Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 12:05 |
 
|
| Chingis wrote: | | If it's an overwhelmingly important factor so that there's effectively only one scoring schedule/clock management approach that is competitive, then yes, you massive close off the design space in terms of tactical themes with different risk profiles: quick and risky versus slower but surer. |
Sure. But whys that a bad thing? Clock management is where all blood bowls strategy stems from, its what creates the tension, its why you try and force quick scores or shut outs. Remove it and you end up with an awful game like dreadball. |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 12:08 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | If the static stalling can't be stopped due to casualties, too many Guards, a solid cage etc. there is no strategic depth, just wait until turn 8 and score.
There is some strategic depth, instead, when you are forced to move your players every turn to keep ball possession. |
Sure that happens occasionally... and the anti stalling rule does exactly zero to stop this |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 12:13 |
|
When you are losing 0-1 it's hard to equalize and/or to win, especially with certain teams.
Game results are often very predictable, after one half has been played.
I find that the boring/negative side of the game, the almost "clockwork-like" stalling effect on the match outcome.
| Garion wrote: |
Sure that happens occasionally... and the anti stalling rule does exactly zero to stop this |
Well, at least the ball carrier inside the cage has to stay out of scoring range, in order to avoid the rock. Without it, the cage can stall closer to the End Zone.
It's a little positive change. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 12:17 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Sure. But whys that a bad thing? Clock management is where all blood bowls strategy stems from... |
The interest, the variety, isn't in different clock management strategies, it's in the various different ways people try to achieve the one monolithic "choice".
If there were more viable scoring schedules, in addition to the different ways to try and achieve each one, that'd be inherently more interesting. |
|
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 15:24 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | Spot on.
The biggest issue with Blood Bowl game design wise is the incentive *not* to score. It doesn't matter what the percentages are on your percentage play if you'd really rather not score right now! |
I don't think it is an issue, but I also have played house rules of 5 turn quarters where the quarter ends with a TD. It was a fun way to play. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 17:12 |
|
I'm quite certain even if stalling where somehow completely banned there'd be tons of strategy in blood bowl; in my experience claims of "without X there won't be enough strategy/difference between good and bad play" almost always turn out to be incorrect.
I do feel that pro elves seem likely to turn into the passer elf team, they already have nerves of steel, though their catchers are a bit vulnerable due to low armor. Still, I've always liked their catchers, you get a 2+ with a free reroll no matter how heavily caged the player is, once you add in the new cloud burster to stop all interceptions, it becomes very hard to stop both of them if they also pick up leap (and ofc there's the rest of the team).
I do agree that doing so may not be great for game winning compared to stall tactics. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 17:40 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | When you are losing 0-1 it's hard to equalize and/or to win, especially with certain teams.
Game results are often very predictable, after one half has been played.
I find that the boring/negative side of the game, the almost "clockwork-like" stalling effect on the match outcome.
| Garion wrote: |
Sure that happens occasionally... and the anti stalling rule does exactly zero to stop this |
Well, at least the ball carrier inside the cage has to stay out of scoring range, in order to avoid the rock. Without it, the cage can stall closer to the End Zone.
It's a little positive change. |
It makes no difference though in the example you make. You just place 2 or 3 of your own players in your ball carriers way and you avoid the stalling rule. You'll see when you play it. It just doesn't do what it's meant to |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 17:51 |
|
If the players are in the ball carrier's way, instead of around him, then they maybe are not screening the ball carrier properly.
I will see how it works when playing.
I still prefer to have a bad anti-stalling rule than no anti-stalling rule at all. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 18:59 |
|
u can also avoid stalling by doing a handover or pass |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 19:13 |
|
Oops. Kicked that anthill didnt I.
Didn't mean to. More pointing out why passing is always going to have an uphill battle. Because of the 2-1 grind mindset, scoring fast is a negative thing. Passing is only worth *any risk* even if its 2++ to score fast.
Scoring fast is only relevant if you already made the opposition score fast or to arm punt after a successful turn 7 sack. Or if you played your offense poorly or ate a ton of removals and you are in desperation mode. With "correct" play, theres never a good reason to pass.
Not really an indictment of the clock rules, more that theres pretty big design pressure to not pass built into them. Im fine with the clock as is, but passing has a more uphill battle than just buffing to PA1+. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 19:59 |
|
Makes me wonder if from a game design perspective, what we really need isn't better passing, but a harder running game where you can't cage so effectively. There's really very few teams that are a major threat to steal the ball inside a strong cage with pitch superiority.
Put another way, we could aim to make stalling less effective by making it riskier to do so without the opponent managing to get at the ball. |
|
|
Seventyone
Joined: Dec 02, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 20:02 |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2026 - 23:54 |
|
| Zlefin wrote: |
Put another way, we could aim to make stalling less effective by making it riskier to do so without the opponent managing to get at the ball. |
I think thats what the new "throw a rock" rules are meant to be. I don't think it will matter much.
But there's a challenge now because the game existed for so long with these rules that many teams only exist within this type of rules (dwarves, Khemri) where you slowly move down the field and win by beating the enemy up so they can't field a full roster in the 2nd half or by grinding them into making an early score when you are on defense.
Anything you do to make slow cage pressure stronger makes those teams nearly unplayable.
This is only important though because it seems GW is trying to push Blood Bowl a bit. I remember when I was learning how to play 5 or 6 years ago, being *incredibly* frustrated with stalling. To the point that I almost quit. Its a real approachability cliff that you only encounter -after- you spend all the time learning all the rules. They are going to experience headwinds in their expansion efforts the moment any of those players play someone that knows what 2-1 grind means.
I don't think its going away though because the design space of the teams have already been built in that environment and several popular one's don't make sense in a game that doesn't have that feature. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2026 - 09:59 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | If the players are in the ball carrier's way, instead of around him, then they maybe are not screening the ball carrier properly.
I will see how it works when playing.
I still prefer to have a bad anti-stalling rule than no anti-stalling rule at all. |
You don't understand how pointless the new rule is for experienced coaches. When you play it you will understand.
It is a bad rule though and much worse than not having the rule because it is something that will only catch out newer/weaker coaches that are learning the game. It will be extremely unfun for them when they think they are going to score then get hit by a rock, or alternatively they think the rule can't be simply avoided and they will quick score and lose 2-1 |
_________________
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2026 - 10:01 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Garion wrote: | | Sure. But whys that a bad thing? Clock management is where all blood bowls strategy stems from... |
The interest, the variety, isn't in different clock management strategies, it's in the various different ways people try to achieve the one monolithic "choice".
If there were more viable scoring schedules, in addition to the different ways to try and achieve each one, that'd be inherently more interesting. |
Why would it be more interesting? Gave you played dreadball... its blood bowl where you can't stall.. oh it's its a terrible tactically bereft game |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
The Great 2020>20...
Search
