Piling On compromize

News and announcements from the worldwide Blood Bowl players' association

Moderator: TFF Mods

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

Piling On compromize

Post by plasmoid »

Personally, I'm not crazy about the NAFs decision to stick with the old version of Piling On.
It makes it problematic to have a tournament where skill stacking is allowed (IMO).
And anything that makes straight-GW-rules-tournaments not sanctionable needs to be super important. Which this IMO isn't.
On the other hand, I can kind of see the plight of the Ogres. And perhaps Khemri... Sow how about a compromize?

A player with strength 4 or less requires a team reroll to use piling on (GW rule). A player with ST5 or higher does not (CRP rule).

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
gjnoronh
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:24 pm

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by gjnoronh »

I think that’s a pretty good approach personally.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by dode74 »

So a rule that is in neither the current ruleset not in any other previous ruleset?

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

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by VoodooMike »

plasmoid wrote:Personally, I'm not crazy about the NAFs decision to stick with the old version of Piling On.
Really? Because I think it's awesome that they consider GW's decisions on the rules of the game to be soft, while adopting homebrew rosters like Khorne and Bret from Cyanide.
plasmoid wrote:It makes it problematic to have a tournament where skill stacking is allowed (IMO).
Problematic how? The typical tournament is rez, and cpomb teams are not win machines even with stacks of killing skills. The only place people can really make a case for PO being anything approaching an issue is perpetual play full attrition environments, and even then we only really attrition differences in online play.
plasmoid wrote:And anything that makes straight-GW-rules-tournaments not sanctionable needs to be super important. Which this IMO isn't.
I agree that they shouldn't diverge from GW's rules, but I don't see you crying about the forced inclusion of those non-GW rosters.. and I'd say that's a much larger middle finger to GW's rules than PO.
plasmoid wrote:A player with strength 4 or less requires a team reroll to use piling on (GW rule). A player with ST5 or higher does not (CRP rule).
As dode said - you claim you're opposed to anything that makes straight-GW-rules-tournaments not sanctionable, then proceed to suggest another rule that would still leave things that way. What's the point of that exactly? Is it because NAF's decision isn't super important but your version of the rule is? ;)

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

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Dode and Mike,
Dode said:
So a rule that is in neither the current ruleset not in any other previous ruleset?
Only if you're nitpicking.
It's in BB2016 if the player has ST4 or less, (so all players except big Guys, Mummies and Tomb Guardians)
And it's in CRP if the player is ST5 or more.
Also - it is a big step closer to BB2016 than the current NAF ruling.

Mike said:
I agree that they shouldn't diverge from GW's rules, but I don't see you crying about the forced inclusion of those non-GW rosters.. and I'd say that's a much larger middle finger to GW's rules than PO.
You don't make sense.
a) Khorne and Brets aren't forced inclusions. You can get a tournament NAF sanctioned without allowing them.
b) Back in the time of the vote, I said that I'd not be for forced inclusion.
c) However, NAF-PiOn is forced inclusion. Meaning that this ruling prevents a straight BB2016 tournament from getting NAF sanctioning.

So, to spell it out for you, I'd prefer if NAF switched to BB2016 PiOn.
But if the plight of the Ogre team is a big deal to the NAF, then my suggested compromize is to switch to BB2016 PiOn for 95?% of the positionals.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by dode74 »

plasmoid wrote:Only if you're nitpicking.
Is it in the rules? Yes or no? Either it is and I am wrong or it is not and I am right. That's not nitpicking, it's accuracy. What you are proposing is a house rule, not a "semi official" rule.

Reason: ''
Gaixo
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:18 pm
Location: VA

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by Gaixo »

I can't see any logic in removing a version that was actually in the published rules for decades and replacing it with a completely new rule. If we were to go that route (and we're not), the pow-only compromise seems like it already has pretty strong support from the community.

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

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Nate and Dode,
@“Dode: “semi-official”?
If what bothers the both of you is me wording this as one skill, perhaps my point comes across better if it was 2 skills?
1. For all players, the BB2016 piling on is available. Moving the NAF one step closer to GW.
2. For ST5+ players, the better CRP piling on (renamed Crush?) is also available. Since the NAF stated the pligt of the Ogre team as the reason to stick with CRP piling on, it would make sense to have this deviation from GW rules apply to mainly the Ogre team rather than everyone.
3. Personally, I think it would be a surprising gamble to go with the largely intetsted POW rule, rather than the very tested CRP rule or the current BB2016 rule.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by dode74 »

I think you misunderstand. You're complaining about the NAF not doing something which is in the rulebook then proposing something which is not in the rulebook. What you are proposing is not semi-official just because half of it is in one rulebook and half of it is in another: it's simply another house rule. You are proposing a house rule which is further from any known set of rules because you don't like what has been selected.

Reference 3, nobody has suggested the NAF go with the POW version. They have gone with the "very tested" CRP version which we know there is nothing wrong with, certainly in tournament settings. So I ask: where's the issue?

Reason: ''
User avatar
Tojurub
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:56 pm
Location: Lindau

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by Tojurub »

I'm not getting this. Only a very few players at all can get the PO/MB Combo without stacking (if I'm not mistaken only ST5+ big guys). It tourney allow stacking, which are not that many (rough GUESS about 25%), do you really believe the PO/MB is the preferred skill combo for coaches? Let's be realistic, only a few coaches would do that and because of these handful you asked to create an even more complex skill description?

Reason: ''
Nuffle Sucks! Heretic, NBA
www.biboba.de
kyrre
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:44 am

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by kyrre »

While I am no fan of piling on, I do not think this is all that useful tournaments being resurrection most of the time. Does anyone not use resurrection? The problem is most apparent in Blood Bowl 2, and FUMBBL (until they changed). As for skill stacking, piling on would still come at the cost of not taking either at least on of block, claw, or mighty blow.

Are tournament organizers allowed to enforce BB2016 ruleset?

Reason: ''
straume
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:21 am

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by straume »

Well, I am not sure I agree, but I do get it.

My personal opinion is that MB+PileOn makes less interesting games. Also in ressurection tournaments. The game all of sudden is about blitzing with that killer, and hiding him. And the opponents game is about getting to the killer and try and take him out. All of a sudden you are playing a war game and not a sports game. All of a sudden careful positioning and screening the ball is mute and it is all about whether that player is on fire (well, the dice) that particular game or not.

I guess the issue I describe to a certain degree is part of every BB-match. You are in no real rush to advance and can take your time blitzing soft targets in the hope of gaining numbers advantage. And we have all been on both the giving and receiving end of "that match" where your numbers go down, it snowballs heavily and the game is over. These games are no fun for either part. MB+PO makes this more likely to be an issue, and the game less interesting.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by Darkson »

Seems a lot of words to put in for a non-issue. :-?

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
CyberedElf
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by CyberedElf »

Piling On has never been shown to cause a team to win too much! (Hot dice and Nuffle can always cause a team to win too much.)
straume wrote:My personal opinion is that MB+PileOn makes less interesting games.
+1
I don't think getting rid of PO was needed, but now that GW did it, it should be addressed and has been.
I don't think a third option that is neither the new or the old is useful. It doesn't satisfy people that want to play by BB2016/official GW. It doesn't make things simpler for anyone. It is completely a house rule that is not currently official nor has it ever been. Saying it both is and was, by splitting it, is certainly not simpler.
My preference would be to get rid of it or at least make the old version optional. While I don't think it was a problem in CRP (just boring), I don't see any real need to keep it either. Getting rid of PO and keeping Slann is kind of hypocrisy on my part, but I think a team is more integral to maintaining continuity than a controversial skill. I think it is simpler, and therefore better, to align with BB2016 unless there is a major reason not to. I don't see PO as having a major reason. The compromise I recommend is make PO optional. Let TOs and players decide if it is good for them.

Tangent: IMO GW gave at least tacit approval to Khorne and Bret. They could have stopped Cyanide from using them. I don't know the facts, but I bet Cyanide had to pay more to use those particular IPs beyond the initial contract. I bet GW did not give them a blanket permission to use any WFB IP they wanted in the initial deal. GW probably specifically approved the use of those two IPs allowing the teams. Whether GW actually made the rosters or not, they are not just house rules. Why would Khorne be more of a house rule than Slann? GW specifically chose to not publish Slann, while they chose to let Cyanide publish Khorne. (I'm in favor of allowing Slann, Khorne, and Bret.)

Reason: ''
Image
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by dode74 »

I know for a fact that GW had to approve the Khorne roster for BB1. Anything added to Cyanide's BB is approved by GW.

Reason: ''
Post Reply