| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 464 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 840 |
|
DrDiscoStu
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
|
 Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 09:47 |
 
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | Weakening the skill is one thing. But making it stun your player means it becomes a dreadful skill. I suppose it would just be used on or just before a td turn or just before half or full time. |
Disagree, it means the skill goes on players of less importance and you roll it only when connecting with one hell of a target. And and certain times like end of half or before the score. Or when getting players off is more important than the drive to the overall context of the game |
_________________
Check out my fishing and camping blog.
The Black Pearl Bounty-Board.
GUARD CONQUERS ALL! |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 10:07 |
|
Making pile on self stun:
- It is a real cost, no question, hard choice
- It will balance players LONG TERM in a way that you may want to pile on with a 130 TV player even with self stun, but probably not with a 210 TV legend. So the effectiveness will decrease over TV, and fall off the cliff (although from a very high cliff, and will still be much better than a normal random blitzer) at about 150-160 TV.
- It would probably not lessen the number of kills significantly
- Coaches would probably not pile on when armor is not broken, when it is strategically important to stay upright, and would probably not reroll a KO. So elves would continue to suck this d***.
- The best window of counteraction would be that the opponent does not need to foul immediately, but would have an extra turn to do so. This would make the biggest difference in any given game. A tactical play would add 2 more out turns, even it is a stun. But this is usually not the elven way, so teams with reserves would improve most against pomb.
As a summary it looks to be a little weird on the short term, but would be a fix for the long run, as this change does not affect the chance of a single kill, but would lessen the efficiency of the player with PO as its TV rises. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 10:25 |
|
This is all overcomplicating things, just make it not stack with MB and Claw... Simples. Then you drop its effectiveness from 58% chance of Ko+ to 34% ish. (note these percentages are very quick approximations I haven't worked out exactly what they would be, but I am pretty close) |
_________________
 |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 10:30 |
|
| fidius wrote: | Apart from encouraging us to play out the flying leap into the face-down position on the physical board with sound effects, I'm not a huge fan. I like that it results in a full turn of inconsequence, and leaves them exposed to fouls for longer. But:
a) under current fouling and cpomb rules it's still safer to be on the ground than standing;
b) it's still overpowered in terms of effectiveness; and
c) I can't think of a fluff reason for the rule. |
For A and B: but if you always PO you will lose so much more, and you will also get to pile on less often in a given game. Those two factors combined, I believe this will make piling on a much less-used skill, mostly for a blitz where you've targeted, blitzed and stunned a key blayer. With this rule in place, I'd be a lot less annoyed at facing a PO-heavy team (and much less inclined to play as one).
As for C: You've got your elbow/knee/tentacles stuck in/around a victim's arm/skull/bowels/etc; the two of you are tangled up on the ground, and you're busy untangling or removing your limbs from your victim's, before you're able to get up and do stuff. |
|
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 11:03 |
|
| fidius wrote: |
New Piling On (S)
o Useable on block, blitz, or foul
o After either Armour or Injury roll
o Must back up to Armour roll, with bonus equal to ST difference (eg ST5 on ST3 = +2) plus skill bonuses and/or fouling assists. (Any skills already used on the original roll cannot be used again.)
o If Armour roll fails, Piling On player is Knocked Down; make unmodified Armour roll against, and turnover.
o Piling On on a foul still subject to ejection on doubles
o Cannot be used with Claw
Nice on Big Guys; reasonable on ST4 AV9 guys; bit suicidal on ST3/AV7 mens.
|
This idea is very very close to another attempt at a house rule that I came up with recently. In fact it is eerily close.
One difference is that I would add +1 to the armour roll if the victim is already stunned, since you have to back up to the armour roll, making the risk of piling on a lot bigger, and because the stunned player can't try to squirm out or fend the attacker off. Snake eyes should always cause an armour roll on the attacker, even if the modifiers make them break the victims armour as well, and I would also disallow Mighty Blow, because elbows (still) aren't fists.
I was considering this solution in the context of a bunch more house rules though, some of which impact fouling, surfing and damage output in general, and not as a simple fix. Still, as a simple fix I think I would still find this rule more entertaining than the CRP 'blitz, kill, duck and cover!' version. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 16:29 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: | Because piling on in blood bowl isn't illegal, while fouling is.
The direction is good, though: force the attacker to make a harder choice and reward him with extra carnage. I assume this was the original idea - that going prone was a sacrifice made in exchange for damage potential - only it turns out that lying down on the pitch mid-game isn't all that bad. It tends to be rewarded with long, legendary careers, learning lots of new skills and retiring healthier than most players who make an effort to stay on their feet.
IMO, if you want to make piling on risky, make it so that the player piling on can take actual damage, not get sent off to safety. Make it a kamikazi action, unfit for massively expensive skill stacking but immediately effective on the right players. Like a dirty player that you don't expect to keep on the field throughout the game, but expect to have back for the next one, only this guy should make it through the game but not live out the season. I think the coaches who work to spill the most blood on the pitch might as well lead by example and contribute with a bit of their own  |
I like that because it fits a bit the already existing Goblin kill rage dice, when you throw a one something bad happens. If you do it with a saw or while trying to grind a grounded player something fatal happens.
But about the difference to "illegal" fouls. I thought foul is simply if you keep attacking a grounded opponent. So I would assume some refs could view a Beastman "falling down" on an already grounded and weeping Gobbo as a foul. It's two different skills, but how would it be perceived by viewers? I guess more or like the same  |
_________________
 |
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 19:43 |
|
Sure, I can understand that view. Still, I think that two different types of extra powerful attacks should have two different types of possible drawbacks.
Dirty players are usually cheap players who don't get to finish a lot of games, but tend to survive to play the next one, and are easily replaced anyway. Body slammers need to be able to reliably knock opponents over, ideally also the more important opposing players. Skills like block and tackle are useful for this, so even if the kill stack doesn't enter into the equation, these players are bigger investments, less easily replaced and not someone you'd want to have sitting out 14 turns on the bench after an unlucky first block.
I'd say keep them dangerous, have them stay on the pitch most of the time, but make the chance of critical failure even more serious, possibly lethal.
Two different mechanics for hurting people, two different mechanics for costly failure. Like the goblin madness you describe, I think that's the way to make rules seem fitting and fun. |
|
|
LucaAnt
Joined: Apr 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 20:01 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Removing Po would be fine |
Disinherited |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 20:10 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | This is all overcomplicating things, just make it not stack with MB and Claw... Simples. Then you drop its effectiveness from 58% chance of Ko+ to 34% ish. (note these percentages are very quick approximations I haven't worked out exactly what they would be, but I am pretty close) |
Non stacking is not more simple. Actually it is quite lawyer-speak-ish if you spell it out correctly. If you are on to simplicity, then the proposal of stun is a very nice solution. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 20:48 |
|
| Carlo_Pellegatti wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Removing Po would be fine |
Disinherited |
OK How about if we make Dp +2/+2 and 12 = dead? |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 20:49 |
|
Wouldn't a reasonable fix be to make mutations doubles for all teams except Underworld (They are mostly Stunty & goes with the Warpstone lore)?
Everyone has access to PO/MB, and all mutant teams (excluding Underworld) would need doubles to grow claws. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2015 - 21:19 |
|
Why yes, yes that would a reasonable fix bill. I'm surprised I haven't heard it before
It goes a bit deeper though...
Some rosters should lose some of their spammed S access. This would also help a little, but you'd have to split Beastmen into 2 different kinds, maybe one has G/M and the other has G/S. Nurgs already sort of there, but 9 cpomb potential. Pact and Chaos need a tweak. CD are already perfectly fine as they are. (and necro and norse don't matter in this discussion)
I'd prefer if there was a limit of 6-8 players per team who could actually develop cpomb, and even better if only half (or less) could get it on all regular rolls.
Ok I ignored underworld. So does everyone else though  |
|
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2015 - 03:33 |
|
While simplicity is good, it is not always the main concern - if it was, no one would play complex games.
Anyhow, as a case for pure simplicity I wonder if anyone has mentioned limiting Piling On use to once per turn, like fouling, passing, blitzing etc.? One line of clear, unambiguous text in the skill description should have a major impact on the unwanted and uncool spamming of a skill that seems like it should be more niche. It's not my favourite solution, but at least it would limit the ridiculous impact of the coin toss in some matches.
Just a stray thought... |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2015 - 03:53 |
|
| licker wrote: | Why yes, yes that would a reasonable fix bill. I'm surprised I haven't heard it before
It goes a bit deeper though...
Some rosters should lose some of their spammed S access. This would also help a little, but you'd have to split Beastmen into 2 different kinds, maybe one has G/M and the other has G/S. Nurgs already sort of there, but 9 cpomb potential. Pact and Chaos need a tweak. CD are already perfectly fine as they are. (and necro and norse don't matter in this discussion)
I'd prefer if there was a limit of 6-8 players per team who could actually develop cpomb, and even better if only half (or less) could get it on all regular rolls.
Ok I ignored underworld. So does everyone else though |
Ignore UW at your own peril. Oh my god they can be nasty. |
|
|
Gurbo
Joined: Sep 29, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2015 - 04:00 |
|
For a fluff-backed drawback to PO, and CPOMB specifically what about this:
You roll for armor regardless of the previous roll. If the previous one was successful it just means you'll roll for injury anyway. On a double on this extra armor roll, you didn't fall like you wanted over the opponent, hitting a spike or another hard part of the armor, and roll for armor/injury using your own bonuses against you.
I expect more experienced players to say if it's too much, but turning an one-sided carnage into a risky double edged sword might be a solution. Double the blood, double the fun, right? |
|
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
