GW bringing back Specialist Games?!?

[GalakStarscraper]

And yes the rules aren't perfect, but when I look deeper into the rules now and compare them to what they used to be when I played, they seem much more balanced now (even with the added teams).

Thank you ... I feel the same way.

[nazgob]

I'm liking the games workshop team lists!

[fanglord13]

Was talking with a staff member at GW yesterday and he says that it will be an online only item and won't be in stores. That bodes well for the rules not changing but not so well for an influx of new blood

[Olaf the Stout]

Was talking with a staff member at GW yesterday and he says that it will be an online only item and won't be in stores. That bodes well for the rules not changing but not so well for an influx of new blood

I still think the boxed set release will be in stores, even if it is only for a short time. Space Hulk and Dreadfleet were sold in GW stores.

[Kaiowas]

Was talking with a staff member at GW yesterday and he says that it will be an online only item and won't be in stores. That bodes well for the rules not changing but not so well for an influx of new blood

too much shelf space

[yggdrasil]

Late to the party, but I think javascrybe's comments about his son going "dad, why do you play this complicated and long game?" are really relevant.

To me, it seems like the answer to the question is that BB isn't really a board game. BB, at it's heart, is what GW used to label their games like Advanced Heroquest as back in the day - a type of "3D roleplaying game". A synonym would be a hobby game.

What makes a roleplaying game played on a board different from a board game? In this context, the difference to me is that a roleplaying game is a game you are meant to immerse yourself into. The gameplay is important, but the reason that the game exists isn't the game - the reason the game exists is the miniatures, and the miniatures are the gateway into the game world.

And with GW games, you are meant to immerse yourself into the game world. The reason that you can hire cheerleaders and roll on a weather table is because you want to immerse yourself into the feeling of the game, the smell of the paint, the cheer of the crowds. It all revolves around character and atmosphere. These are all integral aspects of a roleplaying game, where immersion in the world is the whole point of the exercise. You roll dice and look at tables because they make you feel closer to the nit and grit of the game, and provide a universe of detail for you to modify and make your own. Most vitally, you buy and paint miniatures and really form an emotional connection to the game that way.

A board game is a game where the gameplay is point of the exercise. With Settlers of Catan or Carcasonne, the theme and background matter, but they are not meant for you to immerse yourself in them. You're not intended to picture yourself as a farmer tilling medieval earth when you play a tile in Carcasonne, so there is no weather table, no income table, no special character farmers or knights, no background immersion. It's meant to be a fun and quick game to play. You're not meant to spend hours on building 3D castles or paint mascot miniatures for your Carcasonne games.

So the question is, when/if they make BB 4th edition, as opposed to just new patches to 3rd edition, should it be a board game? I.e. something where a new player who is expecting a board game will feel like they played a board game, rather than them playing a really detailed and complicated game with lots of dice rolls for seemingly no reason.

Being GW, I can't see them changing the game like that. They make miniatures that we are meant to paint and immerse ourselves into. However, I would kind of like it if they did. A quick and steamlined version of the game, where all the detail is gone and the focus is on smooth and clean play, would be really interesting.

Why would I like it? Because being a roleplayer myself, I would not feel a need to restrict myself to the board game version of the game. That game would be the game to play with people who you randomly meet at a board game cafe, who just want to be entertained for an hour and would never dream of painting a miniature. I would like that option. But I would also still have the option of playing the roleplaying game with miniatures, because I still have all the rules and background from all the previous editions of the game. I can keep my roleplaying desires happy with these for many years to come, and I would be able to add any new cool models from GW to them whenever I want.

[bound for glory]

So what will gw charge for a team? And will they be 12 our 16 player teams?

Lets say they will be 12 players. I say $75usd per.

Anyone want to guess with me?

[Olaf the Stout]

So what will gw charge for a team? And will they be 12 our 16 player teams?

Lets say they will be 12 players. I say $75usd per.

Anyone want to guess with me?

I think we'll get 11 player teams (you only need 11 for a valid team!) with add on packs to get additional positionals, linemen and big guys.

$110 AUD per team with $25 AUD for packs of 2 player positionals or big guys. No idea what that would translate to for the US or UK (especially as GW love to charge us an "Australia" tax

[Kaiowas]

I just dont think GW will be reinventing the wheel, they may break the game with crap rulesets but they are not going to put the cash and time in to bring us a new game rules within a year of announcing the job. There's no way we're getting new agility tables or different mechanics for the basics or even a different board approach.

GW is a miniatures company, they've said it themselves. The games are secondary. its sad that this is now the case but if they want to make their money off new BB minis we know the audience exists

to the point made on BB as a board game. I don't see BB as a traditional "board game" and I don't think anyone who loves it wants it to go that way. I do love board games but for a totally different reason and lord knows there's more complex and time consuming board games out there that people absolutely love and that will continue to make money as long as they are publish (twilight struggle is at minimum a 3 hour board game and its getting reskinned this year and i'm sure it will sell well)

to me BB is a squad based tactical wargame on a reduced play area with an extremely lavish theme that makes sense to 99% of the rules.

[DinoTitanedition]

or even a different board approach.

It`s probably just me, but personally I`d prefer a field with at least 40mm big squares. For it`s a lot more comfortable when players are put on the ground and when you move a miniature over the field it feels more like "running", simply due to the fact, that it is a larger distance they are moved.

I don't see BB as a traditional "board game" and I don't think anyone who loves it wants it to go that way.

Cannot remember the exact post of course, but I have read the opposite of that statement in this forum multiple times already. I guess this is where or artoriented and more playoriented audience divides. The "narrative" and the "tournament" players.


@usual pricediscussion

I`ve thought a while about this one and noticed, that I`m actually not really worried about the GW pricing. To me it is affordable, but that is not the point. This way I am simply buying a limited amount of minis and invest more time in a beautiful paintjob instead of having a mountain of unpainted or ugly painted miniatures at home, wich are all packed up but in fact not really used. Stripping my Warhammer miniatures to reshape and repaint them as BB fans has actually given me that point of view. I`d rather have a certain satisfaction in using all the minis or simply having "a good feeling" about my hobbyactivity instead of "hoarding".

Don`t know if what I wrote transfers well due to my english skills, but I think you`re getting the point.

[Darkson]

or even a different board approach.

It`s probably just me, but personally I`d prefer a field with at least 40mm big squares.

It's certainly not just you, there's a league in Canada that exclusively uses 40mm pitches, but personaly I realllyhope they don't make the pitch any bigger. As it is at the two places we use (both for club night and events) the tables are just about the right size for the board (there's a little bit of an overhang). If the pitch is made to 40mm we'd have to turn the board sideways, halving the potential number of games we could have going at any one time, in addition to being a pain to sit - either we'd still sit at the end, meaning not being able to reach the other end of the table AND the legs being in the way, or we'd have to sit sideways on to the pitch, which I can do do but isn't my preferred way to play.

[sann0638]

You know you would just ignore a 40mm ruling anyway

[DinoTitanedition]

Well, as I see it, that is not a problem with the board, but with the table size

At home there is nor problem with that, since we have a Norden table from IKEA (extendable for up to 10 people).



At the club it doesn`t seem to be a problem either, since we either use two smaller tables anyway, or play on a plate wich was used for other games before that and is laid over two tables as well.

But, something else.....now that I know of it....are the matts sold by the canadian players with a 40mm spacing? Where can I get those beauties...

[Kaiowas]

or even a different board approach.

It`s probably just me, but personally I`d prefer a field with at least 40mm big squares. For it`s a lot more comfortable when players are put on the ground and when you move a miniature over the field it feels more like "running", simply due to the fact, that it is a larger distance they are moved.

I don't see BB as a traditional "board game" and I don't think anyone who loves it wants it to go that way.

Cannot remember the exact post of course, but I have read the opposite of that statement in this forum multiple times already. I guess this is where or artoriented and more playoriented audience divides. The "narrative" and the "tournament" players.

board scale isnt as much an issue to me as board shape (or number of squares) but as you see for others it can be a problem

on the theme or competition point, I think there must be a balance. The point I was trying to make (and probably failed) was that when you look at BB, even with theme, fluff and art, its a complex long game with many rules that clash and skills that cancel other skills, not like the carcassonne or catans of this world which are simple in nature but have a lot of strategy and tactics under the hood.

Most love BB for what it is and it houses various meta aspects from team building, to team theming. This all comes from the complexity and depth of the game. Look how much replay-ability this game gives.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be tweaked or fixed in BB (minor usually) and its certainly not a perfect flowing ruleset (INT roll does my bap in) but to and I'd say the majority of the market that GW should be targetting already enjoy it in its current guise.

With absolutely zero disrespect to the other fantasy football game producers, the success they have had with their products pales in comparison to the popularity of BB which has to show you that its not simply the theme of fantasy football that will open folks wallets. Its Blood Bowl we all generally keep coming back to and for the past however many years its been LRB 6.0.

If we get changes/rosters like we've seen in BB2, i'll deal with that (as long as they actually produce rosters for all the races, which is my concern). I just don't really want or think we will get a ruleset that turns the game on its head!

side note: I love the way we can discuss this rationally, I've seen similar debates on other forms of social media get accusatory and fairly ugly!

[yggdrasil]

I can totally understand the people who want BB to stay what it is, because it is the game they love. But I'm also optimistic about a new version. Think about it this way: As mentioned earlier, BB 2nd edition had no turnover rule, and no block dice. Back in the early 90's, that was what BB was. 3rd edition had these crazy innovations that totally changed how the game was played. They had simplified and streamlined the game, turning the 7 stats of 2nd ed into the 4 stats of 3rd ed. People who loved 2nd ed could legitimately claim that GW had dumbed the game down, and totally changed BB into something that wasn't BB anymore.

But 3rd edition was great, and became a huge hit.

If they make a 4th edition, and change the way the game is played, it could be terrible. But it could also be amazing. We can't claim that a 4th edition will automatically be terrible because it will be different from 3rd edition, any more than we can claim that 3rd edition has to be terrible because it was different from 2nd edition. We have to look at what the product actually ends up being and then judge it based on its own merits.

And even if a hypothetical 4th edition was terrible, nobody can stop us from keeping on playing 3rd the way we are doing now, just like people are still playing WHFB in spite of AoS. Nostalgics (like me) are always safe because nobody is going to take your toys away.