Talk Fantasy Football

Just played in the bubble tournament. didn't do too bad, 3-1-2 with Amazons.
But there are a few things i really hate about the game. Most of them have to do with Luck. or not being lucky, or my opponent being lucky.
Those are the obvious ones.
But i also hate winning BECAUSE my opponent rolled 1-rr-1. Or DoubleSkulls-rr-Doubleskulls, at the wrong moment.

I think a good game is a game in which there could be a bit of chance, but in which tactics and strategy are way more important.

Bloodbowl has a good deal of that ofcourse. But i think it should be more. And it can be with some very simple solutions.

I like the bb-games best in which everyone made all the important 50+% rolls (counting rr) and everyone misses all their important 40-% rolls. In those cases no strange things happen but it is actually about coaching-skill. Usually very tense games, those are the most fun ones. (don't get me wrong i can laugh about a halfling team making 3 interceptions, but still..)

Who hasn't played a perfect match, and has a perfect defense going, only to lose because your opponent makes 7 rolls in one turn that are completely against odds?

(i had someone roll 5+, 3dmychoice, ball scatters to 1 of the 3 "good places of 8", 4+, 4+, 2+, 5+, 3+, to stop my win, and all were necesary, Nuffle Sucks)
I hate to lose when someone just goes off wandering with a lonely ballcarier into my field, and i only need to roll a 2+ with RR to get a 2d block against him. If i get him down, he won't win...
1-rr-1. Losing against a coach with that kind of tactics..well...don't like it much...

Anyway that was the ranting part.


Now...

I thought of some solutions to get a big part of Luck out of the game.
Quite fundamental changes mostly, so i doubt anyone will like them at first, but i would like to hear your opinions anyway.
At this point i haven't thought much about what the suggestions will do for balance between teams, but the changes are so fundamental that it could very well be to get the balane back you need to change some rosters.

1) What is with this "6 always works" stuff? There are some things a mummy just CANNOT do. Why would you want to give people even more chances of rolling that 6 when they need to,...

I would scrap that. need to roll a 7+? Too bad, that is impossible on a d6.

2) When 2 coaches of about equal strength in an even game play eachother and 1 of them makes an interception at the right moment, he has usually won.
Why would you want to make the outcome of the game dependant of one roll that just has to be a 5+/6+ at that very moment? The chance of interception is small, but it is still very possible at 33 or 12%.

If I need that roll at that very moment to equalize or win, my opponent was probably the actual better player and deserves the win (or the draw, if that is what he was playing for)

My solution would be to get rid of Interception. (or partly. something like: only players with catch and/or passblock can attempt to intercept.or "you can burn a RR to try to intercept" )
or another option: you can burn a RR to make an interception fail.

3) If i need to do something to stop my opponent/score that requires a 6 somewhere than my opponent plays so good a game that he should win.

My proposal: anything that can ONLY happen when you roll a 6 is an automatic failure.


4) for the 1-rr-1 problem. How about giving more tactical options for your RR's. Instead of using a RR for an extra roll, you can also use a rr for +1 on your dice.
(i know this actual rule will make elves a lot better, so some changes need to be made there, either adjustments to the rule, or a different solution, or adjustments to elves-rosters)

5) 3d-against blocks cannot be made, or are an immediate "attacker down". your player is so frightened of the strength opposing him that he doesn't dare to try.

"you're going to do 3d-against my block-ballcarrier...WHAT???all pows???"

again, if you need to roll rolls like that to win, you just shouldn't win...

6) change that kickoff table (scrap it alltogether for tournaments?)
"Amazons receiving against dwarves. Blitz...ok, game is over i guess"
"Dwarves receiving against anyone, riot 5. Cool..0-0 or losing"
anyone against anyone: riot
"why the hell did i come to this table, if not to play..."


These are just thoughts at the moment. Nothing is playtested yet.

There are allways a few rolls/moments in a game that are decisive. If you fail against all odds, or your opponent succeeds against all odds, you can just have outplayed your opponent but still lose. hwat is the fun in that?

And don't get me wrong, i am not writing this because i lost a lot (i didn't), i will even say that a stolen win doesn't feel that good.
"yeah, i intercepted his 2+withrr-pass-2+catch-withrr for the 2-0 in turn 8 2nd half while i was in 3 tacklezones (6+), i dodged out on a 4+ and a 3+ and walked in the 1-1..."
I mean, yeah it's a beautiful action, but my opponent was obviously the better player in this game...

I mean, what is the point of trying to win if the dice can have such an influence?

(i am a huge fan of chess, diplomacy and those kind of games...(vampire as well btw) and i love BB, but it's so often that the dice decide a game instead of the players. If something could be changed about that...)

PS any resemblance to actual games is pure coincidence ofcourse

Why do you play BB. Your suggestions mean that Khemri can really only win by CASsing all opposing players before the opponent manages to score. Interceptions can be prevented.

The fun of BB is that the improbable can always happen. Those 1-rr-1 make gutter runners slighltly less annoying (but they still all should DIE!). Besides, they're memorable (or not, Hoomin, Guy, M@hobbit?)

Cooper wrote:Nuffle Sucks

Well, at least part of your post makes sense.

as much as i can rant against luck (and believe me i do), BB IS about luck. that's why we play it. because if all the actions were predictable, there would be no use to play.

Well, we all have lucky days and we all have unlucky days. Just this week, i ended 6 of 8 first half turns with double skulls, but also i beat an undefeated wood elf coach because he couldnt make a dodge roll all day.

thats just the way the game is...

Duke Jan wrote:Why do you play BB..

Because i like it? But that doesn't mean it can even be better...

Duke Jan wrote:Your suggestions mean that Khemri can really only win by CASsing all opposing players before the opponent manages to score. Interceptions can be prevented. .

Picking up with AG2 and surehands is still 75%, and a cage of mummies is hard to break.

Duke Jan wrote: The fun of BB is that the improbable can always happen.

Allright, if that is you are looking for. But if you want the best coach of the moment to win, the current rules can be in the way.

Duke Jan wrote: Those 1-rr-1 make gutter runners slighltly less annoying (but they still all should DIE!). Besides, they're memorable (or not, Hoomin, Guy, M@hobbit?)

Cooper wrote:Nuffle Sucks

Well, at least part of your post makes sense.

I knew i made sense somewhere

W

Gus wrote:..., BB IS about luck. that's why we play it.

This might be right. (or at least it is right for you)...

Gus wrote:...),
because if all the actions were predictable, there would be no use to play.

But this is just not true...if you want to test your coachingskills against others, (un)luck can trouble your vision dearly. you could end up winning because you made 2 interceptions against all odds. or losing because you end up rolling a triple(!)-skull-rr-triple-skull (ask Dave, he won the league because of that, he'll remember, even though it is years back now)

W

i'm arguably ok as a strategist at this game. STILL, the very game IS about luck. no matter how hard you try, it is the very basis of it. i often rant when my oppo plays stupidly and succeeds because he's lucky, but it also happens to me to have big lucky rolls... no later than 30 min ago, playing online, my troll intercepted a pass. well, throwing a pass in the middle of opposing players is a 1/6 interception, you know it, and strategy is NOT giving opportunities.

overall, considering the changes your suggest, the game would become very dull ^^

IMO this idea would take to much risk out of the game, which in my opinion would make it less fun.

For example, I turn up for a game agaisnt a player who I KNOW I am a lot better than. Under current rules there is still a risk, that player still has a chance. If your methods were adopted, that player would have far less of a chance of winning, and neither of us would enjoy the game anything like as much.

There needs to be a balance to skill/luck, and to me it seems about right already.

I would like to offer that this game is ALREADY has enough strategy over luck in it and that it does not need to be futher reduced.

GenCon Bowl tournament. 70 coaches in the first year ... 50 the 2nd.

Same coach took 1st both year. Coach that took 3rd last year took 2nd this year.

If LUCK was too much a component this would be impossible to have happen.

Galak

GalakStarscraper wrote:If LUCK was too much a component this would be impossible to have happen.

Galak

well.... it could have happened.... by chance

Gus wrote:well.... it could have happened.... by chance

Since I play with probability for a living ... let me let you in on a teaching from one of stats professors.

The odds of winning a lottery in the typical multi-state run lottery in the United States is basically statistically impossible whether you do OR do not purchase a ticket. However, he would grant that its only almost impossible if you do actually purchase one.

===================================

Said another way ... yeah those two guys might by change do as well 2 years in a row ... but given that we had a every game uses the same dice rule for the 2nd years of the GenCon Bowl ... I'll go with my stats professor's belief that this falls under the category of basically impossilbe by qualifying as almost impossible just because it is very slightly possible.

Galak

GalakStarscraper wrote:I would like to offer that this game is ALREADY has enough strategy over luck in it and that it does not need to be futher reduced.

GenCon Bowl tournament. 70 coaches in the first year ... 50 the 2nd.

Same coach took 1st both year. Coach that took 3rd last year took 2nd this year.

If LUCK was too much a component this would be impossible to have happen.

Galak

Yes, ofcourse BB is already full of tactics and strategy. And it would be VERY strange if a not-too-good coach wins a tournament. But i think you still need luck at certain points during the games. I am talking about games between coaches that are about equal. I think in any of those finals that same guy won there was a moment of "yeah if you knocked me over with that 1d-block against my blodger there you would have won" or failing to catch an easy and accurate pass at the wrong moment or something very similar.
But i do know coaches that won 2 good and big tournaments this year (and thus are obviously very good coaches) but end up 30-ish ranked in the next. "yeah the dice were against me these last 3 games".

I would like to see that happen less.


---------------

put more clearly: I think, say 9 out of the top 10 of a tournament are placed there because they were not unlucky and 1 is there because he was lucky. I mean, being in the top of a tourney is mostly skill. But the differences between those 10 good coaches are very often based on luck.
I would like to decrease that chance.
W

I don't think reducing chances helps. Even in RL sports the coach can only select payers and give them instructions. The players still have to do the work and not shoot the penalty spot over the goal, but put the ball in the net. Even the best players make terrible passes. Even Oliver Kahn lets a ball slip through his fingers once in a while. This is why we need dice.

If your strategy is right you stand a much better chance of winning, but you may still loose. Fun through frustration.

@Galak
that was merely a joke

Duke Jan wrote:I don't think reducing chances helps. Even in RL sports the coach can only select payers and give them instructions. The players still have to do the work and not shoot the penalty spot over the goal, but put the ball in the net. Even the best players make terrible passes. Even Oliver Kahn lets a ball slip through his fingers once in a while. This is why we need dice.

Ofcourse there is still chance, but the chances of me scoring against Oliver Kahn and some pro defenders are way below 1%.
Do you want to calculate all the times Oliver Kahn did NOT let the ball slip through his fingers? I think at least that chance is way below 1/6

The chance that i would intercept an accurate pass from whoever is a good passer in some real American Football league, are a lot below that.
In bloodbowl the worst chance for an interception is 12%. (if you are under the ball ofcourse.)
I think i am a decent volleyballplayer, but to think i would have a chance of around 12% of blocking a smash from a pro is laughable, i am just not that long. Why should a mummy be able to intercept a pass at 12%.

But to be honoust, i don't care much for the out-of-game-roleplaying part of the game. (and i don't think it is the main consideration already, i mean...rolling for interception when it could still fumble?)
I just like the mechanics of the game and the miniatures are a nice way of representing the stats (numbers).
But i know i am outnumbered with that

W