Posted by Jeffro on 2020-08-07 00:35:59

It'll be fun!..? That is subjective, of course. But if the extremes of rules that were considered way too game altering are toned down... and added complexities of maneuvering that give us old Grognards a bit more to try and figure out instead of being so cookie cutter... I think it will be more fun for new folks and just as fun for the existing bunch. It also looks like it is bringing a bit more camp to the fluff of the game... and that always balanced the ultra violence for me back in the day. 2016 stuff was "cool"... but it wasn't campy wackiness of the old 2nd Ed that also worked as a VERY re-playable board game.

The re-playability has always been high. I think this will increase it. People can disagree with me... but these are my thoughts!

Posted by Araznaroth on 2020-08-07 00:40:38

To answer your question, you win too much! :D
Nah, gots to be a money thing I suspect. :(

Posted by Burnalot on 2020-08-07 01:45:16

We don't need it, this ruleset is probably the best so far. If there would be more attrition it might be almost perfect.

Posted by Rbthma on 2020-08-07 02:52:56

I'm finding myself feeling positive about this change. Changes have been where problems exist (kick-off table, one-turning) and added rules so far look to add strategy and flavor to the game without (hopefully) changing the core too much. I'd be fine of course with the version we currently have but perhaps I'm just comfortable with it. It's encouraging that they seem to have included design opinions from BB coaches as well. Without change, the game runs the risk of stagnation.

Posted by JackassRampant on 2020-08-07 03:13:19

What Rbthma said. I think GW wants to put their imprimatur on the game, and it's not hard to cobble together a set of rules that fundamentally leaves the game in place but cleans up a lot of the common gripes (for better or for worse). I don't mind this: what we have going on is starting to get clunky and noob-unfriendly.

Posted by koadah on 2020-08-07 03:38:53

"Without change, the game runs the risk of stagnation."

What? We have Secret League! ;)

The changes sound interesting. But they may take years to iron out some of the exploits.
My main issue is that Fumbbl will try to implement the rules as written no matter how broken.

So, fingers crossed for loads of league options.

Posted by tussock on 2020-08-07 04:24:52

The stunty teams are currently terrible, like, pointlessly so. There's so many LRB4 and previous rules made them much more fun to play, without winning much more, and those are coming back, so YAY! Bombing cages with stunned halflings for fun(!) and profit(?), what could be better!

And they're trying to slightly nerf woodies, undead, gutter runners, and buff humans and other constantly underwhelming teams, well, YAY! Like, WOO! Team balance is a false god and all, but still, humans have obviously needed some halflings for about ever since they put the Ogre on the list, but left off the fling. 20 years ago? Also Wardancers and gutters have been stupidly good for a very long time, partly because of the ultra-fast 2+ pass plays.

They've got a Brett team in, looks like the best take on that roster I've seen. Yay.

The kick-off table cut back a bit from being random game-decider dice rolls, that is just obviously good. Strong blitz taking teams will still work, it'll just be a fight after, rather than so often a cakewalk, less free one-turn results, less wild pitch invasions that have recently cost me big games, man. Like, that's all just better. Those things have ruined the fun of a lot of games for a very long time. No need for any of it.

They're having a crack at removing **every negative play experience**. Pointless stalling, even, maybe, hinted at. Surprise your team is a joke, as easy as just writing "tier 2" on it so that folk are aware.

Why change? How about, for the better!

--

Some of this stuff is bound to make some things worse. But most of it, they're spotting things that made people feel bad for participating in the hobby, and scrapped them to try and make it better, while keeping the feel of the game. Less stacking bonuses to murder teams after you play 60 games, and just a slightly more murdery base casualty table, or less random 2+ long bomb with 2+ safe throw players and more basic 2+ quick passers, so we can all play the bits we want to, from the start. YAY!

Posted by Grod on 2020-08-07 06:18:12

Because a new rule set makes it easier to sell a new Cyanide video game. Don't underestimate just how much money GW is making from licensing their products for video games the last few years (think Total Warhammer etc).

Also, it's not really a new rule set - more of an update. Sure passing has been split from agility, and there are a bunch of new skills, but it's not that much of a leap.

Posted by Malmir on 2020-08-07 08:05:00

Some good points, particularly by Rbthma and Tussock. I hope you're right that they tweak things that need improving while keeping the overall feel. I'm just worried that when they start making wholesale changes e.g. to passing, something game breaking will sneak through unnoticed. If it doesn't, then it could be great. I certainly feel a bit more positive about it.

Posted by Uber on 2020-08-07 08:22:32

You seem like a guy who likes to build a house rather than a guy who likes whacking a hammer if you catch my drift.

It doesn't matter what tools are at your disposal, it's all about getting that W. It's not gonna be perfect, but then again it never was.

Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2020-08-07 08:33:27

These changes have been in playtesting for months amongst some pretty respectable names. I'm sure one or two things will have slipped through, but nothing glaring hopefully.

I would also say that the system is designed, again, to prevent teams growing to the sort of points that issues like cpomb became apparent.

So I'm very optimistic!

Posted by Muff2n on 2020-08-07 08:39:56

It didn't need changing as the rules are in a great spot. You're right to be concerned, I've seen many games ruined by updates. The most danger to me is trying to fix negative play experiences (stalling), but not being up to the task and the cure being worse than the illness.

But, there are areas for tweaking to improve, such as the kickoff table. And 5k increments. So there is some chance still that with good design and play testing the version can be an improvement. I'm hoping for small things like improving stunty access to 'doubles' will make them a team where you don't feel like every level up makes them worse.

Posted by Muff2n on 2020-08-07 08:41:20

Ah if the play testers are good as AD says, then that is the best news possible.

Posted by geggster on 2020-08-07 09:37:57

a) because it could be better
b) because GW have an inalienable right to make money from something of theirs (this is somehow considered evil by many)
c) because GW is full of hobbyists that actually like talking/making/delivering toys for us to play with
d) that BB16 introduced many, many new players and BB20 will do the same. Without it, we just go around playing a dwindling number of moodier and moodier players. That suits some grognards but Malmir, you are good enough to want new people and new challenges to overcome, surely?
e) all of the above

Posted by Malmir on 2020-08-07 10:01:16

I'm more than happy with a new challenge, as long as it is as least as good as the current one and I certainly get the point about avoiding stagnation and keeping new players coming and staying. I saw a list of people who are being consulted about it and there was certainly plenty of bloodbowl knowledge in there including a decent representation of coaches who play both NAF and fumbbl, so I am sure they can make it awesome...eh Geggster.

Posted by SzieberthAdam on 2020-08-07 10:31:53

Traditional games burnished to perfection during hundreds of years in a series of tiny changes. BB is almost 35 years old now and despite it was maintained by a business company during most of the time, it is great and successful because it more-or-less followed the traditional model.

Season 2 is a product of something else.

Posted by geggster on 2020-08-07 11:02:17

Well each person will need to make their own assessment of whether it's better. I suspect that many have already "decided", however - and that's a real shame. In fact, the amount of times I've read this week "I don't know yet how much I will hate this" is disheartening.

Will it be perfect? I don't imagine so. Will it be what I would have written given free licence? No. But let's not make perfect the enemy of good. I am looking forward to seeing the entire product in its full glory and I hope some of those shouting will stop shouting long enough to notice.

Posted by SzieberthAdam on 2020-08-07 11:15:07

I am only saying that the new rules are very different, not that they are is bad. They result a different game for sure. For TT, the new rules are fine, but not for an open perpetual environment like FUMBBL, which is completely understandable.

Posted by Steallan on 2020-08-07 11:18:44

Convince me.

Hopefully the changes are based on data. After a huge number of games on the existing ruleset they can see where things are overpowered/over performing, and the opposite, and the changes are just tweeks to adjust things in the right direction. And to futher balance the teams.
Some changes for the fun of change is also justified, keeps the game from stagnating, as others have said. Adding new mechanics that are fun, removing ones mostly disliked.

If most of the above turns out to be true, we'll all be convinced. if they make huge changes to things which were already balanced, in order to justify a new product, then its not going to be as convincing.

You make a good point though. The current ruleset is good. There's nothing really to complain about. Most things are well balanced, and some things are designed to be bonkers, like gobs, for variation.

Change is exciting, but it does risk the game being made worse. I think some fear is well founded, imagine one mechanic becomes so overpowered all else is pointless. We'll all crave this ruleset if that happens. Then less people will play. Then there's less meat for Mal's grinder of relentless victory.

Lets hope they know what they're doing. Lets hope the changes are made by gamers, and not money men.

Posted by Steallan on 2020-08-07 11:20:51

I'm excited and hopefully though. From what I can tell they're trying to make the game better. And they should know what they're doing, better than any one of us

Posted by Uedder on 2020-08-07 11:39:24

The new rules seem to aim at fixing what we all know is broken.

Including natural oneturners, who are probably the most gamebreaking thing in the current rulebook.

Also, the meta did need a change: as it is now it does not fit perpetual open play.

I think the new progression system will aim just at that, because GW themselves have entered the online turf with the videogame franchise, which has been gaining a lot of traction for them.

So, good news for everyone indeed.

Posted by mekutata on 2020-08-07 11:44:14

@Szieberth, so maybe this means big changes to perpetual environment, but why you think it will not beworking?
Just because of the Cyanide aspect I am actually optimistic that they will have some concept/variation of their seasons for such an environment.
I always had the impression BB was not created for perpetual environment, but that BB junkies needed a fix and more or less successfully forcecreated such environments.

Also changing the game made sense. You have designed a football game and no one ever passes. Of course you have to think on how to emphasise that aspect if you want to see passing being used. Personally I am just not sure if this will indeed change now, or if all those new passing related skills will be bloat while everyone still keeps running/walking to the endzone (less dice). But if this is all based on long term playtesting I am very optimistic.
And I really love the fun attitude from BB2020, at least from what could be seen in the leaks.

Posted by MattDakka on 2020-08-07 13:38:16

Current ruleset is far from balanced, and to the best of my knowledge of the new rules, they seem to fix some unbalances or at least mitigate them (for example, Kick-Off table events, 1TTD and stalling, although it's hard to predict whether Time Wasting rule will effectively discourage it but it should be a bit riskier, at least).
New teams have been added and this adds novelty and variety, some top tier 1 have been nerfed.
I'm not a fanboy who likes whatever GW spits out, I tend to be very critical about rules and this new ruleset seems promising, I have a positive impression so far.
I might change my mind after playing some games with it, but so far, it seems nice.
Since current ruleset is not super balanced, I think it's worth to embrace the new ruleset and see how it will be.

Posted by Welsh_Cthulu on 2020-08-07 14:00:00

I'm late to the party on this, but is there a categorical list of new rules that are looking to be implemented?

Posted by koadah on 2020-08-07 15:20:52

Every time the ruleset changes we lose a number of coaches.

Some people will just like it as it is.
Some will think that the current ruleset is the best we've ever had.
Some people will fear another CPOMB style calamity that takes years to fix.
Some people are just old codgers who no longer have the mental capacity to keep both learning and remembering new stuff. ;)

From my many discussions (and arguments ;) ) on Cyanide, it is pretty clear that the game is way too wacky for a lot of regular gamers. Nuffle has way too much influence on the game. Add that to how much they need to learn to become "competent", and the game is too much for them.

I am pretty sure that a lot of people who bought BB1 and/or BB2 will not buy BB3 unless they are promised a reduction in Nuffle's influence and more teams that have a real chance.

I guess that in this context, I am a grognard. ;)

On tabletop, it doesn't really matter as much as you can pick and choose whatever rules you want. On Fumbbl though, we can only play what the devs code.
Changing the rules is going to take effort. Adding options is going to take effort. Worse, adding options adds complexity and increases the maintenance burden.

One thing I would really like would be the chance to use old (more wacky) kick-off tables in the league division. Even better, to be able to build your own from existing components. ;)

Props to all those people who worked hard on this. I suspect that the changes, once they are properly tweaked, will lead to more new coaches staying in the game than old coaches leaving it.

Props to the devs who will be implementing it.

I just hope that Fumbbl gives us some options for old-style wackiness. All praise Nuffle!

Posted by Garion on 2020-08-07 17:39:34

I think one thing the game needed were some new teams, and some nerfs to the old team, not for any particular reason other than - it's nice for the meta to move around a little bit, the teams that are "good" have been since 1993. If this new rule set is as balanced as the previous one, and humans are now the best team then that'll be pretty cool.

Going to be fun relearning bits of the game, I am sure good fundamental Blood Bowl play will still win out.

Posted by SzieberthAdam on 2020-08-07 20:21:05

@mekutata: What I don't like in the current ruleset compared to LRB4 is its less attrition. There are countless of legends around. Well, the Injury table got better than the current one taking the progression system would stay but it is not. In BB2020 you can make a legend in 46 SPPs. That makes seasons unavoidable for FUMBBL if it intends to follow the rules, and if FUMBBL does that, that would result a completely different meta that I loved since my join to the site in 2004.

Moreover, on FUMBBL we play different amount of games. I expect those who play alot will minmax their TV for the redrafts. They will pick some cheap random skills as the first few advancements and retire the players who roll badly, then they will go for the cheap statups. +AV (10k) and +MA (20k) and +AG (40k) are the best candidates there with a fallback of a picked secondary for 40k which might be considered an unlucky roll. Teams built with many games and minmax meta will have an advantage over those with same TV but fewer games or with permissive retirement policy. Those who pick the optimal skills for their players will be punished with very high TV which might make their players unredraftable. Still, there will be a bigger variety in advancement paths which might be a good thing for sure. Hovewer, expect a tons of +AV players in BB2020. Plus, none will have a hard time making a legend anymore.

As the minmax advantage increases with the redraft budget, it will be a good question what amount will be optimal for the competitional divisions. And when it triggers?

As for the "funny" part, expect comic scenes of a thrower accidentally pass backwards to the hand of an opposing player for a TD while a Troll breaking its own arm by vomiting itself.

Posted by SzieberthAdam on 2020-08-07 20:53:35

My thinking continues. R might opt for no seasons and accept the different classes of teams which will be the product of the very high advantage gap. Then those who fancy will be able to get a Legend player with 6 statups and worst case secondaries with 172 SPP. These kind of teams will not play with the minmaxed ones but with teams developed according to the same policy. Also these kind of teams will be not tournament compatible.

Posted by PurpleChest on 2020-08-07 22:49:40

Because GW cannot sell something we all already own.

Posted by SzieberthAdam on 2020-08-07 23:36:01

Prepare for the seasons: https://fumbbl.com/p/blog?c=Christer&id=23178

Posted by fidius on 2020-08-08 08:58:27

Given GW's history, especially recently, there is no reason for optimism.

Posted by Bloodfeast on 2020-08-08 10:06:20

Im not gonna try to convince you, cause I have the same thoughts. Im not afraid of the new rules as I know I will learn them and play by them and some things Im sure I will belive was better before and some things surely would be an improvement.¨

The only thing I am afraid of right now is, what about the future for BB? Would someone who never heard of the game be able to pick it up and play or will it be too hard? Cause if it is, we all will be affected since tournaments and players will slowly decline but natural causes, cuase what we need is new players that comes in as fast (or faster) than player leaves.

Is this another nail in the coffin, or is the game going to elevate?

Posted by Nachtogen on 2020-08-08 10:10:30

Same here, not gonna convince, I feel the same. In my opinion this is the best ruleset we've had since LRB4.
And I've not read all the spoilers yet, frankly I dont care. It's the so manieth new ruleset. But these aren't some small changes, it feels like a new or different game. Which is weird in my opinion. If you want to release a new game, by all means release one under a different name, but why keep changing bloodbowl, which allready is a great game...
I'll wait untill it gets released, I'll give it a couple games, but there's a big chance it's the end of my BB days...

Posted by Stewbacca on 2020-08-08 13:16:04

In real life sports tweak their rules pretty much every season to try to improve the game. Why should a game that functions as a sport not do so as well?

Posted by MattDakka on 2020-08-08 13:41:20

Even e-sports evolve a lot with patches.
I know, BB is not an e-sport (it should be), but my point is that changes help to keep interest in the game and to reduce some unbalances.
Just the Kick-Off Table changes are a good reason to play the new edition.

Posted by koadah on 2020-08-08 13:59:32

Or a good reason not to play the new version. ;)

Posted by Jogrenaught on 2020-08-09 15:54:23

I am also of those 2 minds.

I like things as is. But I am also looking forward to the changes.

I think the thing thats pushing me to love the change is the realization that in its current format, I have just accepted bloodbowl for what it is. Like, I suffer a thrown rock or a blitz turns the game completely - oh well thats bloodbowl.

These rules tried to address a lot of those instances that I just accepted. So it looks like its actually playtested as opposed to the hot mess that is the current set. And I dont say its a hot mess because it isnt fun. I have to remind myself that currently im not super HAPPY with a lot of the "oh well thats the way it is" rules - im just "used to it".

Posted by ben_awesome on 2020-08-14 01:41:05

I have all the minatures to make a tabletop underworld team with a gutter runner in it :-)