Mighty Blow +

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:59 am

I was wondering if anyone out there thinks that MB may be a bit wimpy as it is now. A ST3 human and a ST5(or even 6) ogre both do +1 to either armour or injury roll. Shouldn't the big guys with the huge muscle mass be able to do more? I think it would be fitting to have +1 for regular players and +2 for big guys, but there are different wasys of handling it.

1). Have a totally different skill (Tremendous Blow, or something) that gives +2 to armour or injury roll and only available to players who start with ST 5 or more. Don't know if seperate skill is needed, but would be more simple.

2). In 2ed there were levels to skills, just call this MB level2 (normal MB would be level 1). In theory this could apply to other skills, starting level always 1, go up to level 2 on skill upgrade and have a more potent effect on skill usage. This would definately have to be playtested to make sure doesn't throw off balance of game.

3). Have a different convention with MB, such as if player with MB has 2xST or more of other player, gets +2 instead of +1. This isn't too complicated and would apply to all players with MB, but some may not like changing game conventions for one skill.

Any thoughts one the above, which one do you like the best (if any) or a different suggestion?

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:04 am

Option 2 is my vote.

I agree it would need playetesting but I think it would be great to build up a Mighty Blow level 3 Ogre. Don't you?

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 4:09 am

I don't see why big guys would need a stronger mighty blow than others. They have ST5, that should be enough. My vote goes to keeping it the way it is, but if it had to be changed (and i'd hate that), option 1 would be the easier to accept.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:19 am

The reason I don't like skill levels is the fact that it would specialise players too much. A basher-type player would certainly want to have MB lvl2 - meaning that he wouldn't take some other skills that were available. The fact that you only need one skill to specialise in that particular field forces you to broaden the players skill types when he gains more skills.
And the fact that the subsequent skill choices are less no-brainers than the initial ones (block+MB) makes experienced players more diverse skillwise. Which is a good thing. Extra skill levels force them to take more no-brainer skills than previously, thus making players more like copies of each other. Hopefully I made my point clear - I just woke up and I'm still half asleep. This applies to both suggestions 1 and 2.

Suggestion 3. This would simply mean that ST4+ players would get a huge bonus against stunties. There are not too many ST6+ players around, so this would be a fairly rarely used rule. It would mainly punish stunties.

All in all, I can't see any pressing reasons why this change should be implemented, so list me up in the "no change"-camp.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:18 am

Of course there is no pressing reason for the change to be implemented, GW and the BBRC members think strenght teams are too strong (I tend to disagree, it was the case in 2ed but not now), so nothing will ever be implemented to increase the impact of strength players. But as BGs are limited to one per team and have neg traits to limit them, it doesn't seem imbalancing to try to make them more like the role they are supposed to play on a team. They are the heavy hitters who are supposed to break holes through lines. A ST 5 blitzer with MB (rare to get 2 ST upgrades, I know) is the same as an ogre as far as blocking and bashing through the line. The problem I have with this is that the ogre has much more mass behind his blows and would do more damage than a human sized player. The only other idea I have is related to first option but instead of creating a new skill, make it a racial characturistic (pretty much all BGs start with MB, just replace it with a mew RC that gives +2 to armour or injury rolls and can't be combined with MB).
Anyway it is late and I must go to bed.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:48 am

It would be an absolute mess. You may find MB wimpy, but as a skaven coach I know it's murder on AV7.

+2 to the roll and you're doing the same thing to AV8.

MB is fine as it is. There's some good balance there. We do not need more rules that encourage casualty-hunting as a replacement for skillful play.

Shasta McNasty · Post by **Shasta McNasty** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:11 pm

With the ammount of bitching I've seen so far and the ammount of rules geared toward giving weaker AG/MA reliant teams a leg up or improving apothecaries, I don't see how anyone would go for these rules.

That said, for big guys to do a little more damage does make sense, but personally I would be against it.... its like Marcus said, basically it would be correct flavour wise, but it would give big guys too much of an advantage.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:45 pm

Marcus wrote:We do not need more rules that encourage casualty-hunting as a replacement for skillful play.

Succinct and I quite agree, play to win not to maim

With your permission I think I will take this as my sig

On the subject of the M Blow change, what would this do to Claw and RSC, essentially there would now be a skill which is as good as both either of these skills and is available to more players.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 2:36 am

Marcus wrote:
MB is fine as it is. There's some good balance there. We do not need more rules that encourage casualty-hunting as a replacement for skillful play.

And we do not need your snide inuendo. What I may or may not suggest as a 'concept' for discussion has no bearing on how I play the game, skillfull or otherwise.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 9:34 am

Apologies Torg, no offence was meant. Should have thought before I spoke I suppose.

I have no doubt that you, like most coaches on this board, make effective use of tactical casualties to improve your chances of winning the game.

There are, however, a vast army of muppets out there who are yet to discover that Blood Bowl is won by scoring more touchdowns than the opponent and who build teams to no other end than destroying the opponents team.

They are extremely boring to play as it's almost impossible to lose to them because they're not playing the ball, they're playing your team. It's frustrating - you get no competition but have to put up with them cackling insanely and rubbing their hands with glee every time they remove a player from the pitch. There's a frighteningly large number of them out there and they are my number one most despised opponent.

What I had in mind when I read your suggestion is hordes of said muppets waving chaos team rosters full of players with Mighty Blow + lots, Claw, Fang, Piling On and Dirty Player, challenging me to a game. Hence my comment.

What I should have said was: "Even if there is room for a skill like this, I'm afraid it would be abused by the kind of coach who thinks that causing casualties is a substitute for skillful play"

BigD · Post by **BigD** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:07 am

I've gotta agree. But where you could go with it is okay, first skill somebody gets Mighty Blow. Nothing wrong with that of course but if a coach wants to develope a player further then you could drop Mighty Blow but have Tremendous Blow which is in effect Mighty Blow +2. Of course a player couldn't have Mighty Blow and Tremendous Blow.

I'm one of those players who does like taking the opposition down but also realise you have to score. Thats what the game is about isn't it? But also depends on whether you're taking a couple of players out to concede a TD to make it easier for yourself in the 2nd half.

Of course though the major problem I see with this is players are going to want the equivalent for other skills aren't they. So what does Sure Hands +2 equal? Butterfingers?

BigD

BigD · Post by **BigD** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:07 am

Actually on that last remark I probably should have said 'Jonah' shouldn't it? Other Rugby players will know what I mean

BigD

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:23 am

It is not only boring, it is really frustrating - to me at least.

The ratio of this maniacs goes up when such players recognize that they can not come up against your skill. Even under favorable conditions ... and that's usually the time it starts to get nasty ...

We have had one player in our league that not only played this way, he also took between 10-20 minutes for every turn (we did not play by the 4 min. rule that time). He even admitted that this was his tactic to make his opponent nervous so that they make mistakes ... (one game against him took around 6 hours)

I really hate this

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:50 am

Marcus,

Apology accepted, no problem man. I understand the frustration with playing these types of players, but haven't had to play any in a while as I usually just play amongst friends. When there were orginised leagues at the local gaves shop, yes, there were people like that and I guess I haven't thought about that type of player since I haven't had to play one in a while. I guess what I am trying to say is that I see your point on this idea being abused by the wrong kind of player.

Still I kinda liked the 2ed skill levels, and remember that not all skills had levels (only a handful). If not for MB, because of the abusive factor, then I think it would work for block, dodge, and tackle, where the level is compared to see if the skill has an effect. Example, two players with block get skull/pow result, instead of nothing happening, compare skill level in block and the one with higher gets to knock the other down. The same with tackle and dodge, instead of tackle auto taking away dodge benifits, compare skill levels and higher gets to use skill.
Instead of levels being bought, could have everyone start at level one when buy skill with levels and after a game get to roll a die to see if it goes up a level (representing experience gained in the match). You have to had used the skill and only will go up on a roll of 6.

Any thoughts on this?

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:56 am

On the last idea, forgot to mention that there would be a cap on levels, stop at 4. In 2ed most leveled skills only went to 4, but some went to 10, but I don't think it would need to go that high.