4th Edition Rules.

[NightDragon]

Sorry folks but I have problems with the new rules. The game is still the best one but here is what I think;
1. In general I think the running teams have come off worst as m.blow has been reduced in effectiveness and the Elven boys have 2 extra blitzers.
2. I do not like the ageing rule at all and just cannot see the point of it. My only question here is why introduce it in the first place?!
3. Stopping the team rating differences/ extra mvp's for less experienced teams has greatly disadvantaged new teams, slowed their progression right down and put off a number of new coaches that I know.
4. Allies. Why stop them?

Rules I can go along with are the ones for wizards and star players.
Laters DD.

[Deathwing]

OK, I'll assume we're talking about the change from 3rd Ed to what most of us refer to as the 2k1 rules, rather than 4th. The '4th' rules was the ruleset published in BB mag 1. 4th ed rules are currently officially downgraded to experimental status. Just to clear up any possible confusion, the current rules are the 2001 Rules Review, hence the widely accepted 2k1 moniker.

Sorry folks but I have problems with the new rules. The game is still the best one but here is what I think;
1. In general I think the running teams have come off worst as m.blow has been reduced in effectiveness and the Elven boys have 2 extra blitzers.

Strong Arm becoming a trait, Sure Feet and Leap becoming one use per action skills have hurt the agility teams too. Dark Elves get the 2 extra Blitzers, but Frenzy has had a downgrade from 3rd, seriously reducing the effectiveness of Witch Elves. It's a fair trade off IMO. High Elves were hardly dominant in 3rd, probably the worse of the Elven teams, and needed the tweak. Bear in mind that neither DE or HE currently have Big Guy access either. Do you remember Fanatic running a poll on their site about HE/DE effectiveness?
One more point, the fact that Dauntless can now also be accessed only on a double has to help the power teams.

2. I do not like the ageing rule at all and just cannot see the point of it. My only question here is why introduce it in the first place?!

Simple. To prevent the powerhouse 300+ TR teams developing, and increase player turnover. I think the main debate here is whether the aging rules go far enough!

3. Stopping the team rating differences/ extra mvp's for less experienced teams has greatly disadvantaged new teams, slowed their progression right down and put off a number of new coaches that I know.

I think there's a general consensus that the handicap table needs some looking at/tweaking.
Handing out multiple MVPs just wouldn't work with the aging rules IMO.
The disparity that used to exist has been lessened significantly, you simply shouldn't have the real powerhouse teams developing, the ceiling has been lowered. The new injury tables, changes to RSC, Mighty Blow, Fouling etc; plus more niggles on the experienced team should prevent the situation that used to exist where a high end team would simply destroy a rookie team. Extra MVPs didn't help your team one bit on the pitch!
So think of 2k1 aiming to bring the power teams back towards the rookies, rather than giving a huge leg up to help the rookies catch up.
The revised winnings and FF tables have an impact here as well.

4. Allies. Why stop them?

The 4th Ed Gold ally rules were broken, simple as that.
DE throwers and Gutter Runners on Chaos teams is an obvious example.
However, the BBRC are addressing the ally rules, expect something in October's rules review. If your using allies in 3rd Ed, then you're playing house rules anyway, they didn't exist!

Just my thoughts...

[GalakStarscraper]

Dang ..... despite my normal ability to throw out all sorts of info ..... I have to say that anything I say would just be repeating Deathwing. Very nice reply DW ... we are in perfect agreement on all the points.

Galak

[JenniRP70]

Dang ..... despite my normal ability to throw out all sorts of info ..... I have to say that anything I say would just be repeating Deathwing. Very nice reply DW ... we are in perfect agreement on all the points.

Galak

I'll go with that. A sound response DW.

JohnnyP

[Deathwing]

Well, if you post enough crap, the law of averages says that sooner or later.....

Thanks gents.

[NightDragon]

I take your points. I would only say that in my experience the TD scoring teams do tend to progress quicker that the running teams, even more so than they used to, because of the loss of extra mvp's. Also the ageing rule, although I can see does sort of balance teams, it does take some of the fun away from seeing players progress through the ranks as sooner or later you are going to retire them. Laters DD.

[martynq]

Simple. To prevent the powerhouse 300+ TR teams developing, and increase player turnover. I think the main debate here is whether the aging rules go far enough!

In what way do they not go far enough?

It's not that I necessarily disagree. As far as I can see players with 4 skills or more are rather likely to have a niggle, while those with 6 probably have 2 niggles. This probably isn't enough for them, but other systems (e.g., increasing the aging roll targets each by 1) could seriously damage players with 1 or 2 skills. This would have the effect of making it more sensible to play teams that don't need a few skills to be competitive.

Instead how about making the aging progression non-linear; e.g.,

2+/3+/5+/7+/9+/11+/12+ ?

It increases your chances of getting to 3 skills safely, while greatly reduces your chance of getting to 5+ skills without some effect. (Probably wouldn't work, but it's worth suggesting )

Martyn

[sean newboy]

I could live with that set of rolls.

[voyagers_uk]

I would rather see the progression rolls remain the same but a moifier be added equal to the number of niggles they already have, thereby promoting survival of the fittest.

Maybe change the effects of the Niggle roll

3+ player plays
2 player misses this match
1 player misses this match and the next

this would increase player turnover.

[sean newboy]

Imo that would just translate to most coaches as "sell the useless bugger". Which really is not the true intention of the aging roll, which is supposed to be a chancey trade off.

[Acerak]

On Blood Bowl Central, a discussion has cropped up around a suggested addition to the niggling injury mechanic. In addition to running the risk of missing a game, the player would suffer a +1 to all injury rolls made against him on the field. This would certainly make niggled players more likely to miss more time. It would also add some bite to the aging rule.

The suggested 2+/3+/5+/7+ roll isn't a good workaround (IMO) for the following reasons:

1. It gives a free pass to the first skill. Sorry, the player gets a free pass by getting hired healthy. He's not getting that first roll free.

2. Because the aging roll is a 2D6 roll, it's already graduated. Consider these odds of failure:

3+: 2.7%
4+: 8.3%
5+: 16.7%
6+: 27.7%
7+: 41.7%
8+: 58.3%
9+: 72.2%

Except for the jump from 8+ to 9+, each failure rate rises more than it did in the previous band. And I haven't ever seen a player with 7 skills, so I'm not concerned about that lone result messing up the process. The fact that the rolls are cumulative naturally hurts the older players. The system has enough "protection" built into it already, in my opinion.

-Chet

[martynq]

The suggested 2+/3+/5+/7+ roll isn't a good workaround (IMO) for the following reasons:

1. It gives a free pass to the first skill. Sorry, the player gets a free pass by getting hired healthy. He's not getting that first roll free.

My reason for suggesting that the first skill roll came for free is that it seems to me (though I could easily be very wrong) that at TR100, some teams are more powerful than others. For example, some teams' linemen arrive with Block as standard. Giving one skill without an aging roll seemed a way of levelling this.

An alternative, would be to try to balance the rookie teams more. Or we could consider a system:

3+/3+/5+/7+/8+/9+/10+

That should mean you've got a good chance of getting two skills without getting niggled, but 4+ skills are likely to need you being replaced.

2. Because the aging roll is a 2D6 roll, it's already graduated. Except for the jump from 8+ to 9+, each failure rate rises more than it did in the previous band. And I haven't ever seen a player with 7 skills, so I'm not concerned about that lone result messing up the process. The fact that the rolls are cumulative naturally hurts the older players. The system has enough "protection" built into it already, in my opinion.

I was well aware that the rolls were already graduated. My intention was to accentuate the graduation around 3->4 and onwards. My personal opinion is that having players with 2 skills and some with 3 and no niggles isn't a bad thing. It gives the more fragile teams a chance to compete with those that are better out of the box. (OK, I admit it, I think elves need a few skills to compete with dwarves. )

My comments are mostly based on a suggested rule change to making the progression:

4+/5+/6+/7+/8+/9+/10+

which seems to attempt to dissuade one from ever bothering trying to get two skills on a player.

Martyn

[Acerak]

I think the proposed +1 across the board is likely to be "too much," but we're testing it out in the MBBL and we'll see how it goes. I think some other leagues are also helping us test this rule.

-Chet

[Zy-Nox]

I think that the idea of niggles ading +1 to the injury could work but what if the player was being fouled by a DP would he get +3 to the injury roll?Pretty evil Still it does make sense, after all you kick someone who carrying an injury then your more likely to hurt them.(not that i do that)
Oh yeh I agree with DW the rules are pretty balanced now.
I'd just like to see back secret weapons for me Gobbos 'oo aint been da same since'
As for allies, they did unbalance things, I had a 1 turn scoring Gutter runner on my Chaos side, But i did read somewhere about giving allies a skill called outcast
Roll d6 before each drive 1-3 misses the drive because hes having a hissy fit, 4-6 plays as normal.
I dont know if this evens things up but it might go some way to.