Questions for a Q&A about the new rules - please contribute

[ArrestedDevelopment]

The idea that PO was not removed/deleted is something I see everywhere, and yet, I must question it.

Because you see "just deleted from the game" is pretty much what they did. The super-nerfed, 'hobson's choice' version of piling on is presented as an optional rule for leagues, alongside the "we recommend you don't..." spiel, ie. it's about as core as selecting your own MVP was in CRP. And yet everywhere I look I see people discussing as if this "team RR PO" is the native state.

I understand chagrin with the rule being presented as optional - because in effect, it's a bit of a pointless endeavour: if you're going to optionally rule piling on back in, you may as well just invoke "commissioner's right" and implement CRP PO. But even making that decision to rule in the "nerfed PO" is already a modification that might not happen.

I really do think the intention of the design team was to present an illusion of choice, what I can't understand is why so many people are adopting the mirage as the default.

[VoodooMike]

I could say the same to you too. You still dont get it.

You could say the same about me but you'd be wrong.. and it's you who doesn't get it. Not all positions are the default position, and that seems to be the thing you can't wrap your head around. The rules as written in the CRP being functional and appropriate is the default position because those are the rules. You deciding that there's a problem with them is the alternative position, and it's one you have to prove. People don't need to prove the default position - it's the null hypothesis.

Those rules have been in place for YEARS, and in that time they've been played extensively, and tons of data has been recorded regarding the outcome of matches using those rules. That data has been examined extensively, too, and no evidence has been found to support the idea that anything like CPOMB gives teams an unfair advantage... in fact, the data says those teams still perform rather poorly even at high TV levels when we control for environmental composition.

So the things you bitch about run contrary to all evidence. It's not just that you have no evidence... there IS evidence, and that evidence says you're completely full of crap. You cleave to your belief anyway. That's religion... pure and simple.

So.. your belief that MY belief is as unfounded as yours is, in fact, as unfounded as your original belief. In for a penny, in for a pound.. at least when it comes to your ignorance.

We are talking about a board game and I would say the imperative of (this) board games is to be fun. If it stops being fun, its loses all meaning.

A lot of people think games are more fun when they win... that doesn't mean that refusing to play the game unless they win is somehow a reasonable position. It also doesn't mean they're actually playing that game at all if their opponent lets them win every time just to get them to "play" it. Such a person really has no business discussing the real game with actual players. Their play is to the real game what masturbation is to sex. Their experience is illusory and not based in the same paradigm as the actual game or act.

So I would say that, you can probably make good game design, and make games where the 'objective' numbers set by the game designeres are meet, but if something is experienced as way out of place en masse, the game is at least not as fun as it could be and probably drives people away. At least...

If the experience was really that bad people wouldn't be playing teams that make you cry... but they do. Blood Bowl has a fairly enduring playerbase and community in spite of it including things you don't like for years. Maybe you spend too much time in a crybaby echo chamber?

But lets see Mike, now the game design is in the hands of 2 GW employees that are trying to sell as many mini's as possible, so we may both be disappointed over the next year or two.

What they choose to do will not vindicate anything - it will simply be what they decide to do. I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not they "nerf" CPOMB or any other aspect of the game, I'm simply tired of whiny bitches who declare there's a "problem" but across YEARS cannot muster a single shred of evidence to support themselves. It's ridiculous.

The idea that PO was not removed/deleted is something I see everywhere, and yet, I must question it.

It was removed from the base rules, yes... but very few people play by the base rules in TT, and so far no online venue has said it plans to remove PO.. so realistically it isn't all that removed yet. Commissioners need to decide what they want to do with their own leagues.

If it becomes standard in tournaments.. or Cyanide yanks it... or even if FUMBBL does from R or B... then people might take the removal seriously. As it stands the new rules are still being mulled over by the people who actually play Blood Bowl who, until now, have been used to GW f'ing off and leaving things to others... it'll be a slow adoption.

[Bakunin]

You are the dumbass and the dogmatic one. We are talking about a board game and not science etc.
And there's lots of evidence that people dont like clawpomb, and thats the evidence you want when making a board game. Survey based evidence.

Not matter what. Clawpomb have been nerfed and thanks for that, and anyone using the CRP pile on is using house rules.

[lunchmoney]

have been nerfed and thanks for that, and anyone using the CRP pile on is using house rules.

Anyone using PO, in any form, is using house rules now.

[lunchmoney]

Plus can the insults stop? There is no need and it doesn't make pleasant reading.

[ArrestedDevelopment]

The idea that PO was not removed/deleted is something I see everywhere, and yet, I must question it.

It was removed from the base rules, yes... but very few people play by the base rules in TT, and so far no online venue has said it plans to remove PO.. so realistically it isn't all that removed yet. Commissioners need to decide what they want to do with their own leagues.

If it becomes standard in tournaments.. or Cyanide yanks it... or even if FUMBBL does from R or B... then people might take the removal seriously. As it stands the new rules are still being mulled over by the people who actually play Blood Bowl who, until now, have been used to GW f'ing off and leaving things to others... it'll be a slow adoption.

Sure Mike, no argument from me here on that at all.

The issue, for me, is this pervading idea that "PO was nerfed" - it wasn't. If you use the rules as written then it isn't there, if you don't... then who cares? Why bother using the suggested "Team reroll PO"? If it doesn't suit your league, make something that does - that's the essence of BB since... well, forever.

But instead we've got this vapid back-and-forth in a lot of discussion of BB2016 of "Nerfed PO". Even here, in this thread, you've got discussion of the amended team-reroll-using PO as if it is the default state in the rulebook.

And yet I've not heard of anyone actually using it yet. Why would you? It's a non-choice. If PO was a problem, flat out remove it, if it wasn't - house-rule CRP PO in, instead of a version that, really, just looks like it was included so people would say "that's not even worth taking", effectively removing it anyway.

[bruce888]

We play original deathzone edition (before LRB) in my league. With one added stat BH - ball handling and a rule that Certain skills may not be taken by more than 4 players in a team. So Pile On, Razor Sharp Fangs, and Diving Tackle

[VoodooMike]

The issue, for me, is this pervading idea that "PO was nerfed" - it wasn't. If you use the rules as written then it isn't there, if you don't... then who cares? Why bother using the suggested "Team reroll PO"? If it doesn't suit your league, make something that does - that's the essence of BB since... well, forever.

Well, again... I think its about people trying to decide what they're going to do about PO in their own leagues, and what they feel should be done about PO in the large online environments. People WANT consistency, and they're trying to hammer out what that'll mean in the coming year(s) now that these new rules are out.

People sort'v want to settle on "so what are we all going to do with this?", and then have some consistency. You're absolutely right that people can house rule their own leagues any way they want, and to that end BB2016 is just a bunch of suggestions... or in organized play, they're immutable laws... but GW organized play is not yet in effect.

And yet I've not heard of anyone actually using it yet. Why would you? It's a non-choice. If PO was a problem, flat out remove it, if it wasn't - house-rule CRP PO in, instead of a version that, really, just looks like it was included so people would say "that's not even worth taking", effectively removing it anyway.

I think that the people who feel PO is a problem are not comfortable with just removing PO altogether. It's a bit like saying your hand hurts and getting the response "live with it, or cut your hand off". Those folks want to see some aspect of CPOMB toned down, and they want to toss around the idea that GW has for a tone-down. That's all.

I don't think CRP's PO is a problem, so.. not me.. but I understand why the debating goes on

[fromherashes]

The idea that PO was not removed/deleted is something I see everywhere, and yet, I must question it.

It was removed from the base rules, yes... but very few people play by the base rules in TT, and so far no online venue has said it plans to remove PO.. so realistically it isn't all that removed yet. Commissioners need to decide what they want to do with their own leagues.

If it becomes standard in tournaments.. or Cyanide yanks it... or even if FUMBBL does from R or B... then people might take the removal seriously. As it stands the new rules are still being mulled over by the people who actually play Blood Bowl who, until now, have been used to GW f'ing off and leaving things to others... it'll be a slow adoption.

Sure Mike, no argument from me here on that at all.

The issue, for me, is this pervading idea that "PO was nerfed" - it wasn't. If you use the rules as written then it isn't there, if you don't... then who cares? Why bother using the suggested "Team reroll PO"? If it doesn't suit your league, make something that does - that's the essence of BB since... well, forever.

But instead we've got this vapid back-and-forth in a lot of discussion of BB2016 of "Nerfed PO". Even here, in this thread, you've got discussion of the amended team-reroll-using PO as if it is the default state in the rulebook.

And yet I've not heard of anyone actually using it yet. Why would you? It's a non-choice. If PO was a problem, flat out remove it, if it wasn't - house-rule CRP PO in, instead of a version that, really, just looks like it was included so people would say "that's not even worth taking", effectively removing it anyway.

We've literally removed Piling-on from our League as it's in the optional rules and we thought we'd try without it. Will report back if it's a non-issue or not...

[VoodooMike]

We've literally removed Piling-on from our League as it's in the optional rules and we thought we'd try without it. Will report back if it's a non-issue or not...

Oh, I can guarantee it'll be a non-issue... unless your league used it a lot, in which case the only issue is that they'll notice its absence. You could remove Block, too, and it'd be a non-issue. You could also set everyone's MA to 6 and the game would be mostly the same.

The real test would be to remove PO from an environment where it sees a LOT of use, such as matchmaking leagues on Cyanide or FUMBBL. Then we'd actually know what effect, if any, it has. Otherwise it's just a blip on the radar... like every other single thing in the game when taken separate from the rest.

[fromherashes]

We've literally removed Piling-on from our League as it's in the optional rules and we thought we'd try without it. Will report back if it's a non-issue or not...

Oh, I can guarantee it'll be a non-issue... unless your league used it a lot, in which case the only issue is that they'll notice its absence. You could remove Block, too, and it'd be a non-issue. You could also set everyone's MA to 6 and the game would be mostly the same.

The real test would be to remove PO from an environment where it sees a LOT of use, such as matchmaking leagues on Cyanide or FUMBBL. Then we'd actually know what effect, if any, it has. Otherwise it's just a blip on the radar... like every other single thing in the game when taken separate from the rest.

Dropping the patronising tone from your post (given that you don't know whether it was or wasn't an issue in our league), I get your point, but the point I was making was that we had actually decided not to use it (which was in answer to someone else's post, not yours).

[ArrestedDevelopment]

We've literally removed Piling-on from our League as it's in the optional rules and we thought we'd try without it. Will report back if it's a non-issue or not...

Sure! That's kind of what I mean though - I've yet to hear of a league that's using "team RR PO". Why would anyone?

Oh, I can guarantee it'll be a non-issue... unless your league used it a lot, in which case the only issue is that they'll notice its absence. You could remove Block, too, and it'd be a non-issue. You could also set everyone's MA to 6 and the game would be mostly the same.

The real test would be to remove PO from an environment where it sees a LOT of use, such as matchmaking leagues on Cyanide or FUMBBL. Then we'd actually know what effect, if any, it has. Otherwise it's just a blip on the radar... like every other single thing in the game when taken separate from the rest.

I think we may well get something from FUMBBL for that. But there's a question of (a) timeframe, and (b) significance. And yes, context is important. Mind you, I'm not Christer, nor am I the community, so I can't speak for either there.

Incidentally Mike, my original post was somewhat of a generalised lamentation in regards to net-wide discussion, not just here, where it's been mostly quite sensibly discussed. Most discussions I see on BB2016 verge off into "nerfed PO" within a few posts by people who've neither read the rules, nor appear be in a position to modify/make their own ruling on them any time soon (I know, don't generalise, right?)