Official Rules

[garion]

Is there somewhere where we have 100% clarification on official core rules and what is optional.

Specifically-

* Special play cards in the main rules are we taking free cards pre game or not. Are cards totally optional like staidum rules etc..?
* How cash is handled in the inducement phase (as I have read this has now reverted to CRP implementation)
* What star players do skaven currently have access to? i.e. can they have two ball and chain stars on the pitch at the same time?
* What about the other teams, which star players do they have? are we using the CRP ones still to make up the numbers?
*Also I have seen a few posts in various places from JY-T saying the Cyanide Khorne and Bretonnian, and also the slann rosters are not in anyway official and GW will not be making them official. If we can get clarifications like this on an FAQ too please.

Please can we have a post somewhere with clear clarification on this stuff?

Drip feeding us the rules like this is starting to get very hard to keep track of what is official and whats not. Would it be possible to make the amended rules available online? Even if we have to pay for it? As there have been a few erratas. We need everything in one place. FAQs and updated official rules.

p.s. I do not want any posts saying - "play with what ever rules you want everything is optional". This is not the place for that nonesense, which makes a mockery of the work people put in to making the rules.

edit: I am also aware of Milo's thread, however it is out of date sadly, it doesn't address the problems with official core rules and optional rules. It also doesn't address the issue with cash adding to Tv or not for inducements, and it doesn't address the lack of an online official resourse in which we can see the up to date errated rules.

[Christy42]

A good reference would be nice as well. I.e. These rules are mandatory and can be found here.

So even if we don't get a compendium we do at least get a reference sheet.

[mawph]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=44053&p=779380&hilit=core#p779380

Aha. if you saw something else in this space, ignore and move on

[JT-Y]

I think this is exactly the place for nonsense personally, but this is not the place for official answers I'm afraid. Anything I say here is me as a hobbyist discussing my hobby and occasionally giving a bit of insight into things.

Submit your questions to the Community team, easiest way is via the BB Facebook page. They'll answer them.

Thank you.

[garion]

I think this is exactly the place for nonsense personally, but this is not the place for official answers I'm afraid. Anything I say here is me as a hobbyist discussing my hobby and occasionally giving a bit of insight into things.

Submit your questions to the Community team, easiest way is via the BB Facebook page. They'll answer them.

Thank you.

Is there another way to do so? Some of us do not and will not use facebook?
As Milo and yourself have until now been using TFF as a place to keep us up to date on official rulings I felt it fine to post this request from the wider community here.

I think the OP is a pretty fair request, especially in light of the post saying "inducements - cash adds to TV", reverting to CRP rules, was put up.

[lunchmoney]

+1 to the not using FB group.

[Darkson]

There is a direct email that goes to the Blood Bowl team that has been posted repeatedly on the Facebook page, but I'm buggered if I can find it now (not helped by FBs search being awful).

At least try uk.custserv@gwplc.com

[gjnoronh]

Some of the things in the primary post I would argue are up to you and your gaming group to decide how you want to play.


For example-
BB2016 has a roster of star players that have been released to date - this is not the same as the list of CRP players or the list of NAF star players. What is fieldable in your game depends on your group/event. The official BB2016 answer is not going to recommend using CRP rules it's going to say use what we have published so far. I'd argue most comissioners and TO's would allow CRP or the NAF list or either of those + Spike. But that's because most of us are allowing a hybrid of GW official and previous rules sets.

My league sometimes uses Special Play cards per Deathzone/Almanac and sometimes doesn't (I'm the commissioner) depending on which players are playing and whether they own the cards. BB2016 specifically gives you options on how you could use them in your leagues https://www.bloodbowl.com/wp-content/up ... nts-v2.pdf


Blood Bowl is at it's heart a beer and pretzel game with either league play or tournament play being the main ways it's played. In both cases theres is an organizer who can pick and choose how they want to modify the rules -and there are significant grey areas (i.e. star players, sponsorships, and some 'new' inducements) that we see variation on how they are used. The random pick up game of Blood Bowl between two players who don't know each other and need to negotiate what rules are being used happens far less with BB then it does with say 40K or AoS.


For official FAQ submission I know there are specific email addresses for 40K and AoS such as :
AOSFAQ@gwplc.com

I couldn't find an equivalent for Blood Bowl and other specialist games but I suspect you could use:
custserv@gwplc.com

They'll probably forward it for an official answer.

I used to serve in the WFB 6th -8th era on a group of gamers who interacted with the GW head rules person of the time to help submit FAQs.
Random semi official statements by a GW developer on a forum or at an event always threw a wrench into the formal FAQ process. Was that random statement of their thoughts the "official" rule? Was it just their initial impression and not 'official.' If it's not in a downloadable FAQ how can someone else actually verify that someone saying 'I read it on a forum once' is actually right?\
JT-Y's approach is very reasonable to avoid all sorts of headaches.


Addendum written _after_ JT-Y's response below
Sorry Garion for the 'nonsense' answer but unfortunately that 'nonsense' is likely the correct and 'official' answer for a game like Blood Bowl. The Blood Bowl Rules set is designed to fairly 'open source' with a lot of options that you can choose whether or not to use in your games. The hard work done by the rules design team is specifically designed to allow us to adjust as we like (see the special play card options listed above officially, Golden Era Stars sponsorships etc.)

Non GW produced items (Khorne/Brets/CRP stars) aren't going to get official sanction or likely official permanent denial until such time as they get to them in the rules re-release cycle. Presumably on a team by team basis in SPIKE for the foreseeable future. Why say 'we will never do a Khorne team ever' officially? If Blood Bowl from GW sells well over the next few years and every one of the existing NAF teams gets released they might say there is a desire for Khorne/Brets. Maybe a sculptor comes out with a Khorne idea that will sell like hotcakes and they decide to do it before all the GW/NAF teams get released who knows. More importantly how would it help GW (or us gamers) to have an official statement on record now?

[JT-Y]

^ That. Is a very sensible response.

There isn't a direct email for BB because we've never needed one funnily enough. Also because the guy who runs the community Team is a very keen BB player and does a great job of answering most questions that come their way.
I'd say use the customer service email to reach the Community team who will forward it.

[garion]

Non GW produced items (Khorne/Brets/CRP stars) aren't going to get official sanction or likely official permanent denial until such time as they get to them in the rules re-release cycle. Presumably on a team by team basis in SPIKE for the foreseeable future. Why say 'we will never do a Khorne team ever' officially?

I'm not saying I need a statement saying that Khorne will never get a team, I suspect one day they will (hopefully not the current Cyanide roster mind). I would just like clarification that those 2 (or 3 teams including Slann) are not official currently and not part of the rules currently as far as GW are concerned.

I totally understand that this game can be house ruled. But if I am making a rule kit as a league commissioner how can I do so effectively when it is not clear what is mandatory and what is optional.

For example its appears as though cards are listed in 2 seperate parts of the rules as part of main rules. 1 - in the extra rules section it does not elude to them being optional, unlike time limits in which the wording clearly suggests this is optional. Then in the league pre game section it has draw cards clearly listed as one of the steps. While at the same time we are told they are purely optional (which i am more than happy about as some of them add far too much luck to a game).

Then we have the recent post on facebook and NAF stating that cash adds to TV in the inducement phase, however it is not in the official FAQ on bloodbowl.com. This is a huge change, and I pray this is written up in one of the new spike magazines as the 2016 way of handling cash was one of the biggest criticisms of this rule set. So we really need clarification.

The star players thing is less of an issue, though it would still be nice to get clarification on somethings.

We shall see what they say though...

[Don__Vito]

On an unrelated side note... are you getting into tabletop Tom? Still in the North East? Be happy for you to join the GBBL if you are!

Carry on!!!

[Moraiwe]

I'm not saying I need a statement saying that Khorne will never get a team, I suspect one day they will (hopefully not the current Cyanide roster mind). I would just like clarification that those 2 (or 3 teams including Slann) are not official currently and not part of the rules currently as far as GW are concerned.

Seriously? This is such a ridiculous demand. There's no rules of any kind in any current GW product for Bretonnians, Khorne or Slann. Are you really asking GW to make a clarification that essentially says "everything that isn't in the rules is not actually part of the rules"?

[Mystic Force]

I have gone back and forth on my thoughts on this one as I have read the various posts.

I think there is some kind of middle ground here which is a useful reference, without tying the hands.

I think the games rules could be defined in to 3 different categories

A) Core rules. The rules that define how to play the rule, such as blocking, agility roles, skills and rosters etc

B) Choices, sections where you have to actively choose between two or more possibilities, sometimes this includes a default choice that you might not realize you make without thinking about it. But a choice of some sort is made.

C) Optional, rulea that some how alter the regular rules, that are defined as opt in, and by agreement (Or by assignment by TO or LC)

Note that due to the nature of the game, there is often a 4th category of rules which our ones created by us to serve some purpose of our own requirement.

We could as a group go through the rules and divide up the rulebooks and assign each section to a catergory say BB 2016 p2 - xy core rules

Or

Roster are X, Y, Z from DZ1 A, B, C and D from teams of legend.

Then where we have options it can say DZ1 page ab options for X 1) hdhfjf 2) u ed jfjfj 3) jdjdis. The defaut option is option 3

This idea is not that it interprets rules but make it easy to reference where in the rules something is and what you have to decide. All items would point at the appropriate page and book location. Its all about cross referencing not interpreting. For example absent of a roster from the released material its not a GW roster.

It could usefully then outline what the default position of the game or spell out where you must decide.

I think as a group this would be relatively easily achieved , without any official endorsement, although a "you really got the wrong end of the stick" without suggesting how the stick should be held would not go a miss.

None of this precludes the inclusion of stuff beyond the listed material, ie using those additional teams, it just not grounded in any of the GW resources, but comes from an outside source.

[MacHurto]

Where does it say cash adds to TV? That makes no sense if you use the redrafting rules

[JT-Y]

When you spend on inducements you temporarily increase tv. That has no bearing on redrafting.