Is a yearly rules review to often?

[Pantera]

I was thinking about the rules review. If we get new yearly official rules, wont it be to much? I think the 3rd ed + RR2001 is quite ok. Now its only some months, and then we will get a new ruleset? Maybe the changes will not be so many and big.

I see that the new BB Mag will include experimental ally rules again. And perhaps its better to have only the BB mag with experimental rules, and then a new RR for every third year?

If its only small changes and errata, thats already been done, in the Living Rules 1.1 and 1.2.

[Diesel]

I think that the Living Rule Book is a great way to update any rule changes.

So long as there are just tweaks to the rules I think this is fine.

Then they should publish any fundamental rule changes that are made in the Annual.

[Ghost of Pariah]

I kind of agree with you. I thought that once the core rules were done that the yearly rules reviews would be minor tweaks and such.
If we are going to see major changes at every review I think it would be wise to hold the review every 2 or 3 years. Changing the game in a major way every year might be counter productive to bringing in new players.

...but I also think that we should wait and see what happens this time around before we make any judgements.

[sean newboy]

I dont think its too often, what u have to realize is although this year may see many changes, thats because its just after a new ruleset and everyone is yelling out their pet peeves. I have a feeling the future reviews will change the game less and less. Not to mention i would rather have constant lil changes rather than every few years have a new rules edition that makes much of how i play the game obsolete (like warhammer and 40k).

[DaFrenchCoach]

I guess there are "rules cycles"... It works for all the GW games, not only for Blood Bowl, even if in the case of warhammer, it sounds sometimes more like a marketing plan than a necessity... We should consider the 1st cycle was:

1986-1990 (date of release in france were different, so it's just an approximate date)> 1st edition,
1990-1993 (same remark than before)> second edition,
1994-1998 > 3rd edition with compendiums
2000 > Gold Edition: a period of transition, to my mind...
2001 > 2K1 rules set...

this should be translated in (just my humble opinion):

1986-1993: increase of Blood Bowl
1993-1998: golden age, including the 2nd release,
1998-2000: "fall of the empire", the game still lived due to fans ... on the web.
2000-2002: start from scratch, new rules (gold edition, 2K1 rules): phoenix is still alive, due to last rules set which has been welcome by the fans.

So I just hope it will be available for some years, with new additions that won't change game mechanics ...

[DaFrenchCoach]

About the rule frequence, I like the idea of one per year, considering they won't be (I hope) the same changes every year than betwwen gold edition and 2K1 rules set for example...

And I like the idea of a Blood Bowl magazine, that would come I hope every 3/4 months, in order to test experimental rules you will if you want add in your league the year after.

BTW, what are the current leagues today ?

> Leagues that transfer their roster teams in order to make them 2K1 compatible (ex: wodell league, if I don't make a mistake, or TTBF)
> Leagues which start from zero, with the new ruoles set...

For these both cases , the hardest has been made... But it should be interesting to have their opinion on it.

[GalakStarscraper]

I still like the idea of an annual process.

I do not foresee the game receiving MAJOR overhauls every year. In the first few years the rules are going to get smoothed out from testing after that its more of addressing minor glitches if any appear.

Galak

[neoliminal]

I hope to put any fears to rest. You will find the rules review making far less rules changes from year to year. Certainly this is the case for the core rules.

The number of changes the first year was the result of many many years of play testing.

[Pantera]

I was sort of thinking about Chet's thread (which was a bit mind-numbingly long for me to read and respond to, I have to short attention span I guess). These changes are kind of big. If theyre discussing things like that for the RR, it makes me a bit worried. Then again, I havn't been around here especially long so maybe its just an exception.

It is also understood that rules will never satisfy everyone, but I think they have done very well with the new set. In old Avalon Hill games, and many other board games, there were often a optional rules add-on in the gamebook which you could play with if you wanted. Maybe they can make a RR with optional rules like allies etc.

[Acerak]

I was sort of thinking about Chet's thread (which was a bit mind-numbingly long for me to read and respond to, I have to short attention span I guess). These changes are kind of big. If theyre discussing things like that for the RR, it makes me a bit worried. Then again, I havn't been around here especially long so maybe its just an exception.

The rules posted aren't up for consideration for October. The only rules up for consideration as official rules are the previously published Experimental rules (principally the Kicking rules, as I recall) plus minor tweaks to the game. Oh, and a review of new mechanics introduced last year, like aging and the Handicap table.

But no, we have a window of opportunity for new rules. Anything published this close to October just won't have enough time to get playtested.

-Chet

P.S. Don't assume that everything that comes from my PC indicates a possible official addition to the game! I know a lot of people feel that way, but I think it retards discussion. The same trend is apparent in the House Rules section on this web site. Someone posts a house rule, and someone else jumps in and explains why it wouldn't make a good official rule. Just relax, think about things, and have some fun!

[Pantera]

Ok, cool.

One way or another, if the RR get some publicity every year, maybe more people will join the BB squad. Which is good.