Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Blood Bowl » House Rules forum




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stuff?
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:10 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:42 pm
Posts: 275
Given the masses of house rules, new concepts and such that is out there, is there ever any consensus on any of it? Given that we can come up with new stuff and play test it lots, is that any different to what the "official" people do?

The Khorne Team that is out there seems to be a yay or nay depending on whether its official or not.

Does it really matter? Bloodbowl never really struck me as a game overly concerned about fine-tuning balance, more about having fun.

So does it matter if things are a bit one sided sometimes? People still play Halfling and Goblin (and the other lower tier teams) teams for fun even though they are recognized as "unbalanced" and weaker.

But that gets off topic and reading articles about balance in Bloodbowl is interesting in itself.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:30 am 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:44 pm
Posts: 147
Nope. People here tend to think differently and there is no major reason to seek concensus.

But as long as the local comisioner and the gaming group are in agreement it doesn't matter. Use whatever you want locally. Just be aware that on events that include more than the local gaming group CRP rules are standard.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:13 am 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 12:09 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
In my opinion, the thing is this:
If rules are official or not is not important in your regular gaming group.
Every change to the rules you make stay in your house, hence house rules.

It is something completely different if you go to tournaments.
In a, more or less, "international" environment, meaning playing against people you've probably never ever seen before, you'll need a standard rule set, that everyone knows and can rely on.
That is what official rules are for.

Do you really think you will get all the players to accept fan made changes, even if they don't like 'em?
Think of those players who probably haven't even heard of TFF yet.
A lot don't even know about the NAF.

I'm not a fan of house rules and I've never kept that a secret.
But as long as stuff is properly labeled as house rules, I have no objections as I'm not obliged to use them and they'll be non-existent if I ever decide to play in a tournament again.
I don't like the idea of people thinking they know better than the designers what'll be good for the game.
I don't like people doing this in a seemingly official way to make their ideas known and actually having not really playtested that stuff.

I will always be true to "the rules" and I'd probably deny to play some team that's not in the rule set, like Khorne you mentioned, in a tournament.
I'm actually not really happy about Slann, Underworld or Pact either, as they have been released by the BBRC but never made it into any kind of offcial rule set.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:31 am 
Power Gamer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 4:08 pm
Posts: 9201
Location: ECBBL, London, England
Of course not, this is the Internet.

_________________
*This post may have been made without the use of a hat.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:29 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5077
Location: Copenhagen
@Graeme27uk - 100% what Joemanji said.

@Regash:
Quote:
I don't like the idea of people thinking they know better than the designers what'll be good for the game.

Quote:
I'm actually not really happy about Slann, Underworld or Pact either, as they have been released by the BBRC but never made it into any kind of offcial rule set.

For the record, the BBRC were the designers of the rules. JJ was just a guy with a rubber stamp.

Personally, I've attended tournaments with some pretty heavy house rules.
As long as they are stated up front in the rules pack, I have no problem with them.
I can always choose to not attend, if the specific tournament rules are too outlandish.

Cheers
Martin

_________________
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:17 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 12:09 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
plasmoid wrote:
For the record, the BBRC were the designers of the rules. JJ was just a guy with a rubber stamp.
But still, the three teams in question have never officially been released in any rule set. It's the community who smuggled them into the CRP and the NAF who made them sanctioned teams.

plasmoid wrote:
As long as they are stated up front in the rules pack, I have no problem with them.
I can always choose to not attend, if the specific tournament rules are too outlandish.
Exactly what I'm saying, they should be house rules.
As for tournaments, I wouldn't play in one with house rules.
But then, I don't like to play in tournaments at all because of the competitive nature of the players there.

I do remember the discussion about your choice of name with CRP+.
I did keep asking why you don't use the proper patrt of the forum for posting your ideas.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have house rules.
I just don't want them to be taken to seriously.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:35 pm 
Godfather of Blood Bowl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 am
Posts: 15734
Location: Indiana, USA
Regash wrote:
plasmoid wrote:
For the record, the BBRC were the designers of the rules. JJ was just a guy with a rubber stamp.
But still, the three teams in question have never officially been released in any rule set. It's the community who smuggled them into the CRP and the NAF who made them sanctioned teams.
That is not really true.

Jervis Johnson approved the teams to be tested as the last round of the CRP testing so they were officially approved by the BBRC including Jervis for the full last year of testing.

At the end of the testing the entire BBRC and Jervis voted to make them official. They were officially part of CRP and were included in the rulebook.

Then the !@#$!@ lawyers and marketing people stepped in and made Jervis remove the 3 teams from the book. If you Regash consider this to mean they were not official ... then we agree to disagree as I believe they were official as of the step above.

HOWEVER ... if you do feel that this above step makes them not officially released ... then let me offer two more counter-points.

1) The NAF spoke with Jervis and asked if he considered the teams to be official when they were considering adding them to the NAF. Jervis said he did. It was not the community smuggling them into the CRP ... it was the author of the game saying they should be in there.

2) Cyanide with GW's permission hosted an official rulebook for Blood Bowl on their site for the last 2 years. This rulebook has all 3 of these teams listed in it. http://www.bloodbowl-game.com/files/BB_LRB6.pdf

I would argue the above points do bring me to the belief that those 3 teams were considered officially released to the rules set.

_________________
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:29 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 12:09 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
I know that a lot of people don't like my point of view.

Blood Bowl belongs to GW, not Jervis.
I know that the BBRC approved of the three new teams and I know they have been removed, as far as my info went, they were removed because GW couldn't provide miniatures for them.

Anyhow, the fact is, aside from that LRB6 that I've never heard of before, official GW rule book, meaning up until LRB5 and then the CRP, didn't have them inside.
That's why I still consider them kind of inofficial.
Cyanide is something I also consider not official as they had a Khorne roster in BB1 already but you don't see them in any rules release, not even the ominous LRB6 you posted. Not to speak about Bretonnians in BB2...

I already bought minis to build those three teams, even for Brets and Khorne.
Slann will (hopefully) be provided by J_Bone later this year.
I also changed my Excel roster I created to include all five of them.
But that doesn't change my mind about their status and that I wouldn't have them if I organized a tournament.
But then, there is no real danger in my organizing anything like that, so have no fear! :wink:

My real concerns lie with those NTBB, CRP+ and similar stuff, that some people already seem to treat as official rules. Which they are not, far from it.
And not even Cyanide using some of that for BB2 will change that, at least not for me.
I even turned down an offer to play in a TT league because they used NTBB und CRP+.
House rules just aren't my kind of trade.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:12 pm 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23109
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
BBRC also added ( amongst others) Necromantic and Khemri and re-vamped Norse - do you also consider them non-official?

_________________
"I survived the 525!"
ARBBL 2017 Stunty Cup winner - even if I didn't get a chuffin' trophy!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:32 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:39 am
Posts: 401
Location: Norsca
GW owns the IP and made the CRP rule book without the 3 new teams - so they are per definition house rule teams (But I really dont care for GW or their IP rights - the Community is the caretakers of BB)
If you play a lot of board games, you'll find that game designers make great games, they just normally dont make them perfect.
So I'm all for house rules - bring em.

_________________
CRP+ & Narrow-Tier Blood Bowl Rules: http://www.plasmoids.dk/NTBB2015.pdf


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:02 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5077
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Regash,
I was just being cheeky, pointing out that you, who dislike it when someone disagrees with the designers, yourself disagree with the designers.
You agree with the owners, but that is a different matter entirely.

Quote:
My real concerns lie with those NTBB, CRP+ and similar stuff, that some people already seem to treat as official rules. Which they are not, far from it.

I wonder if anybody does that.
Certainly the place to download these rules, before you can start using them, very explicitly refer to them with my name and with the words 'House rules, at the very start of the text.
Cheers
Martin

_________________
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:09 pm 
Godfather of Blood Bowl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 am
Posts: 15734
Location: Indiana, USA
Regash wrote:
not even the ominous LRB6 you posted.
The document is the rulebook that Jervis and the BBRC voted on and agreed to be the CRP. That link is that rulebook.

Cyanide confimed that GW allowed them to post it as the rules for Blood Bowl on their site.

So GW AGREED that this is the rulebook so how is that not an official publication for the rules of the game?

Cyanide is hosting the document ... but GW TOLD THEM TO HOST IT.

By the definitions that you and Bakunin have stated ... this would be the rulebook that GW currently agrees to as the rules of the game since GW is currently have Cyanide host the rulebook. The fact that Cyanide has other teams is not relevant to the discussion as they are not in the rulebook that GW agreed for Cyanide to host as the base rules for Blood Bowl.

This is why I'm confused ... it was GW that said ... yup that is rulebook. So why is that not good enough?

_________________
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:11 pm 
Godfather of Blood Bowl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 am
Posts: 15734
Location: Indiana, USA
Bakunin wrote:
GW owns the IP and made the CRP rule book without the 3 new teams.
AND THEN they agreed to host the rulebook with the 3 new teams in it. The decision made years ago was CHANGED.

And when the new rulebook comes out next year ... that will change the rules again ... which is fine. But for now we have the rulebook that GW said is the rulebook and the 3 new teams ARE in it.

_________________
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:36 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:30 am
Posts: 4767
Location: Atlanta, GA., USA: Recruiting the Walking Dead for the Blood Bowl Zombie Nation
Does anyone play BB without house rules?

Doubt it....

As soon as you agree to not utilize IP and/or 4 minute limits, a game is in the realm of house rules... not to mention optional rules such as mvp allocation and setting expenditure levels....

The only place you might need standardization is in tourneys and the current trend seems to be against it....

Props to JJ for emphasising the TT environment....

(By Nuffle's hairy dice, my golem's would benefit from directed mvps!)

_________________
Blood Bowl 2016 : plastic crap-tastic
GW attacked the community; NAF supports GW; elF them both!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:26 am 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23109
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
plasmoid wrote:
Quote:
My real concerns lie with those NTBB, CRP+ and similar stuff, that some people already seem to treat as official rules. Which they are not, far from it.

I wonder if anybody does that?

Yes, they do, as has been pointed out to you in the past.

_________________
"I survived the 525!"
ARBBL 2017 Stunty Cup winner - even if I didn't get a chuffin' trophy!


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Blood Bowl » House Rules forum


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron