Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 03:39 |
 
|
I am actually relieved to see there are a couple of guys who think this ruleset is fine.
And I'd like that group to be more vocal since well.. if you don't say anything it sort of distorts the impressions people might get.
I'm also positively surprised that over the years we have come to a point where so many people think of the CRP as mostly fine as I very vividly remember times when more than 50% of this community saw the CRP as the end of days or something.
On the other hand I feel that the people who basically don't want a rulechange are people that only joined post CRP. Which is of course fair enough. Still, perhaps if you could compare you would also see the potential for a little more. |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 04:24 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | I am actually relieved to see there are a couple of guys who think this ruleset is fine.
And I'd like that group to be more vocal since well.. if you don't say anything it sort of distorts the impressions people might get.
I'm also positively surprised that over the years we have come to a point where so many people think of the CRP as mostly fine as I very vividly remember times when more than 50% of this community saw the CRP as the end of days or something.
On the other hand I feel that the people who basically don't want a rulechange are people that only joined post CRP. Which is of course fair enough. Still, perhaps if you could compare you would also see the potential for a little more. |
I am right with you Wreckage. The poll surprises me in how many people enjoy the ruleset. I figure they are either, as you have mentioned, people that are new and know about no other rulesets or....
Dirty Clawpombing Nurg coaches! 
Seriously though, a few of you have spoken up how you really like the ruleset as is, I would like to hear more of the supporters! |
_________________
 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 04:37 |
|
|
Dach
Joined: Dec 25, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 06:18 |
|
Here's some small tweak I would be willing to try.
Bank rule at 200k or maybe 250k.
Sneaky Git = Can re-roll armor or injury roll. (like PO)
Remove sprint from Bull Centaurs.
Stunty = Not affected by tackle while trying to dodge. Tackle still cancel dodge when they get blocked/blitzed.
Remove always hungry on Troll.
That's all I can think for now. Anyway I wouldn't make too much change in one go. Small step are better to appreciate the difference they make. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 08:09 |
|
@Wreckage - Or the definition of minor tweaking is tweaked a little bit.
I think the way the question was constructed leads naturally to that answer winning it all based on my experience from uni marketing course (when i did questionnaires after questionaire).
2 things are going on here at a minimum (i will simplify here)
- General happiness (people like it no matter how they feel)
- Incorporates change
This is the only answer which has a message of both, so this is the answer with the most "prosperous" image.
If you add that people want familiarity (so little change), and also that people want to change only what they think is important, and the answer does not require agreement between those (on what mini changes should be done), it is an easy winner in my books. |
_________________
 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 08:29 |
|
| Dach wrote: |
Remove always hungry on Troll.
|
No way! Remove Loner from Trolls on Gobbos. The sound effect for it is great. |
|
|
mattwakeman
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 09:04 |
|
Random skills
Split ST to be offensive / defensive
Split AG to be dodge / ball handling
Change the ST/AG stats to make incremental improvements less drastic. |
|
|
Fingard
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:03 |
|
Current ruleset is great.
I'd only SLIGHTLY limit the cpomb power ("ST5 only" or "2nd frenzy push only" are HUGE limitations, which would kill the cpomb teams and the combo itself... It would be easier to just remove them then) and make SLIGHTLY better the teams with claw access at playing the ball.
A good limitation for CPOMB could be:
- Piling on costs 1 ma (ofc 1 gfi if needed, and you can't PO at all if you already used 2 gfi).
A good boost for claw-access-teams ballhandling could be:
- Big hand and extra arms are put togheter in 1 skill: when picking up, you can CHOOSE which to use.
Maybe this would make Skaven too good, but it's just an idea |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:06 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | I am actually relieved to see there are a couple of guys who think this ruleset is fine.
And I'd like that group to be more vocal since well.. if you don't say anything it sort of distorts the impressions people might get.
I'm also positively surprised that over the years we have come to a point where so many people think of the CRP as mostly fine as I very vividly remember times when more than 50% of this community saw the CRP as the end of days or something.
On the other hand I feel that the people who basically don't want a rulechange are people that only joined post CRP. Which is of course fair enough. Still, perhaps if you could compare you would also see the potential for a little more. |
Maybe you don't visit many other boards.
It often seems that thinking that there is anything at all wrong with the rules is mainly a Fumbbl thing.
Or it may just be the volume of Dode's post count.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:11 |
|
The tweak to cpomb i would prefer is that MB only applicable (+1) on injury. (And may be cancelling thick skull, but that is not important.) So MB would be the injury thing, claw would be the armor thing, and PO would be the reroll thing. The main reason (way beyong aesthetics) for my recommendation is bacease pomb is also unfair to armor 7, and MB is way the strongest element of the combo. |
|
|
Fingard
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:23 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | The tweak to cpomb i would prefer is that MB only applicable (+1) on injury. (And may be cancelling thick skull, but that is not important.) So MB would be the injury thing, claw would be the armor thing, and PO would be the reroll thing. The main reason (way beyong aesthetics) for my recommendation is bacease pomb is also unfair to armor 7, and MB is way the strongest element of the combo. |
It's true that MB is the main skill of the combo, but nerfing it would involve major changes to the whole ruleset, since MB is probably the best and more widespread BB skill after block and dodge.
For example a MB nerf would make big guys even more underpowered, and elves even more overpowered.
Everything should be rebalanced. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:28 |
|
I would argue that such rebalance is needed anyway. For example the big guys are overcosted anyway. Unless you want to leave them as bad as today you may wish for a change anyway. |
_________________
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:30 |
|
My own opinion on the thread apart, I will remind you from a mod point of view that there is a ClawPOMB megathread. There has been plenty of 'how to houserule ClawPOMB' here already, but it should tail off quickly or move there if the thread wishes to remain. I'm not sure a merger would serve the interests of those that want to carry on debating wider house rules or speculating on the meaning of tea leaves, Tweets or the sky at night. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 10:32 |
|
I was thinking if i just link my similar post, or spell out, but figured does not matter. Sorry if it was incorrect. |
_________________
|
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2016 - 11:07 |
|
For me make Piling on player is stunned.
Aging roll every 30spp ?? which results in a niggle if failed. Most legends would end up with at least 1 niggle by 180spp and increase turnover.
Maybe a 2 tier skill costing in each category for the non used skills to be cheaper.
+1 to fouling again.
Otherwise I think it mostly works. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
