Bored of "pro" bloodbowl?

[TuernRedvenom]

What is wrong with beating your opponent because you use better tactics? As long as my opponent doesn't act like an ass (like constantly arguing over rules details) I enjoy every single blood bowl game. Even if my opponent min-maxes his skills, so what?
I think the current rules are very good and all teams are very balanced. My main gripe with 3rd ed was that some aspects of the game were very unbalanced (like fouling) and the game was too random. I hated it when I set up a brilliant play only to be stopped 1 square away from the end zone by an "assassin" dirty trick card.
Compared to warhammer (and 40k) there is no powergaming in BB.

And if you don't like the current rules, make up your own house rules.

[Scipio_Publius]

What is wrong with beating your opponent because you use better tactics? .

Ultimately this is a dice game...ie random results. My latest team has rolled a 1 for FF 4 out of 6 games. No matter what my strategy is on team development I'm screwed out of money other teams get.

My team before this was 16-2 (nearly half the time I rolled a 1 for FF at the end of the game) the two games I lost were due to multiple blitzes (3 in one game and two in the other.) I had a Skaven team that used its Apothecary in over 80% of its games and failed the Apoth roll 66% of the time.

This game is Luck period. Ya, there is some ways to get better odds (tactics). There are some ways to win more consistantly but once everyone gets to a level were they don't make too many mistakes it comes down to luck.

As long as my opponent doesn't act like an ass (like constantly arguing over rules details) I enjoy every single blood bowl game. Even if my opponent min-maxes his skills, so what?

Me too which is why I still play. This is the most important part of the game. Not fairness...fun.

My main gripe with 3rd ed was that some aspects of the game were very unbalanced (like fouling) and the game was too random.

Fouling was a little out of hand but I still had fun. The changes in this aspect I think are good.

I hated it when I set up a brilliant play only to be stopped 1 square away from the end zone by an "assassin" dirty trick card.

Sort of like sprinting with Sure Feet skill and rolling double one's? (I have personally killed Griff in the endzone 3 times by failing a go for it in the endzone...too funny now that I think about it.)

Ultimately I think there is a huge element of the game missing as a result of getting rid of the cards. I loved the times my opponent would pick up a piece and then I reach for a card (the look of agony on their face). Even though i was holding spy's or extra training I could bluff. I liked the effects of the cards on the game including Pitt Trap and Custard Pie. I liked the fact that both players got cards.

You may say, "Cards had a too random effect on the game." I would respond that the kick off table has lost me games as well as rolling too many 1's. Wanna remove the randomness...play chess.

I think Bloodbowl is still fun and this version of the rules is still fun but I think the quest for "balance" in the force is a false one. I miss my McMurty burgers. The handicap table is the lamest thing in the current version of the rules.IMHO

[MadLordAnarchy]

IIRC Mad Lord plays a massively customised version of BB...As far as I can tell, he effectively plays a different fantasy american football game.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

I wish there was a boring smiley for where this thread is going. Just like all the other "it was good once, long ago" threads, it's me justifying that I'm interested in the genre not the specific LRB game of BB, ianwilliams et al putting forwards the benefit of LRB play and Narkotic completely missing every point. If I could be bothered to link to the threads started by Telef0n0 and carlbrown recently, it might save some time.

[The Florist]

IIRC Mad Lord plays a massively customised version of BB...As far as I can tell, he effectively plays a different fantasy american football game.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. :D

And as this is talkBloodBowl you need to find another forum. Mods, get him!

[The Florist]

Eh....just joking. I checked out your league site for suggestions on my own and apart from the tons of dice rolling it appears to involve it looks fun.

[TuernRedvenom]

What is wrong with beating your opponent because you use better tactics? .

Ultimately this is a dice game...ie random results. My latest team has rolled a 1 for FF 4 out of 6 games. No matter what my strategy is on team development I'm screwed out of money other teams get.

My team before this was 16-2 (nearly half the time I rolled a 1 for FF at the end of the game) the two games I lost were due to multiple blitzes (3 in one game and two in the other.) I had a Skaven team that used its Apothecary in over 80% of its games and failed the Apoth roll 66% of the time.

This game is Luck period. Ya, there is some ways to get better odds (tactics). There are some ways to win more consistantly but once everyone gets to a level were they don't make too many mistakes it comes down to luck.

Yes but good tactics include minimising chances that things will go wrong, so in the end it evens out and the good players will win more than the bad ones. In my local league we have 12 players and we have played like 10 seasons but all wins are divided between 3 players. You can hardly say they always win because they are always lucky.
Luck evens out in the long run, good tactics don't.

I hated it when I set up a brilliant play only to be stopped 1 square away from the end zone by an "assassin" dirty trick card.

Sort of like sprinting with Sure Feet skill and rolling double one's? (I have personally killed Griff in the endzone 3 times by failing a go for it in the endzone...too funny now that I think about it.)

Not the same thing, nobody forces you to go for it. As a dark elf player I've seen 2+ rerorables fail so many times I would try to avoid such an action if it's not needed. Besides it is a known curse that going for it for the TD always, always fails. Kind of a funny way to kill Griff tough, never been able to do that.
I 100% agree with you on the handicap table tough. I've been playing with the idea to use the old card and mvp system for handicap only. That would seem about right.

[Munkey]

To answer the original post, i'm still having fun playing BB. In fact i'm having more fun playing now than under any of the other versions and our league has lasted longer than it ever did under 3rd.

There seems to be a view that crops up on the site that tournament play is killing the fun of the game. I've never been to a tournament and as far as I can see the rules are developed for league play.

Besides the BBRC are apparently working on bringing back Special Weapons and the other 'fun' elements in a sensible manner.

Just because the game involves luck to a certain degree doesn't mean that there's no strategy, involved. If I wanted pure strategy I would go and play chess, but if I wanted no strategy I would take up snakes and ladders I guess BB is more like poker - is there luck involved, yes - so can someone be skilled at it, yes.

I don't want a return to the days when my winning strategy could be overturned by one lucky card rather than say the calculated risk and my own decision to go for an extra square.

I also don't want to return to the powergaming of the third edition, tactics were much more standardised in these days because for a team to survive it had to play in a certain way.

[Dave]

Personally, I like to battle the opposing coach not a list of stats.

just a question.

IMHO I am battling the my opponent more with the current LRB BB than I did with the 3rd ed rules.

I want to win / lose cuz my opponent did better / I made a mistake / under average or unlucky die rolling. I do not want to win / lose because I have 'is it a TD' and he / I has 'I do not know what card but it's not a game winner'

The fun in leagues is the hunt for OTS, the bounties and the grudges.

The fun of Tournaments is the battle of the tactics. Still you can lose to luck but why do the same players end up in the top half of any tournament they go to ?

[Scrappy Kid]

Just because the game involves luck to a certain degree doesn't mean that there's no strategy, involved. If I wanted pure strategy I would go and play chess, but if I wanted no strategy I would take up snakes and ladders I guess BB is more like poker - is there luck involved, yes - so can someone be skilled at it, yes.

Poker is a game of probability and psychology. As there is no bluffing in Bloodbowl, it's actually more like Backgammon.

[Scipio_Publius]

Yes but good tactics include minimising chances that things will go wrong, so in the end it evens out and the good players will win more than the bad ones.

True but there are chances never the less. To do anyting to have an impact on the game one must roll dice. The better your dice results the better results on the game it has. Cards added another factor of luck but also the possibilty of a little psychology.

I 100% agree with you on the handicap table tough. I've been playing with the idea to use the old card and mvp system for handicap only. That would seem about right.

I like the idea of bringing back the cards but so few people have them still. I like to tailor a league toward new players.

I hope they replace the handicap table with a card system. There was a card chart that was posted on here that looked really fun. It also brought a little significance to having cheerleaders and assistant coaches.

[The Florist]

I like the cards as well, wish I still had them. To me they provide an unexpected dimension that keeps people from getting too comfortable with their probability calculations. Still I like "enabling" cards better, as in making your opponent go "this baby is in the bag, there's no way the Kroxigor will make that long bomb....but what if he holds [whatever that card is called, been too long since], better have a contingency plan" than cards that just mess up for your opponent.

[leblanc13]

I still have my cards from 3rd edition. I like using them in one-off games however I think that in league play they could be devastating. One or to take a dive cards and your talking about a probable loss for the team they're played against.

My personal feelings are that they should not be used in league play, but when playing one-off games against friends they are highly enjoyable.

[DoubleSkulls]

there is no bluffing in Bloodbowl

Really?

Ever heard of a fake? Look like you are going one way, but go another?

[Munkey]

Hi Scrappy, you'll know from playing certain members of our league that psychology is involved but your analogy is probably more correct.

Nevertheless the point is that despite the dice BB is predominantly a game of skill. The player that is forced into rolling bad odds consistently will probably lose. In my experience the games that come down to dice tend to be the ones where the coaches were evenly matched.

I think Dave made the point i'm trying to make, more eloquently than I could so i'll just add this:

Although annoying to lose because of the 'overly-random' things in 3rd edition, I think it's almost worse to win because of them. To feel like I won because of card that I drew rather than because of my skillful play somewhat reduces the thrill of victory, especially when perhaps I deserved to lose.

[Scrappy Kid]

there is no bluffing in Bloodbowl

Really?

Ever heard of a fake? Look like you are going one way, but go another?

Well almost ever single game in existence has this element -where there is an element of doubt over your opponents moves (unless you're psychic or something). To me a fake is not a bluff, it's just disguising your intentions.

My point was that there is no hidden information in Blood Bowl - try bluffing in Poker when your opponents can see your hand