MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 11:54 |
 
|
| Garion wrote: | | I've still not seem 1 argument or point that explains why stalling is negative. |
Is negative because some kinds of stalling can't be stopped, not due necessarily to superior coaching, but just due to removals, Guards, higher Strength players, higher armoured etc. When a stalling can't be stopped there is a passive game experience, or, to use your own words, an NPE, negative player experience. It's not a short game lasting 10 minutes, you want more action and active gameplay from a game lasting 1 hour. Watching a cage stalling is not a fun, active, interesting, tactical, strategical experience. You can foul and block other players but the core stalling action can't be stopped.
Better sacking would be beneficial because would give some things to do, instead of just watching a cage stalling. I'm not suggesting to make sacking super good, just to make it better than now. If sacking were more likely, people would be encouraged to try it and be more active in their turns, which is a positive thing (unless you like to play a kind of solitaire game with a spectator, not an opponent).
About the strategical part: again, I repeat, there is some strategy when the stalling is achieved by shifting players' position turn after turn, I agree about that, but there is not much strategy (nor risks) when a cage is parked near the End Zone, without any chance to sack the ball.
I'm not suggesting that there should be a Fireball targetting the cage every turn of stalling, but, on the other hand, stalling should not be so easy and safe to achieve.
It's not always easy to achieve it but it's quite often possible to achieve it, without being a tactical genius.
Have you noticed that there are no Elven teams in the Box past Season 1?
Have you figured why? Because they can't pass the ball as well as they used to do and because sacking got worse too (leaping into cage got worse, punting got worse, removals got harder to heal, thus making not worth to attack aggressively a cage).
If sacking were a bit easier, agile teams would be more common in the Box.
If you don't think it's a problem, ok, but I think that lack of variety and dull stalling gameplay are negative things. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Jan 22, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
awambawamb
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 12:32 |
|
imagine stalling and taking 3 minutes 56 seconds to play your turn! truly brainless. |
_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 13:33 |
|
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 15:03 |
|
Request to change thread title to “effective clock management thread” |
|
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 16:05 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: | | I've still not seem 1 argument or point that explains why stalling is negative. |
Is negative because some kinds of stalling can't be stopped, not due necessarily to superior coaching, but just due to removals, Guards, higher Strength players, higher armoured etc. When a stalling can't be stopped there is a passive game experience, or, to use your own words, an NPE, negative player experience. It's not a short game lasting 10 minutes, you want more action and active gameplay from a game lasting 1 hour. Watching a cage stalling is not a fun, active, interesting, tactical, strategical experience. You can foul and block other players but the core stalling action can't be stopped.
Better sacking would be beneficial because would give some things to do, instead of just watching a cage stalling. I'm not suggesting to make sacking super good, just to make it better than now. If sacking were more likely, people would be encouraged to try it and be more active in their turns, which is a positive thing (unless you like to play a kind of solitaire game with a spectator, not an opponent).
About the strategical part: again, I repeat, there is some strategy when the stalling is achieved by shifting players' position turn after turn, I agree about that, but there is not much strategy (nor risks) when a cage is parked near the End Zone, without any chance to sack the ball.
I'm not suggesting that there should be a Fireball targetting the cage every turn of stalling, but, on the other hand, stalling should not be so easy and safe to achieve.
It's not always easy to achieve it but it's quite often possible to achieve it, without being a tactical genius.
Have you noticed that there are no Elven teams in the Box past Season 1?
Have you figured why? Because they can't pass the ball as well as they used to do and because sacking got worse too (leaping into cage got worse, punting got worse, removals got harder to heal, thus making not worth to attack aggressively a cage).
If sacking were a bit easier, agile teams would be more common in the Box.
If you don't think it's a problem, ok, but I think that lack of variety and dull stalling gameplay are negative things. |
I don't really think stalling is that easy. On occassion there is a very lobsided game, which is boring. Because the game end is determined by amount of turns and not an event (such as a King being check mate in Chess), these games are boring and then take a bit of time. Rarely though does it take a lot of time, because turns now go very fast. I don't think that is the problem, for experienced coaches.
For new coaches though, it is frustrating because they dont expect it to be part of the game and then feel powerless for a long time when someone does stall. Ensuring these people don't leave the game before they appreciate the strategic aspect of stalling is actually important I think. The crowd throwing a rock will actually help them I think, because in games with beginners I imagine it will either force an earlier score, or drop an actual rock opening up the game again. For experienced coaches I think the rule's effect will be minimal, but certain teams might feel the pain such as Tomb Kings. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 16:28 |
|
| Joost wrote: | | For experienced coaches I think the rule's effect will be minimal, but certain teams might feel the pain such as Tomb Kings. |
Secure the Ball will help Tomb Kings in that scenario. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 16:57 |
|
I think the main effect will come in terms of the 10k, not the rock. My guess is that the new stalling rules and Winnings rules for non-stallers will do three things in the main.
1) add 10k per match to teams that get smacked around and can't dream of stalling.
2) add 10k to coaches who think they can get away with running up the score or who can stall comfortably enough that they only have to get in range on turn 7. Even if they're wrong.
3) occasionally convince someone to score a little early when they really otherwise might not have.
Winnings matter more for some teams now. Orcs, for example, actually have a reason to care about money in this edition, as it's easy to pump your TV super high and now you have to spend 30k per match for Prayers. So items 1 and 2 matter more than item 3, in my book. But 3 is a thing, just not as important as it sounds. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 19:32 |
|
The deviation in the HE thread happened because I pointed out that passing runs counter to the dominant strategy of stalling. So no matter how much you pump up the high elves passing ability, it still won't be much of a team identity cause its generally going to be the suboptimal play. Even the rosters that Garion made in secret league *specifically* to be good at passing, don't often do it more than once a game at most.
As for the "problem" of stalling; there isn't one for people like us that have played hundreds to thousands of games and are used to that. The problem is GW seems to be trying to make BB more broadly appealing. Stalling is not appealing to new or casual players. There is strategic depth, but its counter to the narrative of the game to play so safe.
That's why I don't think *ban stalling* can work. it would totally destroy the game. But something that makes stalling less safe could work while preserving strategic depth and the narrative of the game as this high risk extravaganza.
And I think in a world where stalling is actually risky not because of a random die roll causing a rock to be thrown, but because there is legitimate, strong, and approachable-by-casuals counterplay, you *could* get passing to a place where its as good of an option as sitting in a cage for 4 turns. That's how you make passing very viable without making it over-turned. Raise the risk floor for the "do nothing" option so there is more parity.
That's how I'd buff passing at least. |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 19:40 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: |
3) occasionally convince someone to score a little early when they really otherwise might not have.
|
I kind of get your economy mindset but you are thinking in terms of long perpetual leagues with players on Fumbbl optimizing their teams.
That isn't the bulk of the BB experience. The main base they are appealing to are the guys that run a casual league out of their LGS with 1 guy that is "good" that ruins the high variance fun they are used to with his "lame" 2-1 grind.
10k of winnings won't likely register as an incentive for them to play differently.
If instead, that "good" player now feels like his cages are easier to crack or cage dive, then we have injected variance again. More risk trading, more decisions. The 2 ideas I put up; ball carrier has no TZ's and modification to the blitzing rule both inject cage cracking techniques that are still skill expressive and high risk but far less risky than dodging into a cage as it currently stands. It gives the threat of a desperation play that doesn't really exist right now.
That could shake it up for a bit, at least until the meta stabilizes but that's what metas do. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 20:09 |
|
| Carthage wrote: |
The problem is GW seems to be trying to make BB more broadly appealing. Stalling is not appealing to new or casual players. There is strategic depth, but its counter to the narrative of the game to play so safe.
|
Agree with what you said apart from this bit ^
Blood bowl 3rd edition and on was specifically designed to be strategic to represent Tactics of American football mixed with fantasy elements. The crazy stuff is there too, but it's always been secondary to the strategy. That's why the game has depth.
Secondly GW have done precisely nothing to make this game more broadly appealing or easier for new coaches to on board.
This edition has more status effects than any addition to date. It's now a pain on tabletop to track chomped, distracted, eye gouged etc...
There rules have loads of bloat now especially in the skills section, loads of stuff that new coaches have to learn to ignore. The anti stalling rule which will only catch out new coaches making their learning experience unpleasant. Almost every change to the rules they have made benefits experienced coaches and made this edition harder to learn |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 20:16 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
Blood bowl 3rd edition and on was specifically designed to be strategic to represent Tactics of American football mixed with fantasy elements. |
In American Football you have downs to move the ball, there are no cages sleeping near the End Zones.
A lost ball may end a down, unlike in Blood Bowl.
The ball can be kicked to score.
Blood Bowl fails big to represent tactics of American Football because it lacks important American Football rules.
There are some similarities, of course, but huge differences as well.
Many people consider Blood Bowl closer to Rugby than American Football. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 20:22 |
|
Thing is, stalling in American Football, bar the end of game Victory Formation, usually still involves forward progress. It's also always 11 on 11, every play. The parallels are weak. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 20:26 |
|
Every time someone tries to argue against stalling because it "doesn't match american football" I just have to laugh about how little they know about american football. Running out the clock is a massive part of the game, when teams are ahead they specifically do the type of plays that tend to not get large amounts of yards but run more time off the clock, that is, they are literally stalling. Yes you still have to make forward progress, but if you wanted it to be more like that then the trigger for stalling would be if you didn't move forward a certain number of spaces per turn, not just if you could score and didn't.
This game is unlike american football is so, so many ways, but stalling actually isn't one of them. Sure the mechanics of it are different, but the mechanics of everything are different. |
|
|
JohnDaker
Joined: Aug 01, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 20:47 |
|
If you don't want stalling, then go back to original rules. 1st team to score 3TD win.
But I, for sure, prefer the core rules of the 3rd edition, with the addition of a clock (i.e. turns).
And adding a clock, means adding clock management. Q.E.D. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2026 - 20:59 |
|
The turns are a great 3rd edition addition, I played the 2nd edition and games could literally last hours.
Maybe 8 turns are too many, though. I'd like to try Halves of 7 turns. That way stalling would last one turn less or it could be possible to score a bit earlier, then defend for fewer turns or even try to pressure and score again. Since fast.scoring teams tend to be outnumbered, having one less turn to play might help them.
Making rushes harder could indirectly help: if a team scored before turn 8, then kicked deep, equalizing with a running game would be harder. That would encourage passing over running. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Jan 22, 2026; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
| |
The Stunty Cup
Search
