Grak and Crumbleberry

[Milo]

I don't feel like gratitude is the right word, but I do feel like GW did the long-time players a solid by not trying to twist our arms into buying new teams. Because if the numbers JT-Y has thrown around on the boards a few times are true, they don't need us. Their sales are a hundred times greater than what the community that existed prior to BB16 were generating via third-party sellers. I don't like many of the new minis that GW has released, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not buying them. I can play with other manufacturer's components, which, when you think about it, is pretty damn cool.

I wouldn't say GW doesn't NEED us. Existing Blood Bowl coaches are great advocates for the game we love, and have a familiarity with the rules that will help stabilize leagues across the world. But some of the Blood Bowl releases have outsold TACTICAL MARINES. That's the most standard unit in the biggest game in GW's stable, and BB is outselling it. That should give some idea of how well it has done being back in print. So no, not everything GW is going to do is going to be aimed at making the 10-year veterans of BB happy. That's not to say they'll go out of their way to make them UNhappy, or that they won't consider the existing players, but those existing players are only one market segment they are selling to.

[Milo]

For example, 2 weeks time after the game was re-released I needed the following documents to play a game of Blood Bowl between Wood Elves and Undead:

BB Boxed Set Rulebook
Deathzone S1 Rulebook
Teams of Legend PDF
Errata PDF

I shouldn't have to refer to 4 different documents just to play a game when the game has only just been released. I just want a concise set of rules to easily refer to during a game.

Plus there are now variant rules PDFs and a Deathzone S2 Rulebook out in a couple of weeks. So the number of documents will be 6+ very soon.

How many rules books did you need to play Wood Elves and Undead two weeks after 3rd Edition was released? Hah, trick question: you couldn't, because Death Zone hadn't been released yet!

Okay, look, the Errata was bad. No one is disputing that. I think we should all expect GW to produce well-edited and proofread rulebooks, and it's certainly within your rights to criticize them for making some goofs. (I think anyone who has ever edited a document could sympathize with how easily mistakes can slip through when you've read the same pages over and over again, but that's why it's good to get more eyes on it.) GW has, to their credit, opened up the editing to other experienced coaches and I can tell you first hand there were a lot of fixes applied to Death Zone Season 2. Secondly, Death Zone Season 2 includes a revised and edited updated Skill Description list, so hopefully you can substitute DZ2 for that errata PDF and not have to bring both along with you all the time.

But why do people complain about the Teams of Legend PDF? Would you rather NOT have it? Is it just that you wish it was written into the BB or DZ1 rulebooks?

[Darkson]

1. Having a unique product is good, and I don't think anyone has argued that it's not, but come on, it doesn't take a genius to also give decent rules to go with it. The rules show that James either doesn't understand or he doesn't care or he just rushed some rubbish out.
Give BB coaches a unique product with good rules and it will sell even more.

2. Yes, all the teams should have been in BB2016 and/or DZ1, seeing as the (claimed) they weren't changing them.

[Milo]

1. Having a unique product is good, and I don't think anyone has argued that it's not, but come on, it doesn't take a genius to also give decent rules to go with it. The rules show that James either doesn't understand or he doesn't care or he just rushed some rubbish out.

Oh, come off your high horse. Do you think Galak would agree that any idiot could produce a good, well-written ruleset? Do you think he could have done as good a job as he did without all the other volunteers who helped him along the way? Do you even know what the deadlines for the project were, or how much time James was given for editing? Do you know how many people helped copy edit the BB2016 rulebook, or what other projects and deadlines were involved? It's pretty crappy for you to call a specific person out and say he doesn't care or doesn't understand.

Yes, mistakes were made. But you don't have the information to assign blame or make determinations about people's motivations like that. And even if you did -- are you going to sit here and tell us that you've never made a honest mistake in your life? Does making a mistake mean you don't care?

Give BB coaches a unique product with good rules and it will sell even more.

2. Yes, all the teams should have been in BB2016 and/or DZ1, seeing as the (claimed) they weren't changing them.

I don't remember them saying they wouldn't make any changes to them. I wouldn't have been opposed to them including the rosters in the main rulebook, but I also don't have a problem with how they did it by posting the other team rosters online. With an online team roster list, they can remove old versions as they appear in print so there is less confusion about which is the "active" list.

[JT-Y]

GW doesn't need us. NAF membership is less than 1% of starter set sales. Much less. We're statistically insignificant within the marketplace.

Remember that when you complain that they don't listen to you or that you are not willing to give them money. Especially when you are talking to myself or Milo on here, in threads that Andy and James read.

Not needed. But still wanted. Think about it.

[Darkson]

Did I say ruleset? Funny, I can't find that in my post. I said rules for the figures, which were already there advance. In fact, the rules for making Stars have been posted for years.

[Darkson]

NAF numbers may be insignificant, but we are still players and we will still buy things. Good rules = more sales, which I'd have thought GW would want.
The way you try to argue against that point seems strange.

[Milo]

Did I say ruleset? Funny, I can't find that in my post. I said rules for the figures, which were already there advance. In fact, the rules for making Stars have been posted for years.

In review, you did not say ruleset -- and I now see you were referring to the rules for the "unique product", aka G&C. I thought you were re-litigating the issues with the errata/misprints from the rulebooks. My apologies.

I mostly took issue with your ascribing negligence, carelessness or malevolence to a specific person. I think it's an unfair aspersion to make.

[Milo]

NAF numbers may be insignificant, but we are still players and we will still buy things. Good rules = more sales, which I'd have thought GW would want.
The way you try to argue against that point seems strange.

I have never tried to argue against that point. I agree that good rules are in everybody's best interest. In fact, I'm committed to doing everything I can to help produce them.

[Darkson]

That was at JT-Y (can't multi-quote on my phone).

[JT-Y]

That was at JT-Y (can't multi-quote on my phone).

Not arguing anything, there's nothing to argue and I have no interest in it as a passtime in general.
I was just responding to this, though forget to paste the quote:

I don't feel like gratitude is the right word, but I do feel like GW did the long-time players a solid by not trying to twist our arms into buying new teams. Because if the numbers JT-Y has thrown around on the boards a few times are true, they don't need us. Their sales are a hundred times greater than what the community that existed prior to BB16 were generating via third-party sellers. I don't like many of the new minis that GW has released, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not buying them. I can play with other manufacturer's components, which, when you think about it, is pretty damn cool.

And it's true, they don't really need us (and I include myself in that as a NAF member who plays most of his games at tournaments and spent years buying models from other companies), we're not a very large market, but they want us to be involved and happy, and that's worked because there are plenty of lapsed players who have returned in addition to the huge numbers of new players coming in.
It's a good thing that we're being listened to in spite of our small numbers.

[Darkson]

And I can't see how you can argue against that better rules will produce better sales. I get your pro-GW but they have produced a stinker here, and you must be able to see that even through your rose-tinted specs.

If I had a use for G&C then I'd be interested in picking them up - as it is, because the crap rules (and let's not beat around the bush, they are crap) have lead to most sensible league and tournaments not allowing them then I have no use for them other than as display pieces, so I spend my limited hobby funds on other things (mainly not GW), so they lose sales. I seriously doubt I'm the only one.

They've shown they can make decent new rules/stars (Guffle [though "Monstrous Mouth "might be a little unnecessary], the White Dwarf/Black Gobbo combination), so why not swallow their (his) pride, say they got it a little wrong and produce a updated, balanced set of rules for G&C, meaning they'll have more sales. I'm sure if they asked the playtesters and others you could come up with a set of balanced rules that keep the spirit of what G&C is about that is acceptable to players, new and old.

[faust_33]

Yea, if Grak and Crumbleberry were re-released in plastic, made readily available, and added the "loner" skill, then I would certainly bite.

Even if they were just readily available and not super expensive, I would pick them up and house rule in "loner". It's a nice set of figs and interesting rule, so why shouldn't more people have them?

[Olaf the Stout]

For example, 2 weeks time after the game was re-released I needed the following documents to play a game of Blood Bowl between Wood Elves and Undead:

BB Boxed Set Rulebook
Deathzone S1 Rulebook
Teams of Legend PDF
Errata PDF

I shouldn't have to refer to 4 different documents just to play a game when the game has only just been released. I just want a concise set of rules to easily refer to during a game.

Plus there are now variant rules PDFs and a Deathzone S2 Rulebook out in a couple of weeks. So the number of documents will be 6+ very soon.

How many rules books did you need to play Wood Elves and Undead two weeks after 3rd Edition was released? Hah, trick question: you couldn't, because Death Zone hadn't been released yet!

Okay, look, the Errata was bad. No one is disputing that. I think we should all expect GW to produce well-edited and proofread rulebooks, and it's certainly within your rights to criticize them for making some goofs. (I think anyone who has ever edited a document could sympathize with how easily mistakes can slip through when you've read the same pages over and over again, but that's why it's good to get more eyes on it.) GW has, to their credit, opened up the editing to other experienced coaches and I can tell you first hand there were a lot of fixes applied to Death Zone Season 2. Secondly, Death Zone Season 2 includes a revised and edited updated Skill Description list, so hopefully you can substitute DZ2 for that errata PDF and not have to bring both along with you all the time.

But why do people complain about the Teams of Legend PDF? Would you rather NOT have it? Is it just that you wish it was written into the BB or DZ1 rulebooks?

I know you were tongue in cheek, but GW should be improving on something done 20+ years ago.

Having personally proof read documents for 10,000 copy print runs, I can understand that mistakes creep through, especially when you start to forget which version out of 6 versions you agreed to go with in the end. It's a horrible feeling when you spot an error in something you missed a dozen times when proof reading.

That said, I am glad that they have made some changes to how they are running things on the back end and hopefully the number of editing errors decreases as a result.

My complaint in regards to the Teams of Legend PDF is that I wish it was included in the BB or DZ1 rulebooks so the rosters were all in the one place, instead of in multiple places. I'd definitely rather have it than not have it (although, technically it doesn't really matter to me as I would just use the CRP team rosters anyway).

[Olaf the Stout]

But some of the Blood Bowl releases have outsold TACTICAL MARINES. That's the most standard unit in the biggest game in GW's stable, and BB is outselling it. That should give some idea of how well it has done being back in print. So no, not everything GW is going to do is going to be aimed at making the 10-year veterans of BB happy. That's not to say they'll go out of their way to make them UNhappy, or that they won't consider the existing players, but those existing players are only one market segment they are selling to.

This I am very happy to hear. I know that some of the initial BB re-releases sold better than GW expected, but I wasn't sure if it was because they set their expectations very low. Good sales figures means that they are likely to keep producing more stuff for the game and supporting it, which will help increase player numbers.