Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » General Discussion » General Chat




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:37 am 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:22 pm
Posts: 283
Location: Melbourne, Australia
JT-Y wrote:
I shared an answer that we've given a couple of times on the BB Facebook page without really thinking just because there was a bit of disagreement.
It's an answer I wrote having been sent some confused questions about the process from the community team. In all honesty I had forgotten that some here had been confused last year.

If it's an issue for the NAF or FUMBBL, it's up to them how they deal with it.

Regardless, as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed.


It will hardly be closed until an errata or FAQ is made. If it is meant to work as per CRP, the wording is poor. As I see it, there are a few problems:
- no mention is made if the TVs change with inducements purchased
- no mention of petty cash being reduced if the underdog spends treasury on inducements
- no mention of what happens if the TV overdog becomes the TV underdog after purchasing inducements
- there does not appear to be a step where players add treasury to petty cash before purchasing inducements, before determining TV difference. This is necessary in order to determine who is the underdog.

I can't see anything in the rules to suggest it works as it did in CRP.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:59 am 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23711
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
I asked (early on) if it was intended that the underdog could become, by inducements and petty cash, the overdog, and was told it was. Has this now changed? (It was one of the reasons I stopped following BB2016 league rules, as that is/was a stupid and/or poor rule.)

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

Khorne and Bretonnian? Sorry, those don't exist - bring a real roster.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:33 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5639
Location: Swindon, England
An update of sorts in a private email from GW - basically don't expect anything official until the New Year. It's Christmas!

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:45 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5639
Location: Swindon, England
Well, I found it. http://www.sann0638.co.uk/ruling-on-inducements/

November 2nd, and refers to a future FAQ. Fingers crossed. Not that it affects me, our league uses CRP inducements anyway, but I do like the game to be properly curated.

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:24 pm 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:03 pm
Posts: 245
Location: Bristol
Ha, that change the way that almost all of us have been playing for a year with the new rules. Good to know.

_________________
Image
Champion: Chimera Cup '17
Runner-Up: Exebowl '15; GertBowl '17; Exebowl '17
Stunty Cup: Exebowl '14; Bubba Bowl '17
Others: Crumb-bowl '16 (SChWing); SAWBBowl '17 (SChWing), Christmas Chainsaw Massacre '17 (Chainsaw CAS)
Wooden Spoon: Gert Bowl '14


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:36 pm 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:40 pm
Posts: 899
Location: Derby, UK
It changes the way some people have been playing it for over a decade. Good clarification.

_________________
The brains behind the Double Skulls Podcast http://doubleskulls.libsyn.com/

Chief dream maker at J-Bone Industries https://igg.me/at/jbonefrogmen


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:40 pm 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:53 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Chorley, where the police tazer blind people rather than look for the actual sword wielding lunatic
J_Bone wrote:
It changes the way some people have been playing it for over a decade. Good clarification.


True. I meet enough people who struggle with getting the CRP version correct.

_________________

"It´s better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Erick Wujcik


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:49 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:08 am
Posts: 300
Thanks for the link Sann0638.

Now, anyone know if the Miscellaneous Mayhem deck approximates the old CRP 200k card effects? :)

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:56 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5149
Location: Copenhagen
This. is. huge.
A fix/"clarification" for the worst rule in BB2016.

Kind of deserves it's own post, doesn't it?
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: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:03 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5639
Location: Swindon, England
Yep: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=44612

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:30 pm 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23711
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
To be honest this is more of a fix rather than a clarification as I pointed out the differences between the CRP and BB2016 and that was said to be intentional.

Either that, or they didn't actually understand what they'd written.

Regardless, glad they've changed it (or are going to). Now if they'd just drop the awful off-field attrition... ;)

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

Khorne and Bretonnian? Sorry, those don't exist - bring a real roster.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:27 am 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:22 am
Posts: 97
Oh man, that is so disappointing to hear.

The upside to the way I was reading the rules was you had a lot more control over which inducements you could get to the pitch. In particular the star players like Griff and Morg, which in the past the only time you'd see them was when you were about to get your ass beat, or were about to beat someone else's ass because of the massive TV disparity required to get them. Because of the redraft rules (Nuffle bless 'em), those disparity's are a thing of the past so those players will now be even more rare*...

The other advantage was the old rules had a pretty significant underdog penalty where the inducements were intentionally designed to be poor value to cost. It DZ1 it made it seem you could offset that penalty by throwing a little extra money, to get an upgrade over what TV provided.

Damn, my favorite change turns out to be nothing more than the inability to copy/paste from the old rules.




*At least you can roster now, but still. Bad decision on the part of Specialist games.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:56 am 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:53 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Chorley, where the police tazer blind people rather than look for the actual sword wielding lunatic
That's interesting input to the subject that I can consider for the future. Thanks EastCoast. That's exactly the sort of stuff i want to hear, and does give me a couple of thoughts.
This hasn't been added to the FAQ yet, but it is how the rule has always been intended. It's unfortunate there has been a misunderstanding about it, but it's interesting to note that some players like the way it worked through misinterpretation, and that is absolutely something I plan to consider before addressing this in full in the new year.

If anyone has useful feedback like that given above, then I'm interested to hear it, it can be posted here or directed through the community team via the BB Facebook page. The latter is the best because I don't read everything here whereas the community team is very good about passing stuff on.
As of yesterday there is literally no other way to reach me with feedback I'm afraid.

_________________

"It´s better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Erick Wujcik


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:15 am 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5639
Location: Swindon, England
For clarity, is this the Facebook page you are referring to? https://www.facebook.com/Blood-Bowl-219720111727104/

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison
 Post Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:21 pm 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:22 am
Posts: 97
JT-Y wrote:
If anyone has useful feedback like that given above, then I'm interested to hear it, it can be posted here or directed through the community team via the BB Facebook page. The latter is the best because I don't read everything here whereas the community team is very good about passing stuff on.
As of yesterday there is literally no other way to reach me with feedback I'm afraid.


I'll just add it here, but anecdotally speaking, I haven't seen anyone complain about the misunderstood ruling in practice. Even on FUMBBL which is a perpetual league without redrafting, there doesn't appear to be a groundswell to move their code back to CRP. They have a post up about it, not sure if you want to look, or just avoid it out of principle.

I can't speak for every private league out there, but in the instance of my 8 team league we haven't ran into any issues with matches being unbalanced due to adding treasury after TVs are assessed. The inducements are poor value for money, so an overdog may pick up a keg or an apothecary, but anything else would be a waste. Conversely, expensive mistakes keeps treasuries low, so an underdog would rarely have more than a hundred thousand or so to add toward their inducements, which as I mentioned are poor value for money.

My biggest TV gap last season was a 220K underdog to an Orc side. I kicked 40K from my treasury and added Zug. It wound up being his only appearance of the season, but at least I got to get my very expensive toy... errr totally grown up strategy game piece off the shelf. I've also seen a couple instances where somebody kicked 10K from treasury to prevent a 40K waste of TV and instead turned it into a keg. It just feels like you have more control and is thus a much more positive experience.

The reason why I've been a fan of the BB2016 is that it kept the stout on pitch mechanics of CRP, but it removed the barriers of entry for new teams/coaches.

The pile on change means less busted rookie teams,
Expensive mistakes and redrafting is keeping TVs closer to that 1500TV sweet spot,
and I swear I thought the inducement phase was revamped so with a little bit of money, underdogs (typically the new teams/coaches) could get a more balanced variety of inducements. I actually thought this was why the wizard was missing... Hell, I even wrote a review on BGG gushing over how forward thinking that was of you guys.

If GW wants to keep selling us stars, cards, and other inducements, it would be nice to get to use them. Personally, I'd prefer if the ambiguity of the current rules stay or if they become the permanent inducement rules.

Also, since I may have your ear, I heartily endorse you making an optional rule related to MNGs. Please allow us the option to have our players "playing hurt", where you may choose to drug up your players, put them on the field, but they either gain double niggle or decay for the game. I just think it's another opportunity to allow coaches to have management input on their teams, which again, I think is a positive.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Board index » General Discussion » General Chat


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: