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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:36 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: 1459
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Darkson wrote:
BBRC also added ( amongst others) Necromantic and Khemri and re-vamped Norse - do you also consider them non-official?
No, I don't.
These are officially added teams as they were added in an officially released rule set.
It's not about who did what. For me, it's about if GW showed a thumbs up for it.

@ plasmoid:
Like I wrote, I even turned down the offer to join a league that played by your house rules entirely.
So, obviously, yes, there are people who take them very seriously.
And please remember that discussion about your, in most peoples eyes, unlucky choice of naming it CRP+, which implies sort of an "officialialty".
Darkson wrote:
Yes, they do, as has been pointed out to you in the past.
See? I'm not the only one who remembers... :wink:

GalakStarscraper wrote:
The document is the rulebook that Jervis and the BBRC voted on and agreed to be the CRP. That link is that rulebook.
So why is that not good enough?
GalakStarscraper wrote:
AND THEN they agreed to host the rulebook with the 3 new teams in it. The decision made years ago was CHANGED.
I wrote it before and I repeat it here: I have never ever even heard about a LRB6 so far!
Please accept the fact that "normal" players, like me, that aren't as involved in the game as you are, do not have all the background information.
I didn't know about LRB6, I didn't know about GW finally approving of Slann, Pact and Underworld.
I called this LRB6 ominous because I was thinking about Icepelts CRP, where all the fluff had been put back in and those three were also added. But this, if my info is correct, is also an unofficial, fan made product, right?
This is the first time I hear about this. For me, CRP was released after LRB5 and then GW shut down Blood Bowl.
I'm glad that you clear this up now. Really. So from this day on, I will not call them unofficial teams ever again. Promised.

Digger Goreman wrote:
Does anyone play BB without house rules?
Doubt it....
While you are right about the 4 minute rule, most of the others are optional. Using or not using optional rules is not house ruling.
For me, house ruling is actually changing existing rules.
I know, I probably should have studied to be a lawyer... :roll:
This is what's in the CRP:
Quote:
EXTRA RULES
All of the following extra rules are optional. This means that both coaches must agree which extra rules (if any) they are going to use before the match starts
And most rules, like hand-offs, interceptions, weather, kick-off table, fouls and even skills are in this section.
So yes, I actually do play Blood Bowl without any house rules.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:12 am 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2425
Location: Near Reading, UK
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.

Yep: viewtopic.php?p=754200#p754200
Quote:
In my opinion CRP+ is LRB7


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:13 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5109
Location: Copenhagen
Sigh.

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

Wow Darkson, you present a compelling argument.

Quote:
Like I wrote, I even turned down the offer to join a league that played by your house rules entirely.
So, obviously, yes, there are people who take them very seriously.

Your claim was that some people seem to treat them as official rules.
Is that what you're saying that league did?
Or did they know, that they were playing house rules?

I doubt anybody actually playing those rules think that they're official.
For the life of me I can't see how they could manage to download them without seeing all the disclaimers.

Dode quoted Bakunin saying:
Quote:
In my opinion CRP+ is LRB7

Now you're just reaching.
Just like last time we discussed this, when you quoted Stashman(?), and he had to step in to say that he knew just fine what they are.
I know Bakunin. He is Danish. He knows the distinction and the story behind it. Perhaps that is why he said "opinion".
I believe he is allowed to prefer the CRP+ rules, as long as he knows that they are house rules.

BTW, did you notice that Pac recently posted a suggested LRB6 in FUMBBL? And that Mister__Joshua posted an LRB7 about a year ago? They need to be told off.

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: Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:10 am 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2425
Location: Near Reading, UK
No, I'm not reaching at all. The statement you asked whether "anybody does that" about was "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." Bakunin stated quite clearly that he considers CRP+ to be LRB7. Whether he knows the distinction or not (and it's very good of you to speak for him on the matter!) his opinion is that they are at the same level as official rules. So I maintain my position on this one: yes, people are doing exactly that.

And yes, I say Pac and MrJoshua's posts. Pac's renumbering made me chuckle for starters, and Mr J's is clearly titled as "Mr J's LRB7". Both are also in the house rules section of FUMBBL and neither has (afaik) their own website where they promote these rules to people: they're talking about them on FUMBBL only, full in the knowledge that they are and always will be house rules.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:38 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:39 am
Posts: 450
Location: Norsca
CRP+/NTBB is of course house rules, but they are more fun (e.g. clawpomb is not fun) than CRP. So they would make a great LRB7... Lets see what GW puts out there in 2017, but im not hopeful, it is probably going to be bad...
Again I know the distinction between official/house rules, but as I have stated above, I dont care who holds the IP rights - in my opinion it does not give them any legitimacy over the game, as it was another group(s) keeping Blood Bowl alive (community, cyanide). So since we have concluded :wink: that CRP+ is the more fun version of Blood Bowl, that rule-set would have my backing as a LRB7.
(To clarify, when people say things like: "CRP+ lurks in the shadows", my jab back is to say: "CRP+ is the new LRB7", because reasons)

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:21 pm 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2425
Location: Near Reading, UK
Bakunin wrote:
CRP+/NTBB is of course house rules, but they are more fun (e.g. clawpomb is not fun) than CRP. So they would make a great LRB7.
That's more clear.
Quote:
(To clarify, when people say things like: "CRP+ lurks in the shadows", my jab back is to say: "CRP+ is the new LRB7", because reasons)
I don't think there's a "lurking in the shadows" suggestion as much as there is a "is pushed by some and accepted by others".

All of which goes to answer the OP quite nicely: no, there is no consensus on unofficial stuff!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:48 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:22 pm
Posts: 262
Location: Melbourne, Australia
We don't even have consensus on official stuff.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:38 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: 1459
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Bakunin wrote:
CRP+/NTBB is of course house rules, but they are more fun (e.g. clawpomb is not fun) than CRP.
And since when do you decide what is more fun for me?
I've never encountered this clawpomb-problem. Ever.

Anyway, like it or not, everything plasmoid does seems to me to be shoved right up my nose.
Published in a way you can't miss it and always make it look like it's the solution we all were waiting for.
"Better passing/more useful throwers", "Tweaking the Skill system", "CRP+"...

Do your house rules, tell everyone about it but let the people decide if it is better for them or not.
And keep 'em where they belong: The House Rules forum.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:19 pm 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23437
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
plasmoid wrote:
Sigh.

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

Wow Darkson, you present a compelling argument.

If you going to claim selective memory of the times you were shown/told of threads here, Cyanide and Facebook there's not a lot I can do about it.

_________________
"I survived the 525!"
ARBBL 2017 Stunty Cup winner - even if I didn't get a chuffin' trophy!
SAWBBowl I Runner Up - with Vamps!
Block of Holding Runner Up *shakes fist at 20phoenix*


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:56 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:30 am
Posts: 4826
Location: Atlanta, GA., USA: Recruiting the Walking Dead for the Blood Bowl Zombie Nation
Regash wrote:
Do your house rules, tell everyone about it but let the people decide if it is better for them or not.
And keep 'em where they belong: The House Rules forum.


Absopositively!

_________________
LRB6/Icepelt Edition: Ah!, when Blood Bowl made sense....
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: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:24 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
Bakunin wrote:
So since we have concluded :wink: that CRP+ is the more fun version of Blood Bowl, that rule-set would have my backing as a LRB7.

That and a dollar gets you a cup of sketchy coffee. If there's one thing that the history of Blood Bowl has demonstrated is that it is the farthest thing from a democracy that a game can be. Changes to the rules are simply pushed through by someone and everyone else learns to deal with them.

That tradition continues even now. Look at who can roll out new rules and rosters and have them actually taken seriously by a large group of players: GW, Cyanide, and FUMBBL. Why them? Because they can simply make changes and let you either deal with them or f-off to elsewhere... and most people take the path of least resistance, playing what everyone else is playing.

Things like NTBB are toothless specifically because they're something that requires you actively opt-in rather than actively opt-out. You have to go out of your way to play NTBB... to hunt down other people who will play it with you regularly... rather than just play what's right in front of you. Without the 800-pound gorilla a full implementation like a GW release or a digital version puts behind your house rules, they are destined to be non-starters.

Regash wrote:
Anyway, like it or not, everything plasmoid does seems to me to be shoved right up my nose.

So ignore it. Most people do.

Personally, I don't even disagree with most of the base goals he has.. but he always pursues them in a useless and arbitrary way, so I don't find any reason to even seriously consider any of them. I feel that way about every house rule offering that can be boiled down to "lets throw MY ideas at the game and see what sticks". I wouldn't even support that sort of thing if I'd pulled it out of my own ass. If the ideas aren't pure logic or data driven they're fluff.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:37 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: 1459
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
VoodooMike wrote:
So ignore it.
I'll try, promised.
But it's a hard task! :wink:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:37 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5109
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Dode and Darkson,
[Edit: @Dode] it seems you were making a different point than what I thought. Fair enough then. My bad.

When Regash talked about people treating PCRP+ as official, I assumed that he was talking about the fabled misled coaches, who are playing NTBB under the mistaken assumption that they're actually official rules. He did reference the old naming discussion, which was what got me thinking along those lines.

If he was just talking about disliking that some people like or even prefer PCRP+/NTBB, then that is his prerogative. No argument from me.

Darkson said:
Quote:
If you going to claim selective memory of the times you were shown/told of threads here, Cyanide and Facebook there's not a lot I can do about it.

I don't remember you ever showing me anyone actually playing PCRP+/NTBB while mistakenly assuming that they are the official rules.
If we're talking about someone hearing about PCRP+/NTBB, assuming that they're official, and then asking about it on an internet forum - then I don't feel particularly culpable. People ask all kinds of crap on online. They'll no doubt be told off straight way. Or they'll go to get the rules on my site and see any number of disclaimers. Or they'll ignore the site, download the rules reference sheet, and then see the term house rules at the very top.

Cheers
Martin

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


Last edited by plasmoid on Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:50 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5109
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Regash,
just to clarify: I don't expect you or anyone in particular to prefer my house rules.
They're exclusively intended for those who already believe that there is a problem to fix in the first place.

As for shoving threads up your nose, that's in your head.
They're just threads on a forum, and you're very welcome not to click them.
The titles you quote as offensive try to accurately explain what the threads are about. For someone with the motto "leave the rules alone", you ought to be able to tell from the titles that you won't like the content.
No need to seek out stuff to get offended about.

Me, I like to use talkfantasyfootball to, well, talk fantasy football.
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: Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:52 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: 1459
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
It's not about me not liking house rules.
It's about you using words that makes it look like you've got the solution to everything.

Why didn't you call them "plasmoids house rules" instead of "CRP+"?
I've been on your website and yes, you now call them PCRP+, but with a footnote that you still think the change wasn't necessary.
And it's still called CRP+.

Why didn't you call that thread about altering passing "new idea for passing"?
Why "tweaking" the skills? Why does it have to be "better" instead of something like "idea for making passing more attractive"?
Yep, it's just words but think about this: Not every Blood Bowl player comes by your house rules via your website or does read this forum.
Look at BB2, there are changes that cleary came from your house rules, Like the 90K orc Blitzer or the AV8 human catcher.
Just because of this (and their marketing strategy that tries to milk my wallet) I'm not gonna buy or play BB2.
It's not Blood Bowl to me, it's some house ruled crap.

But this discussion is probably fruitless as I'm pretty sure you don't even get my meaning.
Just because YOU think, everything you do is better, it doesn't have to be like that.

This is probably my last post in this thread.
I don't want this discussion go round and round and drift away from the initial question further and further.
Just do me a favor and keep your house rule ideas where they belong.


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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Blood Bowl » House Rules forum


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Digger Goreman

 
 

 
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: