Talk Fantasy Football

Ya this again.

I have been playing the LRB for probably over a year now (if memory serves correctly) and so far are am pretty happy with the LRB but I do see room for improvement and here it is.

a. I miss the cards. I have said this before on other threads and realise that a lot of people think it adds an element of luck they don't like but the way I see it this game requires you roll dice and dice rolling is luck unless your dice are weighted. In the end I think it brings several elements to the game that no longer exist.

I played several teams over the last year and for the last two months I have been using woodelves with a 13-2 record. The two losses? Both were from multiple Blitzes rolled on the kick off table (two at a key moment back to back in one game and three thrown in the other game one in each half and one in overtime). I don't ming losing because someone throws a lot of 10's for kick off table results but with the cards removed from the game and wizards the way they are now there is no possible recourse. And this illustrates a point...getting rid of the cards did not get rid of the luck factor. Luck is still a huge factor.

b. The ageing table I am no fan of but I realise that there is no other way to level teams since the whole game has become much more "kiddified" but in the end whats the difference if my guy gets aged or he gets assassinated or dropped into a pit and injured? Again, I prefere the cards effect. It kinda sucks to age right after an advancement roll "Oh great I got a new skill, rats I rolled minus one strength on the ageing table". Niggle means pretty much dead because of the amount of ones I roll in my book but others seem to not mind it. If one of my players gets a Niggle that almost always means dead. So the ageing table kills a lot of my players.

c. The handicap table is pretty lame with few results actually making a difference in the game.

d. Traits...I think the jury is still out on this but I mention it only because I see a potential problem here. I don't mind traits but the more traits there are the less options I have. Also, new players who have not played before there were traits sort of use the trait status of a skill to argue its power. I can't figure out why this is the case because block and guard aren't traits yet? Traits seem to stop some combos but I never found this to be a huge problem in third (maybe because of the foul fest 3rd was and the fact you needed more then one skill). Sure, not having the ability to get Jump Up on Treemen and Mummies is good but pro? Common!

I have really bad luck with dice and I have a team of dwarves that played 25 games and only had three doubles rolled over that time and one of them died. Consequently, my players looked very similar.

All, in all the cards and the winnings table is what I think 3rd edition did better but the LRB corrected several things that kinda suck about third.

a. 3rd edition was foulfest. Dirty Player was king because it was an easy way to remove a player from the pitch and get SPP's. A little too effective but I could live with it. I like the IGMEOY but I still think you should get Casualties SPP's for fouls and pushing players off the field. I think there should be a little incentive to foul, this is Bloodbowl after all not nerfball.

b. Diving Tackle was an abusive skill in third. I like the new one.

c. At first I didn't like it but the kinder gentler Frenzy I now prefere over the 3rd edition frenzy.

****All in all I think the LRB should bring back cards in one form or another, give SPP's to fouls and players knocked off the pitch, and improve the secret weapons rules to be usable with roster players.

<or> alternatively tell me to stick my opinion were the sun don't shine. The game is fun as it is now and I would continue to play. I just think the game would be more fun with cards and a little more violence! I get attached to my players too but when you think about it, would you rather have the Troll Slayer that dies from tackling an expoding player on the pitch or the one that retires due to a -1 ST result on the ageing table right after he rolls an advancement?

Scipio_Publius wrote:c. The handicap table is pretty lame with few results actually making a difference in the game.

This is a definite. Handicaps seem to be designed (in response to complaints) to have little or no effect on the outcome of the game.

...but I still think you should get Casualties SPP's for fouls and pushing players off the field. I think there should be a little incentive to foul, this is Bloodbowl after all not nerfball.

For pushing players off the pitch, 2 sets of rolls. If you knock a player down instead of just back treat as normal before resolving the crowd. If there is a CAS caused by the hit, give the SPPs

b. Diving Tackle was an abusive skill in third. I like the new one.

Fun, but had to change.

IMHO:

Cards and handicap table=>way to powerfull in third.. well, i would like a feedback on the rules on BBB... if somebody else use their rules on that ?

Luck a huge factor?- well, depend more of the coach than the luck imho, but anyway, i like this spicy

Ageing=>Like it

Trait, skills=>more? few less? i dont know.. and pro as a trait is to prevent of having pro easily for all the big guys.

about your dwarf team...what can we say ? well, you surely have some others teams like everybody...


Foul, DP, Ref and xp:
No XP on foul please !! can't you see that everybody is going to foul for nothing exept 2 xp?

There is still blood in bloodbowl ! but...we still want to play this game with all the races.. not only with Orcs or undead, Chaos and Dwarves...

DT: good change.

SW: yes, i want them also.

well, and if you want a one funny game sometimes, you can take your cards back and deal with it. :p

I have really bad luck with dice

... for the last two months I have been using woodelves with a 13-2 record.

These two statements kind of contradict each other.

I miss the cards.

I don't. I think people look back at these with rose tinted spectacles. If you have to rely on Is it a TD??? or Burst Ball to stop your opponent scoring, then you weren't much of a coach, IMO. I like LRB-era BB because you have to earn a good team. In 3rd ed, if you wanted a new player you'd just pick Random Events until you got some money or That Boy's Got Talent!. Et voila - free wardancer.

I miss the cards.

Couldn't agree more. The cards are one of the best things about Blood Bowl and I am so pleased that I wasn't around when everything changed so when I set my league up I had no idea that the pathetic handicap table was in their place.

The kick-off table is probably the worst thing about the current set-up. Nobody likes it as there are way too few options available to roll. I would add weather in to that category.

Aging is a good idea but it needs to be built into a proper long term balance which the LRB doesn't offer.

I haven't bothered with traits. It hasn't worried anyone around me unduly.

The game is fun as it is now and I would continue to play. I just think the game would be more fun with cards and a little more violence!

Longshot wrote: IMHO:

Cards and handicap table=>way to powerfull in third.. well, i would like a feedback on the rules on BBB... if somebody else use their rules on that ?

Who says they have to be the same cards as in third edition? Also, as previously discussed in the Bloodbowl forum why not tiered decks with more powerful cards the higher the tier. One would only be able to draw from a higher tier with a higher handicap. Might be fun.

Longshot wrote: Trait, skills=>more? few less? i dont know.. and pro as a trait is to prevent of having pro easily for all the big guys.?

Unfortunatly, it was very much a splash effect. It does not stop them from getting it and makes it one less choice for positions that only get general skills. Seems like a clumsy move if that was the intent. Why not just add to the big guy skill that they are not allowed to choose pro because...?

Longshot wrote:about your dwarf team...what can we say ? well, you surely have some others teams like everybody...

I know, it was to draw a point though and that is not everyone is lucky. So why should we have to rely on luck to have a diverse skill choice on say linemen?

Longshot wrote:Foul, DP, Ref and xp:
No XP on foul please !! can't you see that everybody is going to foul for nothing exept 2 xp?

And they will likely get thrown off the field and not be able to use the player for the rest of the game (hence not get anymore SPP's for that game) the more fouls they commit. Its still a double edged sword.

Longshot wrote:There is still blood in bloodbowl ! but...we still want to play this game with all the races.. not only with Orcs or undead, Chaos and Dwarves...

The precision teams have all been good for as long as I have played this game. Most of that time was in third edition. I don't think my ideas would change that much.

Nazgit wrote:

I have really bad luck with dice

... for the last two months I have been using woodelves with a 13-2 record.

These two statements kind of contradict each other.

Should have seen my last game. I won 3-2 but threw so many ones and double ones my opponent was laughing his arse off (me of course hitting my forhead on the table). Don't know how I pulled this off but luckily woodelves can succeed on 2's.

I don't. I think people look back at these with rose tinted spectacles. If you have to rely on Is it a TD??? or Burst Ball to stop your opponent scoring, then you weren't much of a coach, IMO.

Both players got cards and depending on how you use them and more importantly when you use them makes them more or less importance on the outcome of the game.

I like LRB-era BB because you have to earn a good team. In 3rd ed, if you wanted a new player you'd just pick Random Events until you got some money or That Boy's Got Talent!. Et voila - free wardancer.

Waiting around for one card in that huge of deck is not something you can count on. I have never drawn a magic helmet ever. Like I said though, who says the cards have to be the same as Deathbowl?

While I think earning a team is one thing I also know this is attached to luck my previously mentioned Woodelf team has rolled 1 for post game fanfactor 6 times in 15 games. I have a Skaven team that has had 6 players killed in 13 games. I saw a dwarf and an orc team suffer 3 deaths in their first three games. Luck is still a factor. Always will be.

ScottyBoneman wrote: This is a definite. Handicaps seem to be designed (in response to complaints) to have little or no effect on the outcome of the game.

Hummm...weird. Why would someone complain about an underdog getting an advantage?

I don't like the table for a few reasons. Its very limited in what it can give you. Take "duh where am I?" for example. The card version didn't offer an effect that lasted all game but it was valuable none the less.

Scipio_Publius wrote:Both players got cards and depending on how you use them and more importantly when you use them makes them more or less importance on the outcome of the game.

Nonsense. The quantity and quality of cards was completely, 100% random. As for knowing when to play them... geez. It doesn't take a genius to know when to play Is it a TD???. Certainly all the powerful cards could only be played at a particular, obvious time.

Scipio_Publius wrote:Waiting around for one card in that huge of deck is not something you can count on.

It was a case of waiting around for one of the 12 or 15 money making cards in the RE deck. I just used to take all RE, even over MI, for the money. It was a long term strategy.

Nazgit wrote:

Scipio_Publius wrote:Both players got cards and depending on how you use them and more importantly when you use them makes them more or less importance on the outcome of the game.

Nonsense. The quantity and quality of cards was completely, 100% random. As for knowing when to play them... geez. It doesn't take a genius to know when to play Is it a TD???. Certainly all the powerful cards could only be played at a particular, obvious time.

Scipio_Publius wrote:Waiting around for one card in that huge of deck is not something you can count on.

It was a case of waiting around for one of the 12 or 15 money making cards in the RE deck. I just used to take all RE, even over MI, for the money. It was a long term strategy.

I think you can take the opposite line Nazgit. Not only is their a real judgement call on many of the cards but lets reverse your statement. You have to be a poor coach NOT to be able to reenergize your offense after being hit by a card. (or you wanted to waste the whole half and now can't risk it)

There are valid points on all sides, but I think too many of the coaches that want to reduce the random elements think of themselves as better or more strategic thinkers, when in fact reducing the variables makes the game simpler.

‘Chess’ coaches have been thrown around as a term (though in fairness not necessarily in self-reference) but checkers doesn’t have random elements either.

Nazgit wrote:Nonsense. The quantity and quality of cards was completely, 100% random. As for knowing when to play them... geez. It doesn't take a genius to know when to play Is it a TD???. Certainly all the powerful cards could only be played at a particular, obvious time.

Good point but I would just add in defence of the timing thing there are some situational decisions that need to be made when playing this card.
a. When will I play it? First TD scored or wait till its close to the end of the first half or maybe wait till some point in the second half?
b. What skills does the guy who scored the TD have? Is he a one turn scorer? Does he have side step or stand firm?
c. How do I setup my team to optimise on this card? If I am playing dwarves and he is playing woodeleves I might setup a little different so I have players in the backfield if he scores.

To summize, I get your point in the fact that some cards had no decision making process of when to play them but "I think Is it a TD" has some decissions that have to be made about when is best to use it. The nice thing about cards is my opponent doesn't have to know when it can be played or under what condition it can be played. Sometimes "bluffing" makes your opponent play differently. I know I have changed plays looking at my opponent holding a few cards.

Scipio_Publius wrote:Sometimes "bluffing" makes your opponent play differently. I know I have changed plays looking at my opponent holding a few cards.

This is huge point, it doesn't matter where you stand on stalling as an issue, it was a total non-issue when you were holding a 10-30K at the end of the game card but it could not be seen.

All these rule changes, right or wrong, have to viewed for their complete impact. Some people complain that it advanced teams too quickly but also complain that Dwarves (for example) get left behind as the rules favour agile teams. Cards and MVP changes definitely favour some teams more then others (as most rule changes do) and make League Management a little more tricky.

Scipio_Publius wrote: Who says they have to be the same cards as in third edition? Also, as previously discussed in the Bloodbowl forum why not tiered decks with more powerful cards the higher the tier. One would only be able to draw from a higher tier with a higher handicap. Might be fun.

....read all my sentence please, did i mention triple B rules ? so...i said the same thing as you

Scipio_Publius wrote: Unfortunatly, it was very much a splash effect. It does not stop them from getting it and makes it one less choice for positions that only get general skills. Seems like a clumsy move if that was the intent. Why not just add to the big guy skill that they are not allowed to choose pro because...?

because nothing, the more simple it is the best it is. i will not cry for wight ! i prefer it this actual way about pro.

Scipio_Publius wrote: I know, it was to draw a point though and that is not everyone is lucky. So why should we have to rely on luck to have a diverse skill choice on say linemen?

i dont ...but this is not a problem about diverse skills...this is a handicap that dwarves should deal with, they are very good at the beginning but the reverse poison is that they can't get a lot of thing nice after.. and Longbeard still can have general and strengh skills...so it is fair enough

Scipio_Publius wrote: And they will likely get thrown off the field and not be able to use the player for the rest of the game (hence not get anymore SPP's for that game) the more fouls they commit. Its still a double edged sword.

I say that as a league commisher and as a player...having a zombi sent off or a skeletton or a lineorc is not dangerous. Elves cant hardly do that cos they re players a most vital..sent off..well ok this is a risk but i see 2 kinds of foul: Tactic foul (the guy could score or stop you from scoring, this guy down is the key player of the opposite team) and the free foul...(any other, just fouling for fouling) i quite accept a guy that say i will foul whatever and dont't care about xp. Xp is just a way to say , this is not free...dont like this kind of liar in a friendly game.

Scipio_Publius wrote: The precision teams have all been good for as long as I have played this game. Most of that time was in third edition. I don't think my ideas would change that much.

Precision teams? agile you mean? well in third ed, they were destroyed easily also...more than now ! hopefully it changed

Longshot wrote: ....read all my sentence please, did i mention triple B rules ? so...i said the same thing as you

I'm sorry. Was not familiar with BBB. Thought it was something else.

Longshot wrote: because nothing, the more simple it is the best it is. i will not cry for wight ! i prefer it this actual way about pro.

I guess I agree about keeping it simple. Perhaps we differ in how we view "simple" though.

Longshot wrote: i dont ...but this is not a problem about diverse skills...this is a handicap that dwarves should deal with, they are very good at the beginning but the reverse poison is that they can't get a lot of thing nice after.. and Longbeard still can have general and strengh skills...so it is fair enough

Good point...still though...human, norse lineman , and say hobgoblins are limited to general skills only? Maybe I am being unreasonable but I like choices.

Longshot wrote: I say that as a league commisher and as a player...having a zombi sent off or a skeletton or a lineorc is not dangerous. Elves cant hardly do that cos they re players a most vital..sent off..well ok this is a risk but i see 2 kinds of foul: Tactic foul (the guy could score or stop you from scoring, this guy down is the key player of the opposite team) and the free foul...(any other, just fouling for fouling) i quite accept a guy that say i will foul whatever and dont't care about xp. Xp is just a way to say , this is not free...dont like this kind of liar in a friendly game.

Yet another good point, and i would add another to your list of tactical fouling. In fact the only kind I personally use at this point since there is no other real incentive to me. If a guy is laying down in a square I need to move somewhere I will foul hoping to just get him off the field. I ran into the wall of knocked down players a lot with the dwarven cage.

In the end I see it this way though. It adds another factor in a foul decision. Again I like choice and I don't think fouling will get out of hand with IGMEOY. Besides, A lineorc or a skellie who is not important enough to keep on the field (if he is thrown off for fouling) is probably not important enough to go out of your way to foul with (for the purpose of SPP's). Not only that but a foul might not equal a casualty and the player could still be sent off especially if the ref is watching. Again it gives you more strategies to play with though.

Scipio_Publius wrote: Good point...still though...human, norse lineman , and say hobgoblins are limited to general skills only? Maybe I am being unreasonable but I like choices.

Yeah, it sucks, but I think that's kind of the point. Linemen of any type are supposed to be very similar. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be linemen, they'd all be catchers / blitzers / whatever.

As far as cards go, I'm glad they're gone. They created instances where one player could outplay the opponent in every way, and even roll better dice on top of that, and still lose. This cannot be a good thing.