80 coaches online • Server time: 19:35
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post How to Retain Obsole...goto Post SWL Season LXXXVgoto Post BB2020 and further r...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Will bb2020 changes make you retire from fumbbl?
Never, fumbbl 4eva!
75%
 75%  [ 275 ]
Completely retire
1%
 1%  [ 6 ]
Retire except still do league
8%
 8%  [ 30 ]
Retire except still do some tournaments
0%
 0%  [ 2 ]
Undecided
14%
 14%  [ 52 ]
Total Votes : 365


Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 15:59 Reply with quote Back to top

Wolvassa wrote:
Removed from the question of if you like seasons or not, and if the story is about the team or the players, redraft fees on players with any progression at all is sort of required for the seasons to have the effect they aim for.

Where skills are likely to be distributed is one of the big changes, especially making it harder for non-postionals to develop (random MVP, lower SPP for MVP, passing stat nerf, harder to access specific skills that would aid progression). It all works to keep linemen in their place. If it costs me nothing to hold onto all of my 2/4SPP dwarf blockers, I'll very likely have a decent set of guard after a 6 game season, let alone a 15 game one like on Fumbbl.

The goal of the changes reads to me to make teams closer in power (I think all teams are weaker in some ways), and to keep the power curve of each team more predictable as they play games, so that over the course of typical 6ish player seasons, everyone will have fun games with a reasonable chance of winning throughout, and if there are subsequent seasons people can join or leave without it being miserable for newcomers. If this is the intent, and it makes sense for the boardgame, then the season rules read to me as a sensible part of the system.

I personally think that they also make a lot of sense, with some tweaks, for a competitive progression division with more players, like fumbbl. The price you pay is the story telling around specific players, but that is, to me, a small price to play in an environment that is focused on this as a tactical game. If I look at the past few tournament winners, there are some big stars with impressive records, but their story is mostly the story of the team on the pitch.

As cool as all of the big teams are, the fact that they exist means that I have never bothered playing much in box/ranked. I know I'd lose to a lot of coaches just on skill, but I don't have the patience or commitment to ever build a team that will be close to them in TV. I've watched a few of the big tournament games, but when the TV is that high it feels like a completely different game. Bloodbowl should be about managing risk vs reward, and at a certain TV you are able to eliminate to many of the risks in your own turn for me to find it as interesting.

I love story and rpg style progression, and league was and is still the best place to do that in fumbbl, but honestly, at no stage has this ever been the sort of game where you can reliably tell a story with your players. It always amused me how much shorter lived bloodbowlers are than Mordheim warbands, but maybe thats just me playing elves badly :p


That presumes that somehow 1000TV is better balanced than say 1500TV . I completely disagree on that point (but I understand I'm in the vast minority here, so for the rest of this I'll ignore that). And in my opinion, they haven't bothered to try to balance enough teams at 1000TV. They have a tiered structure, but even within tier 1, there are teams that are better and teams that are worse. The balance relies entirely on coaches semi policing themselves so that they pick teams that are a good fit for their local league.

In any anonymous setting (such as online Ranked/Box), you lose that 'self policing' nature; and even in formal tournament settings (NAF etc) you lose it, and so further steps need to be introduced (such as NAFs tiering and choices given out, on a tournament by tournament basis, on that tiering).

If they HAD tried to do a lot better at balancing 1000TV teams, and in particular, balancing pricing of skills/stats against each other (instead of simply fitting into a neat looking formula), then I think the point of seasons would be a lot more apparent - they would be able to say 'we're keeping teams in this range that we went to a lot of effort of balancing'. But they didn't and so it looks like 'we had lots of data, and we could see ranges where the teams were closest to balanced (even though they still clearly aren't balanced), and we're just going to try to force people to play in those ranges and hope that makes them feel like it's balanced enough.'
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 16:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Yes, and an effect of forcing people to play only at a certain TV range is that some teams became unplayable.
ChappyThePuppy



Joined: Mar 27, 2011

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 16:56 Reply with quote Back to top

I voted undecided, cause there isn't a "Let's play both!" option.
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
Yes, and an effect of forcing people to play only at a certain TV range is that some teams became unplayable.


Nothing is ever unplayable. Just less efficient. Let's not blow everything out of proportion.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 17:07 Reply with quote Back to top

No, unplayable.
Nurgle and Chaos need Block to be playable.
If you can't get that, then you are beyond hope of debate (due to being deliberately or genuinely obtuse).
Even a team of 16 Gnoblars is playable, if we want to nitpick on semantics, but when a team lacks the core skills to do what is supposed to do (Chaos and Nurgle are supposed to block) then that team is not playable.
Playable in my book means: "with decent odds of winning compared to other teams".


Last edited by MattDakka on Jan 25, 2021 - 01:12; edited 1 time in total
Cyrus-Havoc



Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 17:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Lyracian wrote:
Cyrus-Havoc wrote:

Are you sure about that?
If the chainsaw fails to break their armour they are OK but surely that's how in is now?

Yes. Read the new FAQ. There is a difference between being placed prone and being knocked down. Goblin can kill himself with his chainsaw and it is not a turnover. It also makes Helmet Wulf a much better Star to take.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NryQj9cL6rNK143Y.pdf



Q. If I roll a 1 when rolling to see if I can use a Chainsaw or Projectile Vomit, is a Turnover caused? (p.84 & 86)
A. No. The player is Placed Prone and an Injury roll made against them. They are not Knocked Down. It will only cause a Turnover if they are in possession of the ball.


Thanks Smile

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!
dabassman



Joined: Feb 17, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 17:49 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
No, unplayable.
Nurgle and Chaos need Block to be playable.
If you can't get that, then you are beyond hope of debate (due to being deliberately or genuinely obtuse).
Even a team of 16 Gnoblars is playable, if we want to nitpick on semantics, but when a team lacks the core skills to do what is supposed to to (Chaos and Nurgle are supposed to block) then that team is not playable.
Playable in my book means: "with decent odds of winning compared to other teams".


That´s why they´re tier 2! Which they certainly are not at TV 200+...
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 17:57 Reply with quote Back to top

BB2020 Necro are tier 2 but they are better than Chaos and Nurgle.
The tier is arguable, also, why they must be tier 2?
Why they have to lack the skills they need?
Tier 2 could be ok with long-term progression, but tier 2 and pretty much no progression is wrong.
stej



Joined: Jan 05, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 18:38 Reply with quote Back to top

I play Chaos mainly. I think they missed a trick to diversify the roster a bit as having only 2 positionals (of which you pretty much want all of one of) is a bit dull.
Maybe making beatmen 0-4 and starting with block and having 0-12 generic linemen would add more flavour and playability
neilwat



Joined: Aug 01, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 20:11
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I have deleted a few posts that were unnecessary. This is a good forum to discuss 2020 rules in but you don't need to get personal or dismiss others views in a rude manner.
MrCushtie



Joined: Aug 10, 2018

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 20:45 Reply with quote Back to top

I see the appeal of Block on Beastmen, but then you start with four players who can blitz with ST4 and Block, and that's maybe a bit overpowered. And shouldn't Chaos teams be intrinsically chaotic and unreliable? Smile

The Beastman roster in Secret League has the flavour you might be looking for - weedy ungors, good for running the ball, regular gors and ST4 brashgors. Shame as it's not an official roster it won't get the same attention as Chaos does. But who knows what the Slaanesh/Khorne/Tzeentch variations are that are around the corner?

_________________
Image
Grod



Joined: Sep 30, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 22:31 Reply with quote Back to top

Despite the grumbling from a handful of coaches, the poll says it all - just 1% of players planning to retire. Thats a strong endorsement of the new rules and changes to the site coming!

_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.

Oscar Wilde
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 24, 2021 - 23:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Grod wrote:
Thats a strong endorsement of the new rules and changes to the site coming!

I don't think it's an endorsement of the new rules so much as an indication of people willing to tolerate them. It's not easy to give up on something you've invested so much time in (a fact that GW never fails to exploit, over and over and over).
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2021 - 00:49
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

nor does it seem to be easy to give on on prejudging them and hoping everyone else feels the same, despite any evidence to the contrary.

I have a lot of reservations about the new rules, I even expect some to change in time, but I, and it seems many others, will give them a try and see what they feel like on the pitch and in the post game.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2021 - 03:04 Reply with quote Back to top

PurpleChest wrote:
nor does it seem to be easy to give on on prejudging them and hoping everyone else feels the same, despite any evidence to the contrary.
I don't really care if anyone else feels the same honestly. I don't have any illusions that any discussion here will change anything. This isn't a forum for discussing what they should or shouldn't do. I'm simply explaining why I will probably not be playing the new rules... It seems some people are determined to convince me that my reservations are wrong... perhaps they are.. but I've not found the arguments convincing in the slightest.
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