Taking Back Blood Bowl

For Fantasy Football related chat that doesn't come under any of other forum categories.

Moderator: TFF Mods

Post Reply
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Taking Back Blood Bowl

Post by VoodooMike »

Steam Ball wrote: I see the possibility linked to how much change is done officially. With WHFB it was clear, they destroyed it and launched a different thing, trying to replace it. As so far they promised keeping CRP (to some level... a lesson learned from 9th?), I agree it will be rare to happen.
Yeah you can see that with 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons vs. Pathfinder as well. Not really applicable to Blood Bowl, though - they (GW) don't show any signs of wanting to change things significantly. There's also no change in the rules that everyone is behind so... there's no movement in some popular direction a 3rd party can make.

Even if GW did make a radical change to Blood Bowl there's nobody in a position to step up and take over as the authority that controls the "old ways" of Blood Bowl.. NAF would be a possibility if it weren't for the fact that the NAF would follow GW over a cliff.

Reason: ''
Image
User avatar
Milo
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Taking Back Blood Bowl

Post by Milo »

VoodooMike wrote:
Steam Ball wrote:As for taking back, we (GW & players) already got one example: The Ninth Age.
Nobody is saying it isn't possible, it's just that it won't happen with Blood Bowl because the major bodies involved in implementing the game will not get behind any such attempt.

There's no leadership for such a movement. Nobody (individual or group) who is interested in leading is someone that people will follow. Unless you can get a very large group of people behind such a movement it won't be a movement, it'll be a little houseruled league with delusions of grandeur. It'll be just another NTBB.

So, is it possible? Sure, but it'd be a herculean effort by multiple people all of whom would have to be dedicated to the task... and most of the work would NOT be in designing rules, it'd be in playing politics to establish themselves as an authority worth listening to.
Shouldn't we wait and see what happens before we start organizing to "take it back"? So far, these changes seem to be minor. I don't think anyone will revolt because some star players are changed slightly, and I don't think anyone SHOULD revolt if GW decides to release the game somewhat piecemeal to lengthen their revenue stream (and give consumers more time to spread out their purchases as well.)

Reason: ''
Milo


Image
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Taking Back Blood Bowl

Post by VoodooMike »

Milo wrote:Shouldn't we wait and see what happens before we start organizing to "take it back"? So far, these changes seem to be minor. I don't think anyone will revolt because some star players are changed slightly, and I don't think anyone SHOULD revolt if GW decides to release the game somewhat piecemeal to lengthen their revenue stream (and give consumers more time to spread out their purchases as well.)
Won't and wouldn't matter either way. GW abandoned Blood Bowl for several years and nobody stepped up that people would listen to. If GW made sweeping, terrible changes there's really no reason to assume that would change... plenty of people are willing to lead but almost nobody is interested in following.

In the past seven or eight years the only 3rd party leadership that the Blood Bowl world has even remotely followed is Cyanide's, with their made-up rosters gaining some traction in other venues. Nobody asked for their changes and most of us opposed their changes, but those changes still carried weight.

What this tells me is that, at least in the Blood Bowl world, talking about stuff is strictly a conservative tool - it can be used to dilute any liberal attempts at change. What's stronger in the long term, and works as a liberal tool is slapping the changes you want down in front of people in such a way that they can, with no effort of their own, play your ideas and in doing so create their own inertia.

So... that limits the practical power to "take charge" in any fashion to four bodies (in order of strength): GW, the NAF, Cyanide, and FUMBBL. Those are the people who have the ability to push changes in front of people without the players needing to voluntarily buy into them. Of them, only GW and Cyanide are at all likely to make any significant attempts to change things, and those two are directly related to one another.

Even as members of the former BBRC slowly show up they don't really represent a force that could add itself to that list. They represent a group that could add credibility to one of the four if they chose to, but on their own probably couldn't accomplish anything.

I think all of the "lets take over the world" stuff is pissing into the wind even if GW decides to replace dice with coin flips, roll out space marine rosters, and focus the game around being a CCG.

Reason: ''
Image
Deus Magi
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:47 pm

Re: Taking Back Blood Bowl

Post by Deus Magi »

Milo wrote: Shouldn't we wait and see what happens before we start organizing to "take it back"? So far, these changes seem to be minor. I don't think anyone will revolt because some star players are changed slightly, and I don't think anyone SHOULD revolt if GW decides to release the game somewhat piecemeal to lengthen their revenue stream (and give consumers more time to spread out their purchases as well.)
Wise words.

Reason: ''
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Taking Back Blood Bowl

Post by plasmoid »

Hi all,
missed this the first time around.
VoodooMike wrote:
koadah wrote:Partly because two members of the previous BBRC specifically said that they would like to see those two rule changes tested.
I'm pretty sure plasmoid has used that sad refrain to justify NTBB things, too. Maybe you should dig out your time machine and go back to when they were the BBRC and have them test it! Of course, even back then those two members didn't manage to convince the entire BBRC to go that route, so...
For the record, I've only made that point concerning PCRP+ things, not NTBB ones.
Other than that I just want to clarify that the curiousity to test the rules in question only originated after GW made the CRP official, resulting in feedback from a lot more players than the original PBBL Guinea pigs. But by that time GW had also disbanded the BBRC.
As for the two (Galak and Doubleskulls), Babs has since then posted that he couldn't see any issues with the rules changes at all, and Geggster recently posted that he considered CPOMB to be a problem for high TV play.
So I'd say that all 4 BBRC members would be curious to see such changes tested - which is not to say that the outcome of said testing would automatically be a rules change.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
Post Reply