45 coaches online • Server time: 13:37
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Catching up... 10 ye...goto Post A Very Steely Setup ...goto Post Dark elf league rost...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
What do you think?
I like it - seems like it might be a good alterntive to CRP
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
Not for me - I think I'll stick with CRP thanks
50%
 50%  [ 16 ]
Pie!!!
25%
 25%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 32


JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 22:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Ok, here it is - the moment you've all been waiting for ..

I've been working on this for a couple of months and wanted to finally get it out there. I've talked so much about things I don't like in CRP and what changes I would make to the Blood Bowl ruleset, so I've actually done some work and here is my take on an alternative ruleset - LRB Jelly Very Happy

Here is a link to a pdf document that summarises the key changes from CRP, along with my reasoning. Also, I will copy the first page below (which is the executive summary):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Executive summary:

The high level goal is to blend the parts that worked well from CRP and LRB4, to try to make a ruleset that is even better. To my mind, the main issues with CRP are as follows:

  • ‘Bash’ seems to have too much of an edge over ‘ball’ at high TV and, in general, CPOMB/TPOMB are too dominating.
  • The situation where fouling is not the most damaging single action is unacceptable. Players must never be safer on the floor on a BB pitch than they are on their feet.
  • Dwarves/Orcs are too reliable ‘out of the box’ at low TV.
  • CRP Claw has effectively made AV9 worthless at high TV, which reduces the competitiveness of the non-CPOMB bash teams too much.


My key solutions to this are:

  • Claw now gives a flat -1 to AV (including to AV7) and still stacks with MB (i.e. it is now better vs AV7, but less effective vs AV9).
  • Piling On only allows a reroll to armour, not injury.
  • Dirty Player allows a reroll to armour and also gives +1 to injury, if armour is broken.
  • The ‘eye of the ref’ is re-instated, per LRB4.
  • Sneaky Git limits EOTR to +1 (rather than +2) and is now a General skill.
  • Tweaking most of the ‘bash’ rosters to some degree, in particular ensuring that Dwarven linemen don’t start with both Block & Tackle and that Orcs have fewer Blitzers and can’t have near-blanket AV9.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before people start tearing it apart, I strongly recommend reading pages 2 and 3 of the full summary, which includes an extensive table of de-pitching probabilities for various skill combos in CRP/LRB4, as well as the reasoning behind the changes. Basically, I tried to take a goal-driven approach, where I firstly laid out what I think the ideal de-pitching probability profile should be and then picked the rules options that gave the closest match.

Of course, not everyone will like it (it's always the way), but I'd be very interested to hear some feedback from anyone who feels inclined to read it. Smile

_________________
"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!!" Razz


Last edited by JellyBelly on Aug 07, 2016 - 23:23; edited 1 time in total
Dalfort



Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 22:24 Reply with quote Back to top

I read it.

My orcs armour fails so bloody often they do not need weakening thanks...

The rest is just opinion and we differ, whilst I do not like ClPOMB the on pitch devastation has to be in there as the lack of aging (and to some degree the old Niggle rules) is no longer around to take out players between games.

_________________
Image

NAF Rankings
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 22:34 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Dalfort, thanks for taking the time to read it and I appreciate your feedback. Just bear in mind though that the proposed change to Claw would make the AV9 (and AV8) the orcs do have stronger in high TV bash (which is partly why I felt it needed to be dialled back a bit).

_________________
"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!!" Razz
Dalfort



Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 23:31 Reply with quote Back to top

I am not saying you are wrong, just that I don't agree Smile

_________________
Image

NAF Rankings
Beanchilla



Joined: Sep 20, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 23:38 Reply with quote Back to top

I like a lot of your suggestions but making AV7 go to AV6 with claw and still having it stack with MB is just too much in my opinion. Makes squishy teams even squishier.

Also, I love your quote from Fallout 2. Great game and line!

_________________
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."


Here's a great resource for all sorts of Fumbbl images!
Kam



Joined: Nov 06, 2012

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 23:45 Reply with quote Back to top

AV4 Flings vs cMB? Sad

_________________
GLN 17 is out!
Image
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 07, 2016 - 23:59 Reply with quote Back to top

@Beanchilla: AV7 going to AV6 is to balance out the fact that PO has been nerfed. If you look at the table on p.2 of the pdf, the de-pitching probability of CPOMB vs AV7 would be lower than currently in CRP (50.9% vs 58.5%). So, I don't think they would be squishier.

@Kam: AV5 is going to get broken anyway. I haven't checked the figures, but the de-pitch chance is probably still lower, without the reroll to injury you'd have with MBPO.

Btw, I appreciate your comments! Smile

_________________
"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!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 00:05 Reply with quote Back to top

It's true that ClawMB without PO would be more effective vs AV7 - 39.8% vs 31.2% (they're both in the table). However, I play a lot of AV7 teams and, personally, I think I'd take that in return for MBPO being less effective. Claw is less widespread than PO.

_________________
"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!!" Razz
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 00:15 Reply with quote Back to top

I'd change Claw so it only works on a natural 8+ on the AV roll. That's enough of a nerf.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 00:31 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
I'd change Claw so it only works on a natural 8+ on the AV roll. That's enough of a nerf.


Do you mean relative to CRP, so without any nerf to PO? Interesting - do you know what the de-pitch probabilities are for that?

_________________
"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!!" Razz
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 01:05
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I'm not going to comment on everything, but I don't think your dwarf roster hits your goal. You say they're too reliable, but then give tackle to the players that really want it while taking it off the slow players (who can't make as much use of it) and reducing their cost. I think you've actually made them better. Not bad if that's what you wanted, but not your goal.

I also don't think any team should have 3 different 0-16 positions, especially if there's no particular need for it.

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

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 01:27 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
JackassRampant wrote:
I'd change Claw so it only works on a natural 8+ on the AV roll. That's enough of a nerf.


Do you mean relative to CRP, so without any nerf to PO? Interesting - do you know what the de-pitch probabilities are for that?
ClawMB: 150/1296 Cas odds, as opposed to 186/1296. it's a reduction of 6/31, just under 20%, from current Claw.

Edit: Lemme do the math on it, I'll get back to you when I do.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.


Last edited by JackassRampant on Aug 08, 2016 - 02:43; edited 1 time in total
Kam



Joined: Nov 06, 2012

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 01:33 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
@Kam: AV5 is going to get broken anyway. I haven't checked the figures, but the de-pitch chance is probably still lower, without the reroll to injury you'd have with MBPO.


Nope, that's why you roll dice. Smile

_________________
GLN 17 is out!
Image
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 01:40 Reply with quote Back to top

mister__joshua wrote:
I'm not going to comment on everything, but I don't think your dwarf roster hits your goal. You say they're too reliable, but then give tackle to the players that really want it while taking it off the slow players (who can't make as much use of it) and reducing their cost. I think you've actually made them better. Not bad if that's what you wanted, but not your goal.

I also don't think any team should have 3 different 0-16 positions, especially if there's no particular need for it.


Thanks for your comments Mr.J, although it seems we have quite a difference of opinion on the Dwarves. I would think elves/Zons/stunties would be more concerned about mass Block/Tackle across most of a team at low TV, rather than on just two MA5 players.

Regarding the costs, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I've actually increased their cost, relative to the skills they have. I've taken away a core skill that is worth 20k and only dropped the cost by 10k. So, the team will actually cost more at higher TV, compared to a skill-equivalent team in CRP. Part of the reason for that is again because, with the boost to AV9, I was concerned they might be overpowered.

_________________
"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!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 08, 2016 - 02:27 Reply with quote Back to top

Kam wrote:
JellyBelly wrote:
@Kam: AV5 is going to get broken anyway. I haven't checked the figures, but the de-pitch chance is probably still lower, without the reroll to injury you'd have with MBPO.


Nope, that's why you roll dice. Smile


By 'it's going to break anyway', what I mean is that the chance of breaking it is so high already that subtracting 1 more AV isn't going to be as harmful as the reroll to injury you have in CRP with PO.

By my calculations, CPOMB vs AV6 (Flings) in LRB Jelly has a de-pitch chance of 54.6%, which is lower than the de-pitching chance of POMB vs AV7 in CRP (58.5%). If you want to murder flings, it's easier to do it in CRP.

_________________
"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!!" Razz
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits