71 coaches online • Server time: 22:45
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post ramchop takes on the...goto Post NBFL Season 32: The ...goto Post Creating a custom to...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
How do you like your BloodBowl?
Just the way it is. I LOVE IT, leave it alone.
18%
 18%  [ 30 ]
I love it but it could use some minor tweaking.
60%
 60%  [ 97 ]
I like it but it needs some major changes.
13%
 13%  [ 22 ]
Needs a complete overhaul. Scrap the current ruleset and rewrite it.
0%
 0%  [ 1 ]
I don't care as long as I can kill your pixels and shirtcopter as you ragequit.
6%
 6%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 160


member1234



Joined: Mar 09, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 12:47 Reply with quote Back to top

I'd hover up a level and look a bit at the game system. The mechanics are great, keep th block dice, dodging etc. Perhaps add toughness for defense, strength for offense, likewise with dodge (defense) and agility (dodging away) and finese (passing, boosting this can make passing viable!)

High level gaols:

  • Smaller incremental %s, and moving to slightly less randomness
  • Make passing playsyle viable (Bash, Rush, Pass styles)
  • Add a sneaky style (stunties) - could be done with skills, strategic level boosts or a 'guile' stat.
  • More variety in stats and skills
  • More progression
  • Teams have a strength/style, but allow later term development for any team to have a decent bash, pass, or running style. (If you push for finese with Chaos, build your strategic game around that, it's possible, if not optimal).
  • Add a deeper strategic level (Out of game decision, minor in game and progression effects)


Moving away from d6 to d8/10/20.

Tweaking the %s to remove a bit more of the random element, but not too much, that's half the fun of blood bowl! Just edging it to more skill based.

For example - ag2, 3 and 4. These have big jumps in % chance of success from each. If you have a d8, 10 or 20 system you have much more scope for variation. (Online only you could even go d100/percentage based)

Lets say we go to d20. You can still have almost the same %s as ag2,3,4 in a d6 system. However you have more numbers between, so can have more variation in players and statlines.

Skaven could be faster, but GRs could be ag 12 and Elves ag 14 for example.

Split skills/rejigging

Offensive block, defensive block, mighty blow for armour, mighty blow for cas etc. Leave it so there are no out and out amazing skills, or they are costed appropriately.

These can have levels (yay 2nd ed!).

So Mighty blow I (10k if using TV) +1 on your d20 armour roll. Mighty Blow II (30k) +2, Mighty Blow III +3 (Requires 12 Srength, 50k)

Guard I (+1 to str assisting), Guard II (Toughness 12 required, +2 to assisting) etc.

Downside, it gets complicated for TT, dont want games taking 4 hours again.

Longer/more development.

Developing your team/players is a huge amount of the fun of BB, we all love those skill rolls, advancing etc.

So you now have 20 base stats (excepting MV), skills split out, perhaps toughness and strength, agility, finese and dodge as extra stats.

MUCH much scope to progress, but smaller incremental (% wise) increases per each point of progression.

Let's say you now have 20 rolls to legend, with them coming more often.

Players will develop a myriad of ways ('balance' is going to be tougher, but that can be done by iteration and now with base 20, smaller tweaks are much easier to make.




That's pretty much the base of it. I'd love to see an entire new strategic layer added to the game in the form of stadium, support, fans and cash management etc. With each team having various options, such a hard pitches for Chaos (+-1 armour when blocked/fouled) , killer crowds (+1 INJ when pushed into the crowd, Eleven training routine (more change of rolling ag+) etc.

All these need to be funded, up front and with upkeep. Players cost GPs every game, upkeep of your addons, gold comes in in from fans and rolling on the sponsorship table etc.

This can tweaked several ways, favour long term progession (age the main factor to team upkeep/fans), sucessful teams, exicting teams (spps/TDs/Cas helping fans/sponsorship rolls etc.) Could be there as an option with simplified versions as well.

These have slight on pitch and progession bonuses/issues, some random chances/tabes, and take management/progression/thought to build up. Make them a choice. (Can't build everything, tailor to your style).


Anyways.... a revamp. Wink


Last edited by member1234 on Feb 09, 2016 - 13:22; edited 2 times in total
kilinrax



Joined: Jan 12, 2015

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 13:10 Reply with quote Back to top

NerdBird wrote:
*Treasuries are a nightmare. Some teams have endless wealth, others are lucky to have a nickel.

PainState wrote:
Spiraling Expenses is very obviously a rule that some dude came up with while sitting on the toilet trying to come up with some rules for NON TT tournaments, like FUMBBL. It was a hair brain idea brought on by constipation.

fidius wrote:
7) Bad CAS luck can ruin a new team's season.
8 ) Variance on d6 gold roll too high.


Here is another hair brained idea, on the assumption that:
  • The inducements/handicap system isn't changed - kind of a big ask, because it isn't great
  • Perpetual leagues only - not a good idea for tourneys


GET RID OF THE TREASURY ENTIRELY

Allow coaches to refill with Rookies up to roster limits (maybe even forcing 16-man teams).

The restrictions on positionals are entirely arbitrary in the name of game balance. If most teams had freedom to spend their treasury how they wished, they'd probably run 7-8 blitzers. Why not just say "a race X blood bowl team is Y". More akin to an army list than a clumsy mechanic involving gold.

Much as I love the game, it isn't newbie friendly (almost notoriously so). And certain teams are significantly more difficult to keep alive. Under this system, a coach can lose their stars but never end up so far in the hole they have to retire a team (and what fun is that).

You might be thinking "but gold is effectively limitless as it is". It seems the treasury rules are currently meaningless to any coach who's competent enough to keep their players alive, and annoying to anyone who isn't (i.e. me). Was the intention to restrict lower AV teams to more skilled coaches? Or to more skilled pickers?

It seems to me that the game would be more enjoyably bloody if it didn't punish you as hard for taking casualties. By which I don't mean having a Star's neck broken: players should die, but not being able to field a full team isn't fun.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 13:13 Reply with quote Back to top

@kilinrax: That is a fair point. Lots of rules and housekeeping could be eliminated, too.

_________________
Image
member1234



Joined: Mar 09, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 13:27 Reply with quote Back to top

kilinrax wrote:
snip


I really like this! (Could come up with other stuff to spend gold on too).

I'd say perhaps the option of several set rosters, but expect balancing rosters for a team would be a nightmare. One would always be superior and leave the others unused except for fluff.

It brings Big Guys back into the mix for a lot of teams too!

Annoying for those that like alternative builds though. (all Zombies!). But hey, house rules if needed. Or allowing such weakened rosters.
kilinrax



Joined: Jan 12, 2015

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 13:40 Reply with quote Back to top

member1234 wrote:
Annoying for those that like alternative builds though. (all Zombies!). But hey, house rules if needed. Or allowing such weakened rosters.


I had envisaged it alongside something close to the current inducement system. So, by all means field all zombies, you'll have lots to spend on babes/bribes/stars vs most teams.

Relatedly, I'd expect TV management would still be very important, perhaps even more important. But not having to save up for Rookie positionals would probably encourage coaches to experiment with their line-ups more, so might lead to more variety in practice?


Last edited by kilinrax on Feb 09, 2016 - 17:14; edited 1 time in total
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 14:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Positionals also show how 'rare' a positional would be. So of all the BB players that actually make it to a professional standard only 2 in 16 or 4 in 16 would be good enough to be blitzers.

What I would like (this actually complicates things though) is to have alternative rosters (like alternative army lists you have in the back of Warhammer army books).

A High Elf team that throws more (no blitzers/more catchers). A human team with blockers (no throwers/catchers but 2 blockers) etc etc
kilinrax



Joined: Jan 12, 2015

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 14:59 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
What I would like (this actually complicates things though) is to have alternative rosters (like alternative army lists you have in the back of Warhammer army books).

A High Elf team that throws more (no blitzers/more catchers). A human team with blockers (no throwers/catchers but 2 blockers) etc etc


It complicates things, but imo only marginally - you'd need maybe a flow chart with a max of three sections for each race? And that's assuming you wanted to be really explicit and visual.

Alternative rosters is a great idea, I wish I'd thought of it Wink
Nightbird



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 16:31 Reply with quote Back to top

kilinrax wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:
What I would like (this actually complicates things though) is to have alternative rosters (like alternative army lists you have in the back of Warhammer army books).

A High Elf team that throws more (no blitzers/more catchers). A human team with blockers (no throwers/catchers but 2 blockers) etc etc


It complicates things, but imo only marginally - you'd need maybe a flow chart with a max of three sections for each race? And that's assuming you wanted to be really explicit and visual.

Alternative rosters is a great idea, I wish I'd thought of it Wink


Shocked I LOVE this idea! Alt. Rosters FTW!

_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley
tmoila



Joined: Nov 25, 2012

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 16:34 Reply with quote Back to top

I voted for "Just the way it is...".

Because:
- The most nagging thing there in my opinion (Spiralling Expenses) is optional rule.

- Any minor tweak to skills and their combination would change whole meta too much. Not to some weaker ones (git, pass block etc) but they work as they are - not optimal, rather bad skills, that are sometimes fun to take (okay git is never ever fun or useful).

- Word of the league commish trumps over the rulebook, so in effect perpetual leagues can be house ruled in any way we want. This includes, but is not limited to, enabling/disabling some/all optional rules and telling coaches to jump in the air.


Rules themselves are good in their current form and in my opinion require no further modifications.

_________________
gg
member1234



Joined: Mar 09, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 16:50 Reply with quote Back to top

With alt rosters though you'll more than likely have one emerge as "best" and get used exclusively. Only really an issue for large online meta though.
Shraaaag



Joined: Feb 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 16:57 Reply with quote Back to top

I've seen tabletop leagues with alternative rosters. Usually you switch a positional for another positional. For example you could have different skaven rosters based on the different skaven clans by just switching out a few positionals.

_________________
Image
Matthueycamo



Joined: May 16, 2014

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 16:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Fingard wrote:
Current ruleset is great.
I'd only SLIGHTLY limit the cpomb power ("ST5 only" or "2nd frenzy push only" are HUGE limitations, which would kill the cpomb teams and the combo itself... It would be easier to just remove them then) and make SLIGHTLY better the teams with claw access at playing the ball.

A good limitation for CPOMB could be:

- Piling on costs 1 ma (ofc 1 gfi if needed, and you can't PO at all if you already used 2 gfi).

A good boost for claw-access-teams ballhandling could be:
- Big hand and extra arms are put togheter in 1 skill: when picking up, you can CHOOSE which to use.
Maybe this would make Skaven too good, but it's just an idea


I think to me any reduction in the effectiveness has to come to claw. Somebody mentioned the consequences of SE having the opposite effect to that intended and I think the same applies here.

So one makes PO worse but every team can get PO at least with doubles, so you are just reducing the effectiveness of everyone. With a bit of luck and enough games all teams can get a POMB player. Some it's harder than other but that's how it should be as they have other advantages out the box like AG4 etc. CPOMB would still be be the same amount better than POMB as it is now. Most people don't seem to have much of a problem with POMB yet weirdly a lot of people that find CPOMB OP target PO part. I don't know why this is but that's the impression I get.

If one wants to limit the problem with CPOMB of it being OP compared to everything else one has to actually target the unique and limited skill within it not one of the skills every race has access too. That won't do it. It should still be better than regular POMB of course but not quite as good. I have no idea how to change claw to make this happen but it's where I would start.


Last edited by Matthueycamo on Feb 09, 2016 - 17:20; edited 1 time in total
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 17:03 Reply with quote Back to top

tmoila wrote:

- Word of the league commish trumps over the rulebook, so in effect perpetual leagues can be house ruled in any way we want. This includes, but is not limited to, enabling/disabling some/all optional rules and telling coaches to jump in the air.


- The problem is that our League Commish, Christer, is not going to introduce house rules, so we need a new official GW ruleset as soon as possible.

It does not make any sense that high TV can be played competitively only by Nurgle, Chaos and agile teams, it narrows down the variety a lot.
Matthueycamo



Joined: May 16, 2014

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 17:17 Reply with quote Back to top

kilinrax wrote:
NerdBird wrote:
*Treasuries are a nightmare. Some teams have endless wealth, others are lucky to have a nickel.

PainState wrote:
Spiraling Expenses is very obviously a rule that some dude came up with while sitting on the toilet trying to come up with some rules for NON TT tournaments, like FUMBBL. It was a hair brain idea brought on by constipation.

fidius wrote:
7) Bad CAS luck can ruin a new team's season.
8 ) Variance on d6 gold roll too high.


Here is another hair brained idea, on the assumption that:
  • The inducements/handicap system isn't changed - kind of a big ask, because it isn't great
  • Perpetual leagues only - not a good idea for tourneys


GET RID OF THE TREASURY ENTIRELY

Allow coaches to refill with Rookies up to roster limits (maybe even forcing 16-man teams).

The restrictions on positionals are entirely arbitrary in the name of game balance. If most teams had freedom to spend their treasury how they wished, they'd probably run 7-8 blitzers. Why not just say "a race X blood bowl team is Y". More akin to an army list than a clumsy mechanic involving gold.

Much as I love the game, it isn't newbie friendly (almost notoriously so). And certain teams are significantly more difficult to keep alive. Under this system, a coach can lose their stars but never end up so far in the hole they have to retire a team (and what fun is that).

You might be thinking "but gold is effectively limitless as it is". It seems the treasury rules are currently meaningless to any coach who's competent enough to keep their players alive, and annoying to anyone who isn't (i.e. me). Was the intention to restrict lower AV teams to more skilled coaches? Or to more skilled pickers?

It seems to me that the game would be more enjoyably bloody if it didn't punish you as hard for taking casualties. By which I don't mean having a Star's neck broken: players should die, but not being able to field a full team isn't fun.


I would not say they are arbitrary, they are for reasons of fluff as much as game balance. In some ways I think the limits are actually what creates some of the current imbalances. I don't think it's a one way street.

As for the money question that's interesting but I don't see more advantages than negatives. Most of the teams this would favour are the ones that only really need 3-4 stars to be really good, maybe a couple of players with a skill or two. They can get by with the rest being rookies or JM. Giving them more money or taking money out of the game entirely one might just find you ushered in an era of even greater TV min/maxing and retiring players because they did not roll three doubles in their first three skills than we see now. I think that's a greater issue than any to do with money.
Fingard



Joined: Oct 07, 2008

Post   Posted: Feb 09, 2016 - 17:26 Reply with quote Back to top

Matthueycamo wrote:
Fingard wrote:
Current ruleset is great.
I'd only SLIGHTLY limit the cpomb power ("ST5 only" or "2nd frenzy push only" are HUGE limitations, which would kill the cpomb teams and the combo itself... It would be easier to just remove them then) and make SLIGHTLY better the teams with claw access at playing the ball.

A good limitation for CPOMB could be:

- Piling on costs 1 ma (ofc 1 gfi if needed, and you can't PO at all if you already used 2 gfi).

A good boost for claw-access-teams ballhandling could be:
- Big hand and extra arms are put togheter in 1 skill: when picking up, you can CHOOSE which to use.
Maybe this would make Skaven too good, but it's just an idea


I think to me any reduction in the effectiveness has to come to claw. Somebody mentioned the consequences of SE having the opposite effect to that intended and I think the same applies here.

So one makes PO worse but every team can get PO at least with doubles, so you are just reducing the effectiveness of everyone. With a bit of luck and enough games all teams can get a POMB player. Some it's harder than other but that's how it should be as they have other advantages out the box like AG4 etc. CPOMB would still be be the same amount better than POMB as it is now. Most people don't seem to have much of a problem with POMB yet weirdly a lot of people that find CPOMB OP target PO part. I don't know why this is but that's the impression I get.

If one wants to limit the problem with CPOMB of it being OP compared to everything else one has to actually target the unique and limited skill within it not one of the skills every race has access too. That won't do it. It should still be better than regular POMB of course but not quite as good. I have no idea how to change claw to make this happen but it's where I would start.


Limiting claw could be ok, but it's already not that good as a skill if taken alone.
It's not easy to find a good nerf for it (maybe the old "claw doesn't apply to +AV skill rolls"?).
Anyway we were suggested not to make it another "CPOMB thread", so I'll just stick on other aspects of the topic from now on (if any).
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