Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:I can't say I'm surprised they did this.

But I still think they might be gearing up to let FFG take the reins on a reboot.

On that note--did anyone else notice that they actually plugged Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay on the "What's New Today" section?

What a bunch of loons! What's next, a plug for Man O' War?

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I can't say I'm surprised they did this.

But I still think they might be gearing up to let FFG take the reins on a reboot.

On that note--did anyone else notice that they actually plugged Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay on the "What's New Today" section?

What a bunch of loons! What's next, a plug for Man O' War?

I'd quite like them to post the rules up for Man O' War. Is there any point in trying to fathom their reasoning in light of the fact that they have put up PDFs of "Bommerz Over Da Sulphur River", "Mighty Empires" and "Dark Future"? Dark Future?!?! But NO Man O' War. Bah.

Man'o War is never going up now that Spartan games sell fantasy ships and GW don't.

RiTides wrote:Is it possible for someone to post the LRB 6 pdf before GW changed the editing? Or would that violate copyrights since they've posted up this version?

Galak has stated that under legal obligation from GW he was ordered to destroy all copies of LRB 6 (good version that he put all the effort into) after successful receipt by GW of the document.

The painful thing for him is that some GW tool has had to take that document and then spend hours cutting it up and devaluing it to the point that it is at now.

The statement about LRB1 being the official version of the game is just GW legal being F**ktards again and enforcing the boxed set rules which are horrible comparatively and then labeling people wanting to use the better version as 'cutthroats'.

As far as I am aware there was a leaked LRB6 changes document from GW (accidentally put up for a short time and some people have copies) which essentially is 13 rules tweaks from LRB 5 + 2008 rules review.

I'm sure we'll see a community backlash from this (it's happened before) and there will be a lot of "unofficial" official tournament rules documents being shared around.

You don't need that rule book...

This isn't the game you are looking for.


you can move along...

Glad I haven't even looked at that game. Too bad though, Looked like it might have even been worth trying out, once upon a time.

Thank you GW, May I have another!

I have 5.0 saved in .pdf and a printed copy in binder pages. It will get a lot of use and lovin' in the coming years, because there is no way in hell I'm even considering using that travesty they posted. For shame, fraktards.

Where have all the apologists gone? Could it be that even they cannot defend this action?

I usually find myself siding with GW on most things that folks on this forum complain about, but I can't really stand behind GW not posting the credits or even a simple thank you to the community that kept this game alive for so long in spite of their lack of support. Dick move.

I'll still play Blood Bowl and purchase from GW because even though it was a douchebag maneuver, I enjoy their games and the comradery that I've experienced through it.


Here's a quote from this Galak(Tom) gentleman from talkfantasyfootball that I thought was pretty poignant:

I want to point out to everyone ... that that document as slaughtered as it is ... its LRB 6.0 (with one typo for the Rat Ogre which I hope will soon be fixed).

So we have LRB 6.0 ... let's not lose sight of that. Its damn ugly ... but at least 6.0 is official ... all that work is not lost and that is a very good thing for Blood Bowl.

I'm sure GW was trying to get the document posted due to the upcoming GT and pressure by the BBRC based on pressure from the community.

We can only guess why the pretty LRB 6.0 wasn't posted ... but at least they posted LRB 6.0. So I see no reason to not roll on with LRB 6.0 for everyone.

A pretty document ... that MIGHT come later ... but at least we got the rules on GW's site. From here ... we do what we've always done ... we are a community and we stick together and we keep this game alive and growing despite what the owners of the game have handed us.

Tom

If anyone else posted this, they'd be labeled an "apologist".

Here's the dude that put a huge emotional/time investment into this LRB and despite his work being "ugly" and "slaughtered" in his words, he's still positive about some aspects of LRB6 and the future of Blood Bowl and I think thats pretty awesome. Some of the folks in this forum could learn from his example, instead of lamenting the future of our hobby and the evils of certain departments of a corporation.

Just my 2 slightly biased cents.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

ProtoClone wrote:This whole thing reminds me of another company, Palladium books, who is very strict about online content and fan made things. They too are quick with the C&D and have said their lawyers advised them it was for the betterment of the company. Maybe GW has subscribed to this little bit of legal advice and started to clean up the "mess" and keep their product under a watchful, controlling, eye. With the release of LRB they feel like they owe no more in the way of online content and have no expectations to give any more. So they give us a sub-par product and say "You're better off using the older rules" just to avoid expectations of any future online material.

GW is up to something and it is only a matter of time before we find out what is going on internally. I just wish our voices and money meant something to them.

Also they do owe us a lot because GW targets such a niche market it matters if we spend our money there or not.

Your money means a lot to GW. Spend it elsewhere. Play Warmachine or Flames of War! Solid rulesets from companies that actually communicate with their fans.

not really. Both games are pretty terrible. The players of those games also aren't any better than the worst of what plays Warhammer. (IMNSHO)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
update: also, this is no loss to me as I always thought Bloodbowl was a bad game.

Le Grognard wrote:I have 5.0 saved in .pdf and a printed copy in binder pages. It will get a lot of use and lovin' in the coming years, because there is no way in hell I'm even considering using that travesty they posted. For shame, fraktards.

I'm interested in this.

I've read the 5.0 rules, where they limited the use of skills, and tightened up the game overall (my impression was to make it a quicker game)

The 6.0 rules, from what I can tell, aren't that much different from the 1.0 rules in the original game, except for the casualty table, spiralling expenses, more teams, more star players. They reverted back to "use all skills all the time" for basic play.

Its a big difference between 5.0 and 6.0, but I think 6 moves closer to the original. Was this their intent as a LRB?

Someone illuminate me.

Obviously the best way to stop people from creating custom rules is to make an awful ruleset to give them NO ADDITIONAL incentive to make new rules!

wait, What?

Guys, suck it up, take it on the chin and wait until next edition. It's what we're best at. (I didn't mean that as an insult.)

avantgarde wrote:Guys, suck it up, take it on the chin and wait until next edition. It's what we're best at. (I didn't mean that as an insult.)

Wrong.

This version even though commonly referred to as LRB 6.0 is not officially stated as such. It has been stated many, many times that this will be the final iteration of the rules for many, many years to come.

In regards to the apologist comments, just because Tom Anders is a really stand up guy who has a passion for good rules and a good game does not mean that the people at GW don't deserve a major amount of negative feedback for their "efforts".

The fact that someone had to butcher this document DOWN to the level it is at (when it was all done FOR FREE) is not only slightly imcomprehensible, there is no communication whatsoever to the community about where we stand, what GW's intentions are etc.

I like all the blank areas that riddle the thing, you can just imagine "PICTURE GOES HERE" text...lmao.

I hope he kept a copy, even if it is just for himself. No sense in destroying his work because the new head of GW legal's a complete witch.



And I didn't write 'witch'...

Anung Un Rama wrote:Damn. Is Version 5 still available?

What's so bad about the new book? Can somebody give me few examples. I didn't follow the game for years.

3, 4 and 5 are still available at http://www.bloodbowlonline.com/Rules.shtml

Indeed, that is a pretty unreasonable demand if I say so myself...especially seeing as how he wasn't given anything for said work, not even a credit.

Hilarious that LRB5 has a comment from Jervis about how much the game has improved and yet they've now gone back to v1.

I think it's time to think seriously about stripping out the GW trademarks and letting LRB6 come out under a new name. (switch to the impact dice which are easy enough to get, have some notes about making boards and where to find miniatures, etc)

NELS1031 wrote:If anyone else posted this, they'd be labeled an "apologist".

That doesn't make Galak himself not an apologist. He's one for very understandable reasons, because he's worked with GW fairly closely for years. He deserves the label far more than most do. People just need to get it through their heads that someone can engage in apologetics while not being a complete moron or a troll. Wake up and smell the burning corpses.

Howlingmoon wrote:not really. Both games are pretty terrible. The players of those games also aren't any better than the worst of what plays Warhammer. (IMNSHO)

So not only are WM and FoW crap but all their players are subhuman troglodytes, too? Very diplomatically put, very nicely done.

I spend some years at GW HQ and my contract stated that anything I made/designed during my employment with them was automaticly theirs regardless if it had anything to do with their game systems. I also know that designers have it in their contract that they are not allowed to work for another games company for a certain number of months after they leave GW.

My guess is that this is the kind of legal ruling GW is hiding behind when they release things designed and worked on by the gamers themselves.

They should have left the credits on this rules set that is the minimum they should do.

Well, that's pretty standard stuff. I had similar clauses in my contract when I was a web programmer / database guy.

I just want to say, Killkrazys shapechanging Avatar freaks me out.

Still pissed off about the Blood Bowl issue. I wish I could get my hands on the original 6.0 version.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Well, that's pretty standard stuff. I had similar clauses in my contract when I was a web programmer / database guy.

I'm not saying it isn't normal. Just grabbing at straws here to try and make it sound ok what they did. . . . . . . and there is just no way to do that.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:I spend some years at GW HQ and my contract stated that anything I made/designed during my employment with them was automaticly theirs regardless if it had anything to do with their game systems. I also know that designers have it in their contract that they are not allowed to work for another games company for a certain number of months after they leave GW.

My guess is that this is the kind of legal ruling GW is hiding behind when they release things designed and worked on by the gamers themselves.

They should have left the credits on this rules set that is the minimum they should do.

There are some similar rules in my work contract. I have never taken them seriously because stuff like that needs to be tested in court before it can be relied upon.

It is highly unlikely that a court would uphold the company's right to something you wrote at the weekend, on your own time and equipment.

The several months wait would be thrown out immediately as restraint of trade.

Besides, as I understand the situation, Galak wasn't under contract to GW. He was effectively a volunteer.

I still believe that GW's "Non-disclosure" policy was unenforceable. If they offered no consideration for Galek's agreement not do disclose, all they have is a promise and not a contract, and you cannot enforce a one-sided promise by contract law. i.e. if Galak "broke" his non-disclosure agreement then I would be surprised if GW could succeed in sueing him for any damages, as they gave him nothing in return for his promise not to utilise the work that he had done himself. He never actually was employed by them at any point, nor received any remuneration for his contributions, at least as I understand it.

I admire Galak's ability to soldier on despite his rough treatment. However, I do think GW's approach consists mainly of blustering and bullying. I can see why they try it on, but I don't think Galak actually has anything to worry about.

Releasing the LRB in this state is a kick in the teeth, it looks terrible and the lack of acknowledgements is truly shameful.

If the rules for 6.0 are okay that should make it more palatable but GW are yet again undermining their own position with poor communication and slipshod works.

Kudos to the guys working on LRB projects but if it were me and I had the time drive and determination to work on these rulesets I would go and create something of my own. I Think thats what GW are driving people to do anyway.

Hawkins wrote:Woah, that was fast. any one else need a copy of LBR5? ive got.... lemme see...... unlimited free copies...... ( if its all right withthe mods that is)

The Moderation team on Dakka is, of course, against the illegal copying and distributing of copyrighted documents and will remind users that it is an offence to do so on the site, not least as it's a real hassle for us to deal with "paperwork" wise and by now we're all really stuck into the eggnog and Brandy butter on crumpets.

..be smart please people..

He said LRB5 reds8n, not LRB6.

..yes.. as version 6 you can, legally, go and download from the GW. With version 5 having been removed from the legal site....I'm sure there are copies floatinga round here and there..but that is those sites problem as/when/if GW legal come and growl at them.

With version 5 still being Big C and etc etc etc standard rules and caveats apply still.

Heheheheh makes me laugh how Games Workshop that stood aside from the "Cool kids" is trying to be down with the "Cool Kids" now

Typical but amusing all the same......

George Spiggott wrote:I was impressed that it needed an FAQ page. Isn't the point of a new version of the rules that you fix the bits where people are 'frequently' confused by the rules.

I think it's good business sense to anticipate what the FAQs might be and to answer them proactively.

I'm just amused this is the one time they do it.