24 coaches online • Server time: 04:34
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post BB2020 new rules: Pa...goto Post Fouling is broken 20...goto Post Black Box Trophy : S...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 19:22 Reply with quote Back to top

*coughtieredskillpriceswouldbethewaytogocough*
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 19:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Heroic_Tackle wrote:
They should have made passing skills reeeeally cheap, compared to other skills. Even cheaper than the random roll.


I think that all skills could have a cost between 10-30k... with skills such as block having a base cost of 30k and some really situational skills be only 10k base cost. You also could make it so you could pick 10k skills at the first step as primary and then 20k skills at the next level and so on.

So for your fist skill you could pick a primary 10k skill at 3 SPP, 20k skill at 6 SPP and a 30k skill at 9 SPP.

For secondary you step it up one notch so at 6 SPP you can pick a 10k skill, 9 SPP 20k skill and 12 SPP a 30k skill. You also pay twice the TV for the secondary skills. So a Block on a Big Guy would cost you +60TV.

You remove the random but it really will make sense to take an early situational skill for cheap, especially when you can choose it and build the player as you wish... You also will see less typical player in regular leagues as it will simply be too expensive SPP wise to get the highly sought after skills unless you can get lots of SPP on that player. High quality skills also will make the players quite expensive.

Now you could give the most important passing skills a 20k cost and the more situational ones a 10k cost. There probably are no passing skills that warrant a 30k cost.

In my opinion this probably had been both more balanced and fun overall.


Last edited by CAB on Nov 22, 2020 - 20:24; edited 1 time in total
Wolvassa



Joined: Dec 23, 2019

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 20:01 Reply with quote Back to top

stej wrote:
Maybe it's an error and should scatter from the receivers square


Honestly, this makes more sense than anything else. A fumble becomes less likely than it is at the moment, and if it scatters from the receiver it will end up being a bit worse than an inaccurate pass, but not always much. Generally, especially if you are having to try a long throw, it ending up within 6 squares of the target is better than it ending up next to your thrower, even if it is harder to cover. The intent feels like it is accurate>inaccurate>wildly inaccurate>fumble, and that's all that would make sense for that.

If it worked like that, a passing game with deep receivers would at least pose questions for slower teams to have to answer, like 'do you have to keep a couple of dwarf runners deep to cover that catcher, just so they can't lob it over you and know they'll get there first even if they don't catch it?'

Even if that isn't what they mean, I can see it being erratad to that when/if they realise passing just doesn't work how they've written it.
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 20:16 Reply with quote Back to top

Wolvassa wrote:
stej wrote:
Maybe it's an error and should scatter from the receivers square


Honestly, this makes more sense than anything else. A fumble becomes less likely than it is at the moment, and if it scatters from the receiver it will end up being a bit worse than an inaccurate pass, but not always much. Generally, especially if you are having to try a long throw, it ending up within 6 squares of the target is better than it ending up next to your thrower, even if it is harder to cover. The intent feels like it is accurate>inaccurate>wildly inaccurate>fumble, and that's all that would make sense for that.

If it worked like that, a passing game with deep receivers would at least pose questions for slower teams to have to answer, like 'do you have to keep a couple of dwarf runners deep to cover that catcher, just so they can't lob it over you and know they'll get there first even if they don't catch it?'

Even if that isn't what they mean, I can see it being erratad to that when/if they realise passing just doesn't work how they've written it.


This I think make more sense in a certain way. I also think they could include an additional complexity here. If there are any modifiers other than the range of the pass it scatters from the thrower, otherwise it scatters from the receiver.

This cover more scenarios, such as when the thrower tries to throw from a scrum and they are more likely to be tackled and the ball end up in the vicinity of the thrower rather than the receiver.

That would make it more sane in my opinion.

The good thing with knowing that the ball will more likely scatter from the receiver is one of planning the throw and what can happen if it goes wrong.
stej



Joined: Jan 05, 2009

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 23:17 Reply with quote Back to top

If it were this though, then you have the problem that you can just punt the ball downfield at longbomb +/- D6 squares on a 2+, regardless tacklezones.
That feels like it would be far too overpowered
C0ddlefish



Joined: Sep 17, 2019

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 23:21 Reply with quote Back to top

Basically HMP with a bigger scatter? Not sure many would say HMP is overpowered
stej



Joined: Jan 05, 2009

Post   Posted: Nov 22, 2020 - 23:32 Reply with quote Back to top

True, but if it works like that then every player has access without a skill slot being used. Makes HMP redundant too.

It all feels like a right mess. But then I haven't seen the interception rules yet
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 23, 2020 - 00:12 Reply with quote Back to top

stej wrote:
True, but if it works like that then every player has access without a skill slot being used. Makes HMP redundant too.

It all feels like a right mess. But then I haven't seen the interception rules yet


A regular 3+ agility player will be able to deflect a Wildly Inaccurate pass on a 4+. So punting the ball when you get a WI result are quite likely to be deflected.

I don't think it would directly be OP.
Vompo



Joined: Nov 15, 2020

Post   Posted: Nov 23, 2020 - 00:23 Reply with quote Back to top

I was assuming all along that WI scatters from the receiver square. Feels the only logical option as it's just more inaccurate than inaccurate but should work in similar fashion, surely?

But then again I'm just a noob who hasn't even read the new rules.
WhatBall



Joined: Aug 21, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 23, 2020 - 03:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Vompo wrote:
But then again I'm just a noob who hasn't even read the new rules.

Don't worry, apparently the rule makers haven't ever seen a game of American football.

_________________
Image
neubau



Joined: Nov 12, 2016

Post   Posted: Nov 23, 2020 - 23:44 Reply with quote Back to top

too lazy to do the maths myself, but how likely is it that a dump off will be widely inaccurate?

_________________
Image
Image
sebco



Joined: Feb 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 23, 2020 - 23:55 Reply with quote Back to top

It will depend on how many opponent tackle zones will be on your dark elf runner (or other player with Dump Off) and it will also depend on the final rule about wildly inaccurate pass (we don't even know if that will finally be on a strict 1 after modifiers or on a 1 or less after modifiers).

_________________
I like cheese but don't call me skaven !
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 24, 2020 - 00:11 Reply with quote Back to top

sebco wrote:
It will depend on how many opponent tackle zones will be on your dark elf runner (or other player with Dump Off) and it will also depend on the final rule about wildly inaccurate pass (we don't even know if that will finally be on a strict 1 after modifiers or on a 1 or less after modifiers).


While I'm inclined to believe what they said in the video is how it actually is I find it really weird. In the old BB2016 rules they are very specific that a Fumble is on a modified die roll of 1 or less but in BB2020 they don't say that. I don't understand... are you suppose to infer rules?!?

I also don't understand why they in that case made it on a "1"or less and not just lower than "1". Because that would have made it roughly the same chance as Fumble in the BB2016 rules. It now is even more risky to throw the ball than it ever have been even for players that "know" how to do it.
J_13



Joined: Sep 08, 2020

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2020 - 09:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi guys,

I got the epub rulebook and I am reading through it. When I get to the Turnover section, it is clear to me that a WIP does NOT cause turnover. It clearly states that only fumble,deflection/interception or not catching the ball causes it.

After reading this, I jumped to the pass action and I read the same.

Am I missing anything or any line where states that a WIP cause turnover?
det



Joined: Oct 01, 2017

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2020 - 09:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Well, I think you said it yourself *not catching the ball* causes a turnover...so if you throw a WIP and the ball is not caught by one of your dudes, then turnover.


Last edited by det on Nov 27, 2020 - 10:17; edited 1 time in total
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