FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 05:45

oh yes we do!

_________________

Beerox

Joined: Feb 14, 2008

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 05:47

If I could make ONE change, it would be PO is for Big Guys only.

I have other ideas as well, but this is the big one. PO is a double skill in that it also protects the player who gets to apply mega damage. It's a game breaker for me.

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 05:54

Dach wrote:

IMO, CPOMB isnt that much of a problem if we buff Sneaky Git a bit to balanced it out.

and by leaving CPOMB as is and buffing Foul, I don't think we need aging that much. Laughing

It all comes down to probability. CPomb can be handled but it still has an unrealistically high probability to work compared to other mechanics in the game.
The problem I see is that there are lots of very interesting and versatile choices in the strength category, but none of them are interesting to take as long as it gets overshadowed by a single row of skills. SG isn't going to be the answer, it's way too situational.

You could invent 100 ways to work around CPOMB to somehow make it all work and keep it but the underlining problem is and remains CPOMB. Fix it and all the other problems disappear.

If you're really going for a mild solution you literally don't have to change anything else. At all.

We have been testing versions with CPOMB mildly tuned down in league and it did almost nothing to discourage its use. I think thats a pretty strong argument that it can be tuned down without problems*.

Improved SG in this conjunction can absolutely coexist although as I alluded to in my initial post... with the (sorry better solution) of improved fouling it could work but it's a thin line. Assuming you speak about getting KOed instead of banned (mostly not a fan from the fluff side of things, not that I'd ultimatively mind, it could be certainly fun).

*I'm cutting some corners using logic here so if it isn't clear why that's a strong argument ask me again and I'll give a longer explanation.

fidius

Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 06:15

pythrr wrote:

mrt1212 wrote:

I can't believe I'm the only person on this site that enjoys player building for the sake of itself.

oh, so do i. but i think a limited return of aging would help non-clawpomb player building, as there would be fewer monsters eating all the fat juicy hairy children.

There was a good ageing mechanic hashed around on TFF a while back, which I twisted into a pretzel and made my own. It involved a new EXP counter, and making a d6 Experience Roll for every player after every match: if you roll higher than your current EXP (6 always wins) you get +1 point of EXP, which is worth +1 SPP. Once you accumulate enough EXP you start having a chance at MNG (and later a potential Niggling Injury) on each post-match roll. (Basically if you roll a 6 on the d6, you then roll 2d6 for Ageing and add your EXP. Exceed a threshold, get a MNG; exceed a higher threshold, get a Niggle.) You also gain an EXP point (and therefore +1 SPP) for taking a CAS, to represent getting beat-up and your career shortened by the wear-and-tear of Blood Bowl.

I also rewrote Decay from its current abomination to the gaining of +2 EXP per CAS instead of +1. Accelerated ageing from hits, basically.

Niggling Injury in turn is nerfed such that players were not more fragile on-field, but took more serious injuries when they did get hit (+1 on the d6 portion of the Casualty d68, to a max of 5). So you'd end up protecting aging stars on your team but they are not liabilities, so there is incentive to keep them around until they take a debilitating statloss CAS, which becomes more and more likely.

The average player would enter the potential MNG zone after about 15 games with a 1/216 chance at MNG (you'd have to roll a 6 post-game, then a 6/6 on the Ageing Table). The first +Niggle chance would come at an average of 33 games (9 EXP) at 1/216. After an average of 99 games (19 EXP) the +Niggle chance tops out at 1/6 per post-match. At least that's where I've got the numbers now, haven't tuned them yet. Some players would defy Ageing by avoiding those 6s, and others would age before their time, but on average these figures would prevail.

Main benefits are 1) natural attrition due to number of games rather than skillups (which is very important imo), plus 2) the SPP help for certain rookies (Fleshies, BOBs, Tomb Guardians) to get their first level-up, and 3) additional SPP for taking injuries.

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 06:46

fidius wrote:

longish post

Hate aging but this sounds great and well thought out. Perhaps too complicated. Smile

Dach

Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 07:46

Personnaly hate aging, prefer players dieing on the pitch gloriously or getting maimed then retired.

@mrt1212: Removing Loner on Goblin team Troll is a good idea actually, didn't think about that. You can keep Always Hungry then! Wink

I've also read the WhatBall LRB7.1 and found some great idea, they're a lot of thing I found too complicated in there or simply to much. Here's the list I would like to try.

- No touchback after a failed catch from the receiving team that bounce out of their side of the pitch.

- Inversing "Get the Ref" and "Throw a Rock" position on the kickoff event

- Chainsaw, Bomb and Stab getting 1 SPP by casualty (My idea, he did have 1SPP for "kill" with Chainsaw and Bomb in his rules)

- 0-2 Cheerleaders or Assistants coach for inducement option at 20k each.

- After a succesfull regeneration roll, place the player in the KO box, not the reserve.

- Decay being -1 to regeneration dice roll. (Also adding Decay to all Zombie.)

- Adding Thick Skull to Thrall.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 08:15

Dach wrote:

IMO, CPOMB isnt that much of a problem if we buff Sneaky Git a bit to balanced it out.

and by leaving CPOMB as is and buffing Foul, I don't think we need aging that much. Laughing

Your opinion is off the mark. increasing the greatest value of a highly variable counter tactic is much less likely to actually have a noticeable impact than hitting it straight on. You'd have to have sneaky git function like guard, ejections happen on doubles on the injury table, +1 to foul just for the hell for fouling to be a viable counter tactic, in and of itself to clawpomb

Step 1 - if you have normal mutation access you can only have normal S access on a natural ST4 character or stronger. CW, NW can build clawpombers to their hearts delight. Beastmen, pesitogors, marauders, etc etc need doubles to get MB or PO. Skaven Blitzers on Underworld are only exception. If people want to play underworld for the easier clawpombers, so be it, let them deal with gobbo and skaven problems along the way. Reduce the cost of Pestigors to 70. It fits with the idea that Chaos Warriors and Nurgle Warriors are the baddest SOBs in the game, I think most people can live with this roster change. Chaos Pact? Who cares, only the people playing in the most minmaxy antisocial way really would be put off by this. The 3 big guy build is still viable.

Step 2 - change piling to cause the piling on player to be stunned when using piling on. Actual opportunity cost now to using it. Elegant solution if I do say so myself. Which I do.

Step 3 - have MB only apply on Injury. AV7 or worse is no longer a complete joke especially against it. Especially when combined with PO allowing reroll of armor.

Step 4 - change fouling rules to described above. Sneaky Git functions like guard for assist, retains it's ability to prevent ejection on an unsuccessful foul, an unsuccessful foul only occurs on doubles on the injury table, and there's +1 to break armor on foul. Might make fouling too powerful? Learn to embrace the new status quo.

Bam, Clawpomb as a game breaking mechanic is solved - in roster, in gameplay rules, and in disincentive to PO through fouling.

The clawpomb teams can still build them but they're not nearly the same force but they'd still be viable for those willing to invest the time, humans and orcs and dwarves still can build their pombers et al but also aren't as painful, fouling is a bit more tenable as a primary strategy for stunty teams and lizards and overall for any team with 40k linos.

Chaos and Nurgle might suffer, but so what? You can build the killstack, you've still got mutations. Who knows, we might actually see interesting teams for once with them. Sure this would piss some people off but it's like taking a cat's prey away from them before the kill - course they'll be mad they lost their preferred method of sadism. Abloo Abloo, how will the world go on?

These 4 changes alone would be worth being the only changes to the game going forward. I of course have other pet ideas (Sure feet rerolls right stuff landing, cause not everyone is Kam level of stunty and I think the risk of having repeated 60% chances to score TDs is worth the trouble of playing them at all.) and cost adjustments that I've discussed elsewhere. But you make those 4 changes you've got less chance of block related CAS influencing the game - both through reduction of players that can dish it out and the chances of CAS being reduced through gameplay rule change.

And really, I don't want to see drastic changes. I don't want to see tons of new things added in. I want the game to be as familiar as possible to someone who has played crp while simply being better balanced for people that play it in the long term. I don't want to have things get extra complicated for TT either.

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 08:36

This is your last warning, chaps. There is a section of the forum for ClawPOMB, take the chat about it there.

Edit: I'd missed we were in General. Moved to the natural home of House Rules and Other Ideas.

Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %10, %2016 - %08:%Feb; edited 2 times in total

Lorebass

Joined: Jun 25, 2010

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 08:39

FUMBBL Staff

Purplegoo wrote:

This is your last warning, chaps. There is a section of the forum for ClawPOMB, take the chat about it there.

That is correct.

All CPOMB complain-a-saurus-ing will stop now. All who wish to continue the discussion please use your mastery of the forums to go to the clawpomb sticky thread.

Thats what its there for and thats only where its good for. Otherwise youll get my knickers in a twist and I go rage-hammering? ... sure!

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 08:40

fidius wrote:

pythrr wrote:

mrt1212 wrote:

I can't believe I'm the only person on this site that enjoys player building for the sake of itself.

oh, so do i. but i think a limited return of aging would help non-clawpomb player building, as there would be fewer monsters eating all the fat juicy hairy children.

There was a good ageing mechanic hashed around on TFF a while back, which I twisted into a pretzel and made my own. It involved a new EXP counter, and making a d6 Experience Roll for every player after every match: if you roll higher than your current EXP (6 always wins) you get +1 point of EXP, which is worth +1 SPP. Once you accumulate enough EXP you start having a chance at MNG (and later a potential Niggling Injury) on each post-match roll. (Basically if you roll a 6 on the d6, you then roll 2d6 for Ageing and add your EXP. Exceed a threshold, get a MNG; exceed a higher threshold, get a Niggle.) You also gain an EXP point (and therefore +1 SPP) for taking a CAS, to represent getting beat-up and your career shortened by the wear-and-tear of Blood Bowl.

I also rewrote Decay from its current abomination to the gaining of +2 EXP per CAS instead of +1. Accelerated ageing from hits, basically.

Niggling Injury in turn is nerfed such that players were not more fragile on-field, but took more serious injuries when they did get hit (+1 on the d6 portion of the Casualty d68, to a max of 5). So you'd end up protecting aging stars on your team but they are not liabilities, so there is incentive to keep them around until they take a debilitating statloss CAS, which becomes more and more likely.

The average player would enter the potential MNG zone after about 15 games with a 1/216 chance at MNG (you'd have to roll a 6 post-game, then a 6/6 on the Ageing Table). The first +Niggle chance would come at an average of 33 games (9 EXP) at 1/216. After an average of 99 games (19 EXP) the +Niggle chance tops out at 1/6 per post-match. At least that's where I've got the numbers now, haven't tuned them yet. Some players would defy Ageing by avoiding those 6s, and others would age before their time, but on average these figures would prevail.

Main benefits are 1) natural attrition due to number of games rather than skillups (which is very important imo), plus 2) the SPP help for certain rookies (Fleshies, BOBs, Tomb Guardians) to get their first level-up, and 3) additional SPP for taking injuries.

This would be a stellar house rule for a long term league with drafts. If anything I'd love for there to be a conscious effort to acknowledge the various venues of play and put in the rulebook variants for the venue. Aging in black box and ranked would, imo ruin one of the coolest aspects of both venues of play - building players and narrative so long as you have time to dedicate to doing
it. I think grinding for legends is fine as it provides more games for more people and as I can attest to - having 3 legends on a team doesn't solve issues of coaching Embarassed

Obviously I'm borderline delusional thinking that GW would have that kind of insight into the reality of how people play their game (They are the George Lucas of table top gaming.) but it would absolutely help some issues I have with a lot of the suggestions around aging or bank rules or hell, even some of the most benign suggestions other people have.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 09:03

Purplegoo wrote:

This is your last warning, chaps. There is a section of the forum for ClawPOMB, take the chat about it there.

Edit: I'd missed we were in General. Moved to the natural home of House Rules and Other Ideas.

Though I thought that the thread was supposed to be about the direction of the game rather than "house rules".

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 09:07

koadah wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

This is your last warning, chaps. There is a section of the forum for ClawPOMB, take the chat about it there.

Edit: I'd missed we were in General. Moved to the natural home of House Rules and Other Ideas.

Though I thought that the thread was supposed to be about the direction of the game rather than "house rules".

Don't sweat it. They have nothing better to do than being idiots. You can't beat 'em.

Edited: watch the language.

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 09:12

I gave up trying to inject sense into such things, don't you worry.

Perhaps it was, although the premise in the first place was made up, and it's since become an excuse for 9 pages of lists of house rules. It's ended up in the correct place.

Enough! Enjoy (?) and cut out the ClawPOMB.

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 09:18

Purplegoo wrote:

Perhaps it was, although the premise in the first place was made up, and it's since become an excuse for 9 pages of lists of house rules. It's ended up in the correct place.

Was it made up? Because I'd very much like to hear more about that. NerdBerd certainly seemed to contest it.
Not that I have any illusions about this thread turning out to have some impact. But ultimately decisions aren't made in forums. That's not what they are for. I doubt anyone has illusions about that much Wink

.

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2016 - 09:26

It's typical Internet Chinese whispers. A man Tweets a contextless sentence about 'writing Blood Bowl', a pillock on TFF makes a thread entitled 'the job to rewrite the rulebook has been posted', two and two are added together and it is decided the far more incendiary 'there will be new rules' is factual and the far more likely reality of a stripped black box or bit of new fluff ignored. Standard Internet forum practice; abandon the most logical outcome in favour of thinking the sky is falling. Everything at this point is made up, why make up boring stuff?

I don't expect people to be sensible, but I do think they can do better than mislead without making it clear they're speculating. The premise of this thread (whilst a thin one so that every house rule could be pulled apart) could easily mislead those that don't follow such things closely.

Anyway, enough moderation (I hope), I'm going to work. Behave.