FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Jan 31, 2015 - 22:12

Carlo_Pellegatti wrote:

The most useless and boring topic of CRP era!

QFT!

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

Fabulander

Joined: Oct 11, 2014

Posted: Feb 01, 2015 - 13:20

Yeah, that. Maybe constantly lying on the ground during a blood bowl match shouldn't be conductive to a long life? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding this game...

Pentalarc

Joined: Mar 17, 2012

Posted: Feb 11, 2015 - 04:23

I know this has probably been stated before, but I've been thinking about it. The problem is that piling on is too easy.

If a player piles on, then, if they are fouled on the next turn, there should be no chance of the fouling player being banned.

kilinrax

Joined: Jan 12, 2015

Posted: Feb 13, 2015 - 17:58

Fabulander wrote:

Piling On (Strength)
If the player who is Piling On is stronger than the prone player, add +1 to the armour roll; if the player is at least twice as strong as the prone player, add a further +1 to the armour roll. Piling On always adds a basic +1 to both armour and injury rolls, and in addition, if the prone player was already Stunned then he is completely defenceless, so the Piling On player may add a further +1 to the armour and injury roll.

A simpler rule might be: add one to the armour roll for each block dice that was thrown in the PO player's favour. Two dice against blocks add nothing, and three dice against blocks (why would you PO with a snotling?) subtract one.

I'm not sure that the +1/+1 vs stunned opponents doesn't make the new PO overpowered, but that will only be (dis?)proven with playtesting.

In general it's a great idea though, I like it even more than the NTBB rules.

wolfgangserge

Joined: Jan 24, 2015

Posted: Feb 13, 2015 - 21:01

i have a red A next to my team. what does this mean?

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Feb 13, 2015 - 21:21

It means you must submit a support ticket. Someone has reported your team; an admin will help you.

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=support

BillBrasky

Joined: Feb 15, 2005

Posted: Feb 13, 2015 - 21:36

The Red "A" of shame!!! (Not a clawpomb issue though...)

awambawamb

Joined: Feb 17, 2008

Posted: Feb 13, 2015 - 22:53

Pentalarc wrote:

I know this has probably been stated before, but I've been thinking about it. The problem is that piling on is too easy.

If a player piles on, then, if they are fouled on the next turn, there should be no chance of the fouling player being banned.

I would change it into a "if there is a player of the other team in the square adjacent the piliong on player, the piling on player gets fouled with no chance of getting banned after the pilion on rolls have been done."

_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"

Fabulander

Joined: Oct 11, 2014

Posted: Feb 16, 2015 - 16:33

kilinrax wrote:

A simpler rule might be: add one to the armour roll for each block dice that was thrown in the PO player's favour. Two dice against blocks add nothing, and three dice against blocks (why would you PO with a snotling?) subtract one.

I'm not sure that the +1/+1 vs stunned opponents doesn't make the new PO overpowered, but that will only be (dis?)proven with playtesting.

In general it's a great idea though, I like it even more than the NTBB rules.

Thanks! The idea was to separate base strength from effective blocking strength (with assists) to make PO less appealing on S3 player types (beastmen, wights, elfs, dwarfs) and better on true bruisers. In my mind, PO is not a part of the block at all, so assists shouldn't matter when you're bouncing on a prone player. In turn, this would also make PO an interesting first skill on S4 or 5 guys to work as a deterrent against assisted super blitzers. A blitzer with 3 assists will probably still take down the PO ogre, but if he skulls out he is in real trouble! Using basic strength also makes +2 situations quite rare, hence the added bonuses.

The bonus against stunned opponents is to make it tempting to pile on an already stunned opponent, despite the risk of hurting yourself. This is also because the separation of Piling On from blocking means you can't just re-roll injury rolls after breaking armour anymore, effectively making a now risky option slightly less good. At least that was the idea, but you're right, testing of some sort is needed.

kilinrax

Joined: Jan 12, 2015

Posted: Feb 17, 2015 - 12:49

Fabulander wrote:

Thanks! The idea was to separate base strength from effective blocking strength (with assists) to make PO less appealing on S3 player types (beastmen, wights, elfs, dwarfs) and better on true bruisers. In my mind, PO is not a part of the block at all, so assists shouldn't matter when you're bouncing on a prone player. In turn, this would also make PO an interesting first skill on S4 or 5 guys to work as a deterrent against assisted super blitzers. A blitzer with 3 assists will probably still take down the PO ogre, but if he skulls out he is in real trouble! Using basic strength also makes +2 situations quite rare, hence the added bonuses.

I can definitely understand this reasoning, though it might nerf dwarfs a bit hard. I can't imagine wanting to pick them over orcs under these rules.

Fabulander wrote:

The bonus against stunned opponents is to make it tempting to pile on an already stunned opponent, despite the risk of hurting yourself. This is also because the separation of Piling On from blocking means you can't just re-roll injury rolls after breaking armour anymore, effectively making a now risky option slightly less good. At least that was the idea, but you're right, testing of some sort is needed

Ah, I think I misunderstood the exact sequence. You obviously can PO after a stunned result on the injury roll, but you need to break armour at an extra +1. Fair enough early in the match, though in the last two turns I'd feel the same way about it that I would of a last-turn gangfouling on my wardancer.

Fabulander

Joined: Oct 11, 2014

Posted: Feb 17, 2015 - 21:15

Actually, the idea that you can die from piling on should keep pointless turn-16 spite-kills to a minimum, at least for competitive players. Should... I think... And anyway, wardancers are just so damned crunchy, I'd pile on and then foul just for the sound they make... Razz

I suspect dwarfs are still gonna be a powerful team, especially when the complete kill-stack no longer stacks. Again, this is just in theory. I'd really love to try this out for real, but my current TT league doesn't seem to be the right environment for it.

Elijah

Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 21:38

I'm new to the game, but i've seen a lot of high TV matches, especially against chaos dwarves, that ends in one of the team just completely kill the other on. There has been one like 5minutes ago. Necromantic vs Chaos Dwarves only two of the Necromantic team managed to stay on the pitch.
So, I'm not complaining against the clawpomb but I'd like to ask two questions, one on pure curiosity the other one a bit more critical:

1) How do you deal with the Clawpomb? How can a Necromantic team survive the onslaught? (and I mean without relying mostly on lucky rolls to kill the enemy team before it kills you)

2)Doesn't it make the game a bit...dumb? Also maybe a bit boring?
I'm very new to the game, so the last questions is more: what do you think and can you help me to see the matter under the right light.

NerdBird

Joined: Apr 08, 2014

Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 21:58

Elijah wrote:

I'm new to the game, but i've seen a lot of high TV matches, especially against chaos dwarves, that ends in one of the team just completely kill the other on. There has been one like 5minutes ago. Necromantic vs Chaos Dwarves only two of the Necromantic team managed to stay on the pitch.
So, I'm not complaining against the clawpomb but I'd like to ask two questions, one on pure curiosity the other one a bit more critical:

1) How do you deal with the Clawpomb? How can a Necromantic team survive the onslaught? (and I mean without relying mostly on lucky rolls to kill the enemy team before it kills you)

2)Doesn't it make the game a bit...dumb? Also maybe a bit boring?
I'm very new to the game, so the last questions is more: what do you think and can you help me to see the matter under the right light.

There is 34 pages on this topic for a reason. Also, this is the only thread where this may be discussed for a reason. As of right now, CLAWPOMB is a fact. You can complain all you want but it is not going away anytime soon in the "competitive" divisions. The ways to defend it are keeping the opposing blocks to a minimum. Positioning is key and you need to keep a tightly planned and spaced defense. There are going to be times when Clawpombing works effectively and you are going to be raped. Another way to defend against it is not standing up and allowing your opponent more blocks. Fend is useful to protect against it, as is blodge and sidestep coupled with it.

There are a lot of thoughts about clawpomb and the way I see it your choices are:
A)Deal with it
B) If you can't beat them, join them.
C) Play in leagues
D) Pick away in ranked
E) Play mostly low TV games

I would like to see it changed but unless we get the BBRC back and start reshaping the rules, it appears we are at an impasse.

Elijah

Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 22:04

Is the Blood Bowl official handbook still updated? I mean, are there going to be future changes? (not only for this CLAWPOMB problem but in general)

Also do you know any replays that includes successfull countertactics to clawpomb? It'd be very interesting what people came up with Smile

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 22:08

This thread is ridiculus.
It's like: Let's discuss all problems of the current ruleset in one single thread.

Best would be to delete all other threads on the forum and just reference to here.