Grak and Crumbleberry

[Milo]

I bet if you tracked NAF registrations, you'd see they've been declining for years -- PRIOR to Blood Bowl 2016.

From the NAF accounts (2009-2016):
2009 - 1570
2010 - 1863
2011 - 1961
2012 - 2216
2013 - 2106
2014 - 1879
2015 - 2096
2016 - 2225

Well, I am admittedly quite surprised. Are those new registrations or continued registration? Perhaps the 2015 spike was partly due to the World Cup, and 2016 was due to the Blood Bowl re-release? I'd guess a more thorough analysis (games played by coaches, month of registration, etc.) might show some trends that supported my point, but I'll concede the point. That's more new registrations that I would expect with very little outreach and only word of mouth to spread the game.

[Milo]

Has anyone asked Andy (etc.) about the possibility of G&C being reworked so they could actually be used sensibly, and not just discarded as many have done?

I for one like the idea of the whole combo, but there's no way I'd allow them in a league or tournament I ran as they are now - good concept, bad implementation. If they were rewritten (at least Loner added and costed correctly) they'd be a much more viable choice, and if the wacky kick rule was improved/balanced then I'd be more inclined to allow them (and buy them myself).

Better rules = better sales (not everyone has to buy everything "just because it's Blood Bowl").

I'd certainly support that. I don't even think it would take much -- make kick teammate count as a pass, so that it couldn't be used in addition to Throw Teammate, recost them, add loner, maybe a few other minor tweaks.

[duckwing]

Has anyone asked Andy (etc.) about the possibility of G&C being reworked so they could actually be used sensibly, and not just discarded as many have done?

I for one like the idea of the whole combo, but there's no way I'd allow them in a league or tournament I ran as they are now - good concept, bad implementation. If they were rewritten (at least Loner added and costed correctly) they'd be a much more viable choice, and if the wacky kick rule was improved/balanced then I'd be more inclined to allow them (and buy them myself).

Better rules = better sales (not everyone has to buy everything "just because it's Blood Bowl").

I'd certainly support that. I don't even think it would take much -- make kick teammate count as a pass, so that it couldn't be used in addition to Throw Teammate, recost them, add loner, maybe a few other minor tweaks.

Rather than make it count as a pass (one of the fun things with it is that you can use it in addition to throw team mate) it should have some added disadvantages. Maybe that it requieres a 3+ to succeed and that a fail means that the kicked player is knocked down with a +1 to the armor roll.

[dode74]

But if GW's additional focus on BB brings in more coaches for those tournaments and leagues, more coaches who have the potential to become die-hard Blood Bowl coaches like us, that can ONLY be a GOOD THING(tm) for the rest of us.

Again, that depends on what they do with it.

Take a look at DZ2 when it comes out. I hope you will like most of what you see and I doubt you will find anything to opposed as strenously as G&C or the app teams. At least all the Stars have Loner.

I am open-minded about DZ2. With more people, and more experienced coaches, involved I am hopeful for it. A fair amount of credibility would appear to be riding on it.

[PercyTheTroll]

I bet if you tracked NAF registrations, you'd see they've been declining for years -- PRIOR to Blood Bowl 2016.

From the NAF accounts (2009-2016):
2009 - 1570
2010 - 1863
2011 - 1961
2012 - 2216
2013 - 2106
2014 - 1879
2015 - 2096
2016 - 2225

Well, I am admittedly quite surprised. Are those new registrations or continued registration? Perhaps the 2015 spike was partly due to the World Cup, and 2016 was due to the Blood Bowl re-release? I'd guess a more thorough analysis (games played by coaches, month of registration, etc.) might show some trends that supported my point, but I'll concede the point. That's more new registrations that I would expect with very little outreach and only word of mouth to spread the game.

Just a quick thought, but where do the Cyanide game releases fit in that timeline? I've always assumed that they brought people to tabletop.

[Darkson]

Are those new registrations or continued registration?

AFAIK that's just total registrations for each year, so some continuing, some new, some picking up lapsed membership, others dropping out (for example, the 2016 probably has 3 or 4 lapsed memberships dropping off from my club).

Just a quick thought, but where do the Cyanide game releases fit in that timeline? I've always assumed that they brought people to tabletop.

BB1 -2009
BB:LE - 2010
BB:CE - 2012
BB2 - 2015

[Milo]

Back to G&C, I think that we'll see Kick Team-Mate revised in a future rules supplement (not DZ2, but maybe a future DZ) to balance the pair out more. It will be officially added to the skill description list, which will obviously supersede the printed Kick Team-Mate rules in the package. I've gotten some feedback to that effect.

[hutchinsfairy]

The big two GW games, Warhammer 40k and WHFB/AOS, are continually updated and new rules come out for the all the time. Sometimes the rules are army-specific, like new codexes; sometimes they introduce entirely new ways to play the game, like the Apocalypse 40k rules. Yes, change means that you will need to occasionally reference multiple rulebooks, but it also means the game will never become stale. It means that the product remains financially viable, with a continuing return on investment, which gives GW an incentive to not treat it like a red-headed stepchild.

I must admit that reading this filled me with a quiet, creeping dread. The idea that GW are now incentivised to artificially keep Blood Bowl in a constant state of flux in order to justify shelf space does not strike me as a good thing.

The danger is that rules will be added for the sake of it or, worse, to cynically advantage players who are prepared to spend more at GW stores and events. Basically exactly what we have already seen with Weeping Blades and Grak & Crumbleberry respectively.

There doesn't seem to be any vision or overarching plan driving the new rules nor any considered process for writing and testing them. The later seems to be improving but I've not seen anything addressing the former. The only stated aim of the rules changes I've come across so far are yours.

The roster name changes, whilst largely inconsequential, are a prime example of this disjointed approach. I defy anyone to come up with a singular purpose that explains even a majority of those changes.

Is there something underlying that's driving these changes other than whimsy and naked profiteering?

[mikeyc222]

well, for what it's worth, i am happy to see my favorite game back on store shelves. BB is a just a game, so i don't take it too seriously. i'll just roll with the rule changes/tweaks and my group will continue to include what we like and discuss/discard anything we don't like... as we always have. it has definitely been nice to see the group at our FLGS double in size since late last year...

[Wifflebat]

The roster name changes, whilst largely inconsequential, are a prime example of this disjointed approach. I defy anyone to come up with a singular purpose that explains even a majority of those changes.

Well, none of us know for certain (at least nobody who's telling), but I can come up with two possible reasons:

1) A creative developer on the game thinks they're better or more evocative. I know it might feel like "change for the sake of change," but if somebody who's trying to determine the creative direction of the game thinks it's better, they get to do that. Some things don't work as a democracy, and creative vision is one of them. We may not like it, but there you go. Is somebody thinking "Anointed Blitzer" is better than "Blitz-Ra really" unreasonable?

2) They're changing names like "Hobgoblin" to "Hobgoblin Runner" to pave the way for rostered star players or mixed-race teams; thus they need the "runner" suffix on there so that he can be properly swapped with a Star someday.

[Wifflebat]

And I've said it before, but if GW truly didn't care about anything but sales, they could have drastically rewritten every team. Have an old team of Wood Elves, or the Impact team? Well, they now have two Cave Bears instead of a Treeman, and Sirens instead of Wardancers. Oh, and a rostered chainsaw on every team.

Now coaches are scrambling to get new teams, because their old ones don't match. Some of us (like me) decide that their investment in teams that don't work anymore give up entirely, but plenty of them start buying minis.

I don't feel like gratitude is the right word, but I do feel like GW did the long-time players a solid by not trying to twist our arms into buying new teams. Because if the numbers JT-Y has thrown around on the boards a few times are true, they don't need us. Their sales are a hundred times greater than what the community that existed prior to BB16 were generating via third-party sellers. I don't like many of the new minis that GW has released, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not buying them. I can play with other manufacturer's components, which, when you think about it, is pretty damn cool.

[stashman]

I really like and love the new stuff GW produces. I love the cards and hope for more

The Re-Daft seems awesome.

The new weather tables - both is great and gives new blood to the game.

I like the expensive mistakes, be brave and save - it pays back!

But if our group just played with crp and a staight forward one dimensional league - yes we wouldnt like it either.

But we play a season with more than one league. We have a major and a minor league. Diffrent rules. Diffrent weather tables. Diffrent rules for picking cards depending on league.

I'm excited about Death Zone 2

[Olaf the Stout]

The big two GW games, Warhammer 40k and WHFB/AOS, are continually updated and new rules come out for the all the time. Sometimes the rules are army-specific, like new codexes; sometimes they introduce entirely new ways to play the game, like the Apocalypse 40k rules. Yes, change means that you will need to occasionally reference multiple rulebooks, but it also means the game will never become stale. It means that the product remains financially viable, with a continuing return on investment, which gives GW an incentive to not treat it like a red-headed stepchild.

Except BB isn't WH40K or Warhammer AOS. Blood Bowl has never had a codex approach and I think a lot of BB coaches would get annoyed if GW decided to have a continuous rules cycle like those games have.

This is even more true when when the rules have been in one rulebook for a decade now.

Well, no one is taking that one rulebook away from you, and even now, you could probably summarize all of the mandatory BB2016 rules changes from the CRP in a single page.

I've already outlined the problems Blood Bowl has always had as a non-revenue product for Games Workshop. It doesn't produce a long term revenue stream (or rather, it hasn't in the past), so eventually GW investment, both in sculpting time and print space, declines to nothing pretty quickly. It's just not financially viable for GW to put more money into Blood Bowl when a similar investment into one of the "codex approach" games will return a much larger profit for them.

BB2016 is changing that. So would you rather have a return to 3rd Edition: one box set, one expansion several months later, 12 teams of miniatures and stars and then nothing? Or would you rather have Blood Bowl becoming a long-term resident on the shelves, with continued support for the next five years+? With new options and rules to bring new life to old leagues?

Keep in mind that if Blood Bowl has stagnated in the 80s, we never would have had block dice. If it had stagnated in the 90s, we never would have had half the team rosters we have now. Why is it preferable to opt for stagnation, to say "this rulebook was written ten years ago and it should never change"?

I'm not suggesting everything should stay the same and never change. However, it is misrepresenting the argument to suggest that there is only the previous method of no change and what we have at the moment.

For example, 2 weeks time after the game was re-released I needed the following documents to play a game of Blood Bowl between Wood Elves and Undead:

BB Boxed Set Rulebook
Deathzone S1 Rulebook
Teams of Legend PDF
Errata PDF

I shouldn't have to refer to 4 different documents just to play a game when the game has only just been released. I just want a concise set of rules to easily refer to during a game.

Plus there are now variant rules PDFs and a Deathzone S2 Rulebook out in a couple of weeks. So the number of documents will be 6+ very soon.

[Olaf the Stout]

I think you have a very narrow view of how it was. The truth is that year on year there were fewer people playing the game. I don't care about other companies releasing BB related models, and nor does GW, and I'm damn sure these companies don't mind having increased custom either.

It was stagnant. There was no new content, nothing to attract fresh blood, and there was never going to be. Just a constantly diminishing pool of people who liked that until they got bored of it and moved on.

We have had an influx of hundreds of thousands of new players, people who otherwise would not be playing this game.
And you complain about limited edition models like G&C, or two silly rosters stuck on the app aimed at giving total newcomers something else to do with their starter set.

You'll have to forgive me for not sharing in your misery, but I'm also not having this silly argument again.

I totally agree with this statement. I fully believe that for BB to grow it needs to attract fresh blood, otherwise the game will slowly whither and die. It may be a slow death, but it will still be a death nonetheless. In order to attract fresh blood BB needs GW's support. It just isn't going to grow without it.

[Milo]

The big two GW games, Warhammer 40k and WHFB/AOS, are continually updated and new rules come out for the all the time. Sometimes the rules are army-specific, like new codexes; sometimes they introduce entirely new ways to play the game, like the Apocalypse 40k rules. Yes, change means that you will need to occasionally reference multiple rulebooks, but it also means the game will never become stale. It means that the product remains financially viable, with a continuing return on investment, which gives GW an incentive to not treat it like a red-headed stepchild.

I must admit that reading this filled me with a quiet, creeping dread. The idea that GW are now incentivised to artificially keep Blood Bowl in a constant state of flux in order to justify shelf space does not strike me as a good thing.

The danger is that rules will be added for the sake of it or, worse, to cynically advantage players who are prepared to spend more at GW stores and events. Basically exactly what we have already seen with Weeping Blades and Grak & Crumbleberry respectively.

There doesn't seem to be any vision or overarching plan driving the new rules nor any considered process for writing and testing them. The later seems to be improving but I've not seen anything addressing the former. The only stated aim of the rules changes I've come across so far are yours.

I think you're assigning nefarious motives where none exist. Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again now: CRP is a GREAT tournament ruleset. But if you look back at the history of Blood Bowl, it hasn't JUST been about tournaments. In fact, prior to the NAF's formation, it was NEVER about tournaments. It was mostly about getting together with a bunch of friends, frequently at a pub, and enjoying the wacky action of the game. Now, there's always been a competitive element to Blood Bowl, and certain gaming groups will go more towards one direction or the other, but there's nothing inherently BAD about having optional rules to restore some of the fluff, fun and flavor of the old Blood Bowl. I've seen Death Zone Season 2, and I'll tell you upfront that there's a big disclaimer that states many of the rules in it are optional ideas that commissioners can add to their league or not. (Sure, maybe the new stars and teams don't have that disclaimer, but when have we EVER had a controversy about a star or a team roster? ... That's a joke, son.)

Yes, Weeping Blades was added mostly as fluff because the models had daggers. Andy and James have mentioned that in podcasts. (Although, ironically, some of the new BB models do not.) I think they would not choose to add something like that to the game now, because they have a better understanding of the Blood Bowl community's interest in a stable, balanced ruleset. But it's done and I think it's benign enough that it likely won't be changed at this point. G&C were designed so that Blood Bowl could have a unique product for sale at GW's flagship site, just as 40k and AOS do. I've explained already why I think that's a good idea and that I don't think it will have a significant impact on the community at large. I don't think either of those were added to "advantage" coaches who are willing to spend more money.

Were they whimsy? Well, I don't think they were added on a whim, but I do think that they may have been part of a desire to add some of the more whimsical aspects of Blood Bowl back into the game. I don't think that's bad, per se, but it does need to be moderated, I think, because I don't want to damage Blood Bowl as a competitive ruleset. Ideally -- and this post is just me speaking about my opinions, not official from GW -- we'll have a stable and balanced core ruleset for competitive play and a bunch of optional rules (note that even most of DZ1 is, strictly speaking, optional) that players CAN use if they want to have a more varied and interesting league or one-off format. The NAF can (and I'm sure, will) determine what, if any, of those optional rules could be an improvement to the tournament format.

I can say that GW does have long-term plans for Blood Bowl. There are a number of respected coaches (and also myself) who have some input into the future rules. And, I'm not sure if people will remember this far back, but back when "4th Edition" came out, I was one of the most outspoken critics of the One-Skill-Per-Action rule. The internet BB community pushed back, Jervis listened to the feedback, and a terrible addition to the game was rolled back. If I see something like that again, I will be the first one leading the charge. I'm not getting paid by GW, and I am not beholden to them. (Though I am bound by an NDA, so there are things I cannot say.) I'm not saying that to "rah rah" myself or pump up my importance -- I'm just trying to convey that I'm a fan of the game, not really that different than you, and while I can't tell you everything I've seen, I can tell you that I haven't seen anything I'm concerned about in the future.