Blood Bowl 2016 - the full list of changes

[Stout Youngblood]

Okay, I'll bite: What have they changed, I mean, actually changed? What is different between the CRP and BB2016 that is ruining it for you? This is not a chance to complain about optional rules that have been added and can be ignored as you wish, I want an actual list of changes made to the core rules.
And what indicates a slash and burn approach to the game?

The "core" rules, i.e. passing, blocking, etc. next to If not nothing. They did change quite a bit with Death Zone season one and League play. You may consider these "optional" but many people try to play as close to these as possible and some of the changes are not balanced and may start to splinter the player base, which GW could care less about as long as they are making money.

[gjnoronh]

Okay, I'll bite: What have they changed, I mean, actually changed? What is different between the CRP and BB2016 that is ruining it for you? This is not a chance to complain about optional rules that have been added and can be ignored as you wish, I want an actual list of changes made to the core rules.
And what indicates a slash and burn approach to the game?

I agree with this question what has changed, what actually matters?
1. Pile on moved to optional and costs a Reroll - I get that some people loved it but it doesn't seem missed in our BB16 league with a lot of old school coaches. Obviously the Claw-PO-MB builds are nerfed but does that matter.
2. Expensive mistakes in place of spiraling expenses - again doesn't seem to be a problem in our league. Spiraling expenses doesn't seem to be 'missed' by long term coaches.
3. Human catchers cheaper - seems not to be any complaints.
4. Argue the call is back - most everyone seems to be love this.
5. Complicated End of Season rules - seems to be a bit of a pain in the neck but not really an issue for non league play. So far hasn't been an issue for league play locally.
6. Timmm-ber added for Halfling treemen - again seems well received universally
7. MVP is now to one of three assigned players. Seems well received no more dead lineman getting the MVP
8. Weeping Dagger added to gutter runners - universally thought to be a mistake but also one universally though to come up fairly rarely.
9. No wizards - beats me how folks feel about this change. Wouldn't surprise me if they made a return in deathzone 2 or dungeonbowl
10. Various positional name changes - who cares? Call them the old names if you like.
11. 21 teams instead of 24 NAF teams - clearly an issue but some of those teams (Slann) haven't fit GW's miniature line and fluff for decades (I played 3rd ed WFB and 2nd ed BB when a slann team made more sense.)


@Sundevil I had the same feel listening to your recent episodes. In my opinion it felt like you weren't giving new BB a fair shake. Just a listener who otherwise very much enjoys your show.

[Steam Ball]

1. Pile on moved to optional and costs a Reroll - I get that some people loved it but it doesn't seem missed in our BB16 league with a lot of old school coaches. Obviously the Claw-PO-MB builds are nerfed but does that matter.

PO was blamed to be problematic in never ending leagues where some teams min maxed and grew piles of money. Other solutions were proposed, and if the issue was the min max or the money hoarding (or the lack of risk for POers), it could stay as before and fix the real issue (as in: penalize min maxing; Bank rule, or Expensive Mistakes, both make hoarding non optimal... but one is "out of the pitch" mechanism; improve fouls or make PO risky because it can be prone or stunned; etc). Current solution depends on scarce resource, pretty much making it a waste of TV (and ink in the book).

2. Expensive mistakes in place of spiraling expenses - again doesn't seem to be a problem in our league. Spiraling expenses doesn't seem to be 'missed' by long term coaches.

Spiraling Expenses can be used with Expensive Mistakes. You realized PO is optional now... so is SE (other column of the page).

5. Complicated End of Season rules - seems to be a bit of a pain in the neck but not really an issue for non league play. So far hasn't been an issue for league play locally.

End of season doesn't apply for never ending, unless house ruled to be every X matches. And some rules are like Ageing, again "out of the pitch, lose things" mechanism.

7. MVP is now to one of three assigned players. Seems well received no more dead lineman getting the MVP

Pretty much in CRP options (but not defaults).

[CyberedElf]

Okay, I'll bite: What have they changed, I mean, actually changed? What is different between the CRP and BB2016 that is ruining it for you? This is not a chance to complain about optional rules that have been added and can be ignored as you wish, I want an actual list of changes made to the core rules.
And what indicates a slash and burn approach to the game?

Cards that used to be costed 200k now cost 100k as inducements. I am so thankful for the optional rules that have fixes for this. But this is an actual change that does damage the game, IMO.
I could be wrong, but Grak and Crumbleberry were not introduced as optional. They are an actual change.
You could say everything is optional, but then it was a stupid question to ask what's different and bad but not optional.
Of course people can and will house rule whatever works for them, actual and optional. But the downside is inconsistency between leagues.
It doesn't really worry me though. We will have to debate, argue, and select from everything GW puts out. But I still accept that headache, if it means getting publicity and more interest.

[stashman]

In old CRP - when was a 200k card a better choice than a wizard for 150k + dirty trick or babe for 50k

Never!!! So the 200k cards wasn't that playable..

[CyberedElf]

In old CRP - when was a 200k card a better choice than a wizard for 150k + dirty trick or babe for 50k

Never!!! So the 200k cards wasn't that playable..

Just because wizards and babes were better than almost all other inducement choices (rerolls, bribes, star players, . . .) doesn't mean the 200k cards weren't balanced at 200k.
When were two wandering apothecaries a better choice than a wizard and a babe? Oh yeah, never. That is a statement about wizards being improperly costed, not the 200k cards.
Honestly, I agree the 200k cards are a little weak. But making all cards cost the same was not the solution. I would have been fine, if 200k cards were now 150k, and the 50k stayed 50k.

[stashman]

In old CRP - when was a 200k card a better choice than a wizard for 150k + dirty trick or babe for 50k

Never!!! So the 200k cards wasn't that playable..

Just because wizards and babes were better than almost all other inducement choices (rerolls, bribes, star players, . . .) doesn't mean the 200k cards weren't balanced at 200k.
When were two wandering apothecaries a better choice than a wizard and a babe? Oh yeah, never. That is a statement about wizards being improperly costed, not the 200k cards.
Honestly, I agree the 200k cards are a little weak. But making all cards cost the same was not the solution. I would have been fine, if 200k cards were now 150k, and the 50k stayed 50k.

Well, not even 150k. I think we are so distracted to 200k because it was like that even though it was not worth it.

Miscellaneous Mayhem are worth 100k as an inducemenr but to good to be a free draw special play card. Thats the problem.

I have all the other new packs and misc is the only one that you will draw from.

[CyberedElf]

I have all the other new packs and misc is the only one that you will draw from.

My FLGS owner mentioned an English vs. American perception that helped to enlighten me. Obviously, grouping all people of a nationality into a stereotype is erroneous, but it can sometimes prove insightful. Americans are more worried about competition and balance. Obviously, this game was never intended for perfect balance. Choosing from great or awful decks is a choice in how we play the game. Just like choosing to play halflings. This makes the recent actions of GW make more sense to me.

I am competitive. I may handicap myself and play halflings, but I try to do my best within those constraints. It would be weird for me to not make the best choices during each game.

I think I understand what they are doing though. The problem is that they are trying to sell to me. They need to understand their audience, not the other way around. Honestly, I think they are figuring it out. I just wish they had not stumbled so much in that learning process.

[sann0638]

Erm, are you saying that Brits are not too worried about playing the game competitively?

[Digger Goreman]

Wow, Cyber, how many years has this "professional", publicly traded, company had to figure this out?

[Stout Youngblood]

Wow, Cyber, how many years has this "professional", publicly traded, company had to figure this out?

Just because the company has been around a while doesn't mean those running it have been. How many CEOs have they gone through since they went public? 4, 5, more?

[Mori-mori]

What bothers me in the Death Zone extensions is this new rule regarding cards, that you need to draw them at the start of each match, for free - and I believe it's now mandatory, official rule. Though the very idea is, imo, wonderful, as those cards were mostly unused before, despite bringing that much more fun to the game, I'm really not sure allowing to choose from what deck to draw them is a good idea.. At least CRP decks are not equal. Hell, they are even priced differently (as inducements), so it's clear they are not equal. I believe the meta was already devised, which deck is better. So, unless new decks were totally changed and reshuffled, it just opens avenue to attempts of cherry-picking the best special play cards each match, for free. That greatly decreases variety of outcomes, again resulting in the situation where a lot of cards will never be used. I think they should have required to draw cards in completely random fashion, in such case (say, by choosing the deck to draw from with D6)

[Mori-mori]

@CyberedElf kindly notified me that I missed some errata where they actually addressed the issue with cherry-picking the best decks, so it's not a problem anymore. That's great news, actually May be one day we'll see Cards implemented in Cyanide's BB3 in all their glory. Can only cross my fingers..

[Mori-mori]

After reading it properly, I'm not so sure it solves it anymore.. All of 3 methods it offers still allow coaches to choose the deck to draw from, some way, or another (though, the "variant 2" follows it with a very interesting play, but nevertheless..). And though some of them will force you to consider possibility of the opposition drawing from the same deck as well, that probably alone won't be enough to deter you from using the most powerful deck anyway. Neither of 3 offers truly random way of choosing them.

Here is "variant 4" that would really be it, imo: "roll 2D6 and consult a table to see which deck the result corresponds to; each coach draws one card from it; roll 2D6 again, and do the same; continue till the required amount is drawn" (and then it could be followed by these series of card exchanges from "variant 2", to spice it up). 2D6 is used as it will be easier to map results to decks, and to perhaps weight decks differently (giving more powerful decks lesser chance to be used). Seems extremely simple and straightforward, to me. So, they deliberately insist that coaches must be allowed to choose decks (thus opening an avenue to cherry-picking)? I wonder what is the reason of it..

[JT-Y]

The cards remain optional though. Some people use them, some don't. They arent mandatory, just as Illegal Procedure and 4 minute turns are not mandatory.

I you wish to use them I suggest variant 1 as being the most balanced, or simply selecting 1 deck as per variant 3 and both players drawing from that. Or even a combination of the two.