FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

PsyPhiGrad

Joined: Dec 22, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 01:30

I'd rather see downgrading Wild Animal and Really Stupid to Bonehead as being equivalent to removing Bonehead. It would take 2 doubles to completely remove Really Stupid but it would allow you to keep them the same cost and I think 30 K is a perfectly reasonable pricing.

But then again, I never was a fan of the flat pricing of skills. I think it's one of the worst changes to the rules and changes the game too much into a min maxing exercise like so much of GW games. I stopped playing WHFB and 40K because I grew tired of playing the min maxing game.

I like this idea because it adds a bit more character to the game.

fidius

Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 01:41

zakatan wrote:

On the other hand, Vamps hardly have any decent double choice, so that would add some new horizons for the team.

Nerves of Steel for Hypnotic Gaze needs to be in the rules imo.

mister__joshua wrote:

I dislike the concept of Loner, except for on journeymen. I don't think Big Guys should have it. That said, I think it's the worst negatrait next to Wild Animal, and removing it should be as valuable. I think they should all be doubles really.

Loner is the player's ignorance of the team's drills, doesn't take orders, etc. and I think it accomplishes that fairly well. Agreed, the other negatraits are bad but it's Loner that really limits how you use Big Guys (end-of-turn-only blocks for example). Should a Big Guy who practices full-time with the team really not be coachable? Well, yeah kinda, especially if he's stupid, doesn't speak the language, is a demon, etc. So Loner, countered by Pro for special players (doubles).

The Journeyman "coachability" negatrait should probably be even worse than a rostered Big Guy. Maybe they shouldn't get rerolls at all?

Odin1981

Joined: Jan 09, 2012

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 01:47

fidius wrote:

zakatan wrote:

On the other hand, Vamps hardly have any decent double choice, so that would add some new horizons for the team.

Nerves of Steel for Hypnotic Gaze needs to be in the rules imo.

mister__joshua wrote:

I dislike the concept of Loner, except for on journeymen. I don't think Big Guys should have it. That said, I think it's the worst negatrait next to Wild Animal, and removing it should be as valuable. I think they should all be doubles really.

Loner is the player's ignorance of the team's drills, doesn't take orders, etc. and I think it accomplishes that fairly well. Agreed, the other negatraits are bad but it's Loner that really limits how you use Big Guys (end-of-turn-only blocks for example). Should a Big Guy who practices full-time with the team really not be coachable? Well, yeah kinda, especially if he's stupid, doesn't speak the language, is a demon, etc. So Loner, countered by Pro for special players (doubles).

The Journeyman "coachability" negatrait should probably be even worse than a rostered Big Guy. Maybe they shouldn't get rerolls at all?

They aren't on the team. So I could see agreement on barring j-men from rr's. But bg's should max just have loner. RS and WA is what makes most freaking useless.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 01:50

fidius wrote:

The Journeyman "coachability" negatrait should probably be even worse than a rostered Big Guy. Maybe they shouldn't get rerolls at all?

So big guys don't get big guy, but loners who are littler guys and possibly little guys get big guy?

I do kind of agree though, that JMs probably shouldn't get RR use at all. However at the end of the day it does remove coaching skill ability. When to and when not to use a RR with a loner.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 01:53

Odin1981 wrote:

They aren't on the team. So I could see agreement on barring j-men from rr's. But bg's should max just have loner. RS and WA is what makes most freaking useless.

That is their character though. If you start removing the individual neg traits all big guys start to merge into 1 type of big guy.

spinball

Joined: Jul 01, 2004

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 02:48

I would say

Bonehead 30k so doubles skill
Really Stupid to Bone head 30k Doubles roll
Really Stupid to nothing 50k Double 6s
Wild Animal 40K Agility or double 6s roll
BloodLust double 6s 50k

mister__joshua

Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 02:49

FUMBBL Staff

I agree with, well, most of the above discussion. In my suggested changes (in sig) Loner stops a player using re-rolls at all, and it's just for Journeymen. Big Guys just get their more characterful negatraits. I think these abilities represent the Bigs inability to play as a team well enough. They still train with the other players.

I disagree it removes coaching skill, it's just different. Using Loners is now even more of a risk. I reckon you'd see a lot less rosters running JM long term.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 04:13

mister__joshua wrote:

Big Guys just get their more characterful negatraits. I think these abilities represent the Bigs inability to play as a team well enough.

Meaning the berserker types still get WA. Brainless types RS. Ogre types BH. And Trees TR?

mister__joshua wrote:

I disagree it removes coaching skill, it's just different. Using Loners is now even more of a risk. I reckon you'd see a lot less rosters running JM long term.

Yeah I thought about my comment and paused on it before posting. I'll agree it's not as categorical as I made it sound.

You're playing off a more conservative style of play (playing JM deliberately not to use RRs in theory) against taking an educated approach of using them when it's the right choice (which isn't easy and is a skill).

I kind of left it as I did because you really should be playing 'loner' players as you would if they had 'big guy' in almost all situations. The situations which are different would take good coaching skill or luck. Eventually playing with 'loner' incorrectly will catch you out. Where as playing with 'big guy' gives you no choice.........a more obvious path of play.

I'm happy to admit there maybe exceptions though.

For those struggling to follow my terminology.

Loner: LRB5 onward you can use a team RR if you pass 50/50 roll.

Big guy: Pre LRB5, you cannot use a team RR with this player under any circumstances.

Grod

Joined: Sep 30, 2003

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 06:07

Yay vampires without bloodlust!

_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.

Oscar Wilde

zakatan

Joined: May 17, 2008

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 10:24

I believe we'll all agree that what makes BG's not worth their penny is Loner. I know it was introduced (first as big guy=no RR, then as loner=50% RR) to prevent them to be too dominant, but it turns them into a liability. The fact that most teams opt their big guys out is plain sad. But in their current design, they are overpriced and undereffective.

_________________

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 10:32

A Vamp with no bloodlust is not really a Vampire.

I think any talk has to stick to loner in general. The other traits first give the players character and feel and second represent things that can't be trained out of really. An Ogre is stupid, you don't see 40 year old people sudenly gaining 40 points of IQ why would a blood bowl playing Ogre? Far more likely to get even more stupid with the hits taken.

_________________

DLE College 7s

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 10:50

zakatan wrote:

I believe we'll all agree that what makes BG's not worth their penny is Loner

Not sure about that, they were much better in lrb4 and then they had big guy. The problem is the unfathomable price hikes and TV pinching.

mister__joshua

Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 10:59

FUMBBL Staff

zakatan wrote:

I believe we'll all agree that what makes BG's not worth their penny is Loner. I know it was introduced (first as big guy=no RR, then as loner=50% RR) to prevent them to be too dominant, but it turns them into a liability. The fact that most teams opt their big guys out is plain sad. But in their current design, they are overpriced and undereffective.

I agree with this sentiment. It's their biggest drawback for me. If you haven't already, if you click on the Forum link in my sig the first 2/3 pages discuss Loner removal from big guys quite a lot.

harvestmouse wrote:

Not sure about that, they were much better in lrb4 and then they had big guy. The problem is the unfathomable price hikes and TV pinching.

I think it's both. I could cope with the prices if they weren't Loners, and could remove Negatraits.

Matthueycamo wrote:

A Vamp with no bloodlust is not really a Vampire.

I think any talk has to stick to loner in general. The other traits first give the players character and feel and second represent things that can't be trained out of really. An Ogre is stupid, you don't see 40 year old people sudenly gaining 40 points of IQ why would a blood bowl playing Ogre? Far more likely to get even more stupid with the hits taken.

I disagree, because there are already Ogres and Trolls playing the game without Bone Head and Really Stupid on the Star Players list. I think if it's possible for such players to exist, then it should be possible to build them through team creation. The traits do give them character, but removing them does that too as they become proper 'Pros'. Not allowing their removal is saying they can never learn/be tamed or whatever.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum

Matthueycamo

Joined: May 16, 2014

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 11:38

Star players are just that. Star players. They are a special breed, they are not indicative of the regular race. Being able to come with stuff teams can't normally have or skill and stat combos that are really hard to get if not sometimes practically impossible.

Wild Animal, they have frenzy because they are a wild animal so if they lose it they have no reason for frenzy anymore without taking the skill again later since they have been tamed. Or they feel odd.

Blood bowl players are about feel and fluff more than a stat chassis to me, taking neg traits other than loner away upsets that balence making it less fun. I like big guys, I usually use them but I like them because of how they feel more than are they the most TV efficient way to use the TV they cost.

_________________

DLE College 7s

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 12:06

mister__joshua wrote:

harvestmouse wrote:

Not sure about that, they were much better in lrb4 and then they had big guy. The problem is the unfathomable price hikes and TV pinching.

I think it's both. I could cope with the prices if they weren't Loners, and could remove Negatraits.

That doesn't make sense at all. Big guys are actually better in the current rules, but are used less and have a lesser reputation.

Why is that? It's purely to do with value and worth. they're value has hasn't increased as much as their cost increase.

But that's the bottom line with most of these debates...........how TV value has screwed the system. No need to play around with crap like this if you fix TV for each environment.