Vamp the Necros?

[Digger Goreman]

Meanwhile, back at the Polling booth:

What would Vamps and Thralls do for/to the Necromacer Team?
Improve it into a proper "tier one" team.
16% [ 7 ]
Improve it too much!
54% [ 23 ]
Actually degrade the team
19% [ 8 ]
Probably have do discernable effect....
9% [ 4 ]

Total Votes : 42

Looks like the opinion of the polled coaches is that a Vamp/Thrall combo (just one vamp) would put the Necros over the top with 46% believing it would do something reasonably positive to negative for the Necro team....

'T'will be interesting to see if price tweaks and an apothecary will put the team on track or not....

p.s.: Mods, if the kids are playing too rough... (they are definitely off topic)... feel free to lock this thread... I think it's played out....

[stormmaster1]

A ST4 AG4 player on an already good team, with hypnotic gaze as a cage breaker for the teams excellent blitzers (werewolves) to get through. Too good imo.

[TuernRedvenom]

I agree that a minimum standard balance is needed, but I have to ask you where is that in the game? IMO (and what I really do see as fact) is that at the very basic core (players attributes and cost) there is no balance...and worse the numbers are nearly arbitrary and the costs subjective.

I gave some examples to Joe in a PM but some of them were Wood Elf speed vs. Skaven speed. Human catchers vs. Elf Catchers, and Troll AG vs Zombie AG. Some of the reasons for these numbers is balance, and some of the reason is fluff but in the end you end up with a range of numbers that is mostly meaningless.

Just because something was created in a non-methodical, non-calculated way doesn't mean that the results are worthless. The stats that we have now are there and they work because they evolved that way. Not because someone made an exact formula on player costs (they did use a crude one). You can argue with the methods, but not with the results.

The range of attributes is 1-6. If AG 1 means you are completely inept at nearly everything why are zombie more agile than trolls? Same with ST. Why are human catchers as weak as halflings?

Sorry, but that's fluff talking which is something I don't consider when talking about balance.

And once you get to cost as I said, one of JJ's steps in creating cost was guessing...educated guessing but guessing none the less. And none of that touches start up skills.

I think he did pretty well with his educated guesses at the start of third ed, especially seeing as how terrible playtesting was at GW in those days. If anything it was the skills that were horribly broken, and most of those have been fixed by now. What you call "patches and crutches" I call "evolution".

That's as finite as you can go, right down to individual stats, and that stuff affects everything that grows out of it. So, a rookie Undead team is not equal to a rookie Halfling team...and yet the have the same rating.

Ah, but they were not meant to be equal. Teams like halflings were built to be more of a challenge and I can only applaud that design decision.

So I have to ask, where do you see that minimum standard of balance?

The answer to this question is of course subjective because for different people the standard will be at a different level.
AS long as coaching skill is the most determining factor (and atm, it most certainly is) of winning or loosing a game between 2 teams of equal tier I'm ok with that. Team choice (if equal TV and equal tier) atm is only a very small factor in the outcome of a game compared to both coaching skill and luck.
As you say the current formulae doesn't account for skill/stat combo worth and this affects balance between developed teams. You say it leads to min/maxing and is lame. I find it a team building challenge and one of the most interesting things about the game. Developing your team well is also a skill IMO.

The game is not perfectly balanced and that's fine IMO, I can still start out with a so-called sub-optimal human roster (compared to the likes of wood elves, amazons, orcs, dwarves) and still have a good shot at winning the local league if I am a better coach then the rest of the league.

I also think you're being a bit harsh on tourney players and their attitude towards the game. Every time I go to a tourney I see plenty of people playing teams like halflings, chaos, goblins and humans. Even those that do pick the top performers generally have fun whether they win or lose...

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Just because something was created in a non-methodical, non-calculated way doesn't mean that the results are worthless. The stats that we have now are there and they work because they evolved that way. Not because someone made an exact formula on player costs (they did use a crude one). You can argue with the methods, but not with the results.

But don't you see that the stats don't really work? Not without patches and band aids. Bonehead, loner, stunty etc all come into play and that's really the point.

What I'm saying is there is no way to quantify them. Not only that they don't mean the same thing for each player. Like I said the AG 2 on a Dwarf means something totally different than the AG 2 on a zombie.

I'm not saying they are worthless. What is with the straw man crap on this board? What I'm saying is that balance is way easier to achieve without all this bulky mess.

Then the focus can be on craziness like it should be. We don't need all this stuff.

The range of attributes is 1-6. If AG 1 means you are completely inept at nearly everything why are zombie more agile than trolls? Same with ST. Why are human catchers as weak as halflings?

Sorry, but that's fluff talking which is something I don't consider when talking about balance.

But that's the point! Some of the stats are the way they are because of fluff, and won't be changed because of fluff. And some of the stats are changed for balance. It's arbitrary.


If we can ignore the ST 2 on humans why can't ogres have ST 4 to balance them without stupid nega-traits?
It's asinine!

And once you get to cost as I said, one of JJ's steps in creating cost was guessing...educated guessing but guessing none the less. And none of that touches start up skills.

I think he did pretty well with his educated guesses at the start of third ed, especially seeing as how terrible playtesting was at GW in those days. If anything it was the skills that were horribly broken, and most of those have been fixed by now. What you call "patches and crutches" I call "evolution".

That's as finite as you can go, right down to individual stats, and that stuff affects everything that grows out of it. So, a rookie Undead team is not equal to a rookie Halfling team...and yet the have the same rating.

Ah, but they were not meant to be equal. Teams like halflings were built to be more of a challenge and I can only applaud that design decision.

Yes I agree. Pay attention to what I said. You're missing a few key points.

1. I don't necessarily want Blood Bowl competitive but that is the world we are in. Balance is what people want.

2. The teams were designed unequal. EXACTLY! Balance was not considered when they made the teams. That's not an evil thing and I don't blame JJ for it. It was fun. HOWEVER, they didn't make 14 balanced teams and 2 stunty teams. They made 16 teams without regard to balance.

For a competitive and balanced game (which is what the community wants) that needs to be revisited.


Go back and read and you won't find me saying that there can't be tiered teams.

So I have to ask, where do you see that minimum standard of balance?

The answer to this question is of course subjective because for different people the standard will be at a different level.
AS long as coaching skill is the most determining factor (and atm, it most certainly is) of winning or loosing a game between 2 teams of equal tier I'm ok with that. Team choice (if equal TV and equal tier) atm is only a very small factor in the outcome of a game compared to both coaching skill and luck.

Yeah but here's the rub. Start a thread asking what teams are on what tier.
I know the results. 10 coaches = 11 opinions.
Try to get an official answer and you won't. The only official word on this is that Stunties are a more challenging team.

Or if you interpret 3rd Ed Death Zone it says that the teams listed there have a broad range of challenge levels. (Implying that they were not tweaked for balance)

As you say the current formulae doesn't account for skill/stat combo worth and this affects balance between developed teams. You say it leads to min/maxing and is lame.

NO! NO! NO! GOD! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is not what I said. Where is the icon of the smiley beating his head into a wall?

Yes I said the current formula doesn't account for skill/stat combos (or starting skills being relative value) that is correct but you are injecting my words about cherry picking out of context and putting words in my mouth about it being lame.

I said the cost formula isn't accurate in that area and that's where JJ's "fudge it" comes in. That doesn't allow quantifiable proof for balance.
The cherry picking statement is in regards to Inducements. I said that the fun...meaning details dice rolls and time spent....should be in the craziness of blood bowl. Not in balancing the teams.

If the teams balanced with an automated mechanic then there could me more detail in the mayhem.

I find it a team building challenge and one of the most interesting things about the game. Developing your team well is also a skill IMO.The game is not perfectly balanced and that's fine IMO, I can still start out with a so-called sub-optimal human roster (compared to the likes of wood elves, amazons, orcs, dwarves) and still have a good shot at winning the local league if I am a better coach then the rest of the league. [/quote]

It's like talking to a wall.
It don't need perfect balance at all levels.
It needs perfect balance at the base. Then the mayhem can be much easier to build.

I also think you're being a bit harsh on tourney players and their attitude towards the game.

Oh piss off. Now you are just being an idiot. I never said anything bad about tournament players. What the hell are you even talking about?

You have completely misread everything. Probably didn't read it all apparently because what I am talking about is designing a game that would not only serve the tournament player but would enhance the experience.

Imagine a tournament where no matter what team you brought it would equal with your opponent.

Imagine a tournament where you could bring your league roster and compete without fear that some joker had min/maxed a made up roster...because it wouldn't matter if he did.


Don't tell me I said anything bad about tournament players. Are you trying to start a dog pile or something? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't that low.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Let me try this again. I wouldn't have to post so many times if you guys would stop reading between the lines and would take what I write at face value. Please try to do that here. I'm going to make a series of statements and I'll try to make them as clear as possible and you lot try to read them at face value.


0. I believe the focus of the community has shifted from a beer & pretzels game to a game of competitiveness. I believe Blood Bowl can fill that role but currently it is not doing it the best way it can.

1. LRB 5 does balance the game. I don't think that it balances it 100% but it does a decent job of it.

2. Blood Bowl based on Third Edition teams/mechanics can never be completely balanced, so I believe they should stop trying. I think they should have stopped two editions ago, but whatever, they should stop now.

3. I think the next version of Blood Bowl should be a completely new edition. I think the teams and rules of the core (just the core) should be built with tournaments in mind. I think the rules should be built as if Blood Bowl is to be played in a tournament setting. That doesn't mean the way tournaments are run now necessarily. I'm saying team growth and player development should be brought into a tournament style of play. I'm not listing any examples because that's impossible to do without a complete rules write up...and at this point I'm having trouble just explaining the concept to some of you.

4. If you made the individual players balanced, then teams would be easier to balance. If teams are easier to balance then team growth is easier to balance. This is all easily done. This stuff is easy to quantify and therefore easy to balance. I believe the focus in the current rules is too much on leveling the playing field for competition because the game it derives from was not built for competition. If the rules were redesigned in a way that all of the balancing that Inducements and other things DO achieve was inherent, or automatic then the focus could shift to making optional modular mayhem rules.


5. After you have a core set of rules that has an automated or semi-automated balance. Or is just inherently balanced, you can add mayhem much much easier and in a modular style.

If all that stuff is balanced in a way that makes the "housekeeping" automatic then the focus of the rules can be on balancing the stuff that is actually hard to balance, the mayhem. If you have level playing field it's easier to move the pieces around...oops that's a metaphor. Going to avoid that.

[If you have a balanced game it's easier to insert and remove optional unbalanced rules.


That's what I am saying. I hope you get what I am saying. IMO there is no need for LRB 6, 7 8 or whatever. Those rules have reached the climax. I think they peaked awhile ago but that is a matter of opinion.
If they started designing a new version of the game, and had 4 people working on it then it shouldn't be ready for two years...which is why I am bring it up now.


Okay? If you disagree with those points then that is fine but if you post something telling me I don't like tournament players, or that I am saying LRB is broken then I'll have to repost this.

[Digger Goreman]

A ST4 AG4 player on an already good team, with hypnotic gaze as a cage breaker for the teams excellent blitzers (werewolves) to get through. Too good imo.

Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally got a succinct, lucid and explanatory post on this...

Ya, know, I will hafta agree with you on this one... that would be overly rad....

Good post....

[Snew]

Dark Lord hates tournament players. He thinks they should have their own ruleset.

Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally got a succinct, lucid and explanatory post on this...

Ya, know, I will hafta agree with you on this one... that would be overly rad....

Good post....

I thought so too.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

I don't feel bad about hijacking this thread.

It's original topic is only slightly less likely to happen than my ideas.

[Snew]

That's only because the tournament players haven't started their letter writing campaign. .