MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 17:57 |
 
|
Yes, I have to figure the calculations for the multiple D8s rolled. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 18:06 |
|
Your idea:
1 D8 - 0 niggle
• 1-4: Badly Hurt 50%
• 5: Seriously Hurt (MNG) 12.5%
• 6: Seriously Injured (NI) 12.5%
• 7: Lasting Injury (-Stat) 12.5%
• 8: Dead 12.5%
2 D8 – 1 niggle
• 1-4: Badly Hurt – 25%.
• 5: Seriously Hurt (MNG) – 18.75%.
• 6: Seriously Injured (NI) – 23.44%.
• 7: Lasting Injury (-Stat) – 23.44%.
• 8: Dead – 9.38%.
3 D8 – 2 niggle
• 1-4: Badly Hurt – 12.5%.
• 5: Seriously Hurt (MNG) – 14.1%.
• 6: Seriously Injured (NI) –21.1%.
• 7: Lasting Injury (-Stat) –26.6%.
• 8: Dead –25.7%
4 D8 – 3 niggle
• 1-4: Badly Hurt – 6.3%.
• 5: Seriously Hurt (MNG) – 10.9%.
• 6: Seriously Injured (NI) – 18.8%.
• 7: Lasting Injury (-Stat) – 28.1%.
• 8: Dead – 35.9%.
Official rules
0 niggles
• 1-6: Badly Hurt 37.5%
• 7-9: Seriously Hurt (MNG) 18.75%
• 10-12: Seriously Injured (NI) 18.75%
• 13-14: Lasting Injury (-Stat) 12.5%
• 15-16: Dead 12.5%
With 1 NI
• 1-5: Badly Hurt 31.25%
• 6-8: Seriously Hurt (MNG) 18.75%
• 9-11: Seriously Injured (NI) 18.75%
• 12-13: Lasting Injury (-Stat) 12.5%
• 14-16: Dead 18.75%
With 2 Nis
• 1-4: Badly Hurt 25%
• 5-7: Seriously Hurt (MNG) 18.75%
• 8-10: Seriously Injured (NI) 18.75%
• 11-12: Lasting Injury (-Stat) 12.5%
• 13-16: Dead 25%
With 3 Ni
• 1-3: Badly Hurt 18.75%
• 4-6: Seriously Hurt (MNG) 18.75%
• 7-9: Seriously Injured (NI) 18.75%
• 10-11: Lasting Injury (-Stat) 12.5%
• 12-16: Dead 31.25%
Your way makes apo worse... except for No niggle... is that what you want? |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 18:11 |
|
The D8 Apo roll cancels all the D8 rolled, no matter if 2, 3 or more D8 were rolled due to stacked NIs.
That Apo is not worse, he's better than now. There is always a 50% chance to fully heal a player. This is the Apo version I suggest to use.
The current Apo re-rolls on a table which starts with BH at 37.5% instead of 50% and both BH and Dead results are affected by NIs modifiers, unlike my Apo.
I suggested another Apo, version 2, weaker, which just re-rolls any (just 1) of the D8 rolled on the Casualty table and then, the highest D8 Casualty roll is applied to the player.
This one, unlike the version 1, doesn't cancel the D8 rolled.
2 examples:
a player with 2 NIs gets injured and rolls 1, 8, 8 on Casualty Table.
- version 1 Apo re-rolls an 8 into a 7. This result is used, instead of the 8, which is cancelled by Apo's usage (this is the version I suggested).
- version 2 Apo re-rolls an 8 into 7. Result 8 is used, because 8 is higher than 7 and version 2 Apo doesn't cancel all the Casualty D8 rolls (this is a weaker version in case version 1 were considered too good). |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 19:27 |
|
Ah okay misunderstood that your apo was an extra D8 On top.
Makes more sense now.
Though I still think it's too many rolls |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 19:42 |
|
If you keep some players with many NIs it can be many rolls, yes.
Realistically, I don't think there would be many 2+ NIs players, though. |
|
|
Primarch
Joined: Dec 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 22:24 |
|
I dont like the Chorf nerfs. Not needed.
I dont like Wildly Inaccurate, also not needed.
I dont think removing the other team that has tackle will fix the game, but instead break it more because blodge.
I dont like choosing skills in the 2020 method. I prefer the randomness of prior editions.
I dont like how Grab interacts with Sidestep. If you turn off Grab, it should not work, it should not only turn off the part that keeps you from surfing a sidestepper.
I also dont like using multiple re-rolls per turn.
I did not mind illegal procedure, it kept the game going once you learned to move your turn marker.
I dont like new teams being introduced when some teams that previously existed need reworks.
To be fair, I am not sure i am a fan of GW running the game again. Especially after the rumors about September. Cash grab for sure. |
|
|
Primarch
Joined: Dec 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 22:24 |
|
I dont like the Chorf nerfs. Not needed.
I dont like Wildly Inaccurate, also not needed.
I dont think removing the other team that has tackle will fix the game, but instead break it more because blodge. Technically not a problem YET.
I dont like choosing skills in the 2020 method. I prefer the randomness of prior editions.
I dont like how Grab interacts with Sidestep. If you turn off Grab, it should not work, it should not only turn off the part that keeps you from surfing a sidestepper.
I also dont like using multiple re-rolls per turn.
I did not mind illegal procedure, it kept the game going once you learned to move your turn marker.
I dont like new teams being introduced when some teams that previously existed need reworks.
To be fair, I am not sure i am a fan of GW running the game again. Especially after the rumors about September. Cash grab for sure. |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2025 - 18:15 |
|
Pretty good list JR. (Bottom of page 8 )
I think a minor one that seems to pop up at least early in the conversation was a way to improve secret weapons, specifically on Goblins.
That isn't the way *I* would buff goblins, I'd get rid of loner on their trolls.... But there were suggestions about being able to roster a bribe if you had "bribery and corruption" trait I think, or going back to the "roll to send off" secret weapon rules.
I'd like to add one that might be controversial. I don't like the concept of the wizard. Its such an insanely high boom-or-bust silver bullet that it centralizes whatever game it is in. That *can* be interesting where you are trying to bait them to use it at the wrong point, but its a very different game than normal and against anyone used to a 2-1 grind it becomes a coinflip option that's pretty anti-fun as agency is reduced. I'd rather slightly stronger stars at around the 150TV point and the wizard removed or limited to certain rosters with a related special rule.
The rest of my complaints are in your list and I have ways I'd fix them that are different than others, but thats a solid list.
The "Things I like" forum is basically dead (shocker that negativity triumphs over positivity) but I think my single most favorite improvement in this edition is the jumping over downed players. I *love* that option. I abuse it frequently. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2025 - 18:47 |
|
Although very powerful indeed (even just with his deterrency effect on a game), I think that a 200k Wizard would be quite correctly priced.
We can talk about removing him or not, but I think that 150k is too cheap, especially if we consider that many Star Players with same price or close are not as good as a Wizard. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 20, 2025 - 01:10 |
|
It's not quite conventional Blood Bowl, but in FDL, I often find myself deliberately tempting my opponents to induce Wizards because I can usually draw them out early. It's all-Humans, and in a more typical league this might not work as well, but my experience is that they're stronger against more ST-driven teams, so really the costing is a function of overall ruleset balance and not something that can be approached in a vacuum. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 20, 2025 - 11:32 |
|
| Carthage wrote: |
I think a minor one that seems to pop up at least early in the conversation was a way to improve secret weapons, specifically on Goblins.
That isn't the way *I* would buff goblins, I'd get rid of loner on their trolls.... But there were suggestions about being able to roster a bribe if you had "bribery and corruption" trait I think, or going back to the "roll to send off" secret weapon rules.
|
Totally agree. Remover Loner from Gobo Trolls and bring back SW or if they really dont want to bring SW back at least give them rostered bribes...
This has been needed for so long now.... I can't believe the designers still haven't reached this obvious conclusion... |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 20, 2025 - 15:43 |
|
I hate fouling mechanic because there is no tight correlation between the Injury and the spotting chance. A fouler can be ejected first foul without even breaking the AV or keep on fouling with impunity after KOs and Casualties. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 20, 2025 - 22:45 |
|
That's realistic: the correlation between what happens and what the ref sees is weak in the real world too. If we wanted to be more realistic, players with Dirty Player and a high TV add should be more likely to be caught, and might get ejected for nothing if there's a lot of fouling and the ref is asleep. But that would be dumb to implement, yes? |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 20, 2025 - 23:18 |
|
Just to make an example, I would do this to increase the correlation between foul's severity and ejection chance:
make the Foul's AV roll and work out the Injury in case of AV break, then roll a spotting D6 separately (no matter whether the AV roll was a double or not, the spotting D6 is always rolled after a Foul, it represents the Ref looking for fouls):
- fouls not breaking the AV are spotted on a D6 roll of 6;
- Stun on a 5+;
- KO on a 4+;
- CAS on a 3+;
Sneaky Git can be used to re-roll the spotting roll. This rule replaces the "spotted when rolling a double on 2D6" fouling mechanic.
This way if you foul and don't break the AV you are as likely banned as now (double when AV is rolled): 1/6, while if you get a Stun/KO/Cas you are more likely ejected than now but at least you removed an opponent player, in case of KO/Cas. This should promote the odd tactical fouls done rarely but with a solid reason, such as removing a valuable positional, over mindless fouling every turn for no real tactical purpose, something I face quite often. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Things we dislike of...
Search
