FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Jan 13, 2011

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 16:12

I like a lot of it. PD nerf and blitz de-likely, no touchback if the receiving team touches the ball, apo that is less powerful in-game but more likely to save players, no FF to TV. The idea of primary vs secondary stats is sensible, if a lot of upkeep for a tabletop setting.
I really like big guys may treat 11s as doubles. (not so sure about removing negatrait: also, you need to assign a TV cost to that, probably not 50k)

Would have liked to see overtime fixed: at the very least make it so that if no TD is scored on overtime, the team that kicked for OT wins. =)

_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating)

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 16:18

Wreckage wrote:

in my native language writing long and cryptic sentences is a sign of intellect. (Hence why people think Immanuel Kant is smart.) I'm not sure this is true for yours.

To say something clever you need a long sentence. If you can do it in a short one you're a genius.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 16:36

Wreckage wrote:

Boy, this is hard to read. And why is it using a replaced 'their' when speaking in singular.

Just a random example: If a player carrying the ball is Knocked Down or Placed Prone, they will drop the ball in the square where they fell. They joy of English as a language is that it's kinda like Calvin Ball

Is it that a BB player is some sort of royal eminence?
Or is it that English just needs no grammar? ..Must be a native speaker thing.

It is. When you are a a native speaker you can use 'they' as a singular genderless pronoun. I'm prone to do it all the time but it just flows off the tonGue better. there would almost never be a miscommunication if you look at the context

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 16:53

mrt1212 wrote:

It is. When you are a a native speaker you can use 'they' as a singular genderless pronoun. I'm prone to do it all the time but it just flows off the tonGue better. there would almost never be a miscommunication if you look at the context

A group of random people goes into the mall. One of them goes to buy some shoes. In a shop they finds some Nikeys.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 17:02

You would almost never craft a sentence like that because of the ambiguity of the antecedents. You provided a good example of what not to do.

RobRoyDuncan

Joined: Apr 15, 2011

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 17:08

WhatBall: in the injury section, niggles state that the player's value can never go below 5 gp, but the other injuries state that the value cannot go below 10 gp. I'm assuming that one of those is a typo?

xnoelx

Joined: Jun 05, 2012

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 17:18

Wreckage wrote:

mrt1212 wrote:

It is. When you are a a native speaker you can use 'they' as a singular genderless pronoun. I'm prone to do it all the time but it just flows off the tonGue better. there would almost never be a miscommunication if you look at the context

A group of random people goes into the mall. One of them goes to buy some shoes. In a shop they finds some Nikeys.

This demonstrates one of the foibles of English (there are many). If you said "In a shop one of them finds some Nikes.", then the s on the verb would be correct. On the other hand, if you said "One of them goes into the shop, where they find some Nikes." the verb would not have an s.

A singular pronoun (or equivalent phrase) has a plural verb form, but a usually plural pronoun (even when being used in its singular sense) has a singular verb. Fun, eh?

_________________

Nerf Ball 2014

Shades_SteelFist

Joined: Sep 11, 2008

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 17:26

xnoelx wrote:

Wreckage wrote:

mrt1212 wrote:

It is. When you are a a native speaker you can use 'they' as a singular genderless pronoun. I'm prone to do it all the time but it just flows off the tonGue better. there would almost never be a miscommunication if you look at the context

A group of random people goes into the mall. One of them goes to buy some shoes. In a shop they finds some Nikeys.

This demonstrates one of the foibles of English (there are many). If you said "In a shop one of them finds some Nikes.", then the s on the verb would be correct. On the other hand, if you said "One of them goes into the shop, where they find some Nikes." the verb would not have an s.

A singular pronoun (or equivalent phrase) has a plural verb form, but a usually plural pronoun (even when being used in its singular sense) has a singular verb. Fun, eh?

Reading this I got an image in my mind of that scene from "Guardians of the galaxy" when Yondu is talking to the shop owner and keeps saying "bllogedy blogedy bloopity bloop" while the shop owner is trying to explain things to him

_________________
Nuffle is cruel but we love him still

the_Sage

Joined: Jan 13, 2011

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 17:27

I like the ogre fix, not sure about zons and humans. Claw hasn't been nerfed (*except vs AV10), but PO access has been. How does this help orcs?

Have you considered the increased cost per level (for example adding 5 TV @ 16 SPPs, 10 @ 31, 15 @ 51, 20 @ 76, and 25 @ 176), in addition to the revised skill costs? This would do a lot to alleviate the '2 killers, a baller, and 8 mooks' and 'rule of 5' phenomena.

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 17:58

mrt1212 wrote:

Only big guys and lucky CW or NW get get claw? Underworld cries.

Piling on only on ST5+ too?

underworld is a stupid team anyway. claw should be more limited.

_________________

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 18:06

pythrr wrote:

mrt1212 wrote:

Only big guys and lucky CW or NW get get claw? Underworld cries.

Piling on only on ST5+ too?

underworld is a stupid team anyway. claw should be more limited.

Do you ever get tired of being cranky and wrong?

tmoila

Joined: Nov 25, 2012

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 18:57

Changing the pronouns made it unreadable. 0/5 didn't even finish after reading the prologue.

_________________
gg

Calcium

Joined: Apr 08, 2007

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 19:27

nice try, but they are flawed imo

_________________

RobRoyDuncan

Joined: Apr 15, 2011

Posted: May 29, 2015 - 20:07

After having read over the rules, I like a lot of what you are doing. However, I disagree with Claw = No Hands. I mean, sure, I can see the flavour justification for it, but I don't like what it is going to do to the players (and teams) who take it. In several other places you mention that you hope your changes will promote diversity, but this one reduces it. If taking Claw means you can't handle the ball, then sure, it'll discourage Claw as skill, but it means that the players who do take it will specialize even harder. You won't have Pestigors or Beastmen who can hit and also run and also handle the ball; they'll just hit and hit and hit again, 'cause what else are they gonna do?

That is, though, as I said earlier, one dislike among a number of likes. Interesting stuff!

zakatan

Joined: May 17, 2008

Posted: May 30, 2015 - 05:24

I'm not sure about the claws-no hands combo either. It looks like it's not a viable skill any more. Together with the PO changes it feels hitters are underpowered.

It also feels that the new blitz! kick-off is no longer worth considering while setting up the offense, since it's very weak.

I'd like to see the cummulative cost of skills too, like the sage mentioned earlier. Specially since we're back to 7 skills.

Aside from some details, and the odd writing, it's a good effort!

_________________