DreadBall - The Futuristic Sports Game

[Smeborg]

Just played my 3rd test game. This time the Orx & Gobbos won in 4 turns (the Humies started). The Humies missed a relatively easy 3-point strike (1 in 8 chance of failure, I think), and failed a very easy pick-up (1 in 16 chance of failure) next turn. The Gobbos, who were 3 points up by then, used their 2 coaching dice to score a 4-pointer for an easy win.

Not sure there is much science to this, perhaps I am wrong to look at single games, no doubt the better coach will win over many games.

Fairly bloody game this time, 6 players in the dugout (no deaths, but several 3-turn injuries). In a league, you will need good subs to come on from the bench. Often a Guard will make a Slam the turn he comes on.

Dominating the 3/4 point strike zones with your players (both ends) seems a decent idea. Apart from the defense on turn 1, you cannot reasonably defend all 3 strike zones, so you might as well stake out the most valuable one.

Once again, a small number of players did not move all game.

I can't see many games going to 14 turns! Very odd, that. Bear in mind I have tried to score at least 2 points on every rush, more commonly 3 points. My games are averaging less than 4 turns each... (i.e. about one quarter length).

Quite a lot of memory-based "book-keeping" (for example you have to remember who has taken actions, and how many). Also you have to track individual players when certain event cards are in play. Easy to forget (there is no equivalent to the BB quarter turn of figurines available, since facing is crucial).

All the best.

[javascrybe]

Very interesting remarks and reviews, thanks.

For book-keeping, a technique we've used is to place the action token on the corresponding "Rush number" on the sidelines (they're conveniently numbered 1 to 14, same as players...). That way, if there's already two tokens you know you can't assign more. For "targeted players", there's a token for that we leave with the intended player so we know he's the one affected by the current event.

[MattDakka]

While I am happy to be proved wrong on what follows, I believe the league rules have been written in great haste and have not been play-tested. It is pretty much "do as you like", and I suspect what rules have been given will be ignored by leagues in practice. In theory you are supposed to do the following between each "round" of league matches:
.

About the "league rules and their poor design" topic some Q&A on Quirkworthy (JT's blog):
"Jeff Brewer says:

Is there a limit to the level of Rank a player can obtain? Further to this, is there a limit to the number of Abilities a player can obtain (other than the obvious, “when he/she can gain no more Abilities/Stat Increases”, which works out to be 12 to 14, depending on which role the player takes)?

Jake Thornton says:
No limit at present. We weren’t getting players that far, though it is possible in theory. I suppose it depends on whether you let people start a new league with an already experienced team or not, and I generally don’t. I can’t think of a league I’ve seen personally where teams didn’t start at the same vanilla level to give folk an even chance. Leagues don’t tend to survive long enough for the max limit to be an issue, as they come to a natural end with a winner.

The really deep league play is very rare, and almost a game in itself.

Jeff Brewer says:
I only asked as most of the coaches here will be coming across from Blood Bowl, and they have teams that they have been running for 8+ seasons in various Divisions, so it is possible (and likely) that they will max out their players (especially as they can be revived, and there are no causes of reducing a player’s stats over a career).
I wonder what a league will look like, where every player has every possible Ability they can get after a number of seasons…
Perhaps it would be necessary to limit the number of skills a player can have, just so there is some diversity among the individual Guards, Jacks and Strikers at that level.

Jake Thornton says:
It’s a good question Jeff, and one that needs some more consideration on my part, I think. At present there is a natural limit of everything, though as you say this may end up with very similar players at the top end. I’ll work on this a bit more.

Cheers"

So it seems true that the league rules have some flaws.

[Smeborg]

Very interesting remarks and reviews, thanks.

For book-keeping, a technique we've used is to place the action token on the corresponding "Rush number" on the sidelines (they're conveniently numbered 1 to 14, same as players...). That way, if there's already two tokens you know you can't assign more. For "targeted players", there's a token for that we leave with the intended player so we know he's the one affected by the current event.

Thanks, javascrybe, good tip.

[Smeborg]

MattDakka - the remarks you quote suggest that a long-running league has never been play-tested by the designer. However, it also suggests that only short leagues are expected (!).

Reading through the player advancement rules, there seem to be a lot of oddities. Players will skill up really quickly, especially the Guards and Strikers (and the Gobbos, who are Jacks on a team without Strikers).

There is a restriction that no skill can be improved beyond 3+. In the long run, this works to the relative disadvantage of players who start with skills at 3+, as players on other teams can catch up with them, thus negating their initial advantage. This restriction also means that in the long run, the best Guards will be Veer-Myn (they will rapidly improve all their stats to 3+, except for Skill, which they do not use, and of course will retain their incomparable MA of 6). Human Jacks will in theory become the best Jacks (all their stats can rapidly be improved from 4+ to 3+), although perhaps in practice the Gobbos will be the best Jacks (because of the experience they gain from throwing strikes).

There are only 7 advances that a Forge Father Guard can take, whereas a Human Jack can take 14. Many player-types are restricted to about 8 advances. Some of these require money (you have to buy a roll on the Extra Coaching table). If the game is as bloody as I think it might be, such money may not readily be available to all teams.

Also, if the game is as bloody as I suspect it is, then it may be dominated after a while by the higher strength teams (Forge Fathers, Orx & Gobbos). More importantly, I would expect the Guards to retain their skills much more easily than other player-types (they are tougher to start with, and gain further toughness skills which are not readily available to other player-types). So the current ruleset suggests to me a slayer-dominated "perpetual" environment similar to some online BB leagues.

Pricing of player advancement seems odd: each rank (skill) being costed at 5 MC. This is about half the cost of a starting player, and strikes me as too much.

This is theory-ball only, I make all these remarks without play-testing, but it seems that I am in the same boat as the designer! On the plus side, the advancement rules might work fine in a short league, or a 1 or 2 day tourney.

All the best

[javascrybe]

MattDakka - the remarks you quote suggest that a long-running league has never been play-tested by the designer. However, it also suggests that only short leagues are expected (!).

As far as I can tell this is exactly it. The rulebook (hence the designer) strongly suggest short league play, and admits elsewhere "deep league play" was not the main focus. The rationale is "better leave players wanting more than overstaying your welcome", and that's kid of true, but misses the thrill of long-standing, established teams.

What I'm thinking is there will be no major rule changes/correction before Season 2 is out, bringing 4 new teams to play with and greatly expanding the realm of possiblity for league play. For starters, all skill progression and "handicap" tables will have to be re-written to take new teams into account, and that could be the vector for major change. Once all 12 teams will be out, and all rules added (coaches, cheerleaders, multi-hex figures), the real long term balancing will happen and things will fall into place.

Boy o boy will that be great

[Smeborg]

What I'm thinking is there will be no major rule changes/correction before Season 2 is out, bringing 4 new teams to play with and greatly expanding the realm of possiblity for league play. For starters, all skill progression and "handicap" tables will have to be re-written to take new teams into account, and that could be the vector for major change. Once all 12 teams will be out, and all rules added (coaches, cheerleaders, multi-hex figures), the real long term balancing will happen and things will fall into place.

Well, we need to see what happens first in practice. Maybe there are some "self-balancing" bits accidentally hidden in the first ruleset. And who knows which rules will create the most imbalance? Only time will tell.

All the best.

[Smeborg]

Demo'd the game to a couple of lads yesterday, they didn't want to play, they just watched while I explained what I was doing.

This time it was Humies vs. Veer-Myn (I broke out my BB figs this time, as I'm getting fed up with my grey plastic headless and limbless figurines!).

The Humies won both games easily, in 4.5 turns (receiving) and 5 turns (Veer-Myn receiving). The Veer-Myn are very weak indeed at moving the ball, I lost count of how many times they failed a pick up (the best they can get is a 20% chance of failure...) or a pass (very hazardous, but they have to do it sometimes). The Humies failed some stuff too (e.g. Throwing Strikes), otherwise the games would have been even shorter. Once again the Humies picked up "The Ball Shatters" to prevent a 3-point Strike. This unique card is "broken" IMO and should probably be removed. It is worth 3 or 4 points in itself! The only riposte I can think of is to have some cards in hand allowing you to move the ball and score "again" after the ball is re-launched. But you are unlikely to have this at the start.

Once you are 3 or 4 points ahead at the start of your Rush, you can throw everything (cards, coaching dice, etc.) at the attempt to win the game immediately. Bear in mind that your opponent may already have thrown everything he has at trying to prevent this situation, so may have nothing left to stop you. So I detect a tendency for games to end suddenly, it only takes 2 turns from a 0-0 situation.

Buying a card per rush may be quite a good idea, especially since this will often gain you a "free" action (it costs you an action to buy a card). It's hard to resist the extra Slam, though (says the BB coach...).

Teams with weak ball-handlers are at a disadvantage IMO, because this costs them implied actions all the time. A team without Strikers (e.g. Orx & Gobbos) has to move the ball in the hands of a Jack, losing 1 die compared to a Striker for every time they handle the ball, and only able to move 1 hex before passing. Both these carry the implied cost of buying more actions to move the ball safely (Run instead of Sprint, Throw without moving). Similarly, Veer-Myn (as well as losing the game by dropping the ball) dare not Sprint and pick up the ball (because they need all 4 dice at 5+, whereas Humie and FF Strikers can Sprint and pick up the ball with 3 dice at 4+, better odds). Likewise, Veer-Myn will try and Throw the ball without moving (same effect, implied cost of one action). Thus in practice, Humies get more actions to do stuff like Slamming.

Any team with a 5+ characteristic (all except Humies) will have something at 3+ to compensate, but the 5+ characteristic creates a disadvantage which can be exploited. The 5+ characteristic either loses the game by itself (Veer-Myn ball-handling), or creates a weakness (you try to Slam a Forge Father Guard from behind, since they can only Dodge at 5+).

Humies and Forge Fathers look the better starting teams to me, with their all-round ability from having all 3 positions on the team, and with Strikers who take Skill tests at 4+. In practice this means you can do more for fewer actions (compared to other teams). Jacks look quiet, but they can get a supreme ability (Run Interference) which can win a game by itself. They also have a rapid all-round development path. Gobbos will be poor at running interference (Strength tests at 5+), Forge Father Jacks are the best at it (3+).

Gobbos and Veer-Myn are quite resilient, because they can Dodge at 3+ when Slammed.

I haven't tried any Fouls yet, perhaps I should. Skilled fouling would look to be quite technical, no doubt there will be some standard manoeuvres here.

Thats all for now, all the best.

[Smeborg]

Played my first "real" game, well, 4 turns of one, that is to say, with a "real" opponent.

My "action table" (a list of actions and extras that you can take, with modifiers and consequences for doubled success) greatly helped teach the game.

I took the Veer-Myn against Humies, and let the Humies start (I don't know if this is an advantage, but I suspect it is).

After 4 turns the game stands at 4 points to the Veer-Myn!!! This is quite a big advantage. The Humies had 3 set-backs, once they failed a pick-up (1 in 16 chance), once they took 3 actions to get the ball off a Veer-Myn Striker (leaving insufficient actions to score), once they could only score a 1-pointer. Meanwhile the Veer-Myn succeeded in everything they did, failing only once to Throw a Strike when stopped by a Jack playing the Run Interference card. All the Veer-Myn Strikes were 3-pointers, except one, which was a 2-pointer. So 3+1 to the Humies, and 3+3+2 to the Veer-Myn for the 4-point lead.

So you could say I simply got lucky. But also my opinion of the Veer-Myn has gone up sharply, as I am learning to take advantage of their supreme mobility (Veer-Myn Strikers are the most mobile players in the game, and they start with 4 of them on the pitch). I am learning how to tie up other players with Strikers and also how to use them in Slam wars (their 4 x 3+ Dodge dice are very handy indeed in defense, they are very good at exerting Threat Hexes). By implication, Gobbos are decent too (but with 1 die less for everything they do).

My opponent thinks mini-maxed teams are better than the 4+ for everything Humies. He may be right. I am open-minded.

By the end of 4 turns, we have 9 out of 12 player in the 3/4 point Strike Zones. Not that unusual, I suspect. Very little damage being done, this is the cuddly match-up (both teams have only 2 x 4+ Guards).

It seems to me that there are 2 or 3 different elements to the game, as follows:

- Firstly, you try to execute each Rush (turn) competently. There is considerable pressure to score each turn if you can, and to score highly. This inevitably leads to a messy board within a couple of turns (or less), with players of both teams seemingly out of position.

- Secondly, there is a considerable luck element, more so, I suggest, than in BB. A 2-turn run of "bad luck" is enough to lose the game. This does not matter, in so far as you will play more games than BB (because they are shorter), thus coaching skill will come through over time. But even if you are a good coach, do not expect to win all your games.

- Finally there is a subtle but very important positioning element. What you do with spare actions (those not involving the ball) has a reasonably large impact on future turns, especially bearing in mind that players can stay still for many turns at a time. This positioning element is hard to master, differs for each race, and I suspect will take time to learn, the best way being to see what happens in long games (I have not played any yet). One way of looking at it is how do you assert control over the inevitable mess (see under "Firstly")?

All the best.

[Smeborg]

OK, I have finally finished my first "real" game of DB. My Veer-Myn beat the Humies in 7 turns (!).

Essentially, the play went as follows:

The Humies failed 4 pick-ups (each was at 1/16 chance of failure, so rather improbable).

The Veer-Myn failed no ball handling rolls at all (pick-ups were at 16/81 chance of failure or worse, the many throws and catches were at worse odds than this), only failing to score once when the Humies played a Running Interference card, and in doing so blocked the route to the Strike hex. All even more improbable than the luck of the Humies...

The above was enough to give the Veer-Myn the win, they only required a 1-pointer on the last turn.

My opponent, a 3rd year engineering student and good gamer (he typically beats me at other games) thought the game was just a dice rolling contest which I won through daft luck - I can't disagree in this instance!

I quite like the game, and think it will appeal to a certain constituency, particularly those gamers who like rolling (lots of) dice. At this stage, I do not see it as a direct competitor to BB - I think the designer shares my views.

At least my first "real" game was longer than my games against my sad self. Still only half a game, though...

All the best.

[Smeborg]

Another couple of games, this time Forge Fathers vs. Orx & Gobbos.

The first game was won by the Orx in 13 turns, after the FFs started. Only 2 Strikes were scored in the game, all by the Gobbos (3 x 3-pointers). 3 dead FF players... Many others on both teams spent time in the dugout. The FF are quire vulnerable, you just need to Slam them from behind, exploiting their Dodge of 5+. If it is a FF Guard, you make sure you have an assist or two, so that he goes into the dugout, negating his Steady skill. Many Strikes missed by both teams, quite a dour and static game.

The second game was also won by the Orx, this time in 10.5 turns. 1 dead player on each team, quite a lot of players sent to the dugout again.

The FF cannot do much if you take their Strikers out of the game. Jacks with and MA of 4 and Speed checks at 5+ (standing up, evading, dashing) don't really cut the mustard.

The games confirm my suspicion that the Forge Fathers are a bit vulnerable (Dodge at 5+), and that conversely, the Veer-Myn are quite resilient (Dodge at 3+). Maybe the FF have to make an early effort to put opponents in the dugout before they get smashed themselves. But their Slamming game is weakened by the inability to get easy assists from the Strikers and Jacks (slow and far from mobile).

All the best.

[spubbbba]

Those short games sound a little concerning.

Were they down to newbie errors or was it just luck on the winning coach’s part? I wouldn’t really fancy playing a game that can be over in a couple of turns before I’ve even had a chance to do much.

It would make tournaments and leagues a bit hard to run unless you brought in a baseball style best of 7 (maybe best of 5 or 3).

[Smeborg]

A couple more games, this time Veer-Myn vs. Orx & Gobbos. I still have 2 combos to try out (FF vs Humies and FF vs. Veer-Myn). I don't pretend that I have mastered any strategy aspects of the game.

First game (myself vs. myself) saw the Veer-Myn win in 6.5 turns. The Orx drew the mega-card "The Ball Shatters", otherwise the game would likely have been shorter. Every single Strike attempt by the Gobbo Jacks failed.

In the second game (this time my son was playing the Veer-Myn), the Veer-Myn also won in 6.5 turns. A Veer-Myn Guard died, but too late in the game to change anything. With several failures by the Gobbo Jacks, the VM had established a 3-point lead. My son took advantage to score a 4-pointer to win the game in style.

The Veer-Myn appear to have the advantage in this match-up, with their obvious speed advantage, combined with better ball-handlers (while the VM Strikers are poor, given their Skill of 5+, they are still noticeably better at moving the ball and scoring Strikes than the Gobbo Jacks).

My son found the pace of the game slow, with too much dice rolling, and was not favourably impressed.

[Smeborg]

Those short games sound a little concerning.

Were they down to newbie errors or was it just luck on the winning coach’s part? I wouldn’t really fancy playing a game that can be over in a couple of turns before I’ve even had a chance to do much.

It would make tournaments and leagues a bit hard to run unless you brought in a baseball style best of 7 (maybe best of 5 or 3).

I am probably averaging around 5 or 6 turns per game. None of my games have gone to 14 turns (only 2 out of 10 have gone past 7 turns). Games against myself are producing the same average length of game as my 2 games against "real" opponents. Bear in mind that there are plenty of turnovers (prematurely ended Rushes) in these short games too.

The coaches partly determine the length of the game by the strategies that they adopt. If they both adopt a defensive strategy, the game will be longer, however, I suspect it would require both coaches to do this, not one only. I am an opportunist, and therefore offensive coach by nature in a game such as this. However, even if you opt to defend, if you are getting behind on the scoreline, there is great pressure to score on each rush, so a defensive strategy does not recommend itself at that point. Also, if you emphasise defense, your forward players (ball-handlers, typically) will get beaten up. You have only enough players to dominate one Strike Zone, IMO (out of 6). There are only 2 Strike Zones that matter, those with the 3 and 4 point Strikes.

Once you are up by 3 or 4 points (not uncommon), you can afford to go all out for a 4 or 3-point score to win the game by a landslide. This means you can neglect player safety, Slamming, reserves, standing up and all other aspects of the game, and can put all 5 actions (plus any cards and coaching dice that you have left) into moving the ball and scoring that winning Strike. There is little the opponent can do about this.

The nature of "luck", or probability distribution in DB is more extreme and perhaps less transparent than in BB (while still being influenced just as much by coaching skill). Turnover risk (when ball-handling) is high, but on the plus side you can get double successes (with resultant free actions) and "exploding" dice (each 6 entitles you to roll again). An extreme example of the latter was when an Orx Guard Slammed a VM Guard with 4 dice (at 3+), getting 2 successes. The VM Guard Slammed back, with 2 dice (at 4+), but these exploded to give him 7 successes, killing the Orx, who only saved 1 out of 5 net injury dice. Wild runs of good or bad dice appear to be the norm, often resulting in a quick win.

Compared to BB, holding the ball appears very difficult (I have caged only once, and it worked ultimately to the detriment of the FF, since they were down on points when they caged). This encourages scoring, rather than stalling, resulting in shorter games. Most of the matches I have played have also appeared unbalanced in favour of one of the races (but I remain open-minded on this).

I don't pretend to have mastered game strategy. Maybe I am neglecting some obvious defensive positioning or tactics, resulting in shorter games. Certainly I have not worked out a way to hold the ball while destroying the opposition, which some of the fluff hints at as being a vaiid tactic. But I do worry that in a league or tournament, newbies will suffer quick landslide defeats at the hands of experienced coaches. There is an upside to this, which is that the newbie's roster will suffer limited damage (fewer deaths) than in a full-length game. Another strange aspect is that the experienced coach would appear to be incentivised to prolong the game in order to gain more experience points (a bit like "counting coup".). Which might not be a great experience for the newb. But I guess that is no different to a slayer team in BB executing a 15-turn grind. I may have missed something, but it seems to me that the "Slayer" teams (FF, Orx) have the harder time in DB, compared to the faster or more skilled ones (Humies, VM).

As you said, I suspect you would have to design a format that copes with games being (on average) short. I quite like the game, but I do wonder to what extent it is a "finished" design. Time will tell, I've only had the game 5 days...

Hope that helps.

[Smeborg]

Thought up my first team name. The Tampa Slambax. Angry feminists, naturally.