LRB 6.0

[DoubleSkulls]

Piling On is changed and I think that the 4.0 version was more effective.

Am I wrong? I thought Piling on in LRB4 only allows you to reroll Av, in LRB5 it allows you to reroll Av or Injury. Both at the expense of going prone.

[Tim]

Ian, you are right. Same in LRB 3.0

Before that (LRB up to 2.0) piling on was +STR to Armour roll. I guess that's what he's refering to.

[Darkson]

I have a feeling that only the FUMMBL players are entushiasts of LRB4.

Not quite. Overall I, and the other coaches in my league, much perfer LRB4 to LRB5/6 (liked Traits, liked IGMEOY, disagree with Inducements as don't agree games should be "balanced"), but that's an old agrument. If it wasn't for the fact that I've finally managed to get our group's other players to go to tourneys, we'd still be playing it.

But LRB5 "won", so if you want to play in the bigger, wider BB community, you go with the flow.


(Tourney-wise, I couldn't care less wheter it's LRB1 to 6)

[GreedySmurf]

A similar example of what is going on here is what happened with Paizo and their Pathfinder game. (http://www.paizo.com). Its essentially DND. Any one of us could re-write Blood Bowl with enough changes to have it continue on and there isn't a damn thing GW can do about it.

Very different prospect I'm afraid.

The Pathfinder game was based upon Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, which was specifically released by Hasbro as an 'Open Source' ruleset. Which allowed anyone to take the basic underlying ruleset and bolt on their own setting, (fluff) extra rules, etc. Not at all like the Bloodbowl ruleset which is owned by GW.

[Boromir_of_Gondor]

I have a feeling that only the FUMMBL players are entushiasts of LRB4.

Not quite. Overall I, and the other coaches in my league, much perfer LRB4 to LRB5/6 (liked Traits, liked IGMEOY, disagree with Inducements as don't agree games should be "balanced"), but that's an old agrument. If it wasn't for the fact that I've finally managed to get our group's other players to go to tourneys, we'd still be playing it.

But LRB5 "won", so if you want to play in the bigger, wider BB community, you go with the flow.


(Tourney-wise, I couldn't care less wheter it's LRB1 to 6)

So you'd rather be playing an unbalanced game?

[Darkson]

So you'd rather be playing an unbalanced game?

[Off-topic] Yes, if it's a game designed about progression (i.e Blood bowl, Mordheim, Necromunda) - not all teams/warbands/gangs progress at the same rate, so why should each individual match/fight/battle be of equal level? If we want to play balanced* games, we use systems that use points and pick to an agreed level (i.e 40K, Warhammer).

But this is old news to those who were on TBB or the Specialist Games forum in the days of LRB4 to LRB5. Our group didn't want "fair" games (for progression systems), others (the majority) did, and that viewpoint won (especially as it was JJ's view as well).




* I know neither 40K or Warhammer is balanced, but it's designed to be.

[DoubleSkulls]

Blood Bowl is meant to be played with different levels of progression between teams. The difference between the rules as they stand and your position was the level of competitiveness of the underdog for a given level.

IIRC you wanted significant overdogs to win an overwhelming majority of the time, however we decided we wanted the underdog always to have a chance - around 1/3 - regardless of the difference in points.

That is very fundamentally different to what you are making out. A system like a res tournament is much closer.

AFAIK WFB/40k don't really have any concept of playing unevenly matched armies against each other.

[tchatter]

A similar example of what is going on here is what happened with Paizo and their Pathfinder game. (http://www.paizo.com). Its essentially DND. Any one of us could re-write Blood Bowl with enough changes to have it continue on and there isn't a damn thing GW can do about it.

Very different prospect I'm afraid.

The Pathfinder game was based upon Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, which was specifically released by Hasbro as an 'Open Source' ruleset. Which allowed anyone to take the basic underlying ruleset and bolt on their own setting, (fluff) extra rules, etc. Not at all like the Bloodbowl ruleset which is owned by GW.

Bah, you're correct it was released as Open Source.

[DoubleSkulls]

If GW wanted to Open source Blood Bowl they could. However no one else can.

[shaniepoo]

Can saomeone please email me a copy of the LRB 5+ and teams. Thanks

[Tim]

If you google the exact filename you'll find it.

LRB_5_plus_Experimental2008.pdf

[GalakStarscraper]

If you google the exact filename you'll find it.

LRB_5_plus_Experimental2008.pdf

A public request by me (this is me asking this sincerely). I have a legal letter from GW telling me that I'm supposed to hunt down folks posting stuff based on my work.

I have no issue with the above PDF that I found on this link ... that was a public document that Jervis gave full approval to distribute to the public for playtesting efforts back in November 2008.

However without going into specifics ... there is one other document there that is a bad thing. My post in the "Changes to the BBRC" thread specifically said "PLEASE DON'T DO THIS". So whoever NRB is ... could he please get that darn thing off the net please. I want LRB 6.0 to become official and while I can appreciate that some of you are mad at what is going on ... this type of act is NOT in the best interest of the community. If after thousands of hours of work I can suck it up and not fly off the handle doing the wrong thing after the actions taken against me ... I'd ask that the rest of you who are just needing to be patient for GW to post LRB 6.0 could please do the same.

Whoever NRB is ... please help me out here. And anyone else who would fall in this category ... please help me out.

GW sent me a legal letter on Wednesday demanding that I contact http://www.archive.org to have them remove my blood-bowl.net content due to someone posting on TGN comments that you could find stuff from my deleted site there. I didn't even think of that. But what this did prove to me is that GW legal IS reading these forums and others ... so please ... help me out so we can get LRB 6.0 finished and behind me/us. Please?

Galak

[tchatter]

That "draft" is missing some of the changes anyways.

C'mon GW, just put a stop to the madness and upload the Official LRB6.0. So we can get back to playing the game.

[alternat]

looks like they're putting all of us to the test.

the best thing they should do is to upload that (put the favorite four letter word in here) of a document on their servers and stop all this circus.

by the way, I don't know if they are aware that they cannot clean up all the internet of every trace of everything... even if they can try.

[GalakStarscraper]

by the way, I don't know if they are aware that they cannot clean up all the internet of every trace of everything... even if they can try.

I think they know they cannot ... so they give me that job in a legal letter. I'm willing to play ball because like I said to me the LRB 6.0 is the bigger picture here. But I do wonder how legal that is to demand that I do the hunting.

Galak