Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 07:27 |
 
|
Does anyone know how GW are tinkering with these rules? The only change I have seen so far is that piling on is an optional rule. Do you guys think GW should actually change these rules anyway? |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Beanchilla
Joined: Sep 20, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 07:53 |
|
I have a feeling they won't change all that much with this first iteration. I imagine we'll see things get progressively varied as new versions are released though. |
_________________
"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! |
|
Dach
Joined: Dec 25, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 08:58 |
|
Can we remove tackle from dwarf also. plz plz  |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 09:14 |
|
Yes Dach! And replace with Stand Firm! |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 09:14 |
|
Well, PO will be optional. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
| Roland wrote: | | Well, PO will be optional. |
can we make it optional in the minds of some coaches? |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 09:45 |
|
All that is known right now is that PO is optional for leagues and that 'core rules aren't changing'. We'll find out more (but maybe not all) on the 25th.
I suspect you'll have a hard time convincing people that R and B are 'leagues' when some of the other optional league rules seem to talk about the 'off season'. I guess R and B are technically a string of exhibition matches, and tournaments certainly aren't leagues. But that's a tedious argument probably not worth having yet.
I pre ordered the new box and DZ1 yesterday, looking forward to new bits! Whatever happens to the game, GW putting the effort into marketing and rereleasing can only be good for coach numbers everywhere. Including FUMBBL. |
|
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 10:18 |
|
Cyanide has these things called "ladders" that are also "strings of exhibition matches" and they call them "leagues" as well.
I mentioned the Toxic Cyanide because GW has been so close with them (they even have same looks on players).
So R and B CAN be seen as leagues.. they just don't have playoffs or cups or tournaments that would divide them into seasons (unless you count majors..).
But as they are optional, "league" admin(s) can still keep the PO as he/they will. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 11:58 |
|
League play = standard progression
Tournament play = non-progression
Hence, R and B are leagues.
Also, BBL in FUMBBL does mean something 
However, it's up to big c to decide what to do. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 12:32 |
|
We do indeed call FUMBBL the 'online Blood Bowl league'. But we also call [L] league. What sport leagues do you know that run like R and B with no end point or off season?
You could probably argue about R and B convincingly either way (at length), and I think it's all about context myself. Where PO and other optional stuff sits in the rules, how it's worded. We currently accept an optional rule (cards) and don't use others (awarding the MVP where you like). I think what is used and what isn't will be very quickly settled by the community hive mind and there will be an accepted 'standard' before Kalimar and Christer get chance to code anything. I've no clue how that will shake out, but if I had to bet on it, I would say anything sensible and 'known' (cards as inducements) will get the thumbs up, anything a bit crazy will be left to your 10 man, just for fun local TT league in a shop.
Cue argument about how 'sensible' PO is? |
|
|
Rags
Joined: Nov 09, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 14:20 |
|
Not that it makes a difference to anything, but suggestion is to treat Piling On as a type of foul. In the same way as a normal foul, the ref rules against on a double.
But since it's not as severe or blatant as booting a player on the ground, the penalities could be different. Instead of a straight sending off, the player could be sent to the sin bin (reserves) for the remainder of the drive, for an indefinte amount of time (same rules as KO), or just get a warning (turnover).
Even a potential turnover would make coaches think twice in a lot of situations, which in turn would make some think twice about rushing to take PO as a skill in the first place. Penalties for PO would also make Sneaky Git slightly more useful and introduce more decision-making about when to use bribes.
This is not my own idea, but is derivative from some fumbbl leagues where doubles on PO causes KO. This is just a slight refinement that might be worth experimenting with (but of course it's already too late for changes in the core rules). |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 14:26 |
|
I don't like rules like that, because it punishes situations where PO is objectively the best move - and I'm not talking about for cas/ko/injury.
eg. I have an ag4 wolf with PO (long story), who effectively should PO the ball carrier on many blitzes to make sure he doesn't catch the ball.
Why should I or others be punished for making objectively the best move on a player who cannot avoid a follow up? |
_________________
 |
|
Rags
Joined: Nov 09, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 16:44 |
|
I think you've answered your own question. If it's, as you put it, 'objectively the best move', do you mean that's because it's so powerful as to be no-brainer?
Of course it makes sense to eliminate key opposition players. I don't think your wolf if anything unique. There is any amount of PO badasses out there. The controversy around PO is that it excessively increases the rate of elimination.
It's just about balance. This change would introduce more risk from PO, and a greater element of risk management, which is at the heart of the game.
To look at another example, gang fouling was nerfed from +1 on armour and casualty rolls per assist to just +1 armour. This was because it made fouling too powerful. To put it another way it was over-incentivised, often making gang-fouling as frequently as possible 'objectively' the best choice. Revising the mechanics made for a better game.
Does means that coaches who used to foul more under the old system are now being 'punished'? That's one way of looking at, but not necessarily the most useful (or least whiny).
Again, this is all just theoretical. I don't have a problem with CPOMB myself really. I usually play elves and we get smashed up all the time by all sorts. I tend to worry more about tackle than PO. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 16:53 |
|
It's got nothing to do with "power" and everything to do with there frequently being situations where a player with frenzy is going to be blitzing a ball carrier producing a situation where they are then possibly going to catch the ball because they must follow up.
In that situation, there are plenty of occasions where you absolutely do not want them to catch the ball. As such, piling on is a way to guarantee they won't. That's what I meant by "objectively". Which I thought I made completely clear.
I spelled that out. It's far from unique to my wolf, I merely used him as an example because he's got +AG and therefore is more likely to catch the ball, but also because this exact situation arose yesterday for me on a t16 blitz.
I'm well aware of what all the arguments against PO are. I'm not particularly fond of its current status, nor the "every time" use of it a lot of coaches employ either, but I find the methodology you put forth actually kills one of the few tactical uses of it. I would consider that a step backwards. |
_________________
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2016 - 17:04 |
|
Why would you have a ag 4 PO Wolf? |
|
|
|
|
Making Assassins mor...
Search
