominating early game. The nerf is actually quite minor if you think about fumbbl-major style teams, in which I have actually seen WDs with fend.

Still, in fumbbl majors woodies havent done that great so not sure if that would be necessary here at all.

**

I didnt know there was a history of plasmoid adverting these rules already, missed it.. Wink

**

The things I really liked about his whole set was:

Bash is nerfed significantly (almost all of last years majors were won by clawpombers, including a ranked tournament which only had like 3-4 cpomb teams (Malmirs lustrian win)).

Early sweetspotting is discouraged (or attempted to discourage). This is done by:

Trollslayer block -> jugger
Wardancer dodge -> fend
Mummy MB -> Grab + G-access
Orc blitzer 80k -> 90k (seems a bit unnecessary, most sweetspotters play dwarves & late orcs are horrible - though hard to say if it is so with plasmoids cpomb)
Amazon blitzer block -> wrestle (totally ruined by +A to linemen though, still empowering the old 11x lineman squad further)

Improvements to stunties:
Titchy cant be blocked down with tackle, +1ma av on snots
Flings get universal +1AV and 2 catchers with 6246
Gobbos get a 3rd troll + sneaky git now cancels sentoffs into the KO box making an all-SW fielding team semiviable.
DonTomaso



Joined: Feb 20, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 13:25 Reply with quote Back to top

I'd welcome any idea that might actually change the ruleset here on Fumbbl...

This game that we love is slowly being killed by lack of variation.

_________________
====================================
Be careful, my common sense is tingling!
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 13:31 Reply with quote Back to top

I love the sneaky git change 'hey I'm sneaky! the ref thought he sent me off, but I snuck in the back door, and I'm gonna play again! ... now where is that locker room?' (and on a 4+ they find the locker room! and if there are babes in the locker room, well, they follow the trail of bloodweiser!)
bigGuy



Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 14:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Carnis wrote:

The point of that is to tone him down towards the other elf blitzers, he can still skill dodge first.

It's "overtoned". Elfs Block, Side Step blitcer is probably better then Block, Leap, Fend WD.
WE is very different from other elves team. The main difference is 70k lineman with 7 armor. It means:
1) They can't get a lot of positionals/rerolls early
2) They can't play man-marking defense very long.

WE defense relies on constant threat to Leap+1D Block+pick up ball in tackle zones. But this defense is RR burning machine. Vs competent opponent you will need 1 or 2 dodges even before glorious leap+1D block, so dodge removal will hurt a lot.
Also, when things go wrong, WD stays standing somewhere in opponents cage. Dodge is great damage mitigation skill. Fend is not.
In long terms, now WDs are great, because they are good out of the box. WD died? 120k hurts, but your new WD can get Strip ball in 1-2 games. If Dodge is replaced with Fend, you will need 2 lvl ups to recover, or 4-5 more games. And recovery with WE is very hard already. Probably hardest, because players costs so much.

I could understand Block removal from WD (and for example Mighty blow instead - just random idea). It would open new ineresting WD development paths (Jurggenaut, Wrestle).
BooAhl



Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 15:01 Reply with quote Back to top

JimmyFantastic wrote:
Amazons even more broken - well done plasmoid!


Agreing with Jimmy!

edit:
...and this BigGuy!


Last edited by BooAhl on Feb 27, 2012 - 15:09; edited 1 time in total
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 15:08 Reply with quote Back to top

The NTBB rules will be locked for an year. I think that the idea is having a sort of test division (for example NTBB Division) in FUMBBL to test them (I would like to try them, personally).
How can we really judge them, if we don't give them a try on the pitch?
I like the rule changes, and many roster changes, but I can't be sure they would work well or bad without testing. They could be a step in the right direction, though.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 15:17 Reply with quote Back to top

Carnis wrote:

Good post from Pgoo & Garion on the matter. Fluff-perspective doesnt matter to me as much, what matters to me is whether or not the games are enjoyable, this houseruleset would've made games more enjoyable to me (on paper).

For instance, I dont care if piling on makes sense fluffwise or not.


You see, this is why it would always be hard to get people to agree on anything if we even had a glimmer of hope of house rules here.

Fluff to me is the most important factor of the team, skills, rules and over all game design along side fun. If you want to do house rules there are any number of rules you could make up that had the same effect as these changes without destroying the rich fluff of the BB world.

For me at least, if I am playing with a team I want it to feel like I am playing with that race and not just another generic BB race. Similarly, if I use skills I want them to do things that make sense, not something that is designed puerly for balanmce reasons with no regard for the fluff.

Take the change to Sneaky git - why would you ever get sent to the Ko box??? It doesn't make sense. Fouling is illegal and has always been illegal in bloodbowl, if you get spotted you get sent off. You could argue I guess that the Ko box is to represent them sneaking back on to the pitch. Fair enough, but then Babes will somehow make that easier for them to come back on as well, which is just plain wrong. It is just very very smelly fluff.

Now there is plenty you could do to make sneaky git better and plenty you could do to stop auto sending offs of secret weapons etc, creating a rule that makes little to no sense is just plain wrong when it could be done in another fun way without spoiling the illusion of actually playing the game this is an RPG after all.

Same goes for all these changes imo.

Yes make changes to the game for the better of the game, and to make it more fun, but there is never good reason to do it for the wrong reasons.

As I said before these changes if we were to take them seriously still do not come close to addressing many of the down falls of this rule set anyway.

MattDakka wrote:
The NTBB rules will be locked for an year. I think that the idea is having a sort of test division (for example NTBB Division) in FUMBBL to test them (I would like to try them, personally).
How can we really judge them, if we don't give them a try on the pitch?
I like the rule changes, and many roster changes, but I can't be sure they would work well or bad without testing. They could be a step in the right direction, though.


If you want to play with last years suggestions there are 5 leagues here using them. 2 highlander leagues, 2 hubba leagues and a german league.

If you want to play using these suggestions you can PBEM on MBBL. I play there and its okay, though games take a while. They will be using these rules next season Evil or Very Mad . But it is still bloodbowl, so I will give them ago, even if they make no sense Evil or Very Mad , though if things continue down this path of balance and silly nonsensical rules I cant see my self playing there much longer.


Last edited by Garion on Feb 27, 2012 - 15:27; edited 1 time in total
Woodstock



Joined: Dec 11, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 15:24
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Any one thinking we have house ruled divisions any time soon, should think twice...
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