How could a new BBRC work?

[WhatBall]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'Core rules' - is that Moving, Blocking, Passing etc? If so, what is broken?

Yes, that is what I meant by core rules. As for what is broken, we can start with the kick-off table, which I don't think is properly balanced. Why should get the Ref be less common than Blitz! with the huge fouling nerf? That brings us to fouling. Then there is the under-priced Wiz, and the woeful apothecary. That is just to name a few. I am not saying rewrite everything. I understand there is huge reluctance to change the core rules, but myself, I like to think the rules can always be made better for all players to improve the game and enjoyment of it.

My belief is that changing rosters to account for issues with the rules is a band-aid solution.

Do I think the rules will ever be changed at this point? Likely not, but Sann asked "what if" and I am just being completely honest.

[Shteve0]

Bear in mind that while I'd *like* to see both, I think it would do us more damage than good to muck around with core rules and rosters.

Like I said earlier, if perpetual leagues are having issues they should look to house rule solutions to them or identify improvements in the way rosters are matched. I'm fascinated by VoodooMike's suggestion of how matchmaking can be improved, for instance, or exploring how some sort of ageing might be reintroduced only for very long term online play formats.

My point is that if there are issues experienced only (however profoundly) in one of the several environments played, then we should therefore look first to whether the problem is with the environment itself before overhauling the rules that apply to all environments, including ones that suffer disproportionately not as a result of the changes themselves but as a result of the nature of change.

It shouldn't be hard to imagine two coaches at a tournament turning up with different rulesets and the issue only coming to light once the game is underway. The job of the tournament organisers is hard enough without having to establish whether each coach in attendance has fully understood and applied the nuances of whichever version is sanctioned for the event, ditto league commissioners having to manage transitioning teams in a live season or online league management software across multiple versions of the same roster.

I get that the fantasy of reshaping the rules in a way that we're all happy with is an appealing one. I just suspect the reality of rolling one out would be horrible. In this respect I fall on the side of better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

[koadah]

Yes, that is what I meant by core rules. As for what is broken...

Most of what you're calling "broken" is just a matter of preference. Most of those things are not a big issue in any format.

A couple of skill changes and a few roster tweaks would do it for me.

[SinisterDexter]

For the sake of providing my 2c, leave the rules alone. LRB6 is as close to perfect as you're going to get and its enforced stability for so long makes it comfortably universal. Don't mess with that. At all. Just don't.

As for rosters, go for it... conservatively. Small, incremental additions or removals over long, regular periods with effective playtesting would be great.

Who should be involved? Tom Anders damnit! I'd trust him to hand pick a small group.

Nuff said.

[rolo]

Maybe the first step should be polling the community to get a list of rules which are considered "broken". Then talk about fixes.

If you ask a thousand coaches, you'll get two thousand different lists of answers ... but I suspect there are some rules which you'll see over and over.

Look on any Blood Bowl forum and you'll find someone arguing that Claw + Piling On + Mighty Blow as a combo is "too good", and needs a bit of a nerf. I've heard complaints that fouling is underpowered, at least compared to previous versions of Blood Bowl.
Personally I think that some kickoff results (Pitch Invasion, sometimes Throw a Rock) and weather (Sweltering Heat!) are good enough to swing a game on their own. Not like the kickoff table has never been changed before. Remember when Riot took away 1d6 turns?

I don't want to hijack this thread into a list of rules complaints - this is just an example of what I'd send to a BBRC if they asked what coaches liked LEAST in the game.

[harvestmouse]

The problem with house ruling for online environments is that many are opposed to house ruling. Particularly those that play TT and online.

There are somethings that are affecting other things. For example the skill access on the Khorne roster, which is just weird. The kings of killing don't have S access; why? Because of the CPOMB issue? Nobody wanted to see another CPOMB spam team, but if any team should have been, this would have been the one. So with sorting an issue like this, you can then sort an issue like Khorne.

I think the core rules have to be the same for each format of play. But I'll reiterate, using the same form of match making and handicapping doesn't benefit anybody. And each environment would benefit from a definitive guide on match making to avoid the 'you're house ruling' argument.

[koadah]

The problem with house ruling for online environments is that many are opposed to house ruling. Particularly those that play TT and online.

Well, it sounds as though Cyanide are going to do it regardless.

Fumbbl don't want to do it so they are stuck with a Black Box that is not very attractive beyond low TV/young teams.

Altering match making and handicapping are only partial solutions.

The big online perpetual leagues need better, more fine grained TV IMO. Shorter/TT leagues might not see enough enough benefit for it to be worth the upheaval.

[harvestmouse]

I think if you remove TVs influence somewhat in matching making/handicapping for a perpetual league, you don't have to play around with it too much or at all.

For me the major problem with TV for perpetual and resurrection formats is totally different. Therefore I really don't think they should be handled together. Perpetual, it's sweet spotting or min maxing of course. For resurrection, it's that a large portion of the skills are irrelevant and only serve as potential slip ups for rookies.

I really feel that commissioners would be aided by clear direction on what match making formula is recommended. Of course those with the experience to decide what is best for them can house rule and that's fine, if not optimum.

[plasmoid]

To my mind not a lot ought to be done.
IMO, short term play Works reasonably well.

In the same vein tournament play also Works quite well. I'm not worried like you (Harvestmouse) about weak skills. Or rather, I think it would be a sisyphean task to try to make all skills (somewhat) equal. One could knock the top ones Down a bit if so inclined, but for tournaments I'm not sure it's worth it.
I think the system of giving bonuses based on team tier Works quite well.
The alternative to that is roster tweaking, but tier bonuses aren't bad at all.

IMO, long term play is where the balance tends to break Down.
I'm not that worried about sweet spotting (unless straight TV-matching) because opponents can just outgrow your sweet spot.
Mind you, having your sweet spot at high TV is problematic.

To me, the problem is min-maxing - or rather it is combos that are way better than their TV cost.
To my mind that's (C)POMB and perhaps also BLODGE.

Cheers
Martin

[sann0638]

Page 6, lots of good stuff - we have had strong points on either side. Will take it back for discussion, certainly.

[harvestmouse]

To my mind not a lot ought to be done.
IMO, short term play Works reasonably well.

In the same vein tournament play also Works quite well. I'm not worried like you (Harvestmouse) about weak skills. Or rather, I think it would be a sisyphean task to try to make all skills (somewhat) equal. One could knock the top ones Down a bit if so inclined, but for tournaments I'm not sure it's worth it.

Actually I'm not talking about touching how the skills work (in this instance), more making skills viable to take. Yes, commissioners could do this, but I'd like to see it become standard.

So let's say you're allowed to take 6 skills for a resurrection format competition. You could for instance take pass block and shadowing as a 1 skill package. Or NoS, Diving Catch and Catch another example. All costing 10k. Or........we could work in 5ks, which JJ is sworn against, but would allow better tweaking.

Random weaker mutation packages you could have a lot of fun with!

[Digger Goreman]

(Blood Bowl) politics make the strangest bedfellows....

The Khorne-Bretts are so desperate to attend the dance that they will date the ugliest daughters of the wickedest step mother not understanding that you are only worth a few crowns to the old whore in the virtual realm....

Let's see how charitable Grandma Wendy has been in the past:

Dissolved the BBRC and placed gag orders....

Attacked the online community, shutting down sites and threatening legal ruin

Even took away the Blood Bowl and dice rights from the sycophantic sNAFu....

Agreed that sNAFu would love to have their tiny testicles back in granny's purse but, really, the few and deluded are banking on THAT relationship?!

Bon chance!

Show me the money and how gw gets their dividends on it, and I might stop laughing....

[VoodooMike]

Dissolved the BBRC and placed gag orders....

The BBRC was theirs to dissolve, and likely related to their plans to stop supporting the game. Gag orders... well... like most things related to GW and this community they're more a voluntary thing related to lacking a spine than they are to anything legitimate.

Attacked the online community, shutting down sites and threatening legal ruin

Threatening is the key word - they didn't shut down any sites, they just rattled their sabers and some people ran like frightened little girls. There wasn't really any force behind their threats, but most companies know that people are timid. For any site that refused to comply... nothing happened.

Even took away the Blood Bowl and dice rights from the sycophantic sNAFu....

Again, this is more related to people being afraid to get on GW's bad side than it is to any sort of legal requirement. The NAF could continue making dice using their own designs and there wouldn't be anything GW could do about it. Why the NAF doesn't do so is anybody's guess.

Agreed that sNAFu would love to have their tiny testicles back in granny's purse but, really, the few and deluded are banking on THAT relationship?!

True enough.. The NAF tries to obey GW not because they're required to but because they worry that if GW changes its mind and starts producing Blood Bowl again, that any disobedience will ruin their chances to re-establish their previous relationship with GW. I think that's a waste of time, myself, but I don't run the NAF.

Show me the money and how gw gets their dividends on it, and I might stop laughing....

There is little that GW can do about people using the same rules that governed Blood Bowl and republishing them without directly quoting the GW document verbatim, and without tripping on GW's trademarks and copyrights. It doesn't much matter whether or not GW has control or gets any money, the best they can do otherwise is make empty threats. The bigger danger is, as you say, that the NAF lacks the cajones to strike out on their own.

[Milo]

I think for the BBRC to work now, you'd need to pick a group of people that had wide respect and approval from both the online and tabletop worlds. That's going to be difficult to do. At the time of the original founding, there was basically just BBOWL-L as an online BB community. Jervis contacted me and John Kipling Lewis initially -- I was admin of BBOWL-L at the time and he was one of the most vocal posters. I recommended Chet Zeshonski, Stephen Babbage and Dean Maki for the remaining spots, and Jervis approved them. (The last spot was for Andy Hall(?), who also worked at GW.)

There was an effort to be inclusive -- Babs was around to rep Australia, Jervis felt that he and Andy represented Europe, and Chet, Dean, JKL and I were all located in different parts of the US.

But the community has grown significantly since then, and it would be hard to find people that would have that much name recognition now.

I do think that there could be value in having a BBRC, if only to finally sign off on the extra three teams (chaos pact, slaan, underworld). Potentially, they could bring additional teams to the table, test them, and work with some of the third party miniature makers to ensure that there are figures for them.

[Darkson]

I do think that there could be value in having a BBRC, if only to finally sign off on the extra three teams

They were signed off by the last BBRC, before it was dissolved.