| Poll |
| How do you like your BloodBowl? |
| Just the way it is. I LOVE IT, leave it alone. |
|
18% |
[ 30 ] |
| I love it but it could use some minor tweaking. |
|
60% |
[ 97 ] |
| I like it but it needs some major changes. |
|
13% |
[ 22 ] |
| Needs a complete overhaul. Scrap the current ruleset and rewrite it. |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| I don't care as long as I can kill your pixels and shirtcopter as you ragequit. |
|
6% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 160 |
|
Seventyone
Joined: Dec 02, 2010
|
 Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 19:07 |
 
|
The goo speaks sense. Respect the goo! (Still fun to speculate about how to improve on CRP though) |
Last edited by Seventyone on %b %10, %2016 - %19:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 19:21 |
|
| Seventyone wrote: | | The goo speaks sense. Respect the goo! (Still fun to speculate about how to improve on credit though) |
Changing the rulebook up might aswell be a good way to make money. Because who you really want to buy the new box is the old consumer base who already have a box set.
I'd argue new rules come as a pretty strong incentive there. The quality of the new rules almost don't matter. The main reason against it I see is that you have to pay somebody to take care of it, which means additional expenses on something GW doesn't want to invest money on.
Still Goo is just speculating and the only difference is that he does it with the threat of use of his site authority. Otherwise he could have just stated his thoughts on the matter and then left.
Instead he finds more enjoyment in speaking cryptically, acting like he is above it all, mocking the process (moving this to House Rules is by the way just another way of saying 'you're nuts'- which he did also say) and then all the while closely monitors every word waiting for a reason to shut it all down.
Debate is never bad. But ok, admins can do whatever. Not going to argue with that. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 19:35 |
|
| Fingard wrote: | 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. |
That's the whole idea. CPOMB teams need killing. As you also mentioned, big guys need a buff. This in a way buffs big guys. The frenzy only does 2 things.
1. It adds a tactical edge to the combo.
2. It gives some room for the shock rosters (norse/khorne).
It still allows chaos to be the claw rosters. And the only CPOMB teams would be fewer; still be very 1 dimensional, but very hard to have a winning percentage with.
| mrt1212 wrote: | | pythrr wrote: |
lovely fat kid. what's yr point? |
I can't believe I'm the only person on this site that enjoys player building for the sake of itself. |
I think we are seeing the problem with aging. The problem actually with injuries full stop, especially on FUMBBL.
Injury=retirement. Which is a shame, as I think the new niggle is a really neat implementation. The problem is that most coaches here still fire niggles auto.
This would mean if a player aged and niggled he'd probably be auto-fired. This then means aging is too harsh.
Personally, I think coaches fire niggles too quickly here. A niggled dwarf with 2 skills for example really shouldn't be a fire case. But with TV, coaches prefer to cut and make clean.
Obviously we all agree that aging shouldn't start for the first 2 (or 3) skills. That was just bad implementation.
Also aging shouldn't be an auto retirement. A form of aging maybe.........'An increase in TV, as the player gets more games he feels he worth more and demands more TV than his actual worth'. I still like the new niggle though........
I think stat drops shouldn't be part of aging. I think it's a lot of work and hard to come up with a really good formula, but it should be a thing where the more a player ages the greater chances of him being cut. Rather than an auto cut.
| Wreckage wrote: | | But it IS true that GW is rereleasing a new box set of BB in 2017, right? |
Quite probably. Andy Hoare has been charged with getting BB up and running again. Leaked photos suggest a boxset, but things may change or they may go down a different route.
| Wreckage wrote: | | And... iirc by the words of another thread 'an adapted version of LRB5' |
This is a separate tournament. People who have spoken to them have heard it will be an adapted version of LRB5. Sann (NAF comish) spoke to them and he feels it's going to be closer to CRP.
This is just for one tournament and the differences between the 2 will carry about as much weight as a gnat's willy.
| Wreckage wrote: | | which may be understood to be the CRP ruleset or something the like. But in any case would present an opportunity for a rule change. Or am I wrong with that? |
No, they are most definitely aware of the existence of CRP. Rule changes are most likely to be tailored for a GW tourney, which will have different goals to a NAF tourney. There's absolutely nothing to say that this tourney rules (organised by Warhammer World) will have any bearing on the rules or potential rule changes for a boxset (if it is coming or not).
| PainState wrote: |
Also I think bringing back the 2ed idea of mutants as a positional would be something to look at. |
Absolutely, yes. We should have more positional options.
Kicker option for all teams (bar Skaven).
Berserkers and Runner options too.
Tidy up runners so they're all quasi thrower and clear about that. So tidy that Norse Running fellow up, bring into line and give him a haircut/beard trim.
| mrt1212 wrote: | | It also strikes me as fundamentally un-BB like. The beauty of BB is the simplicity sometimes. |
Agreed, I'd really like to see levels and stuff. There 'could' be room for them, but it's unBB/GW like to complicate things. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 23:59 |
|
The #1 one way to buff the idea of teams having 15-16 man rosters is not to mess with TV calculation and so forth.
You harken back to 2ed BB.
You allow players in the reserve box to come out of the dug out if your team is under 11 players on the pitch, at the start of your own turn.
Example
Opening turn of the match, they blow off the LOS and 3 guys are sitting next to you in the dugout in various state of disarray.
You can then send in at the start of the bottom half of Turn 1 three of your reserve players.
Then, there is a reason to run a 16 man roster. It provides a ON FIELD, in GAME advantage.
******************
The argument against 16 man rosters is about TV.
BUT
The core of the anti 16 man roster is that you are giving up to much TV for no ON FIELD, in GAME advantage.
With putting in a substitution rule, well, bring on the 16 man rosters. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 00:11 |
|
I think upping the utility of fouling alone would encourage deeper rosters. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 00:15 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | I think upping the utility of fouling alone would encourage deeper rosters. |
It will not sir.
I have been waging this underground war of running 14-16 man roster teams, feasting on 11 man stupid ass Box build teams. Fouling them into oblivion, yet, Iam just one coach with one team. As a side note I almost touched the stars and reached Legend CR because of this.
To convince the masses.
You need a carrot
That carrot is to allow Subs. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 01:04 |
|
Yeah it's a good point and an interesting concept. The pitch would need a redesigned, as the dugouts were on opposite sides. I guess you could have it on the endzone.
You could also then bring in a rule like the skeletons used to have with KOs moving back into the reserves.
I'm not sure what the overall effect would be, but cas causing teams would suffer I think....slow moving teams too. |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 04:28 |
|
Endzone would just mean nobody ever scores. I'd probably assign the four middle squares on one side or the other (or both) of each team's half for incoming sub placement. Every turn would be too much as well -- maybe just once per half, immediately prior to each coach's Turn 5. It is really the only semi-answer to stalling I can think of. Also permits the "relentless" fluff behind regen teams and AV7 skeletons in particular, which is lost in the grind these days. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 05:42 |
|
No it has to be from the TD zone. Otherwise teams could sit a cadebreaking beast or sacking monster on the bench and bring them on to come from the rear. That's a much bigger disadvantage to the team in posention having to watch their back as well.
That illegal substitution card has the player come on from the TD zone. I don't see it becoming impossible to score relative to other places subs could enter from. And the way fidius you think stalling is bad and should be reduced why is that even a problem. Sure you probably find it annoying, I find it annoying too but at the same time I believe it is mostly my own poor play and anybody elses that enable the other team to do it. I also think it is part of the balence of the races. I don't want everything the same but there is a space between so unbalenced nobody plays and 100% balenced. Stalling is part of that.
So I am not sold on the idea unless the rules were totally rewritten totmake the game closer to an American Football sim. I just don't think it makes sense otherwise.
Also PainState I liked your idea about mutations. I think that would slot in quite nicely to the game. |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 06:04 |
|
Re stalling, I mostly agree with you, it's just an unfortunate component of the game. It's like the last 2 minutes of a basketball game: foul, free-throw; foul, free-throw. Yawn. As for TD zone, good point re: the card. However I think your concern re the cagebreaker/sacker beast is not a bug, it's a feature! |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2016 - 06:33 |
|
There would be masses to think about if you did add substitutions. Probably a lot more than we've thought already. It would be game changing.
I play a non-stalling game in my personal league. It favours certain type of Elves far too much....Skaven too. Teams that don't have good ball stealing capabilities, but plenty of variety for scoring. Pro-Elves without a good leaping stripballer for example. It's really really unfortunate, but not stalling is more unfair than stalling.
An idea I have used to prevent stalling in the past is a '3 ball' game. 1 ball is given to each team per half that must start within 4 squares of the end zone. Another ball is kicked. After a TD the ball is kicked. If you have a kicker within the squares a kicker can usually get the kick bonus from, you may add the bonus at any stage of the half. It helps prevent stalling to a degree, however as I know longer TT I know longer use this rule.
Mutants for me would get a roll on the 'mutation table' aka 2nd edition on a double. I did do a mutation's table (generally for my reference) based on the 2nd ed table, as I have the mutant position on some teams in my personal league.
So for example:
A chaos human Marauder mutant would be:
6338 GSMP/A MT (Mutation Table)
Thug
6337 GSM/PA MT
Tzeentch Beastman Mutant
6338 horns GSM/PA MT
etc etc generally they're a 0-2. However modern chaos concepts are that we don't have positions as such.
http://talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=42084 |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 21:24 |
|
Personally, if I was going to make changes to the ruleset, the one rule-of-thumb I would go by is that fouling has to be the most damaging action in the game (which is why you can only do it once per turn). In my opinion, that is the fundamental mechanic that CRP broke - that a player should never be safer lying on the floor on a BB pitch than they are on their feet (it also doesn't make sense fluff-wise).
Whether PO is tweaked or not, I think that if this rule-of-thumb were followed, CPOMB would be nerfed well-enough anyway.
Another rule-of-thumb that I see as broken in CRP is that the most damaging tactic in the game should not also be conducive to winning. Coaches should have to choose: do you want maximum damage, or do you want to maximize your win %? Fouling being the most damaging action is consistent with this because:
a) You can only do it once per turn
b) Eye of the ref (at least in LRB4)
c) Clustering your players together to gang-foul is very poor positionally
Very few DP-spam/gangfouling teams won FUMBBL majors in LRB4; however in CRP, CPOMB seems practically dominant. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 21:33 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | Personally, if I was going to make changes to the ruleset, the one rule-of-thumb I would go by is that fouling has to be the most damaging action in the game. |
If that is the case, what are the Chaos rosters' niche? For me Khorne (if they exist in everybody's eyes or not) should be the most damaging roster. If they don't then that is the general Chaos roster. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 23:40 |
|
I think they would still have a niche. As I mentioned above, in my hypothetically-modified ruleset, blanket gangfouling would not be conducive to winning games, because of the negative factors associated with it. So, there would still be a niche for chaos/nurgle/khorne to be the most damaging rosters without resorting to gangfouling (i.e. they can dish out the hurt and still win a good % of games).
Also, as you can only foul once per turn, even if fouling is the most damaging single action (statistically), it would still be possible for a claw-laden chaos team to potentially do more damage in a turn, because they can block/blitz more than once.
I'd say there was a niche for chaos in LRB4, even though fouling was the most potentially-damaging action. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 23:55 |
|
Well in LRB4 Claw/RSC was horrid; worse than CPOMB. The difference was that both needed doubles, where as CPOMB doesn't need any (for chaos).
We would be much better off with the eye.....I love the eye. I don't want to play without the eye. Unfortunately it's one of those things that was problematic on the table top (or was perceived to be). So although we think it's better, I don't think we'll get it back.
Fluffwise Chaos is seen as a team that 'doesn't overly care about the ball' and 'killing is the main objective'. I see this as Khorne and generic chaos over other gods however it does mean that a lot of coaches here are playing the roster as the gods intended........probably by accident mind.
It's why Khorne was such a bad idea of a roster. Of any idea, having the problems we have with Chaos rosters; Khorne was idiotic. Either you make it fluffy and extremely unpopular or you take away what Khorne basically is the blood letting god. Another example of Cyanide being a headless chicken (or the Khorne equivalent).
I have a feeling that the Cyanide rosters will gather more and more support (yay to new rosters/boo for the 2 they have). So that's one reason why I like my PO fix, it makes Khorne more realistic.
Mentioned earlier was that using CRP+ rules (DP buff/PO nerf) has made the league that uses it foul heaven. I find that difficult to believe, however it's something that needs to be looked into. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
