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: Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:00 am 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 96
I'm fairly new to the online BB scene but have been immersing myself with all the zeal of a new convert. So, armed as I am with little information and less experience, allow me to put words in your mouths:

Under the stewardship of JJ and the BBRC and with the approval of GW the rules of BB were changed several times and I haven't seen many, possibly any, people feel that this was bad overall. Just how good the final ruleset was is contested but I think it could be shown not to be broken and, more importantly, to be at least acceptable to most players.

The analogy I would draw would be a benign heirless king. He's good enough that no-one is plotting treason and he has a legitimate claim to the throne. For many years now BB has existed and arguably thrived under this stewardship but there is no legitimate successor and so there will be no further change.

In this environment the question of whether the newer PCRP+ ruleset is "better" than the existing CRP is entirely irrelevant. All the discussion about it's name, where it is posted, who was involved in it, whether Cyanide rules become "official" etc are to do with it's legitimacy.

The treason that PCRP+ has committed is to appear slightly more legitimate than the rest of the herd and this presents an existential threat to the current game that people love. If this bastard child is officially recognised in even the slightest respect* then people start getting genuinely worried. Not because people might start using an inferior ruleset or because anyone actually cares about GW approval but because the LRB6/CRP benign autocracy is literally the only thing keeping this herd of cats within spitting distance of each other. A second extant ruleset with even a thin veneer of legitimacy could theoretically schism the playerbase and open the floodgates to anarchy where no two matches are played with the same rules and the Blood Bowl community diffuses and eventually dies.

Pedantics aside, all that Plasmoid has actually done is produce a coherent alternative to CRP and have the temerity tell people about it.

Finally, because this post is neither long nor opinionated enough, I think LRB6/CRP is an incredibly good ruleset that doesn't need changing but that doesn't mean it is perfect and couldn't be changed for the better. I have no experience with PCRP+.

What actually worries me is that GW will release a new BB ruleset that is sufficiently unbroken and recognisable enough to trigger a civil war.


*for instance a couple of rules incorporated into a third party computer game who have a licensing agreement with the people who haven't so much as thought about the game in a decade


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:54 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
hutchinsfairy wrote:
I'm fairly new to the online BB scene but have been immersing myself with all the zeal of a new convert. So, armed as I am with little information and less experience, allow me to put words in your mouths:

I think what you're spouting is a glib oversimplification based on your rather self-righteous belief that by being inexperienced with the issue you are somehow more objective. Your post demonstrates otherwise.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
Just how good the final ruleset was is contested but I think it could be shown not to be broken and, more importantly, to be at least acceptable to most players.

This is a fairly vacuous statement. If the rules are found to be UNacceptable to a player then they stop being a player, meaning anyone who remains a player very obviously found them "at least acceptable". The term "broken" is very subjective, as well. Some people feel certain aspects are absolutely "broken" while others disagree with the severity of their criticism. What would it really take for something to be objectively "broken" rather than a matter of personal opinion?

hutchinsfairy wrote:
In this environment the question of whether the newer PCRP+ ruleset is "better" than the existing CRP is entirely irrelevant. All the discussion about it's name, where it is posted, who was involved in it, whether Cyanide rules become "official" etc are to do with it's legitimacy.

This is where I believe you veer off into genuine wrongness. It isn't about legitimacy it's about inertia, and it's where experience with this issue comes in handy.

What cyanide has changed and added to their versions of the game are not typically new. Their khorne roster is not noteworthy because it's a good roster, it's noteworthy because it's a house ruled roster that not only gets played, but which people have been calling for the inclusion of in tournament play. There have been many, many, many new rosters made by various 3rd party individuals and presented on forums like this, but they are generally viewed as a curiosity rather than a serious consideration. Khorne changed that.

If it were a simple question of legitimacy then it, too, would have been treated as a curiosity... but the fact that khorne moved out of the computer game and into many people's TT leagues regardless of there being no official nod from GW tells us that the overriding concern is not with the legitimacy of the changes but with how widespread their use is.

An even stronger example is the Bretonnian roster - one that plasmoid has been pushing for years to no real avail. Cyanide implements it and now there's plenty of discussion about it, and calls for it to be included outside of cyanide (some brave and foolish soul actually started a thread on FUMBBL about including them). It isn't the false sense of legitimacy that causes that, it's the proselytization of play that people are used to and comfortable with... people want to play more of what they've enjoyed playing, so they help spread what they've enjoyed and help resist things that aren't that.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
The treason that PCRP+ has committed is to appear slightly more legitimate than the rest of the herd and this presents an existential threat to the current game that people love.

This sort of purple prose should trigger your shock collar, for your own good.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
If this bastard child is officially recognised in even the slightest respect* then people start getting genuinely worried. Not because people might start using an inferior ruleset or because anyone actually cares about GW approval but because the LRB6/CRP benign autocracy is literally the only thing keeping this herd of cats within spitting distance of each other. A second extant ruleset with even a thin veneer of legitimacy could theoretically schism the playerbase and open the floodgates to anarchy where no two matches are played with the same rules and the Blood Bowl community diffuses and eventually dies.

What a load of shit. The issue people have with presenting ideas as having more legitimacy than just "here's my random idea" is that it is dishonest and manipulative. Ideas should be evaluated entirely on their merit on some false appeal to authority. If you try to manipulate people into thinking your ideas are somehow more official it suggests you are fully aware that your ideas lack the legs to stand on their own.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
Pedantics aside, all that Plasmoid has actually done is produce a coherent alternative to CRP and have the temerity tell people about it.

Every alternative anyone produces is "coherent" and they never have any problem telling people about it. That's hardly a gold star for any alternative rules or rulesets.

The issue I have, and some others have, with plasmoid's stuff is that it's flat out arbitrary but never presented as such. At the core of every single change he rolls out is the statement "I know better than you do so here it is". He's learned to layer some bullshit icing over-top of that in recent years, but it always comes down to that same nugget of hubris, which is what Regash has been railing against.

Long ago plasmoid was considered by a non-trivial portion of the BB community to be something like BB's new prophet. He was a neverending fountain of "here's how BB should be changed" or "here's a new roster" and presented them as though they were rigorously considered and painstakingly designed.. to the point that those folks thought he was barely one step removed from the BBRC itself...

...then came the era of big data. With the availability of massive amounts of match data it was discovered that not only were many of his conclusions flawed and indefensible, but so were many of his premises. It showed even his fans that he was no better at this than they were, he was just talking it up like he was. His initial response was desperate flailing, claiming that he was still right but the evidence of his rightness was hiding just outside the scope of any data that anyone had. Over time people puzzled out that that was nothing more than a weak excuse, and that he was pulling everything straight out of his ass just like the average person who posted a Space Marine roster on TBB/TFF.

What makes people like me snarky at his continued work is that he hasn't improved his methodology at all. He's still pulling everything out of his ass, and it's still arbitrary and impossible to test properly even in a perfect world. I was to grab his shoulders and shake him vigorously shouting "WHY U NO LEARN!??!?".

hutchinsfairy wrote:
What actually worries me is that GW will release a new BB ruleset that is sufficiently unbroken and recognisable enough to trigger a civil war.

Then you don't know the BB community. If GW releases a new ruleset, people will simply adapt to it. NAF will unquestioningly adopt anything GW does because they home their breakup with GW is just a "phase", so they're putting on their heaviest makeup and sluttiest clothes in the hope GW will want them back. FUMBBL has unequivocably stated it will follow NAF's lead. Cyanide actually has a relationship with GW and only cares about making money, so they'll certainly adopt GW's changes... though for all GW gives a shit, they may simply adopt Cyanide's changes instead.

Beyond what those three entities do it absolutely doesn't matter, because everything else is little private leagues that already do whatever they do with no concern for anyone else.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:08 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:10 am
Posts: 63
Location: Osaka, Japan
Hey there Hutchinsfairy,
Cheers mate. I really love your take on this argument. Well said. I hope you are ready for all the flack that others will send your way. Stay strong.

I have played and followed the game since '88. Yes, I think I'd agree with your points.

I haven't played with CRP+ outside of my friends circle, though. That being said, I've played in three countries and everyone has their own spin on the rules. Everyone also had fair reasons for those house rules. No one seemed to have a lot of agreement though. This guy likes the ball plays (scoring) and that guy likes blood plays (red boxing players). He hates the kick off table and she hates the team imbalances. Everyone has their own opinion. What else could we expect?

GW will likely bring it all to an end next year. New bigger minis, a larger field and perhaps (hopefully) a tighter rule set.

Actually a very exciting time for the game!

P.S. Plasmoid, while I don't agree with all your rules (surprise) I absolutely respect what you are trying to do. Don't take crap from naysayers. You rock man.

P.P.S. Galak, I'm a huge fan of you and Impact Miniatures. I believe it is a crying shame how GW treated you. If they approached you and wanted your take on the rules to be released next, would you want to help or tell them to go pound sand? Just curious.

Cheers,
- Dan

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:42 pm 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23576
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
VoodooMike wrote:
to the point that those folks thought he was barely one step removed from the BBRC itself...

Apart from when they thought he was part of the BBRC, which I've seen various people claim. :roll:

_________________
SWTC 2017 Stunty Cup winner - never again (until next time!)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:09 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 96
VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
I'm fairly new to the online BB scene but have been immersing myself with all the zeal of a new convert. So, armed as I am with little information and less experience, allow me to put words in your mouths:

I think what you're spouting is a glib oversimplification based on your rather self-righteous belief that by being inexperienced with the issue you are somehow more objective. Your post demonstrates otherwise.

No. I had something I wanted to say so I said it and enjoyed doing so. I thought it best to point out that I was speaking from a position of relative ignorance before someone else did. The post was intentionally flippant as should have been self evident from.. well the post.

VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
Just how good the final ruleset was is contested but I think it could be shown not to be broken and, more importantly, to be at least acceptable to most players.

This is a fairly vacuous statement.
Yes, again deliberately so. It was meant to be a statement that no-one could possibly get their knickers in a twist about in order to define some basal common ground. I realise now that I had underestimated the malleability of your knickers. I could always start from Cogito ergo sum and build up from there but I have been told I tend to dwell overlong on the cambrian explosion and oversimplify some of the more disparate socio-economic causes of the great depression so I'll save myself the embarrassment.

VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
In this environment the question of whether the newer PCRP+ ruleset is "better" than the existing CRP is entirely irrelevant. All the discussion about it's name, where it is posted, who was involved in it, whether Cyanide rules become "official" etc are to do with it's legitimacy.

This is where I believe you veer off into genuine wrongness. It isn't about legitimacy it's about inertia, and it's where experience with this issue comes in handy.
I am pleased that my wrongness is at least not disingenuous. I was however careful to limit the scope of my observation to the environment laid out in the previous paragraph. I now realise that my wording was insufficiently unambiguous for your gyrating underwear.

I have no response to your next few paragraphs as I honestly didn't read them.

VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
The treason that PCRP+ has committed is to appear slightly more legitimate than the rest of the herd and this presents an existential threat to the current game that people love.

This sort of purple prose should trigger your shock collar, for your own good.
Having had to look up "purple prose" I am inordinately pleased with that description.

VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
If this bastard child is officially recognised in even the slightest respect* then people start getting genuinely worried. Not because people might start using an inferior ruleset or because anyone actually cares about GW approval but because the LRB6/CRP benign autocracy is literally the only thing keeping this herd of cats within spitting distance of each other. A second extant ruleset with even a thin veneer of legitimacy could theoretically schism the playerbase and open the floodgates to anarchy where no two matches are played with the same rules and the Blood Bowl community diffuses and eventually dies.

What a load of shit. The issue people have with presenting ideas as having more legitimacy than just "here's my random idea" is that it is dishonest and manipulative. Ideas should be evaluated entirely on their merit on some false appeal to authority. If you try to manipulate people into thinking your ideas are somehow more official it suggests you are fully aware that your ideas lack the legs to stand on their own.
Yes, I really got into my prosaic stride with that bit. It was fun.

VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
Pedantics aside, all that Plasmoid has actually done is produce a coherent alternative to CRP and have the temerity tell people about it.

Every alternative anyone produces is "coherent" and they never have any problem telling people about it. That's hardly a gold star for any alternative rules or rulesets.
Yes. I guess my point was that publishing these rules and telling people about them would be sufficient to explain peoples' reaction in the narrative that I was building.

VoodooMike wrote:
The issue I have, and some others have, with Plasmoid's stuff is that it's flat out arbitrary but never presented as such.
When people are complaining about how something is presented or even named then I am left with the suspicion that these are post hoc rationalisations of an irrational or poorly explored position. I am again struck by how disproportionately vitriolic the responses are on these boards to any discussion of alternate rulesets. This may well be due to some historical bile that I am ignorant of but it could also be that people feel threatened.


VoodooMike wrote:
hutchinsfairy wrote:
What actually worries me is that GW will release a new BB ruleset that is sufficiently unbroken and recognisable enough to trigger a civil war.

Then you don't know the BB community. If GW releases a new ruleset, people will simply adapt to it.
Well, shall we each leap into our respective time machines and meet back now to compare notes? My guess is that there is a line of awfulness below which players will baulk. I hope that GW either do an OK job or foul it up spectacularly but I fear they will land somewhere in the middle.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:01 pm 
Godfather of Blood Bowl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 am
Posts: 15848
Location: Indiana, USA
Arclight wrote:
P.P.S. Galak, I'm a huge fan of you and Impact Miniatures. I believe it is a crying shame how GW treated you. If they approached you and wanted your take on the rules to be released next, would you want to help or tell them to go pound sand? Just curious.


I do not hold grudges. I figure my life is short enough without poisoning my mind with dislike for someone/something. Heck ... by late summer you see something announced that goes more to that point but that is yet to be fully put into action.

That said ... I would gladly help if GW wanted it. I had only two major reasons for not helping Cyanide with BB2 when asked. The biggest was that my son has been severely ill for the last 2 years (including almost dying 3 times) and I need to spend my time there so the timing for BB2 did not work for me for available time. The 2nd was that after helping with the Khorne roster I felt like Cyanide was a bit too focused on the look of game and not the value of good rules so I was thought that even if I help ... I'd end up again with someone suboptimal due to handcuffs on what could be done.

VoodooMike wrote:
Then you don't know the BB community. If GW releases a new ruleset, people will simply adapt to it.
I really believe this is true. VM and I don't normally agree on items ... but I do agree with him on this point.

_________________
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: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:10 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
hutchinsfairy wrote:
Yes, again deliberately so. It was meant to be a statement that no-one could possibly get their knickers in a twist about in order to define some basal common ground.

See, but there you ARE being disingenuous. A deliberately vacuous statement isn't about finding common ground it's about enjoying the sound of your own voice, metaphorically speaking. A statement without content can (and should) be condensed to the appropriate form of silence.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
I now realise that my wording was insufficiently unambiguous for your gyrating underwear.

Count on my gyrating underwear calling you on your long-winded but content-free bullshit in future, too.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
Having had to look up "purple prose" I am inordinately pleased with that description.

Disappointing. Being wordy is fine when you have a lot to say, but in the absence of the latter it just makes you seem like a putz. To each their own, I suppose. Birds and cats make a lot of noise despite having nothing to say, and we just learn to tune them out.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
When people are complaining about how something is presented or even named then I am left with the suspicion that these are post hoc rationalisations of an irrational or poorly explored position.

That you apply that to this topic is symptomatic of your inexperience with the issue. I agree that when people let the presentation interfere with their ability to assess the content the ignorance is on the receiver's end (in fact, you'll see me saying that repeatedly in other threads)... but in this case the content is already dealt with: plasmoid's work is unendingly unfalsifiable, so there's nothing to evaluate and no way to evaluate it even if we wanted to. That's sufficient damnation for the logic-and-numbers people and for the increasingly large proportion of the community that at least understands the foundations of what the logic-and-numbers people advocate.

The objection to what certain things are called is about intellectual honesty. Now, I don't know if plasmoid set out to dupe some people into thinking his ideas were somehow official... but he certainly didn't mind if they made that mistake and it's never him correcting people on those misconceptions. When there's no danger of people thinking some 3rd party crap is official, I don't care what it's called and neither does anybody else.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
This may well be due to some historical bile that I am ignorant of but it could also be that people feel threatened.

By what? I'm very comfortable in telling you that nothing plasmoid churns out is likely to make it into future Blood Bowl products other than, possibly, things made by Cyanide... and almost anything might show up there (my little pony, space marines, herpes, the lindbergh baby, etc) though will likely be improperly implemented.

The vitriol likely stems from the fact that people have given him the same feedback to idea after idea but he seems absolutely disinterested in it... yet keeps rolling out more of the same and asking for feedback. Some of us interpret that as seeking praise rather than seeking honest comment or discussion, and find that distasteful. Some of us are more... shall we say... outspoken about our distaste than others.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
Well, shall we each leap into our respective time machines and meet back now to compare notes?

Set yours for the past, first. You'll find that there have been more than half a dozen different rulesets released officially and in every single case the players have adopted them. This includes two official ruleset changes in recent memory, and while online versions have existed. In each case the online versions adopted the new rulesets just like the NAF did. So... while the future is necessarily impossible to predict with 100% accuracy, anything OTHER than what I said will happen would be a complete break from what has happened every single time GW has released an updated ruleset.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
My guess is that there is a line of awfulness below which players will baulk.

My guess is you're wrong. Whatever GW does with the rules, nomatter how awful, would be the rules that come with the game that any new player buys, and will be the rules they learn on. People who try to resist will be part of an ever-shrinking group and will eventually give up. Communities are like parasites - they need a steady supply of new blood or they starve to death over time.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:55 pm 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:12 am
Posts: 82
I thought there was a forum rule about personal attacks. But from this thread I guess not.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:42 am 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 96
Greshvakk wrote:
I thought there was a forum rule about personal attacks. But from this thread I guess not.

Well if attacking the message isn't finding traction then swing for the messenger. As long as the heretics are silenced then the end justifies the means.

Then people act all surprised that the forum doesn't get much traffic...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:58 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5116
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Regash,
in case you're still reading along.

Quote:
Why didn't you call them "plasmoids house rules" instead of "CRP+"?

Because it sounded good. And because "house rules" was already plastered all over the site, so I never thought anyone would mind.

Quote:
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.

Absolutely true. I was asked to make it clear that they were mine. So I did.

Quote:
And it's still called CRP+

Do you mean by "people"? Kind of underlines the futility of demanding a name change. But the name was changed all the same.

Quote:
Why didn't you call that thread about altering passing "new idea for passing"? [Snip] Why does it have to be "better" instead of something like "idea for making passing more attractive"?

Eh? it was called "better passing", not "better rules for passing".
I thought/think it fairly clearly indicates that the thread was about was to make throwers/passing stronger.

Quote:
Why "tweaking" the skills?

Because it was about tweaking the skill system? What's wrong with that title?
I get the sense that your dislike of me profoundly colors the way you read everything I write.

Quote:
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.

How does people come by my house rules then? Considering that not just the site but the rules themselves call them house rules in the very first paragraph, I don't get why you think I'm trying to hide that they're house rules.

As an aside, why do you assume that my Passing thread and my Skill Pricing thread is about NTBB/PCRP+?
I honestly like discussing & considering house rules.
If they in some shape or form ever made it onto my site, then they would have to into NTBB, as they would not be part of what I discussed with Ian and Tom (PCRP+).

Quote:
Look at BB2, there are changes that cleary came from your house rules, Like the 90K orc Blitzer or the AV8 human catcher.

Just so we're clear: At no point did Cyanide believe my rules to be official rules.
And it is very clear that they have not chosen to implement NTBB in BB2, as evidenced by all the Things they didn't do. A decision I agree with 100%, BTW.
They probably did find the AV8 catcher on my site, but it is not like I'm the first person to bring that up.
I don't know where they found the 90K Orc blitzer. Yes, it was on my site, listed as an outdated rule. So of all the things they could have chosen to implement, it was a very surprising choice. It has been discussed many other Places than on my site, and I have absolutely no idea why they went with that.
Finally, they did a version of the Bank, likely inspired by mine, but quite clearly not mine.

I have no idea why they chose to do those 3 rules changes.
But I know it wasn't because they thought they were official.
I also know that they had plenty of guidance from people around the BB community, and given that I know a few of those names I have no doubt, that Cyanide was not allowed to be in any doubt about the status of my house rules.

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: Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:03 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:59 pm
Posts: 5868
Location: The Fast Lane
hutchinsfairy wrote:
Greshvakk wrote:
I thought there was a forum rule about personal attacks. But from this thread I guess not.

Well if attacking the message isn't finding traction then swing for the messenger. As long as the heretics are silenced then the end justifies the means.

Then people act all surprised that the forum doesn't get much traffic...

If you have an issue why don't you request a mod/admin to take a look?

_________________
Image

The Exiles Blood Bowl League and Tournaments use the Icepelt rulebook, for complete BB rules and fluff. Download here.
SW England Regional Co-ordinator for the NAF lunchmoney@thenaf.net
@Lunchmoney_Al for me @ExilesBBLeague for #TeamExiles news


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:05 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
hutchinsfairy wrote:
Well if attacking the message isn't finding traction then swing for the messenger. As long as the heretics are silenced then the end justifies the means.

...and if your arguments aren't met with fanfare cry about how mean people are, pack up your toys and move to a different sandbox where they will instantly appreciate your brilliant argumentation and erudite prose!

hutchinsfairy wrote:
Then people act all surprised that the forum doesn't get much traffic...

I think this forum gets reasonably high traffic for the subject matter. In fact, I believe it is considered one of, if not the largest and most active forum when it comes to Blood Bowl and other minis based fantasy sports games.

Don't worry, though, I have no doubt the grapes really were sour.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:41 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 96
lunchmoney wrote:
If you have an issue why don't you request a mod/admin to take a look?


Thank you. I can't say that they particularly bother me so I'm not sure what I would be trying to achieve by reporting them. This seems more like one for the ignore user list.

PS: @Arclight there doesn't seem to be a thanks button so: Thanks!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:48 am 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:22 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Melbourne, Australia
GalakStarscraper wrote:
VoodooMike wrote:
Then you don't know the BB community. If GW releases a new ruleset, people will simply adapt to it.
I really believe this is true. VM and I don't normally agree on items ... but I do agree with him on this point.


My memory, while hazy, is that this didn't happen with 4th edition rules. I was under the impression that most people hated 4th edition, and that they stuck with 3rd edition instead (or modified it based on the things they liked from 4th). The fallout from so many people disliking 4th edition was why the rules got changed soon after. How wrong am I on this?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:37 pm 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23576
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
Moraiwe wrote:
My memory, while hazy, is that this didn't happen with 4th edition rules. I was under the impression that most people hated 4th edition, and that they stuck with 3rd edition instead (or modified it based on the things they liked from 4th). The fallout from so many people disliking 4th edition was why the rules got changed soon after. How wrong am I on this?

You're not wrong on that, but that was a set of experimental rules in a side magazine that specifically invited feedback, and which many players at the time (and even now) had never heard of.
A new box set with "official" finished rules is a different animal.

IF there are new rules, and IF they suck, I'd like to think the community would not use them, but I think VM and Galak are correct. Sure, some/many won't (just like some still play vanilla 3rd ed) but the majority will go with whatever is "official".

_________________
SWTC 2017 Stunty Cup winner - never again (until next time!)


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: No registered users

 
 

 
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: