28 coaches online • Server time: 01:57
* * * Did you know? The most deaths in a single match is 8.
Recent Forum Topics  Conceding v Goblins/... | War Drums? | Learning BB in YouTu... |
2011-10-21 15:04:38
15 votes, rating 4.5
15 votes, rating 4.5
7s Limits
I'm back playing 7s again, and remembering why I liked it.
Primarily, fast games!
I've played 2 games that took 15 minutes so far, and most games I play take around 30 minutes (7 players and no RR's do that for you).
That said, it's raised one of my bigger bugbears before...so, new administration, new rules, new people to pitch too!
The only rule change I would make is simple: Positionals with a 0-6 limit may take 4 players instead of the normal 3.
This only affects 3 races, 2 of whom need it (Chaos Dwarves, Lizardmen, Vampires).
Why?
7's changes the balance of a team. Positional limits being halved is fine...except for the case where linemen make up a minority in the team. As a result, if you look at an 11's Lizardman roster(1 krox, 6 saurii, 4 skinks), you see 7 ST 4+ players, and 4 st 2 ones.
Look at at 7's roster, and you see 3 ST 4, and 4 st 2...this makes 7s lizard men play *completely* differently to 11's(and in my experience are a much weaker team).
The same applies to CD's. They move from 1 Mino, 2 bulls, 6 CD, 2 hobs to having 3 dwarves, 3 hobs and 1 bull. They actually end up with more lino positionals! (I ran a team to test this).
Vampires: They would be affected by this...but in a "4 vampires, 3 thralls, no rerolls, this can't possibly go wrong" sort of way. I don't think it would overpower them.
I don't think I'm a bad lizardmen or 7's coach, and I struggle with them against an equal TV opponent. My woodies average 3 TD's a game...but my longest lived team feel far more like they require your opponent not to blat a skink or two by turn 3.
Just something to think about. My one change I'd make.
Primarily, fast games!
I've played 2 games that took 15 minutes so far, and most games I play take around 30 minutes (7 players and no RR's do that for you).
That said, it's raised one of my bigger bugbears before...so, new administration, new rules, new people to pitch too!
The only rule change I would make is simple: Positionals with a 0-6 limit may take 4 players instead of the normal 3.
This only affects 3 races, 2 of whom need it (Chaos Dwarves, Lizardmen, Vampires).
Why?
7's changes the balance of a team. Positional limits being halved is fine...except for the case where linemen make up a minority in the team. As a result, if you look at an 11's Lizardman roster(1 krox, 6 saurii, 4 skinks), you see 7 ST 4+ players, and 4 st 2 ones.
Look at at 7's roster, and you see 3 ST 4, and 4 st 2...this makes 7s lizard men play *completely* differently to 11's(and in my experience are a much weaker team).
The same applies to CD's. They move from 1 Mino, 2 bulls, 6 CD, 2 hobs to having 3 dwarves, 3 hobs and 1 bull. They actually end up with more lino positionals! (I ran a team to test this).
Vampires: They would be affected by this...but in a "4 vampires, 3 thralls, no rerolls, this can't possibly go wrong" sort of way. I don't think it would overpower them.
I don't think I'm a bad lizardmen or 7's coach, and I struggle with them against an equal TV opponent. My woodies average 3 TD's a game...but my longest lived team feel far more like they require your opponent not to blat a skink or two by turn 3.
Just something to think about. My one change I'd make.
Comments
Posted by Asgovic on 2011-10-21 15:51:42
Aahh, this old discussion ;)
Yeah I agree with you that the rule on positionals hurt lizardmen in 7s. Even more so because with no rerolls lacking basic skills hurts. But when it comes to CDs I disagree with you. I dont think CDs need a 4th blocker in their lineup. They are already a good roster with both hitting power and decent mobility. Vamps wont matter much.
Rather than making this exception on the rules of half positionals I would prefer to consider each team roster individually on how they should be for 7s.
Good to see you back in 7s though and let's keep campaigning for a 4th saurus ;)
Yeah I agree with you that the rule on positionals hurt lizardmen in 7s. Even more so because with no rerolls lacking basic skills hurts. But when it comes to CDs I disagree with you. I dont think CDs need a 4th blocker in their lineup. They are already a good roster with both hitting power and decent mobility. Vamps wont matter much.
Rather than making this exception on the rules of half positionals I would prefer to consider each team roster individually on how they should be for 7s.
Good to see you back in 7s though and let's keep campaigning for a 4th saurus ;)
Posted by Rabe on 2011-10-21 15:58:38
Thanks for the input, Hito! We (i.e. the staff, hopefully with help from the other 7s coaches) will definitely evaluate the current rosters after a certain period and giving teams that perform weak a small buff is something we care about (that's why we made changes to underworld, chaos pact and the two stunty teams beyond allowing them big guys). We tried to keep it moderate for now, adjusting teams later if necessary (and hopefully only by making some teams stronger, but none weaker).
Personally, lizardmen and vampires were already on my list of rosters that might need some help. I don't know if it's that true for chaos dwarves, but it's a good thing you brought possible problems to our attention! :-)
However, it's also always the (never to be finally answered) question how strong teams should be compared to each other and whether they should be as "competitive" in 7s as in 11s.
So, a lot of stuff to talk about in the future. Thanks again for your analysis, we (or at least I) will get back to you as soon as it's time to debate more changes. :-)
Personally, lizardmen and vampires were already on my list of rosters that might need some help. I don't know if it's that true for chaos dwarves, but it's a good thing you brought possible problems to our attention! :-)
However, it's also always the (never to be finally answered) question how strong teams should be compared to each other and whether they should be as "competitive" in 7s as in 11s.
So, a lot of stuff to talk about in the future. Thanks again for your analysis, we (or at least I) will get back to you as soon as it's time to debate more changes. :-)
Posted by Rabe on 2011-10-21 16:00:49
Asgo beat me. :-D
I didn't even know it was an old issue with lizardmen, probably because I personally don't care much about that race (I do care about other coaches' enjoyment of 7s though!).
I didn't even know it was an old issue with lizardmen, probably because I personally don't care much about that race (I do care about other coaches' enjoyment of 7s though!).
Posted by Hitonagashi on 2011-10-21 16:07:20
Thanks guys!
I'm heavily biased here, and admittedly, I haven't played a huge amount with CD's.
I've been pushing for this for a year or two in the first version of 7s..but at the time, there were no exceptions for any team (except 2 big guys for stunty teams), and while Lizardmen were hard hit, there were plenty of other teams also hit.
With racial specific exceptions being made, I thought I'd reintroduce the point :D.
You are doing a great job, keep it up!
I'm heavily biased here, and admittedly, I haven't played a huge amount with CD's.
I've been pushing for this for a year or two in the first version of 7s..but at the time, there were no exceptions for any team (except 2 big guys for stunty teams), and while Lizardmen were hard hit, there were plenty of other teams also hit.
With racial specific exceptions being made, I thought I'd reintroduce the point :D.
You are doing a great job, keep it up!
Posted by Sigmar1 on 2011-10-21 16:49:00
I agree that Lizards should get the four Saurii.
No way should CDs get a fourth blocker, they've got a quality lineup as it is.
Vampires getting another vamp? Let them, they'll do even worse. My three vamp team is a regular loser and I'm considering dropping a vampire even if it does lower team st ag and av.
No way should CDs get a fourth blocker, they've got a quality lineup as it is.
Vampires getting another vamp? Let them, they'll do even worse. My three vamp team is a regular loser and I'm considering dropping a vampire even if it does lower team st ag and av.
Posted by blader4411 on 2011-10-21 17:18:28
I'd agree that only the Lizards should be considered for a 4th Saurus.
CDs are decent, while Vamps do worse the more Vampires you have, at least until you get some guys Pro.
-Blader
CDs are decent, while Vamps do worse the more Vampires you have, at least until you get some guys Pro.
-Blader
Posted by ahalfling on 2011-10-21 21:23:43
I also can't play lizardmen in any format -- but I would say that if they struggle in sevens, it may be the lack of rerolls as much as anything else. (And they can't even get Leader without doubles!) This is a team that cannot get handling skills, basically, and that is going to hurt.
Moreover, I feel like two things are more prevalent in sevens than in regular BB. Guys with tackle, and elves. And those balance each other out -- the tackle is to stop the elves from dodging everywhere, which is why it's a more prevalent pick to begin with. But against lizards, people can use the tackle to bring down your skinks pretty reliably, and the elves can dodge out of your saurii's TZ. (Meanwhile, the saurii are very far from getting tackle -- they all have to get block first, you have to avoid the temptation to give them MB, etc.)
Still, I'm sure we'll take it under consideration. I honestly don't know if even that change would make lizards a competitive race, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
Moreover, I feel like two things are more prevalent in sevens than in regular BB. Guys with tackle, and elves. And those balance each other out -- the tackle is to stop the elves from dodging everywhere, which is why it's a more prevalent pick to begin with. But against lizards, people can use the tackle to bring down your skinks pretty reliably, and the elves can dodge out of your saurii's TZ. (Meanwhile, the saurii are very far from getting tackle -- they all have to get block first, you have to avoid the temptation to give them MB, etc.)
Still, I'm sure we'll take it under consideration. I honestly don't know if even that change would make lizards a competitive race, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
Posted by bghandras on 2011-10-22 12:05:04
This is an old debate. I vote against the 4th Saurus.
Posted by Nightbird on 2011-10-22 21:25:57
I dunno where i stand on these issues; prob against 4th saurus/ CD & for 4th vamp. But I have always had an issue w/ the no big guys rules. Not sure if any of you are familiar w/ streetball, but I've been playing TT streetball for a bit now & their rosters are set up the same as bb7's save that all the 0-1 positionals (big guys) are allowed. It's not been a problem at all & most often is a detriment w/ the negatraits.
On topic, I think this as well effects team chemistry. We see elves having all their positionals (save a treeman which is a debate in itself if woodies should even have one in 11's) & all their same capabilities as in 11's but the basher teams losing some of their muscle & I just don't get it? I'd really like some type of sound reasoning to understand this point. So I'm just wondering what the status on this is since we now see some rosters w/ the big un's included?
Just an after-thought, but allowing big guys would solve the lizardman & CD problems IMHO by adding an extra hitter, but one w/ a negatrait. It would make CD's/ lizards a bit stronger, but w/ less ball handling capacity.
On topic, I think this as well effects team chemistry. We see elves having all their positionals (save a treeman which is a debate in itself if woodies should even have one in 11's) & all their same capabilities as in 11's but the basher teams losing some of their muscle & I just don't get it? I'd really like some type of sound reasoning to understand this point. So I'm just wondering what the status on this is since we now see some rosters w/ the big un's included?
Just an after-thought, but allowing big guys would solve the lizardman & CD problems IMHO by adding an extra hitter, but one w/ a negatrait. It would make CD's/ lizards a bit stronger, but w/ less ball handling capacity.
Posted by Asgovic on 2011-10-22 22:35:43
There is no problem with CDs. They have a solid roster already.
Posted by Dalfort on 2011-10-22 22:44:07
having read all the comments I went from agreeing that a 4th Saurus would be right to agreeing with Nightbird's opinion that the Kroxi would be a better addition, as the skinks have stunty and the stunty teams are allowed both their Big Guys.
CD are fine with their varity of positionals, Hobgoblins are not bad "basic" players being only slightly easier to hurt than Human Lino's.
The Vampire issue wouldn't raise an objection from me, but as already pointed out a 4th may be more of a curse than a blessing.
My Tupennce worth. Thanks. Take care Dalfort.
CD are fine with their varity of positionals, Hobgoblins are not bad "basic" players being only slightly easier to hurt than Human Lino's.
The Vampire issue wouldn't raise an objection from me, but as already pointed out a 4th may be more of a curse than a blessing.
My Tupennce worth. Thanks. Take care Dalfort.
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2011-10-23 00:49:10
Nice to hear that the 7s ruleset will evolve over time!
I am all for big guys -if nothing else big guys are fun. :)
Posted by Nightbird on 2011-10-23 03:36:16
I'd just like to point out that it's all fine & good to 'say' rosters are fine, but & forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've not heard or seen any statistical evidence that big guys would change the dynamic in a bad way OR overpower any teams by allowing them to be included. So when someone is ready to 'show' me evidence that big guys change 7's in a harmful way I'm ready to listen. Otherwise it's all theory which isn't much of an argument w/out the evidence to prove it.
All in all it's not a huge deal to me, but it sure would be nice to see some hard proof why this has been decided & not just opinions/theory. I mean the official rosters allow these players. I just think it takes away from a bashing teams ability & gives agile teams a bit more leverage overall which is unbalancing IMO. So we balance & then that balancing becomes unbalancing. Where to stop? Anyways I'm really glad some rosters now include big guys & I get my fix. Just my humble thoughts on the matter as a whole.
~NB
All in all it's not a huge deal to me, but it sure would be nice to see some hard proof why this has been decided & not just opinions/theory. I mean the official rosters allow these players. I just think it takes away from a bashing teams ability & gives agile teams a bit more leverage overall which is unbalancing IMO. So we balance & then that balancing becomes unbalancing. Where to stop? Anyways I'm really glad some rosters now include big guys & I get my fix. Just my humble thoughts on the matter as a whole.
~NB
Posted by Asgovic on 2011-10-23 09:17:58
Actually I kinda like the idea of a krox for lizardmen instead of a 4th saurus. And as pointed out this can be justified by the skinks being stunties in the same way as UW got their troll. I actually tried playing an UW team without the troll some time before the migration of the league and needless to say they sucked. My experience with 7s is that basic skills often have much more impact on the the game than good stat lines lacking these basic skills. The lizardmen team is therefore imo and as Hito proclaims too the team roster that suffers the most from the team creation rules in 7s. The saurii have good stats yes with ma6 and st4, but with ag1 and no skills they take much time and effort to skill and with the new rule of 4mvps=draft it's even harder for them.
When I say CDs have a solid roster already this is based on my experience in the league where I've seen several CD teams do quite well. And considering their roster they really have a good combination hitting power and mobility and basic skills.
I still say that considering each roster individually on how they work and should be made for 7s would be the best way to go.
When I say CDs have a solid roster already this is based on my experience in the league where I've seen several CD teams do quite well. And considering their roster they really have a good combination hitting power and mobility and basic skills.
I still say that considering each roster individually on how they work and should be made for 7s would be the best way to go.
Posted by Hitonagashi on 2011-10-23 13:49:34
I'd be fine with a Krox.
It's just the muscle that's required, to be able to control a position like they do in 11's...and I think the Krox would be a good middleground, as it's a lot worse than a saurus of equal TV.
Thinking back to CD games...I'm torn. I've seen some great CD teams in the past, but I'm unsure as to how the 4 MVP thing will affect them. Then again, they are probably better than chaos/nurgle even with their hobs, so I guess that isn't an issue as much. Block and Tackle make them great 7s players from day one (unlike saurii).
It's just the muscle that's required, to be able to control a position like they do in 11's...and I think the Krox would be a good middleground, as it's a lot worse than a saurus of equal TV.
Thinking back to CD games...I'm torn. I've seen some great CD teams in the past, but I'm unsure as to how the 4 MVP thing will affect them. Then again, they are probably better than chaos/nurgle even with their hobs, so I guess that isn't an issue as much. Block and Tackle make them great 7s players from day one (unlike saurii).
Posted by Rabe on 2011-10-25 19:32:09
(I guess no-one will read this, but anyway...)
When we (and I think I'm talking about Asgo and me here) started investing time into BB7s again, we tried to stick with old rules as far as possible. I personally don't know why big guys were banned in the first place and I think it could be interesting to allow them. For now we have a few teams that got their big guys as a buff that we (and now I'm talking almost all the other current staff members, too) thought was necessary.
Chaos pact and underworld are two cases that can (and will) be easily evaluated later and we could talk about a general rule change than. Making teams stronger and increasing variety are things that we (or at least me) have in mind.
For now we will stick with the rules as they are... and after a certain period, we will review the current rule set and rosters - together with the BB7s community. At least that's my intention. :-)
When we (and I think I'm talking about Asgo and me here) started investing time into BB7s again, we tried to stick with old rules as far as possible. I personally don't know why big guys were banned in the first place and I think it could be interesting to allow them. For now we have a few teams that got their big guys as a buff that we (and now I'm talking almost all the other current staff members, too) thought was necessary.
Chaos pact and underworld are two cases that can (and will) be easily evaluated later and we could talk about a general rule change than. Making teams stronger and increasing variety are things that we (or at least me) have in mind.
For now we will stick with the rules as they are... and after a certain period, we will review the current rule set and rosters - together with the BB7s community. At least that's my intention. :-)
Posted by Gran on 2011-11-15 00:06:43
@Rabe: You'd be surprised how often good posts are read.
@Hito et al: I think I'd prefer to see lizards get access to their kroxigor. For vampires it might feel like a non-issue, but once they are developed a forth vampire might add something to the team. Chaos dwarfs should be doing quite fine as they are and, as has been pointed out before, hobgoblins are neither overly weak players nor in need of extra protection.
@Hito et al: I think I'd prefer to see lizards get access to their kroxigor. For vampires it might feel like a non-issue, but once they are developed a forth vampire might add something to the team. Chaos dwarfs should be doing quite fine as they are and, as has been pointed out before, hobgoblins are neither overly weak players nor in need of extra protection.