| Poll |
| Which grammar style would you prefer? |
| Previous style - He/His/It/Its/etc. |
|
52% |
[ 23 ] |
| Modified style - The Singular They |
|
47% |
[ 21 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 44 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jun 09, 2015 - 00:51 |
 
|
| PainState wrote: | The side effect to changing spiraling expenses to the idea I posted earlier is that it would give an incentive for expensive rosters like elves the shot to actually have a 16 man team.
Right now elves suffer from high cost AND they hit Spiraling expenses way to earlier at around 13-14 players depending on their skill ups.
So if you remove TV from the equation then elves can afford to run a 16 man squad and not worry about running a team in the 1800-2000 TV range with elves that have a roster with no star players or better to start incurring SE's Or Wages is what it would be called now. |
I think WBs system as it is, is going to favour elves. Helping them get to large rosters even more so.
The other end of the scale is that elven teams are struggling to maintain 11 or just using JM all the time.
I think balance is almost impossible, changing one simple thing upsets it.
What we are lacking and what is necessary is 'tweaking'.
BBRC was such a good idea for that. We really need the ability to 'tweak' the dancefloor. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 09, 2015 - 00:56 |
|
Oh, I totally disagree HM.
The reason for elves only playing with 11-12 man rosters is totally TV driven and the systems in R and B to arrange matches by TV.
Then you throw SE's on top of that.
No reason for a elf team to even consider going to 16 men, in less you are just one of those renegade coaches who wants to do it. Because the CRP system says for elves to meta game the 11-13 man roster.
Then again if you just throw out SE all together...well....All is grand in the universe for Elves.
At least with wages there is some restrictor plate put in place that is "between" SE and no SE. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 09, 2015 - 02:34 |
|
I still haven't addressed a Spiralling Expenses substitute/revision (next version), but I did change some more things about that I missed last version or were suggested by people here.
WhatRuleBook 7.0.1
Change log is at the end of the document to make it easier to find what is different. Also hid grammar changes to make it easier to read.
Enjoy. |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| WhatBall wrote: | I still haven't addressed a Spiralling Expenses substitute/revision (next version), but I did change some more things about that I missed last version or were suggested by people here.
WhatRuleBook 7.0.1
Change log is at the end of the document to make it easier to find what is different. Also hid grammar changes to make it easier to read.
Enjoy. |
Great piece of work WhatBall. I tried to read it originally and gave up. The changelog and not colouring the grammar corrections makes it much easier to pick out the details.
I really like some of the changes. The love for Bigs is great. I like the bench idea which I haven't seen before. Most of the skill changes are tidy. It's interesting that most of the roster changes are similar to my own thoughts. I really liked the kick-off table changes and the crowd push FAME damage. The fouling is quite good. I think the 5gp increments work well. Some of the changes like player cost reductions and skill values are a little convoluted for my own tastes.
Corrections:
- In Inducements the cost of extra training is listed as 'y'
- In the Throw Team-Mate description replace 'amd' with 'and'
In the passing section you put:
FUMBLES
"Sometimes a player attempting to throw the ball will drop it in his own square. This is more likely if the player has any opposing players breathing down his neck! To represent this, if the D6 roll for a pass is a 1 before modifications or less than 1 after modifications, then the thrower drops the ball! The ball will bounce once from the thrower’s square, and the moving team will suffer a turnover and their turn ends immediately.
Design Change Note: This should fix the issue with AG6 being useless for preventing fumbles. Let me know if it is not."
I don't think this has the effect you wanted. The players's agility doesn't affect what a modified roll will be, as agility doesn't affect modifiers. What this would do is make all long bombs fumble on a 3 instead of a 4. I think for the affect you were after (high agility meaning less fumbles) you would want something like this:
'If the modified roll is a 1 or less and the pass is also a miss then the pass is fumbled. If a modified 1 would succeed then the pass is completed. A natural 1 is always a fumble.'
I think that's what you're after anyway
Overall great work and a fantastic effort  |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2015 - 20:20 |
|
@mister__joshua: Thanks for the feedback, appreciate the support. I will also try and back track and do a change log for the original changes to make it easier for people to follow. I will also address your corrections.
The player cost changes are pretty convoluted, which is why I have a big spreadsheet for it all. Then on top of that, some of it is team balancing and the rest gut feeling.  I have actually not done a real full in-depth assessment of team rosters and player costs, as my thinking during the process lead me to believe the best way to approach changes was; core rules, then skills, then rosters. We all like to start with rosters, but I think they trickle down from the other two. Just doing rosters is fine too, if the approach is that the core rules and skills won't change.
Thanks on the AG6 passing thing too. I will try and fix it up in a way that is straight forward. |
_________________
|
|
Harlekiini
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2015 - 22:01 |
|
Not sure if someone wrote about this already, the thread is a bit long and has multiple conversation points.
How about instead of reducing the actual value injuries reduce the value added by skills &c? This way rookie linemans getting -ag wouldn't become "lighter" burden for the TV, but if he had block, for example, his value could be reduced down to the base value by injuries. This way injuries still would reduce player values, but they couldn't became cheaper (in terms of TV) than their buying price. |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2015 - 14:52 |
|
On this line, I think also that no injury should make a player of better value for the team. I'm looking at the -ag blockers (bobs, dwarves, nurgle warriors...) or meatshields. |
_________________
 |
|
mrbibitte3
Joined: Mar 28, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2015 - 15:42 |
|
While forging a new rulebook, please remember the table top gamers !
Currently, Spiralling Expenses limit the total amount of skills a team can possess. That's a good thing as at 2K+ TV, it's getting very difficult to remember every skill your opponent has (especially if his team is a mess "skill wise", "choice of miniatures wise" and "paint wise").
There's a game balance to maintain right there too. |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2015 - 22:21 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | On this line, I think also that no injury should make a player of better value for the team. I'm looking at the -ag blockers (bobs, dwarves, nurgle warriors...) or meatshields. |
I believe I addressed that with the latest update. Only primary skill injuries can devalue a player and no linemen have any primary skills. |
_________________
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2015 - 22:38 |
|
My suggestion for Khemries (on top of LRB6):
TG price +10, remove Decay.
B-Ra price -10. Current price makes no sense, because wight cost the same with +AG for free.
If you want a buff, give Decay for skellies, and reduce price by 10. New Decay makes Regen harder, so the team will be encouraged to take more players (14-15).
Or reduce RR price by 10. |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2015 - 23:18 |
|
@mrbibitte3: I plan on re-inserting some sort of optional or varied spiralling expenses in the next revision. Haven't had the courage to look at it yet.
@bigGuy: I will look at that when I re-address the rosters after rules and skills.
Thanks all. |
_________________
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2015 - 00:09 |
|
Just given me an idea for a fun concept team. 0-8 Tomb Guardians (get G access back, keep decay and come with 2nd ed style tomb rot, where kills turn into skeletons). Cannot directly hire skellies. Mummies maybe better though... |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2015 - 10:40 |
|
Just found this. Lots I like lots I don't not a bad effort on the whole. |
_________________
 |
|
tmoila
Joined: Nov 25, 2012
|
| Posted:
Oct 06, 2015 - 14:29 |
|
| WhatBall wrote: |
Thanks on the AG6 passing thing too. I will try and fix it up in a way that is straight forward. |
Fumble rules are very good in the current ruleset. If you make it like they are now in your rules, you just allow inaccurate long bombs at 3+. Too stupid and overpowered. Just stop and think about it for a second. |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 15, 2016 - 16:37 |
|
With all the roster talk, I thought it best I bump the best new ruleset suggestion.
That is all. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
[L] OBBA Smack Talk ...
Search
