Alternative scoring for Match(?)

[mage75]

I think this would need some play testing, but I think that I would certainly change the way I play if I didn't have to score. I have won games because either my opponent has left themselves 1 square short for a TD, or I have been able to push them out of scoring range - so the battle ultimately is about ball progression. Once you remove the need to move the ball forward, I cannot see how the game would not change.

At the moment a bashy team still needs to devote about half the team to protecting the ball - assuming 1 ball carrier and 4 corners of a tight cage. If you take away the need to rush the ball, there is no need to cage up and prgress the ball, and the opposition has no need to get within tackle zone range to try and turn you over. They know that on their kick off they will be able to make 8 passes and a TD for a total of 11 SPP. Sure beats your bashy 4 (for 2 cas on scrimmage) and 3 for the TD.

So while I "think" that this would hurt the game at tournaments (who doesn't love a T16 death while GFI for a TD!?), it would need some play testing. I think this idea could be like the "reducing price for injuries" discussion - sounds good to start with, but ultimately hurts the game.

If you do try it though, please let us know how it goes!! Good luck !!

[Digger Goreman]

Hmm, I don't know what kind of feedback you are looking for Digger, but I don't think any of my arguments were fluffy, at least in the sense that they pertain to the game's background or similarity to other sports.

Instead, I would claim that your system would fundamentally change the nature of Blood Bowl, turning it into a game which is, in my opinion, very different from the game as it is now. It isn't fluffy, I just want to play the same game I'm playing now!

From a game design point of view, the high risk portion of the game will become underutilized if the low risk portion of the game allows for a higher return. I think this is fairly clear.

Now, I do think there is a way around it- TD's need to be worth more than 1.5 casualties (or a casualty and a pass.) If you value TD's high enough, but not too high, you can many objections to your plan, I think.

Fair enough....

[Axtklinge]

I'm on the "No" side too...

The game was developed around the objective to score.

For that you could either have very agile teams (that toy with the ball, a run as much as they like) in one extreme, hard hitting teams (that have trouble just picking up the ball, but are resilient and can put up a fight) in the other end, and a lot of teams with all flavours in between.

The stats and skills, and to whom they are available to, were developed and are based on this principle, "to balance" the hability of the teams either to score, or to deny the score to the adversary team.

Thats why bashing teams have more trouble skilling up than agility teams (statisticaly Casualtys are harder to do than passing, for example).

Of course agility teams already take advantage on this, but no matter how skilled they are if they face a bashy team, they still have to overcome their strength and skills to score, and then, IF they score more thant the other team, win the game.
Just sitting in their field passing the ball to each other wouldnt win them nothing...
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers
A.