BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

For Fantasy Football related chat that doesn't come under any of other forum categories.

Moderator: TFF Mods

Moraiwe
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 1:22 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by Moraiwe »

JT-Y wrote:I shared an answer that we've given a couple of times on the BB Facebook page without really thinking just because there was a bit of disagreement.
It's an answer I wrote having been sent some confused questions about the process from the community team. In all honesty I had forgotten that some here had been confused last year.

If it's an issue for the NAF or FUMBBL, it's up to them how they deal with it.

Regardless, as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed.
It will hardly be closed until an errata or FAQ is made. If it is meant to work as per CRP, the wording is poor. As I see it, there are a few problems:
- no mention is made if the TVs change with inducements purchased
- no mention of petty cash being reduced if the underdog spends treasury on inducements
- no mention of what happens if the TV overdog becomes the TV underdog after purchasing inducements
- there does not appear to be a step where players add treasury to petty cash before purchasing inducements, before determining TV difference. This is necessary in order to determine who is the underdog.

I can't see anything in the rules to suggest it works as it did in CRP.

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

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by Darkson »

I asked (early on) if it was intended that the underdog could become, by inducements and petty cash, the overdog, and was told it was. Has this now changed? (It was one of the reasons I stopped following BB2016 league rules, as that is/was a stupid and/or poor rule.)

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.
User avatar
sann0638
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:24 am
Location: Swindon, England

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by sann0638 »

An update of sorts in a private email from GW - basically don't expect anything official until the New Year. It's Christmas!

Reason: ''
NAF Ex-President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League - find us on Facebook and Discord
NAF Data wrangler
User avatar
sann0638
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:24 am
Location: Swindon, England

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by sann0638 »

Well, I found it. http://www.sann0638.co.uk/ruling-on-inducements/

November 2nd, and refers to a future FAQ. Fingers crossed. Not that it affects me, our league uses CRP inducements anyway, but I do like the game to be properly curated.

Reason: ''
NAF Ex-President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League - find us on Facebook and Discord
NAF Data wrangler
User avatar
dreamscreator
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Valencia (Spain)
Contact:

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by dreamscreator »

Ha, that change the way that almost all of us have been playing for a year with the new rules. Good to know.

Reason: ''
Image
Champion: Chimera Cup '17, Coffee Cup '18, Manticore Mug '18, Lucentum Twinbowl '20, Squig Trophy II '20, No me toques los Gnoblars '21
Stunty Cup: Exebowl '14; Bubba Bowl '17; OlletaBowl '20
User avatar
J_Bone
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:40 pm
Location: Derby, UK

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by J_Bone »

It changes the way some people have been playing it for over a decade. Good clarification.

Reason: ''
The brains behind the Double Skulls Podcast http://doubleskulls.libsyn.com/

Beardman.
User avatar
JT-Y
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1340
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:53 pm
Location: Chorley, where the police tazer blind people rather than look for the actual sword wielding lunatic
Contact:

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by JT-Y »

J_Bone wrote:It changes the way some people have been playing it for over a decade. Good clarification.
True. I meet enough people who struggle with getting the CRP version correct.

Reason: ''

"It´s better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Erick Wujcik
Wylder
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:08 am

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by Wylder »

Thanks for the link Sann0638.

Now, anyone know if the Miscellaneous Mayhem deck approximates the old CRP 200k card effects? :)

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

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by plasmoid »

This. is. huge.
A fix/"clarification" for the worst rule in BB2016.

Kind of deserves it's own post, doesn't it?
Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
User avatar
sann0638
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:24 am
Location: Swindon, England

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by sann0638 »


Reason: ''
NAF Ex-President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League - find us on Facebook and Discord
NAF Data wrangler
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by Darkson »

To be honest this is more of a fix rather than a clarification as I pointed out the differences between the CRP and BB2016 and that was said to be intentional.

Either that, or they didn't actually understand what they'd written.

Regardless, glad they've changed it (or are going to). Now if they'd just drop the awful off-field attrition... ;)

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.
EastCoast
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:22 am

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by EastCoast »

Oh man, that is so disappointing to hear.

The upside to the way I was reading the rules was you had a lot more control over which inducements you could get to the pitch. In particular the star players like Griff and Morg, which in the past the only time you'd see them was when you were about to get your ass beat, or were about to beat someone else's ass because of the massive TV disparity required to get them. Because of the redraft rules (Nuffle bless 'em), those disparity's are a thing of the past so those players will now be even more rare*...

The other advantage was the old rules had a pretty significant underdog penalty where the inducements were intentionally designed to be poor value to cost. It DZ1 it made it seem you could offset that penalty by throwing a little extra money, to get an upgrade over what TV provided.

Damn, my favorite change turns out to be nothing more than the inability to copy/paste from the old rules.




*At least you can roster now, but still. Bad decision on the part of Specialist games.

Reason: ''
User avatar
JT-Y
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1340
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:53 pm
Location: Chorley, where the police tazer blind people rather than look for the actual sword wielding lunatic
Contact:

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by JT-Y »

That's interesting input to the subject that I can consider for the future. Thanks EastCoast. That's exactly the sort of stuff i want to hear, and does give me a couple of thoughts.
This hasn't been added to the FAQ yet, but it is how the rule has always been intended. It's unfortunate there has been a misunderstanding about it, but it's interesting to note that some players like the way it worked through misinterpretation, and that is absolutely something I plan to consider before addressing this in full in the new year.

If anyone has useful feedback like that given above, then I'm interested to hear it, it can be posted here or directed through the community team via the BB Facebook page. The latter is the best because I don't read everything here whereas the community team is very good about passing stuff on.
As of yesterday there is literally no other way to reach me with feedback I'm afraid.

Reason: ''

"It´s better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Erick Wujcik
User avatar
sann0638
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:24 am
Location: Swindon, England

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by sann0638 »

For clarity, is this the Facebook page you are referring to? https://www.facebook.com/Blood-Bowl-219720111727104/

Reason: ''
NAF Ex-President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League - find us on Facebook and Discord
NAF Data wrangler
EastCoast
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:22 am

Re: BB2016 to CRP Special Play Cards Comparison

Post by EastCoast »

JT-Y wrote: If anyone has useful feedback like that given above, then I'm interested to hear it, it can be posted here or directed through the community team via the BB Facebook page. The latter is the best because I don't read everything here whereas the community team is very good about passing stuff on.
As of yesterday there is literally no other way to reach me with feedback I'm afraid.
I'll just add it here, but anecdotally speaking, I haven't seen anyone complain about the misunderstood ruling in practice. Even on FUMBBL which is a perpetual league without redrafting, there doesn't appear to be a groundswell to move their code back to CRP. They have a post up about it, not sure if you want to look, or just avoid it out of principle.

I can't speak for every private league out there, but in the instance of my 8 team league we haven't ran into any issues with matches being unbalanced due to adding treasury after TVs are assessed. The inducements are poor value for money, so an overdog may pick up a keg or an apothecary, but anything else would be a waste. Conversely, expensive mistakes keeps treasuries low, so an underdog would rarely have more than a hundred thousand or so to add toward their inducements, which as I mentioned are poor value for money.

My biggest TV gap last season was a 220K underdog to an Orc side. I kicked 40K from my treasury and added Zug. It wound up being his only appearance of the season, but at least I got to get my very expensive toy... errr totally grown up strategy game piece off the shelf. I've also seen a couple instances where somebody kicked 10K from treasury to prevent a 40K waste of TV and instead turned it into a keg. It just feels like you have more control and is thus a much more positive experience.

The reason why I've been a fan of the BB2016 is that it kept the stout on pitch mechanics of CRP, but it removed the barriers of entry for new teams/coaches.

The pile on change means less busted rookie teams,
Expensive mistakes and redrafting is keeping TVs closer to that 1500TV sweet spot,
and I swear I thought the inducement phase was revamped so with a little bit of money, underdogs (typically the new teams/coaches) could get a more balanced variety of inducements. I actually thought this was why the wizard was missing... Hell, I even wrote a review on BGG gushing over how forward thinking that was of you guys.

If GW wants to keep selling us stars, cards, and other inducements, it would be nice to get to use them. Personally, I'd prefer if the ambiguity of the current rules stay or if they become the permanent inducement rules.

Also, since I may have your ear, I heartily endorse you making an optional rule related to MNGs. Please allow us the option to have our players "playing hurt", where you may choose to drug up your players, put them on the field, but they either gain double niggle or decay for the game. I just think it's another opportunity to allow coaches to have management input on their teams, which again, I think is a positive.

Reason: ''
Post Reply