Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:09 |
 
|
| Carl_Stoneyard wrote: | | Quote: |
EDIT: In answer to Carls post, people post these threads to get our opinions. If they didn't want people to answer they wouldn't post the threads. Ask Galak, he LIKES to get feedback on stuff like this.
|
That is true of course. I just doubt the quality of some of the feedback. Opinions are great but they are such a waste of time if they are not well supported. |
Indeed. Some dudes haven't even read the new rules but find it necessary to make bold statements nevertheless. But after all, that's just how people are.  |
Last edited by Frankenstein on %b %11, %2004 - %12:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:11 |
|
I'm a big fan of allowing commisioners to choose league rules that work for them. Rather than "enforcing" a style of play on players. Adjustable Salary Caps is a good step in that direction. I hope we see more adjustable league rules in the next version of Blood Bowl.
I think the new handicaps have great potential. Right now, we can hire Stars, Journeymen, Staff, Apothecary, and Wizards. Other possible additions: Magic Items, Dirty Tricks, Extra Training (RRs), Insurance, Merchandizing (More Winnings). If a commissioner could select which of the above he'd like to use in his league, this would be a great first step in making league rules which are flexible for most Commisioners.
Sample Leagues could be included in the LRB:
Minor Leagues: 1,500,000 Gold Cap, Journeymen, Staff, Apothecary, Extra Training
Mages Delight: 2,000,000 Gold Cap Wizards, Magic Items, Dirty Tricks
Major Leagues: 3,000,000 Gold Cap All Options On
Better and fluffier league names could be used. The above is just to give an indication, of what I'd like to see in a complete set of league rules.
The handicaps also seem to encourage the development of more Star Players. The minor leagues should have stars since Griff probably wouldn't debase himself by playing there. Good rules for developping mid-range stars would be a welcome addition.
If the LRB included guidelines for creating leagues, I think you could see some very creative articles on expanded League Rules being developped by the fans (Great material for the new Fanatic Mag).
But PLEASE, could you not have come up with a better name than "Sweetners"? Am I the only one who cringes at that name? Has Blood Bowl been taken over by Nutrisweet?  Incentives, inducements, bonuses, bribes, equalizers, etc...
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
15 Reasons to be Angry |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:19 |
|
Okay, after reading all the new rules for testing and the comments here, there's more than a few things that need to be looked at...
First off, where is it that teams have vastly higher winnings? Winning a game averages 70k which is no higher than the average at 100TR now... while the loser averages a little shy of 45k... not even enough to cover an apoth! How does this not vastly strengthen the three undead races and to a lesser extent rotters and other high av teams?? 
Choosing MVP - this totally removes the disadvantage of low ag + low movement players - that they cannot control who gets spps as well as the elf teams can. After 2 games your black orc or nurgles rotter will have his first skill? Again favours strongly the slow, low ag teams, like..... khemri, undead, necromantic, orc, dwarf, lizardmen, rotters. 
Fan factor is made almost as useless as cheerleaders and assistant coaches are.... yuck. While the FF rolls are one of the most hated things in fumbbl, this is making actually winning a game totally pointless, as you can either choose to never lose FF, have it increase for just 10k every time you do win, but why would you when it helps your team by such a pitifully small amount. I'd rather have just 1 FF and gain extra 'sweetener' cash. This yet again favours teams that aren't built to play the ball - khemri, claw/rsc chaos etc.
Finally... this makes in many cases the lower TR team the favourite to win. Consider this:
My new 100 TR khemri team plays some 2-3 game old elf side. He is say 126 TR after some high scoring games.
My roster:
4 x 110k Mummies, 440k
1 x 70k Thro-ra, 70k
6 x 30k Skeletons, 180k
4 x 70k Team Rerolls, 280k
3 FF, 30k
total - 1000k.
Now sweeteners, i have 260k which I use to get:
1 extra mummy, 2 skeletons, and ramtut III.
Giving me 5 basic mummies, 1 thro-ra, 8 skellies for linefodder and a 5-6-2-9 block, break tackle, mighty blow, regenerate star player.
To counter this juggernaut, the elf has what 12 players with a handful of skill rolls and 2-3 rerolls, and is paying 50k for an apoth? Brilliant. 
Losing general access may limit them at higher TR, but with these rules it makes them even better at killing new teams than they are now.
PS. Anyone that thinks losing block will cripple mummies take a look at Wuhans khemri - first 3 skills on his were 2 break tackles and 1 multiple block... |
|
|
Hecropolix
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:26 |
|
| Quote: | | I am perfectly confident that all this stuff have been thought over several times before putting it in the vault. Now, our job is the PLAYTEST the rules, not to while about them. |
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahhahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha
hahahaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhah
ahahahahahahahahahahahhah
ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
GAMES WORKSHOP think about something BEFORE doing it, that will be the day.
ahhaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
|
|
Ewnam
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:41 |
|
Britnoth I may be wrong, but I didn't se that the freebooting cost is half of printed cost and that would make your Khemri vs Wood Elf example flawed.
Mummy (110K), 2 skeltons (2x 30K) and Ramtut III (350K) will cost you 520K. Of course you could take a Mummy, a Blitz-Ra and two Skeltons for the difference, but that isn't that bad.
The Stars are quite a bit more expensive than the old printed cost and all freebooters (stars, journeymenetc.) are full printed cost.
Edit:
Hecropolix one thing is that you mock people that makes a great job, but could you please not f¤¤k up the forum. The forum doesn't break up your exceedingly long "hahahah..." meaning that the whole width of the page is screwd. Please at least edit your message and break that "word". |
Last edited by Ewnam on %b %11, %2004 - %12:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:46 |
|
Well, for starters, ff seems to be obsolite with these rules, you basically don't need it for anything. I kind of liked the old version, where ff might go up and down (and there was actually a point in having a high ff).
I think sweeteners will help at playing up in tr, maybe a bit too much. I liked the handicap rolls better (like Mr. Gump said: "you never know what you're gonna get." But my playing style is mostly based on luck anyways...
Freebooting the apoth isn't that bad. Big guys losing general skills, that's just something they'll have to live with.
Let's see how these rule suggestions work, and see after that. |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:51 |
|
| GalakStarscraper wrote: | Example ... I'm thinking about starting a Halfling team with the new rules like this:
Think about my current idea to start a Halfling team up brand new:
9 Halflings
2 Treeman
1 Reroll
8 Fan Factor
3 Cheerleaders
3 Asst. Coaches
260 Treasury
First game ... freeboot an extra Treeman, an apothecary, and a Master Chef.
Galak |
Apoth is 50k, chef is 150k, therefore I assume a freebooted tree must be less than 60k...?
Edit: Just re-read the sweetener rules and noticed you can only have 2 'journeymen' players, so the 2nd skel has to be shelved. Damn!  |
Last edited by Britnoth on %b %11, %2004 - %13:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
PellePirat
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 12:59 |
|
Hm, the beast of nurgle is listed as no longer having Really stupid, regenerate or infect.. Is that right?
edit: infect seems to be under the team's special rules instead.. but the others? |
|
|
LordSigmund
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:05 |
|
no, its a typo, galak has listed the errors nearer the start of this thread, go have a look |
|
|
Ewnam
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:16 |
|
Shortly told Galak can't count 
| Code: |
9 Halflings 9* 30 = 270
2 Treeman 2*110 = 220
1 Reroll 60
8 Fan Factor 80
3 Cheerleaders 30
3 Asst. Coaches 30
260 Treasury 260
Total 950
|
So he is 50K short...
First game freeboot:
| Code: |
1 Treeman 110
1 apothecary 50
1 Master Chef 150
Total 310
|
... and then he uses the 50K he was short. |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:20 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | | GalakStarscraper wrote: | Example ... I'm thinking about starting a Halfling team with the new rules like this:
Think about my current idea to start a Halfling team up brand new:
9 Halflings
2 Treeman
1 Reroll
8 Fan Factor
3 Cheerleaders
3 Asst. Coaches
260 Treasury
First game ... freeboot an extra Treeman, an apothecary, and a Master Chef.
Galak |
Apoth is 50k, chef is 150k, therefore I assume a freebooted tree must be less than 60k...?
Edit: Just re-read the sweetener rules and noticed you can only have 2 'journeymen' players, so the 2nd skel has to be shelved. Damn! |
sorry that's because I cannot do math. If you add up the team I'd have 310k in Treasury which would be enough for 50k Apoth, Chef for 150k and 110k for the 3rd Treeman.
Galak |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:22 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | | Edit: Just re-read the sweetener rules and noticed you can only have 2 'journeymen' players, so the 2nd skel has to be shelved. Damn! |
also look again not only can you only have 0-2 Journeymen ... but you cannot get more than 1 of any one position.
Galak |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:24 |
|
After having read through a lot of posts about possible min/maxing the rules (heck my Halfling roster is doing it as well).
I think it would make a lot of sense if the Freebooted players (either Stars or Journeymen) could not use team or Leader rerolls ... they don't practice with the team so this would make a lot of "play" sense and might also put a good damper over the folks that think these rules over-heavyly favor the underdog.
Galak |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:25 |
|
Oh and there was a massive list of typos that I sent JJ last night.
Including things like Undead needing Stars ... Dark Elf Throwers needing Pass .... the rules for onpitch Take root needed added. The text about normal skill rolls becoming doubles if you are out of normal skills ... etc, etc, etc.
Galak |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2004 - 13:28 |
|
| Hecropolix wrote: | | ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha ... continued |
Now why is it that I think some coaches found this more annoying than the new rules set.
| Quote: | | GAMES WORKSHOP think about something BEFORE doing it, that will be the day. |
By the way ... I don't disagree with this statement. However the BBRC not GW ... we had 4 1/2 months to edit the original version of these rules. If you want to see what effect the BBRC has in working to make the game better ... I'd love to post the first original draft of these rules from early January ... then you'd realize what what that role is.
Galak |
|
|
|
|
| |
Exempt teams
Search
