63 coaches online • Server time: 22:53
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post ramchop takes on the...goto Post NBFL Season 32: The ...goto Post Creating a custom to...
Tomay
Last seen 3 days ago
Overall
Experienced
Overall
Record
1/0/1
Win Percentage
50%
Archive

2023

2023-12-20 09:27:00
rating 5.8

2019

2019-05-13 01:02:36
rating 6

2018

2018-03-14 03:23:29
rating 5.4
2018-02-19 02:32:42
rating 5.8

2016

2016-08-29 09:11:38
rating 6

2015

2015-12-24 03:29:21
rating 4.9
2015-07-21 09:50:30
rating 6

2014

2014-12-23 22:49:58
rating 5.2
2014-11-20 03:09:19
rating 3.3
2014-10-01 10:46:29
rating 5.9
2014-03-14 09:29:37
rating 5.4
2014-01-26 05:32:52
rating 4.3

2013

2013-12-17 06:48:30
rating 2.8
2013-07-30 00:20:20
rating 5.8
2013-07-07 11:08:44
rating 4.5
2013-06-14 04:38:46
rating 4.8
2013-02-26 06:16:47
rating 3.9
2013-01-01 23:17:50
rating 5.3

2012

2012-05-15 12:47:52
rating 5.3
2012-02-22 22:15:00
rating 4.5

2011

2011-09-27 12:27:29
rating 5.2
2011-07-06 06:52:42
rating 5.1
2011-05-17 01:00:37
rating 5.4
2011-01-25 22:56:17
rating 5.2
2011-01-12 04:16:43
rating 5.3

2010

2010-08-30 06:33:22
rating 4.9
2010-07-06 10:25:18
rating 4.6
2014-11-20 03:09:19
37 votes, rating 3.3
CRP Has Ruined the Game For Me
I don't like to whine and whinge much, especially when it comes to blood bowl, a game I really enjoy. Or used to. the more CRP I play, the more I realise that this game has been turned into a lottery with dice having too much of a roll (yes) in deciding the outcome.

I used to cherish the tactical positioning battles of LRB4 and dismiss the naysayers that CRP could produce a similar game as people became more used to the ruleset. However, most of the games I play in are determined by who's POs work, if they don't - the team gets run around and scored on, if they do - the opponent has no team left.

I used to enjoy fouling battles that resulted from this positioning system. Now, the foul is rare and teams who could use it in the past cant afford to have players sent in case the opponent starts hitting those armour rolls.

Anyway, we all realise all this. The question I have is are we ever going to see anything done about it? And, if we do get a new ruleset, will FUMBBL take a few years to get a client that works for it before I completely lose interest.
Rate this entry
Comments
Posted by scipio_uranus on 2014-11-20 03:19:27
If you look closely, you'll notice that the same kind of dice are being used, both in the LRB and the CRP.
Posted by Tomay on 2014-11-20 03:27:33
It's not the dice rolls or the RNG. Its the fact that positioning plays less of a part in the game. Usually it comes down to whether one person gets success on their cas rolls or not. The lack of a bench also hurts this. Oh and inducements have some balancing issues.
Posted by Dominik on 2014-11-20 03:40:59
Then you might not like the introduction of Dirty Tricks Deck aswell. :)
Posted by Jeffro on 2014-11-20 03:41:33
I think the positioning game is still there. And I play teams that still utilize the foul on a regular basis.... granted they are immune to Claw (Elves and Norse ;) I still maintain that CRP still favors AG4 teams to win... even if teams that can remove the other team from the pitch are favored to survive better.
Posted by Tomay on 2014-11-20 03:45:06
I agree that the elves are well suited to this environment. I'm not saying PO is overpowered, it just makes for a dull game where you just roll dice and if you get the CAS you are likely to win, if not the elves just run around you.

I think the loss of ageing and requiring people to spread their SPP as well as limiting megatrons has hurt the most.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2014-11-20 03:52:59
How long has CPR been in? it wont change back, as there isnt any new plans to change the game
Posted by Lorebass on 2014-11-20 04:08:06
not sure what "whinge"-ing is but I do see the whine. If there are still coaches who win more and coaches who lose more playing the same team builds each then there is obviously some magical hidden strategy that exists in CRP. But really, who DOESN'T foul with elves? Cause I sure do.
Posted by huff on 2014-11-20 04:17:29
I get what you are saying and I agree, except the part about PO not being OP, because the numbers say it is.

I dislike what the game becomes when PO is involved, Mighty Blow is powerful in of itself, PO is just overkill and it does often become who can PO the fastest in those matches.

I also await the the answer to the question you pose, and will reiterate it: How long will we continue to play CRP as it is? Is there a time table for when we abandon hope to the BBRC will be reformed, or if JJ will ever revisit this game that we love?

...evrytime you pile on, a little part of Blood Bowl dies.
Posted by Arktoris on 2014-11-20 04:38:25
there's a reason why we tossed lrb4 (imo the worse ruleset invented) in the garbage and created a new ruleset from scratch.

taking the rose colored glasses off we had:

foul...part of the game or cheesy exploit - just as you have spamming PO today, it used to be ppl spamming dirty player. The game had no positioning or strategy. Simply foul. If luck went your way, you cleared the pitch and won, if it didn't, your opponent won.

Orcs - cheap to buy, hard to hurt, had access to everything. Everyone and their dog had at least one orc team. And they were all the same Fisher Price design. Modest TR, high TS. Easy to set up blocks. No thinking required.

Aging - How many forum rants a month came out on aging. Aging sucked. Worse mechanic ever. Punished you for being successful. Same with successful players. Legends dragged the team down via TR loadstone.

No skill variation - half the decent skills were traits. Other half weren't. As a result, all teams build the same. Repeat after me...block guard mightyblow tackle. Rinse wash repeat. No brains...just repeat over and over.

2-1 cage and grind - no inducement cards means no surprises. cage/grind/stall for 2-1 win. No brains...no talent...just one size fits all tactic.

The rules pigeon holed skill selection, race selection, and tactic selection so horribly that if you played lrb4 100 times...you've seen all the game could ever offer.
Posted by Dominik on 2014-11-20 04:45:26
Anyhow Orcs weren't very successful compared to the amount of Orc teams that were participating in tournaments.
Posted by Tomay on 2014-11-20 04:48:08
I thought skill variation was much better in LRB4 because you werent punished for taking doubles or stats, plus traits made some builds a little rarer and much cooler as a difference.

I think ageing was fine, just that the old niggle rule was silly, you can't have a player miss 1 in 6 games.

Fouling, everyone had access too and it required skill to position properly. Plus the IGMEOY factor made it so one team couldn't go all out without risk themselves.

Orcs never won that many Majors and never won Prem in SWL. They were simple to build and use but their win rate wasn't spectacular, just reliable.

Give me a 2-1 grindy game anyday. I suppose this is where I am different to some of the other coaches.

I just feel like I only play a game of blood bowl around 50% of the time now, the other half I either get the dice to win or my opponent does.
Posted by Lorebass on 2014-11-20 04:59:29
Key now to winning is also winning with crappy dice. People do it.
Posted by pythrr on 2014-11-20 05:41:20
PO is overpowered and ruins CRP.

remove/limit it severely, and the CRP becomes much much better instantly.

Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 06:46:15
Overall CRP is much better than LRB4 IMO.

Nasty CPOMB takes a while to build and in shorter leagues may never actually get to become a problem.

For longer leagues it is simple enough to tweak CPOMB.
If the BBRC had had access to Fumbbl data they would probably have nerfed it themselves.

As it stands, if people insist on sticking with unmodified CRP when they don't like it that is their problem. ;)

Kalimar & Christer have given us options and hopefully they'll give us some more.
Use them. "The commissioner word is law".

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=8064

Kick off TONIGHT!! :D
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 06:52:27
"I think the loss of ageing and requiring people to spread their SPP as well as limiting megatrons has hurt the most."

As a more casual coach I'm glad to see the back of that stuff.
So, there you go. you can't please all the people all of the time. The rules are meant to be tweaked so tweak them.
Posted by Kalimar on 2014-11-20 07:50:49
@koadah: how do you like those options for your league? Did they change the way people play? Are there options you would like to see? I hardly get any feedback on those... PM me?
Posted by Tomay on 2014-11-20 07:55:52
I'd love to see more options for league, that is one thing I have been waiting for. Not that I'm complaining that we haven't seen more, the work of the people running this site is amazing.
Posted by Wizfall on 2014-11-20 07:59:18
I found CPOMB just a bit overpowered but not that much.
The main issue is it creates more unpleasant one sided game were dices are more important IMO.

It mostly happen at high TV though, don't seem to be an over-winning strategy in leagues/tournament and is quite needed to counter AV9 guard team.
A needed inconvenient to the ruleset.

A PO nerf would make elves even better and fend would be even less useful.
I would personally maybe make claw not usable on PO and on Big Guy (and a +1 AV stat raise not affected) and that's it.

Overall i find the current ruleset really good if not abused (minmax, recycle of players not rolling double like Big guy, etc...)
Posted by sann0638 on 2014-11-20 08:09:41
Still haven't come across a league where Cpomb consistently wins. Occasional ones appearing now where it's spoiling other people's fun, though.
Posted by coombz on 2014-11-20 08:18:50
I'd love to see LRBFUMBBL

please <3
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 08:42:19
@Kalimar: Well, I like em. :D

Bill's WMDs seem to be playing the same old way. It's between his chaos & Gary_Gygax's Orcs for the top spot. Bill's opinion would be interesting.

For the most part I don't expect CPOMB to be a problem in League the way that it is in Box. But Bill does have a nasty team now so we'll see how it goes. Taking the edge off them is a good thing IMO but damage still gets done.


Options prob need their own thread.
Off the top of my head other options could be:

Big guys immune to claw
DP adds +2
Sneaky git adds +1
Claw is a straight +2 rather than cut to AV7
Claw is straight +1
I'm sure that many would like to see the eye come back

When you have nothing else on. ;)
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 08:51:03
Did I forget bringing back RSC? ;)
Posted by the_Sage on 2014-11-20 08:56:29
If you're getting tired of piling on, you could always join Rush and Pass! The game is still decided by dice of course, with the # of Blitz!s and the success of sacking/balling dice crucial to the outcome of the game, but attrition is barely a factor.

As for tweaks, options to consider would be either not allowing piling on on a blitz action, or not allowing it on a block action.
But I think I prefer the combination 'only big guys get po access' and 'big guys immune to claw'.
Posted by Luohghcra on 2014-11-20 09:03:20
Pansy.

Drop the dorfs and play a proper team.
Khemri still relies heavily on positioning, and regen mitigates PO much of the time (longterm).

Posted by drunkagent on 2014-11-20 09:15:54
Its a good rule set with some glaring problems PO is OP and claw is fine if it cost a little more.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 09:19:13
Yeah crp sucks. I agree. But it's still blood bowl and still a fun game., it's still more tactical than luck but luck wins are far far more common now. Fouling was way more tactical because of IGMEOY.
I use a number of the optional rules in league as well but it's tough to see if they have much effect. Though any nerf to PO will be welcome.
Posted by Meltyman on 2014-11-20 09:52:45
Restricting the combo of Claw, MB and PO, so that you can only have a combination of two from those three skills for one player, seems the best to me.

This way non-mutation teams can have the MB PO and mutation teams can have the claw PO/ MB PO.

The problem for me in boosting DP is that it helps the ClawMBPO team also, it is not that great solution to games being one sided because you have no players on the field.

In LRB4 we were struggling with the same problem, but PO was placed with DP :D

This problem with high TV teams and the fact that ogres are unplayable are my only concerns about CRP.


PS: Someone will bring up elves to this conversation and my line to that is simple:

Elves are too good, well that has always been a fact, but does that lead to boring games? Not in my opinion.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 09:53:37
CRP is the best BB ruleset all times. Sure, it's not perfect but it makes the others look like trash. Arktoris is spot on.
Posted by Macabeo on 2014-11-20 09:53:49
It would be great to have some LRBBL division in order to obtain feedback on a consensed ruleset... and that feedback could be passed later on to the NAF to hopefully spur some change in the TT community too, maybe.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 10:17:09
Dp wasn't a problem at all in lrb4 because of IGMEOY anyone that thought it was a problem was way way off. The lack of journeymen was a problem and one a few good editions to the game.
Posted by Calcium on 2014-11-20 10:25:23
There are some elements of LRB4 I would include in the current ruleset, but there will always be coaches that hate whatever ruleset is used.....
Posted by Wreckage on 2014-11-20 10:48:54
"@koadah: how do you like those options for your league? Did they change the way people play? Are there options you would like to see? I hardly get any feedback on those... PM me?"

We did some experiementing in the WCS with this. I think altering PO really eases the game a good bit, but leagues usually aren't that threatend by it in the first place...
Time to develop a team is a factor there and it takes a long lasting team to really show the big weaknesses of the ruleset.

The big issues arise in the way games are played in box. There however we can't test the rules.

Also I think another problem with the feedback is that in leagues it tends to be very subjective. You'd have to ask sort of the league mind but I think what you will mostly find with alterated PO is just that... because it isn't bothersome people will not complain about it.

Or... if an option doesn't work a league manager will just stop using that option..
Posted by Foad on 2014-11-20 12:12:38
"Give me a 2-1 grindy game anyday"

Says it all really...
Posted by Roland on 2014-11-20 12:46:35
you lose one game then go all in emo?
Posted by PaddyMick on 2014-11-20 13:19:59
Fend all mens, problem solved :P
Posted by WhatBall on 2014-11-20 13:21:29
@Kalimar:
The KPL league uses many options, including Spiked Ball, PO doubles = KO, and the +1 to Fouling. These options have made the KPL really fun, imo. There is almost no PO, and fouling is more useful. The limited races also mean almost no Claw, so that helps too. The casualties are still high in the league, but it doesn't have the same icky feel you get from ClawBombers.
Posted by Tomay on 2014-11-20 13:24:32
I'm not going all emo.

My CRP record is probably pretty good. My win rate has held at 68%. I suppose the better statement would be give me a 1-2 loss in a grindy game over a victory where I destroy the opponents team by turn 3 and he doesn't have the reserves to cover.

Why? Because if he does have reserves, they are useless in the games where the hitting doesn't work and he gives up inducements unnecessarily.

Just seems to be a few changes compounded to contribute to the new metagame. I don't think FUMBBL will ever agree on the changes required and it will likely have to be a small group of coaches given the power if changes are to be successful.
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 13:25:02
Dirty Player in LRB4 was just awful. Not as bad as CPOMB but still the obvious route of least resistance "rinse and repeat" tactic. Trading DP Zombies for highly skilled players wasn't much of a risk.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 13:31:11
The teams in the KPL are the ones best equipped to deal with PO in the first place and PO doubles = KO is an extreme over nerf, makes the skill pointless.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 13:43:44
but you could avoid players getting fouled with good positioning Joe with Po there is nothing you can do except lay down.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 13:54:11
Nah Garion sorry, it's 6 and 2 3s. You can watch the replays of Stonetroll vs me to see how you can totally outplay someone with cpomb and fouling was unbelievably brutal and almost impossible to counter in lrb4.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 14:03:36
Well I never once had a problem with fouling, both teams could do it, good positioning could prevent it, cpomb is purely just flipping a coin. Also with fouling you had a good chance of being sent off after your first foul just under 50% each foul.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 14:16:25
The forums were still completely flooded with hate for it though. Not many ppl committed to fouling and even less were good players.
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 14:23:57
The thing about POMB & CPOMB is, a lot of people like it.

a) People like killing stuff.
b) People like quicker, easier games with a tad less finkin.

One size fits all rules are never really gonna work.

People are always going to be looking for different things out of the game.

It would be nice to have a LRB4+ ruleset. But the question is how much effort would that take and how many people would really play it?
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 14:26:30
I dunno, I remember reading hate pre IGMEOY, but after it there wasn't too much, and it certainly wasnt the volume of hate we have now for cpomb. IGMEOY was an amazing rule, rather than scrap it they should have just kept it going, so after 1 foul 4+ (as it was) then after another foul it should have gone up to 6+ to avoid being seen. Then it would have been perfect. But I never complained about a thing during LRB4 tbh.

Fouling was a far better tool for lower teams TV, 1, everyone could do it. 2, positional play could mitigate it. 3, you can only do 1 a turn. 4, IGMEOY meant players with DP would almost always be sent off by their 3rd foul.

The biggest problem with lrb4 was it didnt have Journeymen, and that once a player reached legend their TR kept increasing. Those bits aside the rule set was awesome.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 14:29:24
Koadah hit the nail on the head with this point and it sums up CRP perfectly -

b) People like quicker, easier games with a tad less finkin.

To me this is just crazy talk and the beauty of the game is in the tactical battles. If I want to roll dice without thinking I would play that crappy game Dreadball.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 14:38:58
All of this is just your opinion though Garion that's the thing. Just cos you can deal with your precious mens being killed it doesn't mean others can!
It's a shame that I was a noob when I made this team and LRB4 was nearing it's final days https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=632143
It would have been interesting to see what happened with that kind of build lol.
Lack of journeymen, lack of good handicaps/inducements, ageing, traits(I know you like them), TV, and legends increasing TV too much were all bad things IMO.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 14:39:55
Fouling was the best part of LRB4 for me but I know hella people hated it.
Posted by Arktoris on 2014-11-20 14:41:42
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=204&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=fouling+part+game&start=45

lest we forget
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 14:42:37
And as I said in the ogre thread(?) entertainment in general has been on a downward spiral of being dumbed down for a while now so yeah, something quick and easy is what most people want these days.
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 14:43:21
@Garion:

Think of it like a box of Lego.

You get a big box with a lot of stuff inside.
You don't have to do the same thing with it every day.

One day you can play it one way. The next day you can do something different.

Think of the rule book as 'a guide' and you will be much happier. :D


As for fouling I suspect that your specs are nicely rose tinted. :)

People sure didn't like multiple 1 skill DPs wiping out their newish teams. Journeymen + the new GTR would have helped but people would still be whining the place down if it hadn't been changed.
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 14:46:35
Yep, that's the problem. Nobody has to grow out of the CPOMB phase because it works too well (at randomising the game).
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 14:49:28
There was always a big random element with agility teams. Clawpomb is much the same as ag5/6. You can play well vs Elfs but they can always roll some dice pop the ball and score. No-one ever complains about that but they do complain when C-pomb rolls some dice and pops your team.
Posted by mister__joshua on 2014-11-20 14:58:16
@Kalimar: I love the league options, and if you wanted feedback about them and their effectiveness, future options etc. I'd be happy to provide a PM. :)
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 15:06:43
@Jimmy. They don't complain (as much) because everyone understands this game involves some luck and you are going to lose matches to nonsense. What people don't like is :

a) Losing to nonsense when the effects are permanent.
b) Losing to the same nonsense over and over again when there isn't much you can do about it. At the very least you can develop players / strategies to counter aggressive elfball (Sure Hands, Guard, vengabus cages etc.)
b) That any idiot can use it and win a fixed % of games. The positional nature of aggressive elfball means what you do in opposition to it can at least make it harder.
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 15:11:45
b3) Aggressive Elfball carries a risk of failure. Stuff it up and all your fragile elves get killed. CPOMB can just be tried turn after turn until it works.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 15:22:01
You can certainly develop to deal with cpomb and you can play better or worse vs cpomb, and they can certainly play better or worse. But yeah I agree that player deaths in what is essentially an rpg is always going to annoy/upset ppl more than the outcome of a single match.
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 15:27:12
Of course, but that development path (Fend etc.) is hugely sub-optimal against non-CPOMB.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-20 15:32:12
Nah it's more SF and Guard and Pomb of your own and neglecting Tackle and Surehands etc and having a bench and a dp or two which leaves you weak to the agile teams. One wrestle fender is nice to have to mark cpomb when they go prone.
Posted by PainState on 2014-11-20 15:34:18
What da heck? Fend is sub optimal against non-CPOMB?

A lot of talk about tactical play and so forth which does involve the positional side of moving your metal pixel players around the board.

There are 3 skills that dramatically effect the positional side of the game.

SideStep, StandFirm and FEND.

IMO the #1 benefit of FEND is the positional advantage it gives you on the pitch, it is a general access skill so it does not require doubles and so forth.

Fend is a lot more than just stopping PileOn.
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 15:36:56
Fend has some positive advantage yes. Its relative positive advantage is still less than that given by other skills. It is generally one of the weaker skills.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-11-20 16:21:00
Razor Sharp Claws + Claws + Mighty Blow.

Go back to LRB4 without aging and you'd get chaos teams with this skillset cropping up on 3 or 4 players and people will be begging for CPOMB back.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 16:22:36
whats your point chainsaw? the fact is - there was ageing, two of those skills required double and those players got fouled to bits pretty sharpish.
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 16:40:13
Oh wait. I thought you said you could defend against fouling.
Posted by Joemanji on 2014-11-20 16:52:10
You go girl!
Posted by mrt1212 on 2014-11-20 16:52:59
I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one having fun these days

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3622284
Posted by happygrue on 2014-11-20 16:57:26
"Yep, that's the problem. Nobody has to grow out of the CPOMB phase because it works too well (at randomising the game)."

This!

Watching games with massed clawpomb gets so boring because if I have to give up one block but get three myself with some positional choice it's still probably better for me to just dodge away than try to get into a blocking game with base to base contact. Does it matter where this blocking and dodging is happening? Not much, it's mostly about quantity. Or you could play a different bash strategy so that you are playing the same type of game but your team is just worse at it. Fun!

And yet, I keep playing despite the clawpomb stuff because of all the other coaches. There is still a critical mass of coaches who are not pissing in the pot that we're eating from here. Coaches who have not thrown up their hands in frustration to just fight fire with fire and still are plying the other teams despite those sad times when their evening has been ruined by a dude who didn't say a word and played to kill rather than to win, and then won anyway despite their best efforts. Some have ragequit with farewell blogs. Some just drift away quietly. But as long as there are still enough people who don't give in then FUMBLL will live long, allowing those of us who love this game a place to kill many - but not all - menz.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2014-11-20 17:21:36
Well said happygrue, well said.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 17:28:31
Way to take things completely out of context koadah... Insert rolling eyes here.
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 17:33:47
We've had a few years worth of context Garion. I think we must have heard about all the context we need by now.
Posted by fidius on 2014-11-20 18:06:08
Any static ruleset is going to face the problems CRP faces, simply due to its players learning, optimizing, and eventually breaking the balance over time. If you prefer LRB4, it could be that the ruleset didn't exist for long enough to get fully broken. A game like ours *needs* updates over time.

In my opinion there are many other problems apart from CPOMB that could be (and need to be) improved. This is my list:
1) (C)POMB hits too hard
2) AG4 too good / develops too quickly
3) Tackle vs Stunty is broken (eg. Tackle-spam Dwarfs)
4) Fouling is weak / uninteresting
5) Certain skills are far superior, leading to cookie-cutter builds
6) Money accumulation should be equalized across teams
7) Team tweaks to costing, access, skills, player makeup

There's plenty of opportunity in this list for adjustments but the net result will not look like a tweak, it will look like a re-write. However the bones are in good shape -- CRP's core is very solid imo.
Posted by huff on 2014-11-20 18:12:58
Agree Fidius. This is the best ruleset for the game so far, but that doesn't mean it's the best the ruleset can be. We all see it, we all play plenty of games, spec plenty of games ect.

No reason we need PO to remove players at an exponential rate, when MB alone already is powerful and add in Claw to some teams and Orcs/Dwarf still have something to fear.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 18:20:38
Lrb4 was around for 6 years crp was out for 1 and every one was screaming about its problems, someeven said that cpomb was a problem before the rules had even been finished. Just saying.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-11-20 19:06:59
Ok, I'd like to make some points. Firstly to the OP.

When Tomay joined SWL in LRB 4 it was in an amazing place. Certainly I've never had gaming so great. During that period, Zons (twice), Nurgle (3 times and remember how crap lrb 4 Nurgle were) and Vamps all won during that time. It was pretty epic. I very much doubt it was going to get better after this whatever happened. So it was a golden era.

However very few of you are looking at the OPs complaints, which I totally agree with.

1. skill sets make a lot of matches 1 dimensional.
2. skilling to get or combat inducements are too game altering.
3. games can be decided early on due to slim builds due to problems with having a high TV team.

These are the exact same reasons why I think this ruleset is flawed too. I'm surprised at Ark's comments. I'm not surprised at JFs or Chainsaws. I'm not getting at them, but this ruleset really suits them and their mindset. That's you, I understand that, however the competitive big league player, it's a totally different game.

I also hear a lot of coaches talk about 'tweaking' hmmmmm I talk about it myself. This is my big gripe, why didn't the BBRC tweak from LRB 4. I'm a staunch LRB 4 supporter, and I'll admit it has some serious crippling problems. However it stood up to teams that played large amount of games.

I'll ask you this; if we stayed with the lrb 4 model, but with the following modifications. The new skills, inducements instead of handicaps, very slightly toned down fouling, gtr gone, Journey Men and the new skills added, aging removed for the first 2 skills, niggle and decay replacing old niggle, whatever people agree are/were the best rosters; would that have been such a bad rule set? I think that would have kept nearly all of use happy. I know I'd certainly prefer that to either CRP or LRB4.

Oh and Claw/RSC/MB were not possible. 2 of the 3 only and yes RSC/Claw was more broken than CPOMB, but much less accessible. Therefore far less of a problem.
Posted by BillBrasky on 2014-11-20 19:41:16
How Have the Optional Rule Nerfs Affected My Play Style
By BillBrasky

I play in a number of leagues that use a variety of the optional rule nerfs. Each of these options have a varying degree of effect on my play style.

Claw does not stack with other skills that modify armour rolls: The affect of this option means that I will remove opponent players with less efficiency. I have to compensate for this option by settling for stuns more often. So, I don't really change my play style when this option is in effect.

Piling On Allows the coach to reroll either armor or injury rolls: I typically only re-roll the injury roll when result is a stun. I only reroll armor rolls if I absolutely want my player prone, or it is turn 8. So, this option does not affect my play style.

Piling On does not stack with other skills that modify armor or injury rolls: This option results in less efficient player removal, but does not change my play style. Often the luck of the dice are a much bigger nerf.


Piling On player is knocked out when rolling a double on armor or injury rolls: This option affects my play-style by reducing my piling-ons. When this option is in effect, I only pile-on versus a powerful player, or when I already have a large number advantage.

Right Stuff prevents the Tackle skill when blocked: This option does not affect my play style.

Sneaky Git functions like Guard on foul assists: In theory this option might persuade me take the Sneaky Git skill, but otherwise has no affect on my play style.

Banned sneaky git players are sent to the KO box instead: I don't take sneaky git, but this option does make it look a little more desirable.

Stand Firm Failing to dodge ends the player's turn instead of falling over and does not cause a turnover: This option does not affect my play style. I might take a player with Stand Firm if this option was enabled.

+1 to fouling: This option has little effect on my play style. I like this rule. If anything it makes me foul more often, because I love blood.


None of the optional nerfs cause a significant change in my play style. However; some of the nerfs do affect my skill choices. In a league where sneaky git both works as guard, and goes to the KO box, I would select that as my 2nd or 3rd skill for a Dirty Player. In a league where piling-on doubles send the player to the KO box, I will take far few players with piling-on. In a league where Claw doesn't stack, and piling-on goes to the KO box, I'll play elves.

As for my personal preference, I like the official rules. I am not a fan of house rules. I am obviously in the pro-clawpomb group. Rumor has it, I may even be the Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEO, and President.
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 19:54:25
harvestmouse:"Oh and Claw/RSC/MB were not possible. 2 of the 3 only"

I thought that all 3 were possible but not ideal.

Less accessible but if you got them you were well ahead in the arms race. Unless you believe Garion that the player would just be quickly fouled to death.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-11-20 20:08:05
Well yes, you could of course take all 3, but there was no point adding MB if you had the other 2.
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 20:18:55
Thats not what I said koadah, please stop taking things out of context. The point I was making was the very same harvestmouse has made . That talking about RSC and claw stack in comparison to cpomb is ridiculous because a player would require2 doubles , they would need to avoid ageing and there was a strong counter to it in DP. Those players got a lot of DP attention.

Was it still too powerful? Yes. But all those barriers made it very rare. Now teams just spam kill stack reducing games to coin flips ...... Yawn.
Posted by fidius on 2014-11-20 21:04:38
One thing I didn't realize until now is that the LRB4 CAS table was kinder. Stat loss was 5.6% chance, versus CRP at 10.4%. Niggles were more common (11.1% vs 4.2%) but not as bad, ie MNG rather than making the player more fragile on-field. This strikes me as a significant factor in CRP uber-killyness, since Niggle, stat loss and death are warrants for firing under CRP. So if we assume player is auto-fired on -AV, -ST, Niggle and Death under CRP, that's 27.1%. Under LRB4 you'd fire on -AV, -ST, and Death, which is 19.4%.
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-20 21:20:17
@mouse: you said "not possible". As the other two were doubles you would probably get MB first.

@Garion: Harder to get so even worse for your league if someone got it. I'm not sure what is out of context. If you couldn't get rid of those players they'd be a nightmare. As it stands everyone has to take their licks. Even if only at the hands of mere POMBers.

I assume that the same argument went for traits. Harder to get the skills but if you got them where were the counters?
Posted by Garion on 2014-11-20 21:32:11
Depends what you are talking about, you don't need counters for everything. Intelligent play helps deal with frenzy, stand firm etc..... Killers could be hit back then as hiding on the floor wasn't an option, and so on.

Fidius -this was changed because ageing was removed. It doesn't effect in game players getting taken off the pitch , it was smart game design.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-11-20 22:12:31
Ok by 'not possible' I meant didn't stack. You could take MB but it was useless. You used one for each roll. They all stacked as a pair but not as a treble. So I guess...yes you could take mb and then take the other 2, but then mb wouldn't be used and a wasted skill. If you meant as a 'temporary' stack until you got the other 2, I didn't see that and then yes it'd work until you got the other 2.

Fidius, new niggle is much kinder than old niggle. What you forget is that mng added to TR, where in TV they do not. So if your niggle guy decided his copper ban wasn't doing the job, you still paid for him. New niggle is much much better.
Posted by fidius on 2014-11-20 23:09:27
Thanks Garion and HM. Garion, I see the reasoning but the change contributes to the sense of devastation when the rolls go against you, which they inevitably will. Perms due to Ageing was a (somewhat) controlled effect, whereas merely increasing the likelihood on any CAS roll leads to increased variability (thicker tail distribution). Not sure that's smart game design. Sounds more like a snarky designer exerted his authority at the meeting without understanding variance, or thinking through the implications. :) POMB feels the same way to me. If Ageing was one answer to the problem, and POMB/nasty CAS table is too far in the other direction, maybe the answer is a hybrid in the middle -- same mean effect, thinner tails, tied to fluff, without penalizing development. (thinking out loud a bit here.) Tomay seems to be expressing his sense of this added variability in how CRP works itself out.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-11-20 23:17:54
Well I'm not sure any of use understood aging properly (apart from maybe pythrr) before it was removed. It was a no brainer removing it, it was a total pain in the arse. vamp first skill-aged-niggle-retire....absolutely no gain to anyone.

However, the chance of aging got stronger the further you got through the skills, which meant you generally slowed down the spp gain. None of those (word that begins with f) 'finally a legend (after 35 game) what skill should i choose for my uber star' threads.

It meant that teams were far more balanced. No rule of (same word that starts with f) 5. You balanced your team and tried your best to avoid aging and actually avoid later skills.

Ok it was all a bit artificial, but what it meant was the roster looked less artificial. You had a progression from your weakest player to your strongest. Rather than 5 strong ones and 6 weak or even worse a stock pile of money and use JM instead.

Aging just lead to a better balance, but.........with faults. Old niggle was horrid and what was the point of aging players on skills 1 and 2? None. However the bottom line is...........if the game found a better way of rating teams rather than TV or TR, you wouldn't need aging anyway!
Posted by Tomay on 2014-11-21 00:11:54
To expand on what HM is saying the removal of ageing and the introduction of the inducement system encourages the building of super players.

Rather than a team based game, it feels a little more My Megatron vs Your Megatron with the victor sorted out in the first few turns far too often. The rest of the teams are usually pretty average.

What has happened is that bash teams are far less effective in playing a controlling guard based game, rather they are forced into POMB combat if they want to succeed. They can't have a bench to cope with casualties vs the bash teams because they give up wizards and stars (to elf teams as well). To me this is far less interesting. Do my dice beat yours when I blitz? becomes the question, rather than the LRB4 "can I outposition you and sneak around for a score at the right moment to not allow you to reply."

Posted by fidius on 2014-11-21 00:24:31
I like the *concept* of Ageing just because it's realistic, and places limits on long-lived players. But tying it to skillups was obviously a mistake, not to mention irrational from a fluff perspective. There's a good thread on TFF re an alternative system tied loosely to # of games played, which I quite like. New "Experience" stat starts at 0, after each match roll d6, if roll>EXP then EXP+=1. EXP are worth 1 SPP. If EXP>=6 and d6=6, EXP+=1 and roll on Ageing table, 2d6+EXP (results: 2-15 no effect, 16-17 MNG, 18+ niggle). Or something along those lines.
Posted by Arktoris on 2014-11-21 02:21:09
as I stated in lrb4 days, so I shall state in CRP.

all these problems go away if what skill a player gets was randomly rolled instead of chosen.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-11-21 05:32:20
I think that could be terrible. Teams with money would dominate as they recycle players until they got a decent skillset. If there was ever a problem with traits, there'd be a much bigger problem with random skills.

I'm for it in certain circumstances (super powerful skills on a very weak roster) for example, but not generally.

I don't love aging, it's not a beautiful mechanic, just does the job. However it all goes away without TV/TR, as do so many other problems. That's where we should be looking.
Posted by Balle2000 on 2014-11-21 05:51:57
+1 happygrue

(in 10 years time, they'll write songs about this blog's comment section)
Posted by pythrr on 2014-11-21 08:25:52
HM's modified aging (not until 3rd skill, new niggle, etc) would get my vote.
Posted by Catalyst32 on 2014-11-21 10:02:31
This is my opinion on what fixes CRP.

1) Claw can only be taken as a DOUBLE not a Normal skill roll.
This makes the skill a bit more rare, prices its TV more accurately, reduces spam, makes coaches CHOOSE between Dodge (or some other useful Agility Skill) and Claw... this aspect makes taking the Claw skill something that takes away something else that would help the Chaos teams like Dodge to get Claw.
Like it or not Claw and CLPOMB do serve a useful purpose in this game in bringing the carnage, cutting av9 teams to pieces, etc... But a CLPOMB player ought to be SPECIAL. Touched by Khorne himself to bring death and destruction. It shouldn't be something you can turn every single player into on your roster if that is your plan.
Plus... as an added bonus. MORE Tackle probably doing its job by cutting through those damn pesky Elves. The way so many CLPOMB teams IGNORE the #1 Elf killing skill and then have THE NERVE to complain Elves win too much. Get some freaking Tackle and cut down those Elves in half and watch them stop winning so much.

2) Piling On causes the player that is USING the Piling On skill to Pile On an opponent to make an AV roll. This means when you choose to Pile On your own player might break his own Armor... he might Stun himself or KO himself or even Kill himself while THROWING HIMSELF on someone wearing spikey armor on a STONE playing surface.
Making the choice to Pile On now becomes a STRATEGY that could have consequences and not some AUTOPILOT decision. You have to THINK about whether or not you should take the risk to remove that opponent. Obviously if it is some LEGEND you Pile On... some Rookie... meh... is it really worth it? Maybe it is.

3) Buff Sneaky Git... to give to +1 to Foul and allow it to STACK with Dirty Player... KEEP the aspects that make it harder to spot the foul made by a sneaky git. LAYING ON THE GROUND (whether you piled on or tripped GFIing) SHOULD NOT BE SAFE. This brings back the possibility of the +2 Foul... but makes it cost at least 40K and 16spps.
This buffs Flings, Goblins, Ogres, Lizards, Slann, Humans (more Catchers maybe), Elves etc and gives a few teams an extra chance to fight back that currently don't have many options. AND of course the CLPOMB teams could take it IF they want to use 1 of those precious DOUBLES.
I think Elves would take Sneaky Git over DP... and maybe pick up DP as a 2nd skill on a Fouler. Maybe Orcs and Pact would use Goblins for something other than TTM. Would Skaven use it on a GR? Zons? Norse? idk Did I forget anyone?

4) Change some of the player cost issues focusing mainly on the non-AG4 teams and non-CLPOMB teams. Some of those teams have players that cost too much for them to be competitive OR may need an extra starting skill at the current price. Although I guess would be OK if nothing changed here.

Otherwise I think CRP is great.
Posted by Nyberg on 2014-11-21 14:42:51
I love CRP. Nothing is broken, nothing needs to change. I love to play, I love this site. And most important, i dont love my pixels.

I think this ruleset is great in many ways.

When I started playing bloodbowl back in 2003, it was alot different from now. I started playing on FUMBBL back in 2005 with a new rulebook. Back in the day when fan factor was important, start players were cheap, spp counted into your team rating, big guys coudnt use re rolls, nigglings ruined your team. In a world were your players aged and you had to buy a new one. In a world were you didnt get loners to fill up your roster to 11 players.

Then it was a piece of cake to develop a team to 2000 tv, easily. Even 2500. No big deal. I had a undead team around 2900 back then.

Now it's so hard to get a team up there, which is fine. I dont see many teams rocking around anymore with 2500 tv, to become even better. If I want to play a major, im fine with 2000. Back in the day, 2500, atleast.

My point is. CRP keeps teams at a low team value, there is noone going from 1000 to 2000+ in 10 games or less. Now it's more about building and keep on going. And that is what blood bowl is to me. Fuck the coach ranking, fuck the majors, fuck my lovely pixels. I'll just keep on playing beacuse I love to play. If my beloved pixels die, I dont stop playing. I just buy a new one, and keep going. Your team wont become perfect in this ruleset, it wont.

So stop believe in that and play the game you love. One day you might make it, even if it will take you 1500 games to get there. But it's 1500 games of fun.

It's sad to see a awesome site like this have coaches that believe in perfection in everything. Alot of us will play, no matter what, alot of us wont. So be a gentle guy, play your games even if the odds are against you sometime. Let the coaches learn and grow, let this site grow with more games and more fun.

Also: Did you know. Back in 2007-2010 there were over 1000 games per day on this site. Because people loved to play, not becuase they loved thier pixels. I want to see that again.

Peace out,
N
Posted by koadah on 2014-11-21 15:44:37
Thing is Nyberg, the game that I love to play is slightly different to the game that is played in the two main divisions. So incentive to play in those divisions is not really that great.

The option is also available to play on Cyanide.

Also, maybe people just got old. There is other serious (also fun) stuff to do other than playing this game. Especially if you are not so keen on the rules.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2014-11-21 16:19:25
The problem Nyberg is that hardly anyone wants to play 1 bull centaur, 12 man, cpomb CDs in box. You are doing nothing to help reverse the situation of a depleting player base.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2014-11-21 21:31:40
LRB aging was the worst because you got Niggles. Niggles back in LRB 4 gave the players a big chance at not showing up. It was terrible to play, CPr made this game 100 times better, as a strategy game. Before it was like manopoly, and who ever had the most hotels when you landed on it usually won.
Posted by Nyberg on 2014-11-22 15:14:16
Well Harvest, i got 1 cpomber in that team. If I want to play a cpomb-team, I'll just play chaos. Also, I played Slann in FUMBBL CUP. Big claw pomb team there, thats for sure!

And no, im not doing anything to reverse the situation, because IM FINE WITH IT. <- ye, caps, so you will understand.