Idea for small bump in SPP rate

[mattgslater]

What do you think? This would very slightly increase SPP development, but I think that at the limited extent we're talking about, that's a good thing. Also, it will mean a fair amount more points for the hire-and-forget positionals like Black Orcs and Golems, who will progress slowly and steadily. Besides, keeping track of your team's stats is a large portion of the Blood Bowl experience.

First, take the SPP table in Blood Bowl, and double the size of each category (0-10, 11-30, 31-60, 61-100, etc.). That lets you put in "half-points" without using fractions. This in mind, note that all the SPP costs below are really only half what they say they are.

Ways to earn SPP:
* Completion (CMP): 2SPP
* Long Bomb(LB): 3SPP for a complete long bomb or Hail Mary (not cumulative w/CMP).
* Touchdown Pass (TDP): 3SPP for completion to the end zone for a TD (not cumulative w/LB or CMP).
* Knockout (KO): 1SPP, only from a block.
* Casualty (CS): 3SPP.
* Dirty Casualty (DC): 1SPP. A casualty from a foul, Stab or Secret Weapon.
* Confirmed Kill (K): 1SPP, plus any for CS or DC. You only get credit if Regen/Apoth fails or isn't used.
Touchdown (TD): 6SPP.
Interception (Int): 5SPP.
MVP: 10SPP.

WDYT?

[DoubleSkulls]

From a pure game mechanics POV I really don't like the idea as its a bit of extra book keeping and will slow down the game - especially for SPP "distributors" who are looking for optimal SPPs on each player.

I think the best house rule, if you want accellerated advancement, is just to reduce the size of the ranges. e.g 0-5, 6-10, 11-20 etc.

[mattgslater]

From a pure game mechanics POV I really don't like the idea as its a bit of extra book keeping and will slow down the game - especially for SPP "distributors" who are looking for optimal SPPs on each player.

I see what you mean. Really, there are two arguments:

1) "Distributors" will have yet more mechanisms at their disposal. "Distributors" nowadays just play elves; with these rules, blocking would become a credible mechanism for distribution; you get 1SPP (1/2 SPP in practice) for a KO. Foul casualties are worth 1SPP, so DPs and SWs go up (slowly). Essentially, everyone would advance for doing what they're supposed to do. In 3rd ed, my Orcs would hit their stride about week 4 with their foul-farming ways adding maybe 4 points a game from 2 casualties, and occasionally giving me a roll when the MVP came down right. In 5th, the grindy teams can't do that anymore; the odds always suck on blocks, and on fouls, there are no points. Elf teams, however, still get a point for the completions and TDs they have such an easy time distributing. Ever since I started playing Pro Elves, I started thinking of one Improvement Roll in a game as a terrible disappointment. At least this way, any team can do it. If it encourages some coaches to block when they should be scoring, or to step back a bit and throw a harder pass than they really needed, what's the problem? That just adds to the depth of the strategy.

One could make the MVP worth only 9 points, so you still need a completion or better to get a roll. That wouldn't stop the "distributors," but it would mean that you're seldom jonesing for that one foul-casualty, as was so common in 3rd. Now, that one point plus an MVP isn't enough, and your odds of getting that extra SPP from a foul aren't worth it, given that by blocking you could very easily get the point from a KO, or it could give you 3 points for a casualty.

2) It's too much bookkeeping. I hear that a lot about house rules, but I don't understand what the problem is. It's a few more categories on a big spreadsheet, tracking statistics that the best coaches track anyway. It's freakin' Blood Bowl, for cryin' out loud. If you wanted something that wasn't dauntingly complex and spectacularly geeky, play something else.

While these rules would speed up the advancement of slow-growing players, the real impact would be to flatten out development for players across the board. I think speeding up development to any meaningful extent would have a very different effect.

[DoubleSkulls]

It's a few more categories on a big spreadsheet, tracking statistics that the best coaches track anyway.

I've never done anything like that, and I used to be pretty good

Actually I like BB because its simple - its a lot less complex than many other games I have played - but the sophistication comes from the excellent game play and particularly the turnover rule.

Given the current design direction you are unlikely to receive any sort of official sanction for increasing the complexity for what feels like a very minor benefit.

[mattgslater]

I hear you on that. I'm asking opinions on the house rule. If I understand right, Ian, you think it's too complex for any benefit it provides. Others agree or disagree?

That record-keeping thing totally wasn't a dig, btw. In the last group I played with, most coaches tracked EVERYTHING, but the new group is likely to be less fastidious, which is why I'm asking y'all.

Is it too much to be playable? Does it seem to encourage something I maybe didn't intend?

[MadLordAnarchy]

As someone who records more stats than apparently the majority this is definitely feasible. The existing range of SPP providers does feel limited to me compared to the number of events in the game and tends to result in stoopid turn 8 quick passes for a free SPP buck. Taking your structure, Elf Throwers are going to be racking up a lot of points so you'd probably want to be thinking balance. You could go further outside the traditional box and count SPPs for all sorts of actions. The Alpha Complex team on Galak's site has some more inspiration you could draw on.

[bouncergriim]

It is a little complex, though I have always liked the idea of a SPP for fouls/SWs, they are slight risks to use so they should have some reward. My only consern is stab, but even that has a negative side effect of being next to your opponent. I also miss completion SPPS for inaccurate but still caught passes. I think as long as a player on your team catches the ball after a pass (thus avoiding TO) it should be a completion.

I like the idea of various points for different passes, but think it tedious and complex to keep track of.

One other SPP you might consider (we always joke about this in my league) any pickup by an AG 2 or less player is one SPP, this would work well with your double counting senario.

[Kyrel]

Hm...Not bad. Personally I have no problems with complex rules, as long as you don't tie down the game too much.

Anyway, I've a couple of things I'd change with your suggestion:

Ways to earn SPP:
* Completion (CMP): 1 SPP (Quick, Short, & Long Pass)
* Long Bomb(LB): 2 SPP for a complete Long Bomb or Hail Mary.
* Touchdown Pass (TDP): +1 SPP for completion to the end zone for a TD.
* Casualty (CS): 2 SPP.
* Dirty Casualty (DC): 1 SPP. A casualty from a foul, Stab or Secret Weapon.
* Fatality (K): +1 SPP. Only if Regen/Apoth fails or isn't used.
Touchdown (TD): 4 SPP.
Interception (Int): 3 SPP.
MVP: 5 SPP.

Hopefully the above speaks for itself. The basic idea is to keep it slightly more simple, and not give out quite as many SPP. Also, I see no reason to give SPP for a KO.

[Podfrey]

TBH I have enough difficulty tracking the existing SPPs in a league situation, so this for me would be a nightmare!

Having said that, I do think there are some interesting ideas in there though and would like to see some considered by the BBRC - e.g. 1 bonus SPP for a Confirmed Kill and 1 bonus SPP for a completed pass in the same turn in which the TD is scored (assist)

[mattgslater]

Hmmm... if we're not doubling the requirements to parcel out smaller packages... let's just talk about the SPP rules as written, then.

What I'd do in that case is leave everything as-is, except:

A) Dirty Casualty: 1 SPP for foul, SW, Stab;

and one or more of

B) Kill: 1 SPP if apothecary/regenerate not used or failed.
C) Bomb/Hail Mary/TD pass: 1 SPP for any pass caught by a player on the moving team in the end zone, or for any Long Bomb or Hail Mary caught by a player on the moving team. This is in addition to any SPP for a completion.
D) Recovery: 1 SPP for catching an incomplete pass thrown by a player on your team. So if the pass isn't accurate, the catcher gets the SPP instead of the thrower.

Change to Stab skill: While the use of this skill is illegal, it is more difficult to detect than a secret weapon. Whenever this skill is used, if the injury roll result is a double, the referee notices the skill and ejects the player.

Alternate: At the end of each drive, the opposing coach, if he remembers, may roll 1d6; on a 6, the Stab player is ejected. Optional: Make it 10+ on 2d6, and add any DC the player has for the match. That's a lot more, but I still don't know that it's tooooo much.

New rule on ejections (1 among many): For each ejection a team suffers (after the first? From fouling only? not sure), the team must pay a cumulative 10,000gc from Treasury, CoH or Winnings, but cannot go into debt in so doing. So if only one guy is ejected, it's no big deal, but if you're going whole-hog, you're going to pay a bundle. Or you could have a MNG rule, but that runs afoul (no pun intended) of journeymen/mercenaries rules. Or you could make it easier to get caught.

You could totally incorporate these a la carte, though I would definitely change Stab and ejections if I ran a league using option A. The skill which will have the most positive impact on the game's strategy level in my opinion is A. B and C just look fun. D seems the least intrusive.

[mattgslater]

Heh heh. How about a new rule instead of all that stuff? Or in addition. Whatever. It will give more SPP more reliably to good coaches, but isn't as spot-on as completions. It will slightly favor grindy teams, so it's a good substitute if you don't like dirty casualties but agree that the hitters need another little SPP avenue.

New rule: Tackle. When a player attempts to move out of an opponent's TZ, that player may attempt to tackle the opponent. Only one player may tackle any given opponent on any given move, and only that player may use Tackle, Diving Tackle, Shadowing or other skills. Once a tackler has been declared, it's too late to back out of a dodge. If the dodge fails, the tackler is considered to have knocked the player down, but not to have pushed the player (he can't follow or use PO, but he can use MB or Claw). A tackle casualty is a casualty, just like from a block.

Man, I can think of all kinds of ways that could go wrong, but it could be the easiest fix; no new SPP categories or anything.

[Jural]

With the 4 minute turn in place, I'm not too concerned about coaches trying to optimize spp gain any more with this new system.

I like the idea, but I guess I am wondering if some of the awards might be too complicated. A long bomb completion to a player in the end zone should yield 3SPP's by your method, but I could see someone being confused and counting it as 8.

Also, the bookkeeping would be a bit more intense, tracking long bomb completions, confirmed kills, KO's, etc...

But a bit of streamlining could help. All KO's and casualties could yield 2 or 3 SPP's (with your new system) and then players only would need to record one number again.

However, I'm at a loss how to track fouls and secret weapon injuries without creating a new category...

[mattgslater]

With the 4 minute turn in place, I'm not too concerned about coaches trying to optimize spp gain any more with this new system.

Yeah. With our mix of newbies and veterans, including some people who have been waiving or ignoring that rule for a decade or more, I don't really have any hope that this will be enforceable in my league. I'd be looking for some other mechanism that makes it unreliable or puts in real risk. The Tackle thing might solve that; bashier players will on average get more tackles, and skills like Tackle, Prehensile Tail and Diving Tackle will start earning SPP (or more SPP for Tackle, if not a lot more), but you won't really be able to bank on it or anything. As for the new categories, I think that it's not likely to to be the biggest issue.

I like the idea, but I guess I am wondering if some of the awards might be too complicated. A long bomb completion to a player in the end zone should yield 3SPP's by your method, but I could see someone being confused and counting it as 8.

That's likely to be the biggest issue with that option.

Also, the bookkeeping would be a bit more intense, tracking long bomb completions, confirmed kills, KO's, etc...

Yeah, I don't think more than one or two of these should be used. the questions are: 1) Are any of them good ideas? 2) Am I correct that there is a need for an additional SPP avenue for blockers? 3) For the ones that don't help blockers, are any cool/balanced enough to play around with, or should I just leave them on the cutting room floor?

But a bit of streamlining could help. All KO's and casualties could yield 2 or 3 SPP's (with your new system) and then players only would need to record one number again.

I'm against points for a KO unless they're comparatively trivial, which isn't possible with the current SPP structure (that's why I did the double-everything bit, so I could give out what amounts to half a point).

However, I'm at a loss how to track fouls and secret weapon injuries without creating a new category...

That's not hard, but it doesn't work on its own. You need some kind of new rule to keep SPP for fouls from being a problem while still using the Cas category. How about this:

1) A casualty is a casualty; foul, secret weapon, block, whatever, it's all 2 points. This works well with the Tackle Rule, in an earlier post, but the two don't need to be taken together.

2) If you're caught fouling, you aren't automatically ejected. The opposing coach rolls 1d6 and consults the Penalty Table.
1: Warning. The ref lets the fouler off with a warning. This ends the team turn.
2-5: Ejection. The ref ejects the player, ending the team turn.
6: Penalty! The ref ejects the player, ending the team turn. Additionally, the team receives a penalty for the next match! For each penalty, add +50,000gc to TV for the next match (and for spiralling expenses this match).

Alternate: If the result was a casualty, roll two d6, and take the highest roll. Or, if you prefer, roll 1d8 on a casualty, and make the penalty result 6+. Neither of those is hard to remember; the higher of 2d6 bit will yield more ejections and fewer penalties than the 1d8.

3) If you penetrate armor with a Stab check, and roll doubles on the injury roll (only), you are caught by the ref, and the opponent may roll on the Penalty Table, above.

In resurrection tourneys, none of this matters except the Stab bit, which does touch Dark Elves down. This can be compensated-for with the team, or it can be left alone. Dark Elf coaches are usually playing to show off their BB skills anyways, and Assassins aren't heavily used as-is, so I don't think that part is a big deal. One thing to watch in tournaments is that the 1/6 decrease in fouling penalties might be enough to make it attractive to foul more. I don't think it will be a big deal, though.

In leagues, it will lead to people fouling for SPP, but it won't be nearly as common as it was back in the wild days of 3rd edition, as the possibility of penalties will discourage people from running the risk except in extraordinarily tempting situations, so the standard for fouling won't drop TOO much (a little, yes, and to a limited extent that's part of the point of the exercise). It also adds in a "save" chance that a lot of people liked (replacing the old Argue the Call in some sense), but without really doing too much to play with the perceived odds.[/i]

[Thadrin]

Keep it much simpler.
1 SP for a KO...sounds fine to me. Speeds up the bashers a bit...would that make them too good in the long run? I have a feeling it would.

+1 SP for a TD pass (that is, a pass TO The endzone). Why not? Might encourage some different play styles.

+1 SP for a completed Longbomb: Only problem I see with this is that an AG4 player with accurate and Strong arm is making that pass a lot of the time...do we want the already boosted players to get uber?

At best I'd only institute the second OR third of these...and it would need some very extensive, long-term testing. I don't think the potential benefits are big enough to warrant it.