| Poll |
| Is this ruleset better than the last one? |
| Yes |
|
52% |
[ 37 ] |
| No |
|
30% |
[ 22 ] |
| Dammit, I'm hungry! |
|
16% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 71 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
May 17, 2026 - 20:54 |
 
|
| XtremeXwing wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | High Elves are too good. Wrestle on Lion Warriors can be ok, but Claw is too much.
In WHFB Lion Warriors positively have no Claws.
They wear White Lions' furs, but they don't use their claws as weapons. They wield two-handed axes. |
I think the claw idea came from the old metal model.
|
Yes, but I think that lion claw was supposed to be a catcher glove, not a makeshift weapon. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 00:40 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
I can't take credit for that term. The creator of blood bowl JJ said - Its important when designing Rosters and players that they aren't over described. That they are kept simple, which allows players to develop and grow. A player shouldn't feel "finished" before levelling up. |
This issue started with the CRP changes and the Cyanide rosters, and was allowed to snowball. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 09:30 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
I can't take credit for that term. The creator of blood bowl JJ said - Its important when designing Rosters and players that they aren't over described. That they are kept simple, which allows players to develop and grow. A player shouldn't feel "finished" before levelling up. |
This issue started with the CRP changes and the Cyanide rosters, and was allowed to snowball. |
Yeah, I think it really started getting bad during 2016, which started off as a pretty much straight port of CRP but with nerfed PO. But in that 2016 - 2020 period (towards the end of that edition and on), with every roster change or star player change they made GW started pushing their over described nonsense, clearly with little understanding of the implications... Adding crap like hit and run (2022) and so on. |
_________________
 |
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 11:19 |
|
To Malmir's question I actually believe the ruleset itself to be quite good, but the team designs make it too much rock / paper / scissors for me. Also, every team having a unique rule makes the chances of abusing a weakness in the design higher.
So all together to me the ruleset as a whole is less good than it was. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 11:58 |
|
| Joost wrote: | To Malmir's question I actually believe the ruleset itself to be quite good, but the team designs make it too much rock / paper / scissors for me. Also, every team having a unique rule makes the chances of abusing a weakness in the design higher.
So all together to me the ruleset as a whole is less good than it was. |
What do you mean by the rule set? What's good/better than previous editions? |
_________________
|
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 14:05 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Joost wrote: | To Malmir's question I actually believe the ruleset itself to be quite good, but the team designs make it too much rock / paper / scissors for me. Also, every team having a unique rule makes the chances of abusing a weakness in the design higher.
So all together to me the ruleset as a whole is less good than it was. |
What do you mean by the rule set? What's good/better than previous editions? |
I mean everything but the actual teams, and then especially skills as they are granted to rookie players.
I like the ruleset that governs the game play, and it is mostly unchanged with a few improvements imho: Secure the Ball is huge, Passing without deviating balls, a better Prayers table (too good perhaps) and I like the addition of Devious skills.
But to me these aspects are outweighed by teams that are designed too 'extremely', if that makes sense. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 14:42 |
|
yeah I get you. I mean I totally agree about the team design being awful... far too over described in many instances, and I know it's early days. But the balance looks WAAAY off looking at the available data.
I do like secure the ball.. it's a light in the darkness 
and glad they removed Wildly inaccurate, that was a big mistake last edition, and glad they reversed the cas table/Apo as that was BIG mistake last edition.
Funny that two of their best changes this edition were reversing mistakes they made last time... |
_________________
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2026 - 15:06 |
|
I like the reduced positional numbers, on playing with them. It makes you think more about what you're doing, you have to rely more on basic players. MNGs mean more, and teams bounce back faster. The reasoning was stupid, but the output was okay.
Corollary to that, I think the change in the pricing structure is actually not a terrible idea. The idea that there's a basic player pricing and a positional pricing doesn't bother me, so long as how much of which goes where is worked out satisfactorily. The new Human positionals are wild, but if you look at them in terms of the new Orc positionals, well, heh. Also skill pricing is out of whack with everything else, and this makes all these decisions hard to analyze properly.
I know a lot of people hate Steady Footing, and I like that the designers are bringing the aggravation to us on a meta-level. I genuinely appreciate how wonderfully gaslighty it is to put in a really well balanced "feels bad" skill. This is not ironic, I think this kind of abuse fits in quite nicely with the spirit of the game, as we most definitely did not come here for a low-friction experience.
I think a lot of the rules feel "so close and yet so far," which is annoying.
- I feel that way with the new passing rules: all they had to do was say "a modified 0 or less is a fumble, as is a natural 1," and the whole thing would have been the best yet, passing-wise.
- I still love multi-RR ... 15 turns out of 16. I love the added managerial aspects, and well, with my luck you don't need RR to OTS. (Also, OTS favors the underdog.)
- I like the intent behind the anti-stalling rules. Anything that can run the score up is good. But I don't think they succeed amazingly well at this. I'd rather see an added incentive for getting a TD. It feels like if they hit on this, making OTS easier would be a problem only for the old men yelling at clouds, but they didn't, so it sticks in everyone's craw.
- A related problem (more poor communication), I think we're all looking at 10k Prayers wrong, and that's the fault of the design team as much as it is the player base's limited imaginations. I think they had an idea for how this would work in practice that was too clever and they did a poor job communicating it, so nobody picked it up and the community just assumed they were being dumb. This is what happens when you only communicate your rules through a book that pretends it doesn't have any history: people see the changes, but ideological shifts just look like mistakes.
- Devious as a category is a good idea. Like four skills in that category would be worth having if they were non-confusing and if skills weren't badly overpriced. But the whole thing needs lots and lots of help.
This feels to me like The Edition That Could Have Been Great. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Jayward
Joined: Dec 22, 2020
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 11:58 |
|
I'm pretty negative about the edition overall. There's some cool stuff, but mostly the game feels more complicated and yet less interesting.
Stalling, Prayers to Nuffle, and skills like Eye Gouge are all just adding more game states to track without actually improving the game.
Hatred just feels like annoying book keeping as well.
They've added 23 new skills to the game in the last two editions, and I'd say 20+ of them are only ever relevant because they've stapled them to starting players.
Redraft has (for me) killed the main allure of progression; building a team rather than building a couple of min-maxed legends. This edition leans into that even more with fewer positionals, and allocated MVPs.
The entire Active/Passive skills and traits thing is almost entirely pointless; if they weren't set on Distracted preventing skills being used you could make every skill "Passive" and you'd only need to reword Stand Firm and Sidestep to say 'when standing'.
There's been some good bits too; Secure the Ball, Multi-rerolls, changing the statblocks to be X+ is more intuitive for new players. I like that they've tried to mix the rosters up, even if the results vary wildly. I'd like keywording if GW weren't so bad at it.
But overall this edition feels padded. Like a load of pointless things have been added for the sole purpose of being 'new content' rather than actually improving the game |
|
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 14:56 |
|
I agree with Jayward on all points except redraft.
I can see the issue with the allocation of MVP. That said, the random skill rolls on linemen were a lot of the time wasted progression, even if at a reduced TV cost. The current system makes thing boring, yes, but it also enables fragile or slow-development teams to focus SPP on the key players that really matter.
MVP landing on fragile, filler linemen for teams like Khemri, Khorne, Nurgle, Lizards, Nobility, Black Orcs for example were all lost value to these teams, most of whom can now perform better in a league environment due to their ability to filter these linemen from getting the MVP. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 15:09 |
|
A compromise for not wasting SPPs yet having MVP nomination could be splitting the 4 SPPs MVP into two 2 SPPs MVPs (no double nomination on the same player allowed per match).
Developing a single freak would be slower that way. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 15:15 |
|
MVP is fine as is. Much like swoop they've found a happy medium between random, and too focused.
I agree with almost all of what jayward says tbh |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 15:18 |
|
Yes, but the level ups are too fast to get and stat freaks too common.
The Season Re-Draft doesn't trim them enough if you can have the first level up at 14 SPPs and the second at 16 SPPs. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 15:24 |
|
stat freaks are not the fault of MVP. That's a separate issue. If using this style of levelling up, then change the required SPP, change it to max 3 stats per player and max 1 of a specific type.
MVP is fine now... |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 19, 2026 - 15:45 |
|
Ok, then change the required SPPs to level up and/or make Season shorter and/or reduce the Re-Draft budget. |
|
|
|
|
| |
3 Charges in a row.....
Search
