Hypothetical LRB7

Anything not related to Blood Bowl video games.
Force
Posts: 77
Joined: 09 June 2009, 11:46

Hypothetical LRB7

Postby Force » 23 June 2013, 13:10

So, what would you change or add if you were in charge of creating a new revision "7" of the Blood Bowl rulebook?

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby dode74 » 23 June 2013, 13:36

I'd alter costs for players when they develop. Currently skill access isn't considered, which I think makes for imbalances at high TV due to the fact that some players get easy skill access, and therefore have a greater selection of "TV-efficient" skills to choose from. I'm thinking in particular of the elven teams, where the entire team has GA access, and also of Chaos with GSM. I don't think that players should pay an up-front premium for skill access, though: after all, there is no on-pitch difference between a rookie Human lineman and a rookie Pact marauder - they are both 6338 and unskilled, so both should have the same TV when they are both at that point. There is a difference between the 6338G and 6338GSPM player, of course, but the difference is one of developmental possibility rather than actual effectiveness as a rookie. That's why I don't see an up-front premium as the solution. If we're going down this route then I'd prefer such players to pay a premium when the options are taken rather than beforehand - it's a better representation of the actual on-pitch capability, which is what we seem to want TV to be (and it isn't now). To that end I've been discussing with someone on FUMMBL the concept of paying a premium each time you "open" a different skill category (e.g. an elf might pick block first for 20k but would then have to pay 20k extra, for example, the first time they picked anything from the A tree, such as Dodge).

Using the 20k unlock cost as an example, a 6338G player would be able to take skills at the normal 20TV cost, or doubles at 30TV etc. A 6338GA player would be able to take his first skill (G or A) at the normal 20TV cost, and any further skills from that category at the same cost. On doubles he would be able to select any skill he could normally select on a double at 30TV if the category is not yet "unlocked", or 20TV if it has been. Should he roll a single and want to take a skill from an "locked" category to which he has access, though, a premium would be applied (e.g. an extra 20TV).

Example progressions for 6338GA:
-------
Skill 1 rolls singles: Block 20TV
Skill 2 rolls doubles: G for 20TV or ASP for 30TV (because A skills are not yet unlocked)
Skill 3 rolls doubles: GA for 20TV (assuming he unlocked A on skill 2), SP for 30TV, or A for 30TV if it was not unlocked at skill 2
-------
Skill 1 rolls singles: Block 20TV
Skill 2 rolls singles: G for 20TV or A for 40TV (20TV for the skill, 20TV to unlock it)
Skill 3 rolls doubles: GA for 20TV, SP for 30TV

This makes progression for cross-category skills more expensive. It would add 40TV to a Block/CPOMB/Tackle player and 20TV to a blodger, for example, unless doubles rolls were used to unlock skills at a lower cost. It would also add plenty overall to the Elven teams with blodge spam, and would increase the cost to Chaos teams where they take a few guarders with block to support the CPOMB players. What you would get, though, is individual players of the same type costing different amounts with the same skills depending on whether they unlocked the skill with doubles or not. That's no major issue so long as it is annotated somewhere - no problem online, and no more of an issue than noting SPP accurately is for TT.
The main advantages are that it does alter the cost for synergistic cross-category skills, and it doesn't involve any changes to the low-TV dynamic - one 6338 Block player costs the same as another (in-team differences excepted), and it might just make teambuilding a little more interesting (do I take dodge now for 40TV or do I take tackle and hope for a double and to save 10TV?).
Image

User avatar
Managarn
Posts: 294
Joined: 02 October 2009, 05:26

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby Managarn » 23 June 2013, 16:12

id use a simplier method dode, cut strenght access from beastman, and cut agility access from all elven lineman.

Beastman early potential wont be affected, only the end purpose to avoid having a whole team of mbclawpilingon with normal access.

I consider all elf team to be in top tier of all teams and this would be a reasonable `nerf` so to speak. This would certainly affect their midtv performance w/o easy access to dodge on their lineman.

Id also change the human catcher to 7337 catch dodge NA(SP) 80k, and change the amazon catcher to 8237 catch dodge NA(SP) 70k to give them a speed boost. Dwarf blocker lose tackle but cost 10k less and dwarf blitzer get tackle at no price change. I dont know much about chaos dwarf though to know if its a good idea to touch their blockers.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby dode74 » 23 June 2013, 17:05

I think your option takes away a lot of fluff, and fluff, while secondary to gameplay, should be preserved where possible.
Image

User avatar
MattDakka
Posts: 1328
Joined: 20 July 2009, 03:03

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby MattDakka » 23 June 2013, 17:11

I think your option takes away a lot of fluff, and fluff, while secondary to gameplay, should be preserved where possible.
Ok, then let's make mutations random as they should be according to the fluff.
Image

Force
Posts: 77
Joined: 09 June 2009, 11:46

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby Force » 23 June 2013, 17:11

I would add a paragraph that introduces and explains the player characteristics, "Movement" (MO), "Strength" (ST), "Agility" (AG), and "Armor" (AR). I would also introduced a new characteristic that is called "Niggling Injuries" (NI). All Players start with "NI 0" and it is obviously raised by 1 point each time a player suffers a Niggling Injury.

I would then rename the "Injury Roll" to "Knock Down Roll" as well as the "Injury Table" to "Knock Down Table" and then rename the "Casualty Table" to "Injury Table".

"Injuries" on page 25 would be replaced by the term "Casualties". I would introduce a new D6 "Casualty Roll" that decides if the Player is injured or not, and change the "Injury Roll" (former "Casualty Roll") to a D10 roll.

While the above are all just changes for clarity and streamlining the rules, my first real rules change would be:
Each injury that leads to a characteristics decrease also adds a Niggling Injury.
That means for example -1ST and +1NI (Niggling Injury)

I am not quite sure how my rules for characteristics increases and decreases would look like using that system. Right now i wonder if it would make sense to cap Niggling Injuries at 2. (since no characteristic may be increased or decreased by more than 2 over its starting value).

My first totally new rule would be:
A player that has suffered a total of 6 injuries (only those that actually apply count!) MUST be retired and may become an assistant coach.
(This is to protect the fans from having a team field old and weakly players that crush and crumble on the first block!)

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby dode74 » 23 June 2013, 17:50

I think your option takes away a lot of fluff, and fluff, while secondary to gameplay, should be preserved where possible.
Ok, then let's make mutations random as they should be according to the fluff.
Fluff secondary to gameplay, remember - random mutations would make them effectively useless as it's a wasted skill selection.

Elves not being agile is a massive hit to the fluff, lineleves or not.
Image

User avatar
MattDakka
Posts: 1328
Joined: 20 July 2009, 03:03

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby MattDakka » 23 June 2013, 22:13

I think your option takes away a lot of fluff, and fluff, while secondary to gameplay, should be preserved where possible.
Ok, then let's make mutations random as they should be according to the fluff.
Fluff secondary to gameplay, remember - random mutations would make them effectively useless as it's a wasted skill selection.

Elves not being agile is a massive hit to the fluff, lineleves or not.
Risk/benefit. The risk of wasting a skill roll in order to gain the potential benefit of an useful mutation.
I agree with you about the elves.
Image

User avatar
Darkson
Posts: 2713
Joined: 17 September 2008, 20:43
Location: Somewhere on the same planet as you.
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical LRB7

Postby Darkson » 24 June 2013, 05:34

And at long last Tobybowl makes an appearance - I'm impressed it's taken this long. ;) :lol:

My list is on TFF - can't be arsed to copy it across.
Galak 3:16 says "There is a point in time that a player really should read the rulebook."
Home of the ARBBL
TalkFantasyFootball admin - PM me if you need help.
Nope, I was talking about a 0TTD on a Blitz! using TTM.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gencuronge, hahGoaph, Reabbleam and 2 guests

cron