Talk Fantasy Football

I've gamed for 30+ years and played BB for over a third of that time... and I'm always interested (obsessed?) with fair and reasonable balance and/or victory conditions.... So I've always struggled with the Td as being the only measure of winning (and, to be honest, BB's goals are like soccer goals)....

So, totally house rules, but what would be the harm of scoring BB by SPPs earned during the game?

Yesterday's game is a good example: Nurgles make 4 casualties and a TD for 11 pts.; Humans make 2 TDs for 6 pts. Obviously the two teams dominated different facets of the game, but the Nurgs were twice as good... yet lost the game....

It works for skill-ups... maybe it'd work for game scoring....

More true to life to just base it on the scoreboard. I think it's cool that you can win the battles but lose the war.

mattgslater wrote:More true to life to just base it on the scoreboard. I think it's cool that you can win the battles but lose the war.

QFT. Want to play a game based on points, play something like Warhammer (or a better battle game).

It would probably change the flow of the game.

For example caging teams would concentrate totally on keeping the ball safe and just concentrate on bashing, and maybe, maaaaaybe move the cage if there's no one to bash anymore.

I could also envision some very gimmicky teams that are designed to hold the ball, pass amongst themselves, avoid the opposition and refrain from scoring altogether.

So deciding the winner on just SPP sounds like a bad idea to me. Maybe as some sort of tie-breaker. But it's hard to think of some different scoring mechanic that would change the flow in a positive way and not be exploited. But that's just probably due to my limited imagination

Thank you, Oxynot, for the detailed explanation.... In polite contradiction we already have teams that cage and bash till forced to score... so I don't necessarily see that changing..., indeed, the elvish version is to play keep away, passing back and forth, and scoring with a deep pass.... Both reservations are well taken... and the question begged, may be, "will this magnify that trend/tactic?"

Of course, the fastest way to get points is to score... worth 50% more than a casualty....

Matt, deepest respect, always.... The fallacy of the scoreboard for reality is BB only loosely relates to American Football.... In my article of "Just What IS Blood Bowl", I mention that it scores like soccer, plays like rugby, and hits like football.... Were the game more true to NFL, we'd have downs, 6 point TDs, conversions and field goals.... The suggested useage of SPPs is something more like the scoring of NFL in a violent society roughly based on Warhammer: the fans come to see scores and scrags (injuring of opponents)! An interesting dynamic (echoing concerns about changing the flow of the game), is whether or not a team would concentrate on the vagaries of mayhem (blocking dice) or try to score when 1 or 2 points behind.... Mimics the strategy of field goals vs TDs....

Darkson... it's a potential house rule seeking constructive criticism.... I don't know how a black-heart Troll gets a mod position, but you obviously did a "favor" for someone in command.... Troll on, brah, troll on....

Digger Goreman wrote:Darkson... it's a potential house rule seeking constructive criticism.... I don't know how a black-heart Troll gets a mod position, but you obviously did a "favor" for someone in command.... Troll on, brah, troll on....

No trolling at all - I honestly don't see why anyone wants to play a sports game that's not decided by the "goal" of the game, in this case Touchdowns. I wouldn't want to play a football games based on the winner was the one that made the most passes, I wouldn't want to play an American football game made on who gained the most yards, and I wouldn't want to play a cricket game based on who's bowlers could hit the most batsman (though that might be more entertaining).

I have played games that are designed to be won by points, and they work. Blood Bowl is designed to be won by Touchdowns.


If you didn't want disagreeing views, why bother posting?

And [mod hat on] - any more personal attacks, at anyone, and there's a "timeout" ban headed your way.

Darkson's not a troll. He's sometimes a little abrasive.

Most sports have their "win the battle, lose the war" variants. I haven't watched enough Rugby, but I've seen it in soccer, where the team that takes fewer shots still walks away with more goals (been on the winning side of that one a couple times). I remember watching a Celtics-Bulls game in the late '80s, while Byrd and Jordan were both at/near their peaks: the Bulls were playing catch-up the whole game, but they still managed to take it to quadruple OT. Baseball has it too: often one team will get 7 hits and no runs and the other will get 4 hits and one run, and there you have it. It is more pronounced in American Football because there are so many different types of situations that a team can be put in... but frankly, that any-given-Sunday aspect is the fun part of American Football, along with contact and passing, which you'll notice are also incorporated into Blood Bowl.

What about this? If the score is a tie, the coach who earned the fewest SPP (or if that's a tie, the coach with the fewest players available for OT) can surrender with no penalty (except the L) or request OT. If the opponent declines, the result is a tie.

Word!

Like I said: Your's, Oxy's, and (the non-abrasive, explanatory,) Darkson's comments are worth considering, and debating.... The scheme certainly IS non-traditional.... Pretty much that is why I put it in house rules and not suggestions for BB....

Perhaps others will way in... if not, eh, it was a thought....

No: and here's my reasoning....

Mostly for the reasons already given by others, that it doesn't really suit a game based on sports. I've seen pleanty of games in multiple sports where one team dominates but can't put their good play on the rest of the pitch onto the scoreboard and end up losing. Incredibly frustrating when it happens to you or your team but I do like that being able to carry all the way through is what gets the scores and not how well you do right up to not scoring.

But also partly for how, I'd be worried, it would effect how people play the game, bash and finesse. It would reward delaying tacitcs for all teams, a bash team againts a fast scoring team would want to, even more then they already do, take as long as possible for a touchdown, not only are they stoping the other team scoring points for touchdowns but now also passes and if they are lucky on injury rolls while doing it they'll be even further ahead. Elves already benefit from taking longer to score at times but now they'd be getting a point each turn they succed in the pass, a three turn touchdown would be worth the same as two touchdowns, manage to hold of for six turns and they might have completed enough passes for it to count as much as three touchdowns, all dependant on luck of course on passes on dodges and blitzes from the bashing team but it would suit them a lot more then scoring and hoping for a defencive turnover, where they wouldn't be able to get points for passes and would have to risk taking more bashing to get the ball before they can even hope for more points. That's only one example and is only theory bowl, so might not actualy play out that way but that would be my worry.

No, and I believe people have already said what I could have said.

No, here's why- Elf teams can get 8-10 SPP's a game just playing catch! But a more serious discussion follows-

At the moment, the game is completely paced by the TD. The offensive and defensive set-ups, as well as the skill choices, are all designed around the final score.

If a team goes up 1-0, the goal is to get a TD by the end of the game, or you have lost. When choosing skills, if you ignore Sure Hands, Kick, and Kick-Off Return, you are leaving yourself open to losing big time.

But even if you ignore all of that, I think the important determination is that at high to mid team levels, there are two games going on, with very different risk levels:

1) The hitting game, which carries a very low risk (when you are doing the hitting) and low reward for individual actions.

2) The scoring game, which is medium risk, high reward.

Only by having 2) determine the outcome can you actually force both to co-exist, I feel. 2) is already marginalized, after all!

Now, I have to say that your approach isn't doomed. At some point, if you value TD's enough, they begin to dominate the game's outcome, so one can't rely on completions and casualties to overcome the scoreboard.

Where does that value come in though, and wouldn't that just overpower the teams who need to score to win? I have no idea. I suspect that if the TD were rewarded at 6 SPP's, it would be very unlikely for a team to lose the SPP battle but score more TD's. Certainly a 2 TD victory margin would almost never be overcome (Having a Net 6 in the Casualty Box is almost always a guaranteed win!)

So, off the top of my head, I'd say you need to award 3 SPP's for a TD, but have them count for 6 SPP's in the scoring for this to work well. And then is it so complex that the system isn't worth keeping?

I too am against it. Most of the reasoning has already been stated, so I won't bother to beat dead horses. :)

I hear you and, while not discounting the worth of all opinions, find the arguments somewhat fluffy.... True, honest opinions... yes....

Agreed that, sometimes, fewer "tries" (in various sports) often enough lead to victory if they are superior/luckier.... My contention would be that skills and luck-o'-the-dice account for these... (oh, if I had a score for every time Nuffle denied me in the endzone!)

As to scoring schemes in real sports... I can't empathize: All sports have a variety of scoring for doing whatever... often enough goals... but football and rugby, the closest real-world sports to American Football (which the game is based on), have a small handful of scoring options.... To give a TD a value of 3; a CAS a value of 2; and a completion a value of 1; it's not so different from a TD, kicks, conversion, or grounding.... It's Blood Bowl, so replacing kick points with injury points, in a bloody fantasy world, is not beyond understanding.... They didn't quite understand the buried NFL rules, after all....

A strategy dynamic, existing in American Football/Rugby (and not in Blood Bowl), is deciding on when/where a field goal/kick/running conversion is better than pushing for the TD.... A Theory-Bowl example: A team is pushing downfield, two points behind.... Do they, a) Pass around, risking hits from the other team and possible fumbles/missed catches; b) Stall and hope for a better casualty count; or c) Go for the TD and points ahead? In American Football, the timeliness of a surer field goal often puts the other team in dire need of a TD... and only a TD! I'd like to see more of that in BB....

Arguments that stalling and piddle-passing around will be encouraged, fall on deaf ears.... Why?! Because it's already rife and endemic of the system.... Orcs/Dwarves, et al., already DO grind.... Elves already DO piddle-pass around (their version of the stalling grind).... This alternative, imho, will change... nothing, in relation....

Admittedly, no one can argue with "just don't like it".... I feel like Plasmoid with his buff/nerf threads.... Maybe I should've said (thought I covered it in the option wordings) "whether you like it, or not, give game impact reasoning as to why it would be beneficial, or not"....

Ce la vie....

Hmm, I don't know what kind of feedback you are looking for Digger, but I don't think any of my arguments were fluffy, at least in the sense that they pertain to the game's background or similarity to other sports.

Instead, I would claim that your system would fundamentally change the nature of Blood Bowl, turning it into a game which is, in my opinion, very different from the game as it is now. It isn't fluffy, I just want to play the same game I'm playing now!

From a game design point of view, the high risk portion of the game will become underutilized if the low risk portion of the game allows for a higher return. I think this is fairly clear.

Now, I do think there is a way around it- TD's need to be worth more than 1.5 casualties (or a casualty and a pass.) If you value TD's high enough, but not too high, you can many objections to your plan, I think.