Galak's LRB7 test rules coming to FUMMBL

[harroguk]

Is your arguement a coach wants to take a weak team because tey like them, but they want the team to be as good as, say, the Undead? Why doesn't your commissioner simply give that team a boost?

What if I have two players in my league who want to play undead, one the best player and one the worst player?

[garion]

Is your arguement a coach wants to take a weak team because tey like them, but they want the team to be as good as, say, the Undead? Why doesn't your commissioner simply give that team a boost?

What if I have two players in my league who want to play undead, one the best player and one the worst player?

[plasmoid]

Hi Harroguk,
I get what you're saying, but no matter how you spin this, you're gonna end up in house rule territory.

But for the record I agree that it is disappointing for a weak coach to not be able to play teams as fun as ogres or gobbos - beacuse they'll get spanked.
I also think that it is nonsense that their weakness is what makes them fun to play. Their awesome alternative playing styles is what makes them fun to play. And to play against - not the just the SPP fest from slaughtering them.
I also agree that it is kind of bollocks that a supirior coach is confined to quite few teams, and most of them quite similar.

So, like you, I think teams ought to be more equal. And then it is quite easy to set up a system that handicaps the coaches, based on their personal ability.

But that's not gonna change.
http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm

Cheers
martin

[koadah]

Is your arguement a coach wants to take a weak team because tey like them, but they want the team to be as good as, say, the Undead? Why doesn't your commissioner simply give that team a boost?

What if I have two players in my league who want to play undead, one the best player and one the worst player?

In your league you can do whatever you like.

Making flings too good IMO reduces their fun value and takes away from the fun and variety.

If your league wants tougher flings you can do that.
My kids gave em all claw, RSC & DP. They were much better after that.

[harroguk]

I appreciate that but it is much easier for a coach to not purchase a re-roll than it is for me to invent a rule that buffs up one undead player and not the other.

Cheers for the reply Plasmoid, glad to hear someone at least understands the point I am trying to make.

[garion]

I appreciate that but it is much easier for a coach to not purchase a re-roll than it is for me to invent a rule that buffs up one undead player and not the other.

Cheers for the reply Plasmoid, glad to hear someone at least understands the point I am trying to make.

Believe me, we all know the point you are trying to make, but making someone drop re-rolls doesn't work. If you don't puchace aRR then you get that much money back in inducements anyway, so it will make little difference really. Buffing up a player or nerfing a player is the way to go, as plasmoid has suggested.

I'm also sure that there are many people that agree some of the teams could do with a bit of a nerf or buff, even in my rule set in that other thread I started addresses some of the problems that this latest rule set has created. I have addressed this by bringing back secret weapon rolls for goblins and flings get a chef on their roster. I have also improved fouling for stunties too. Check it out.

However the problems I think you are facing are not to do with the tier system which has always been here and for me has worked better before (LRB4 IMO) the problems for those races is some of the other rules that have gone. Like secret weapon rolls nerfs to fouling, the old chef rolls were removed. All bad decisions I think. Also making Pilling On so easy to obtain and wide spread, just makes mince meat out of stunties now. So for me the tier system is fine and right, the problem is with so many of the other poor rules in this rule set.

here is the link to my house rules - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34840&p=614467#p614467

[harroguk]

Just because there has "always been a tier" system it doesn't not mean that it is the best way. In fact, again, it is one of the worst reasons for keeping something.

If not buying a re-roll is simply negated by the inducement system then why do people buy re-rolls in the first place

[garion]

I'm not being funny, but I really think you need more experience playing this game before you come to these conclusions. If you do not get inducements, team building and TV management yet there are many many factors you may be missing here.

[harroguk]

I will now be leaving discussion, not because as you state "I need to learn the game and gain some understanding", I have been playing for quite a while now and understand all the concepts that you speak of.

I will be leaving because you are simply unable to debate. As I currently see it, your whole argument consists of...

• So what
• It's always been like that.
• Some coaches want a challenge

Only one of those is valid and it could easily be addressed else where (by giving the better coach a TV hndicap) whilst giving "lesser" players the chance to enjoy the alternative teams.

[garion]

I will now be leaving discussion, not because as you state "I need to learn the game and gain some understanding", I have been playing for quite a while now and understand all the concepts that you speak of.

I will be leaving because you are simply unable to debate. As I currently see it, your whole argument consists of...

• So what
• It's always been like that.
• Some coaches want a challenge

Only one of those is valid and it could easily be addressed else where (by giving the better coach a TV hndicap) whilst giving "lesser" players the chance to enjoy the alternative teams.

That is not the case, my argument and the other people that agreed never said 'so what' as a case for keeping the tiers.

Sorry if I thought you were inexperienced, I just genuinely didn't think you understood the inducement system.

It's always been like that - yes I made that point but not that that should be a reason for it to stay. I said it has been like that and it was better in previous editions in my opinion. I felt the tiers was closer together in LRB4 which I prefer as a rule set. I was merely pointing out that the solution to your problem is best dealt with by giving some teams nerfs and others buffs as Plasmoid and myself have done with our house rules. That is the most effective way of narrowing the tiers rather than making a player play with less positionals or less re-rolls which as said will ultimately lead to them taking more inducements. Another point I made was that for goblins and halflings they had other rules in lrb4 which made them better eg. secret weapon rolls and master chef on the roster, these are things I would like to be back in the game because they made those teams better than they are now in some ways.

i also said one of the problems with this edition of the rules set is that all skills are no open to everyone, which makes creating super effective players very easy, this wasn't possible in lrb4 either, you had to rely on double rolls for making players as good as they are on single rolls in this edition, this would also be a good house rule for you to implement in order to stop top tier teams become more and more powerful very quickly.

But yes on the whole I do think the tiers are important, to give coaches a challenge and to learn new ways to play the game, new tactics etc...

The other factor to take into consideration is that some teams are very effective against some races while not being effective against others. For instance Amazons are a great team, top tier for a starter race but they also suffer big time when playing against dwarves so if you want to give someone a challenge give them a great team like amazons but make them face Dwarves or Chaos Dwarves. There are other examples of this. So balancing it out perfectly would be very very difficult anyway.

Edit: oh and the other thing that was important for flings and goblins etc... in lrb4 was that there were no journeymen and fouling was more powerful, so because stunties are so cheap you never ran out of players but you would often find they were playing against teams that had less than 11 players in the smaller leagues. So there is other stuff to consider their too.

[cbbakke]

If your league wants tougher flings you can do that.
My kids gave em all claw, RSC & DP. They were much better after that.

So your opinion that halfings have to suck to be good should be the standard of the game? come on. Any coach can make any team suck for the fun factor. In the SVS a coach only uses Zombies. When you want your fun of having really sucky halflings, you can buy only 1 treeman, or do whatever else you come up with to really "suck it up". You keep talking about variety but resist giving the variety option of halfings having a chance in a league setting. Huge double standard your rocking right now

[dode74]

Look at WWE Smackdown on xbox people pick the guy with the moves they like as all are equally likely to win.

Your argument is flawed.

Different kind of game. Street Fighter is a tiered game - as described by the designer. This game is also a tiered game as defined by JJ. If you don't like it then house rule it - plasmoid's NTBB is a good place to start.

[cbbakke]

Once again just because that was the plan does not mean it is right. Also you can have tiers that don't have such a huge difference in outcome. Two even coaches with one playing dwarves and other playing halfing. Do the halfings win 1 out of 10? Is a draw like a win for them? Having the outcome almost pre determined is not fun imo

[dsavillian]

Having the outcome almost pre determined is not fun imo

really? I think that's tons of fun. Having the outcome "predetermined" and then kicking sand in the face of destiny, is one of the greatest feelings in Blood Bowl (IMO)

[cbbakke]

and if that is your version of fun that is all good, but why does it have to be the only version of fun for halfings? You can handicap your own halfing team if you want to fight destiny but does that mean every halfing team should have to face the same fate?