| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 466 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 842 |
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
 Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 03:32 |
 
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | Ageing could have worked if it had peaked them instead of injuries making them pointless.
Could have called it something else and fluffed it up as not everyone has the same potential. |
That is a great idea and would be really cool. If it was this version then the 7 potential advancements should be brought back. |
|
|
Lorebass
Joined: Jun 25, 2010
|
| NerdBird wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | Ageing could have worked if it had peaked them instead of injuries making them pointless.
Could have called it something else and fluffed it up as not everyone has the same potential. |
That is a great idea and would be really cool. If it was this version then the 7 potential advancements should be brought back. |
You guys mean like every time a player skills up theres like a doubles roll that they don't have the ability to learn a new skill? |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 04:35 |
|
| Lorebass wrote: | | NerdBird wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | Ageing could have worked if it had peaked them instead of injuries making them pointless.
Could have called it something else and fluffed it up as not everyone has the same potential. |
That is a great idea and would be really cool. If it was this version then the 7 potential advancements should be brought back. |
You guys mean like every time a player skills up theres like a doubles roll that they don't have the ability to learn a new skill? |
To me it seems you roll a second set of dice over the target roll for aging and if it is a fail the player has peaked and no longer gains skills? Representing he peaked at his skill and can gain SPP's but never another skill?
This is how I understand it and that would be pretty cool I think. No negative side effects so you would not have to fire them but if you ever wanted to you could. |
|
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 11:43 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | | Any talk of bringing back ageing is ridiculous. These coaches are looking in the wrong part of BB for a fix, unnerve DP or refer to my blog for my suggested fix(es) |
I like your effort, and I think you are dealing with some of the most important problems (weak fouling=too safe pile-ons, useless big guys, useless sneaky git) but this seems pretty far reaching, and there are double-boosts for both fouls and big guys, so I'm afraid you would bend too hard in one direction.
As an alternative to Plasmoids NTBB, which I think seems pretty good, I would personally do the following:
Piling on changed drastically, as per my previous suggestion or one of the other good ones, or simply scrapped from the game.
Loner represents being unfamiliar with team play and should definitely be modified. Other negatraits represent funny stuff specific to the player and should probably not be removable, as they are part of the players character. I see three easy solutions. 1: Implement a general skill that is basically a negation of Loner (basically what you said, now in skill form). Call it Team Player or something. 2: Loner is automatically removed from any player upon reaching veteran status (16 SPP), since a veteran is obviously no longer new to the team. This reduces the need for many double skill rolls, making big guys potential 'real players' fairly early in development. 3: Remove Loner skill altogether. Replace with similar skill called 'Just Passing Through' or something, that only journeymen have.
Sneaky Git is boosted as per NTBB. After each drive, you can try to talk your way onto the pitch after being ejected (so getting caught in a foul or with a chainsaw works like a KO).
Bank, as per NTBB or LRB6. I really don't understand why this rule isn't universally used. Allegedly it was only excluded from CRP due to JJ ignoring the wishes of the committee and making up the abomination that is Petty Cash in the last minute, but even if that is mostly rumours, Bank just makes sense to make those ridiculous cash reserves a meaningful part of the game. |
Last edited by Fabulander on %b %31, %2015 - %12:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 11:48 |
|
The above suggestions might increase the current over representation of elves in the leagues, which is not the intention, so they might need a nerf. To rein in the Ag4 teams a bit, I have a controversial suggestion. I'm not completely sure about this, but it might be a good idea. At least it is mechanically simple:
Going For It adds a -1 modifier to dodge rolls.
That's it. It makes sense, since sprinting so hard you might fall is probably more dangerous if someone is also trying to kick out your legs. Also, Ag4 players with a lot of dodge can usually build long plays around lots of 2+ rolls, and since they can often save their team re-rolls for those last GFI/dodge squares, this is a bit too reliable. Making those last rolls 3+ will make this more risky. This in turn will mean that elves can't always attack anything from anywhere, as their mobility is slightly hampered, making strategic defense against elves a real possibility without necessarily killing off half of their team.
I think the negative effects for Ag3 or less teams will be negligible, since they rarely have to rely on dodging and Going For It to get their way. If it nerfs 'Zons a little, I wouldn't mind, but of course there is the chance that it unintentionally makes life way too difficult for humans, necros and norse. I'm not quite sure.
Also, this could make routine one-turning MUCH more difficult. I think that is a good thing, but some might disagree. |
|
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:00 |
|
Btw, am I crazy or doesn't CRP have any meaningful definition of a Big Guy? In order to implement any kind of 'Big Guys only' rules, would you add a new special rule to anyone you consider Big Guys (are Mummies Big Guys?) or should it just be 'any player with S5+'?
I'd probably say the latter, for simplicitys sake. |
|
|
LucaAnt
Joined: Apr 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:24 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: | Btw, am I crazy or doesn't CRP have any meaningful definition of a Big Guy? In order to implement any kind of 'Big Guys only' rules, would you add a new special rule to anyone you consider Big Guys (are Mummies Big Guys?) or should it just be 'any player with S5+'?
I'd probably say the latter, for simplicitys sake. |
Big Guys don't exist anymore, is a generic way to identify ST5 Loners. The only rule i could consider for them is something opposed to Stunties (9-10 on Injury Roll is a KO, 11-12 is a CAS). Of course, if you want to give it to all ST5 (basic) players, the fact that Mummies and the mighty Tomb Guardians don't have G accesse makes more sense. |
|
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:32 |
|
| Carlo_Pellegatti wrote: | | Big Guys don't exist anymore, is a generic way to identify ST5 Loners. |
That's what I thought. My question was only in regards to those earlier suggestions like "Big Guys are immune to Claw" or "Piling On is Big Guys only". In order to take such suggestions seriously, we need a useful definition of a Big Guy.
I wasn't thinking about making any new rules for them. Of course, a special Big Guy rule with an overall -1 to injury rolls on those would be interesting, but probably too powerful without addressing their real problem. I'd prefer a boost that made them into real, useful players. Like removing Loner. |
|
|
LucaAnt
Joined: Apr 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:40 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: | | In order to take such suggestions seriously, we need a useful definition of a Big Guy. |
ST5+ Loners, Ogres in the Ogre team and fling Trees. But i don't really think they should have some special rule (apart the Loner, since this is for fluff), just reprice them would be better. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:49 |
|
| Carlo_Pellegatti wrote: | | Fabulander wrote: | | In order to take such suggestions seriously, we need a useful definition of a Big Guy. |
ST5+ Loners, Ogres in the Ogre team and fling Trees. But i don't really think they should have some special rule (apart the Loner, since this is for fluff), just reprice them would be better. |
This was originally my idea. My idea was ST5 or above, and it became 'big guy' rule.
I'd be more than happy that a player that reached ST 5 could take PO.
Thus you need great strength or weight to Pile On.
As for aging, I think aging is very much missed. The problem with it, was how it was utilized. LRB 4 niggle was horrid.
Yes, I agree with Nerdbird, aging from skill 3 only. Old niggle would be ok.....however it shouldn't add to tv (so done post game) or he only misses a half, not the game.
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | Ageing could have worked if it had peaked them instead of injuries making them pointless.
Could have called it something else and fluffed it up as not everyone has the same potential. |
That's an interesting concept. Or maybe once they've peaked, they could lose skills. So a definite career curve. |
Last edited by harvestmouse on %b %31, %2015 - %13:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 12:58 |
|
So you see Loner as fluff? I see Bonehead, Really Stupid, Always Hungry, Wild Animal, Take Root and Bloodlust as fluff rules with a balancing function. I see Loner as a pure balance rule that is way too drastic, making these players liabilities instead of assets. It comes from the inexplicable CRP S5 paranoia that also made the Ogre team even more of a joke. 
Repricing is one way to go, but I still think it's missing the problem. I'd rather remove Loner and make them more expensive, but then have 11 actual players on the pitch. But This is really getting off topic.  |
|
|
LucaAnt
Joined: Apr 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 13:00 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | I'd be more than happy that a player that reached ST 5 could take PO.
Thus you need great strength or weight to Pile On. |
Mmm... Pass! 
The funny fact is that your worst enemy (not talking directly with you, mousy, this is in general) in LRB4 would have been the best weapon against the new (and finally useful) PO. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 13:01 |
|
Actually the more I think about this the more I like it. You could really do a great career curve. There could be more skill rolls added too.
Something like off the top of my head:
Instead of 6 skills, 9 skill rolls to 300spp
1st aging roll at 3rd skill
1st failed skill roll means he has reached his zenith
After this he may skill again, stay the same or he may lose a skill
After he has lost a skill he may 'gain a skill/stat, stay the same, lose a skill, lose a stat'
After this he may 'gain a skill/stat, stay the same, lose a skill, lose a stat, gain a neg of some sort (decay, bonehead, niggle maybe)'
The old bug bear though is TV, what do you do with that. He shouldn't gain TV for staying the same or losing a skill/stat. |
|
|
LucaAnt
Joined: Apr 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 13:04 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: | So you see Loner as fluff? I see Bonehead, Really Stupid, Always Hungry, Wild Animal, Take Root and Bloodlust as fluff rules with a balancing function. I see Loner as a pure balance rule that is way too drastic, making these players liabilities instead of assets. It comes from the inexplicable CRP S5 paranoia that also made the Ogre team even more of a joke.
Repricing is one way to go, but I still think it's missing the problem. I'd rather remove Loner and make them more expensive, but then have 11 actual players on the pitch. But This is really getting off topic. |
This is a Garion & Friends' Fluff>Balance stuff, I don't want embroil in it!
But I have to say, i prefer the old rule, where you were not able burning RRs for them. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2015 - 13:10 |
|
| Carlo_Pellegatti wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | I'd be more than happy that a player that reached ST 5 could take PO.
Thus you need great strength or weight to Pile On. |
Mmm... Pass!
The funny fact is that your worst enemy (not talking directly with you, mousy, this is in general) in LRB4 would have been the best weapon against the new (and finally useful) PO. |
I think there is room for a super killer combo, just not with the frequency we see it. I also think there should be a counter.....so fouling somewhere between what it is now and what it was in lrb 4.
That with a mild form of aging, should more than makes up for the attrition.
It also means that:
A: Spreads out the kill factor
B: Easier for the teams avoiding being killed (and there are many), getting killed.
There are a lot of ranked elves cruising to legend in 40 games right now. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
