Taking Back Blood Bowl

[Darkson]

I wanted to point out that house rules are a garbage fix when you are talking about the two big online sites who will likely never use the house rules for their core divisions.

Which is their problem, not the rules, which are (and should be) TT-orientated.

[VoodooMike]

I wanted to point out that house rules are a garbage fix when you are talking about the two big online sites who will likely never use the house rules for their core divisions.

Cyanide already slaps plenty of house rules onto their game - they've rolled out two rosters that aren't in the tabletop rules, changed costs and stats, and implemented a horrible mutant version of the bank rules.

I think what you're really saying is that you want the core rules changed because, to date, you've been unable to convince either of the two big online sites to implement your desired house rules, and a core rule change would make that happen.

Changes to the individual skills in the CPOMB combination will absolutely have an effect on all environments that use those skills. Creating a new rule that only applies to the full combination when you don't believe that combination is likely to show up except in long-term play is really just slapping a "you must use this house rule" rule that applies only when the game is played in those environments. Creating such rules would be... ignorant additions to the base rules because that sort of thing is exactly what house rules are about: creating or changing rules to suit your own unique play environment.

[dode74]

two big online sites who will likely never use the house rules for their core divisions.

Some of those "core divisions" are already run as house ruled divisions by using TV-based (or TVPlus-based) MM.

[Moraiwe]

In me experience with 3rd ed., there was no serious shortage of Cash.

Wow. Complete opposite experience here. You ran out of players so quickly, you rarely had enough cash to replenish your roster to 11 players.

[VoodooMike]

In me experience with 3rd ed., there was no serious shortage of Cash.

Wow. Complete opposite experience here. You ran out of players so quickly, you rarely had enough cash to replenish your roster to 11 players.

...and that, right there, is why working from data is superior to working from personal experience and gut feelings.

[celticgriffon]

From what I can remember from 3rd edition we all carried 16 players if we were able to get there.

But sometimes your first few games went to shit and that meant the downward spiral was ongoing. Starting your match with only 5 players against a full squad was more a formality than fun.

Cash was almost always plentiful after the first 5 - 10 games.

[koadah]

Changes to the individual skills in the CPOMB combination will absolutely have an effect on all environments that use those skills. Creating a new rule that only applies to the full combination when you don't believe that combination is likely to show up except in long-term play is really just slapping a "you must use this house rule" rule that applies only when the game is played in those environments. Creating such rules would be... ignorant additions to the base rules because that sort of thing is exactly what house rules are about: creating or changing rules to suit your own unique play environment.

If it was just a CPOMB whine thread then fair enough. But in a general new BBRC/rule change thread then I think it is fair enough to talk about core rule changes. Those and other changes would be tested and we would see if they were detrimental to table top leagues. I don't much/any effect on weekend res tournaments.

[VoodooMike]

If it was just a CPOMB whine thread then fair enough. But in a general new BBRC/rule change thread then I think it is fair enough to talk about core rule changes.

Then it is equally fair to voice opposition to proposed core rule changes and give rational reasons for that opposition - something that the folks promoting the changes tend not to do.

Those and other changes would be tested and we would see if they were detrimental to table top leagues. I don't much/any effect on weekend res tournaments.

If a new BBRC or anyone responsible for rule changes felt that CPOMB needed some sort of rule change to address it then sure, maybe they would. I don't think they'll "test" every random rule change someone suggests, and at best they'd be "feel-testing" as the only way to test enough to generate usable data is reasonably large-scale.

My point is simply this - the core rules are about the core game which is a match-level board game. The intra-match metagame is secondary to that, and while the rules include suggestions on how to run those, we know full well people do all sorts of weird and unrelated metagame environments from rez tournaments, to round robin leagues, to open matchmaker, etc. Those environments are all "house rules", so changing rules to suit the way your metagame environment flows should also fall into the realm of house rules.

Trying to get the base ruleset changed simply because the sites you like are not interested in adopting the houserules you want is... heavy-handed and scungy... and really, if you can't convince those sites of the wisdom of your house rules, what makes you think you'll have better luck with a new BBRC?

[Milo]

If it was just a CPOMB whine thread then fair enough. But in a general new BBRC/rule change thread then I think it is fair enough to talk about core rule changes.

Then it is equally fair to voice opposition to proposed core rule changes and give rational reasons for that opposition - something that the folks promoting the changes tend not to do.

I think both of you are right. Discussion forums like this exist expressly for discussion.

And yes, while whomever quoted me earlier was wrong about my overall stance on CPOMB, I get that it's a controversial issue. As I mentioned, my gut feeling is that a change to the core rules wasn't necessary, but if anything like the BBRC is ever re-constituted, I think it would be very reasonable for them to review it in more detail. Feedback from both the online leagues and the tabletop leagues (I saw someone posted a thread asking for people's experiences via TT) should be considered.

As one of the people who experienced the OSPA fiasco, I will never consider the feedback of players invalid. But the people who are advocating for a change need to also understand that there are a similar number of people advocating against it -- it's not as cut and dried as the OSPA issue.

[koadah]

Trying to get the base ruleset changed simply because the sites you like are not interested in adopting the houserules you want is... heavy-handed and scungy... and really, if you can't convince those sites of the wisdom of your house rules, what makes you think you'll have better luck with a new BBRC?

Partly because two members of the previous BBRC specifically said that they would like to see those two rule changes tested.

Are you guys really so scared of orcs and dwarves that you wouldn't even test changes?

What does the data from your scheduled leagues say? Are they that strong?

I think I partly understand the "we want to stick to the 'official rules'". Also, the "I want to kill loadsa stuff". But if the rules were changing anyway?
You wouldn't want to help some online guys out? (No, I wasn't asking Darkson)

Christer appeared to be ready to trial the changes but seemed to be scared off by the 'Officialists'. Cyanide preferred nerfing orcs.

[Darkson]

Christer appeared to be ready to trial the changes but seemed to be scared off by the 'Officialists'. Cyanide preferred nerfing orcs.

So why doesn't Christer (or anyone with the power) create a "test" league/MM/whatever? Hell, 2-3 years back Galak and Doubleskulls suggested some houserule changes specifically for Fumbbl (well, for Cyanide to, but no-one actually expected that to happen) and the "problem" that some online players complain they see.
There's nothing in the rules to say you have to stick to the book, except the rule that "commissioners word is law".

It seems that, for whatever reason, the "commissioner" of Fumbbl (Christer) doesn't want to allow house rules, even ones specifically suggested for his "league", so his "league mates" want to get the official rules changed to match their preferred house rules, rather than persuading the commissioner to add them.

I have got ZERO issue with online players (of any ilk) changing the rules for their formats - I played in the MBBL2 PBeM league for many years, and that was probably the most house ruled league you could think of, but I didn't expect the rules to change for any issues the MBBL2 might throw up (nor for any of the other 6 or 7 leagues I played in), we added our own changes to fit our leagues, as per the rules.

[koadah]

I don't think he has said so explicitly but I imagine he won't add an extra nerfed Box for fear of splitting the Box user base.
Test leagues may be a bit iffy if they don't attract all the sleaziest rule exploiters.

If he was going to do it he would do it on the full Box .

[Darkson]

Then get him to add (if he hasn't already) a "Fumbbl fix" to a "Fumbbl problem", and stop demanding that the core rules change, when they're working as intended for the environment they're intended for.

[koadah]

Then get him to add (if he hasn't already) a "Fumbbl fix" to a "Fumbbl problem", and stop demanding that the core rules change, when they're working as intended for the environment they're intended for.

I am not only talking about Fumbbl Black Box.

My league has a team with 5 CPOMBers + another MB. Though the league is played on Fumbbl you could build such a team anywhere if you had the patience. And perhaps a thick skin.
The team has 88 games. My own orcs have 91 games.

Was Bakunin talking about a Fumbbl based league?

[dode74]

Bakunin can house rule his league. You can (if FUMBBL allows it) house rule yours.