32 coaches online • Server time: 09:24
* * * Did you know? The most aggressive player is Taku the Second with 6628 blocks.
Recent Forum Topics  Secret Stunty Cup IV | ramchop takes on the... | Blackbox Teams |
2013-08-28 08:35:18
16 votes, rating 3.9
16 votes, rating 3.9
I like your old stuff better than your new stuff...
I just had a game, and clawpomb cheesemonkey ripped me a new one.
I know, who cares?
I wanted to write a *rant-clawpomb-rant-crp-rant* blog, buuuuuut... well noone would care, to be honest :D
Even *I* wouldn't care, and it's my blog!
So... I was thinking. Clawpomb chaos is to me, pretty damn boring to play against. They get on a cas roll, and well, its just clicking through turns. Not much fun if you have little time to play. Probably fun for the other guy, but I have to wonder how much he's actually learning about the game.
Dorfs are also very boring, for pretty different reasons. The Positional Grind™ is to many, exceedingly boring to play against.
But is it in fact more boring than Clawpomb chaos? I know what I think, but what about you?
I certainly have never felt completely out of the game against Dwarfs, with whatever race. Clawpomb chaos (or pact, or cheesy double-rolling cdorf) on the other hand... well.
I did have another thought while getting my butt handed to me. What would chaos look like with ag2 Warriors? Would it make a difference?
I know, who cares?
I wanted to write a *rant-clawpomb-rant-crp-rant* blog, buuuuuut... well noone would care, to be honest :D
Even *I* wouldn't care, and it's my blog!
So... I was thinking. Clawpomb chaos is to me, pretty damn boring to play against. They get on a cas roll, and well, its just clicking through turns. Not much fun if you have little time to play. Probably fun for the other guy, but I have to wonder how much he's actually learning about the game.
Dorfs are also very boring, for pretty different reasons. The Positional Grind™ is to many, exceedingly boring to play against.
But is it in fact more boring than Clawpomb chaos? I know what I think, but what about you?
I certainly have never felt completely out of the game against Dwarfs, with whatever race. Clawpomb chaos (or pact, or cheesy double-rolling cdorf) on the other hand... well.
I did have another thought while getting my butt handed to me. What would chaos look like with ag2 Warriors? Would it make a difference?
Comments
Posted by Ehlers on 2013-08-28 09:05:04
So you want chaos warriors to be cheaper then by reducing their ag to 2?
If you want to have an impact, then no price reduction if you reduce them to 2. Else they will just be more cost effective.
If you want to have an impact, then no price reduction if you reduce them to 2. Else they will just be more cost effective.
Posted by Espionage on 2013-08-28 09:09:34
I hear you. It's not that Cpomb is over powered in terms of winning, it's the way it wins that makes a game boring. I cannot workout why a referee might eject a player from a game for striking a player on the ground with his foot, but has no problem with a player jumping on a grounded player so he can strike him with a claw.
On the flip side, I don't mind playing with or against dwarves. They really only have one style of offence, but there are several defence strategies you can employ against them.
Still, Fumbbl policy is to stay as close as possible to the current rule set, and from what I've heard the ruleset is unlikely to change in the near future, so solutions aren't likely to be found
On the flip side, I don't mind playing with or against dwarves. They really only have one style of offence, but there are several defence strategies you can employ against them.
Still, Fumbbl policy is to stay as close as possible to the current rule set, and from what I've heard the ruleset is unlikely to change in the near future, so solutions aren't likely to be found
Posted by Cloggy on 2013-08-28 09:14:38
You can't fix the clawpomb problem by nerfing chaos warriors. That still leaves all the Skaven, Underworld, chaos pact, necro........
It is for me the single biggest problem in the game though. Watching Majors games between 2 clawpombing teams is just painful. For me the elimination of the need for proper positioning and planning is the worst thing that could ever have happened to the game.
It is for me the single biggest problem in the game though. Watching Majors games between 2 clawpombing teams is just painful. For me the elimination of the need for proper positioning and planning is the worst thing that could ever have happened to the game.
Posted by Cloggy on 2013-08-28 09:15:53
On the other hand, since you seem to be part of the problem yourself, you have no right to complain, even in the nice tone you used.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-08-28 09:20:45
Dwarfs is quite a horrible game, if you lose against them.
My games against cow in the SWL prem were some of the worst for me, particularly as he kept rolling perfect D or blitz, which compounded my misery.
Dwarfs do have weaknesses though, and thought has gone into the builds and tactics.
CPOMB, is to some extent making it a coin toss game. I don't think it's any worse than if Claw/RSC would have been if the those 2 skills were obtainable on regular rolls, but the fact most mutations were toned down and made obtainable on regulars, limits greatly what mutations are taken usually.
My answer would be, you need great strength or weight to effectively PO, so only ST 5 or greater players may take it. This works from a fluff perspective, keeps the skill powerful, and put emphasis on working with big guys.
It also adds a layer of tactics. As a big guy is an unreliable blitzer. Do you risk using him for his pomb ability or not?
My games against cow in the SWL prem were some of the worst for me, particularly as he kept rolling perfect D or blitz, which compounded my misery.
Dwarfs do have weaknesses though, and thought has gone into the builds and tactics.
CPOMB, is to some extent making it a coin toss game. I don't think it's any worse than if Claw/RSC would have been if the those 2 skills were obtainable on regular rolls, but the fact most mutations were toned down and made obtainable on regulars, limits greatly what mutations are taken usually.
My answer would be, you need great strength or weight to effectively PO, so only ST 5 or greater players may take it. This works from a fluff perspective, keeps the skill powerful, and put emphasis on working with big guys.
It also adds a layer of tactics. As a big guy is an unreliable blitzer. Do you risk using him for his pomb ability or not?
Posted by Garion on 2013-08-28 09:29:46
yup lrb4 is better, crp is the lame :P
Posted by Roland on 2013-08-28 09:46:06
want to avoid cpomb? dont play in box
play [L], ftw!
play [L], ftw!
Posted by lemf on 2013-08-28 09:53:58
Somewhere on one of the forums it was suggested that the piling on player also had to make a modified armour roll, To represent the chances of some of the prone players armour / shattered bone injuring them.
It could be a nice thought as a Chaos Warrior decides to belly flop on a snotling for the lols and the snotlings shin bone pierces the warriors throat :D
It could be a nice thought as a Chaos Warrior decides to belly flop on a snotling for the lols and the snotlings shin bone pierces the warriors throat :D
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2013-08-28 09:57:49
CPOMB is not brainless at all. Sure it ups the % a bad player wins against a good player, but positioning and tactics still matter and if you think otherwise you are just plain wrong.
Posted by ThePeoplesChamp on 2013-08-28 10:16:08
preach!
Posted by ahalfling on 2013-08-28 10:32:00
Let's get honest here -- the issue with CPOMB is not that it helps teams win more. A good pomb-heavy team can have a good record, but bad pomb teams still exist. As far as winning games goes, it's a viable strategy, one of several.
The issue (min-maxing aside) is that a CPOMB-heavy environment makes it difficult for opposing teams to stay at a high TV for very long. You might still win -- but you're almost definitely going to get a couple of your guys killed or permed.
And... it's not clear what the way around that is. Some people have talked about weakening piling on (by making it non-stackable, giving the ref a chance to ban the player, etc.), but piling on is the one skill in the combo that has a downside.
Maybe a casualty roll that gets to 10 only because of MB is automatically a BH, the way a 9 cas roll is for stunties? That would keep the competitive balance right for strength teams, while reducing the long-term damage somewhat.
If there were still secret weapon rolls, maybe a player with claws could carry a 10+ or something. (Which would be a problem for players who start with it... or a justification for making werewolves and snow trolls less overpriced?)
Not that there's any way to implement any of this, short of an official rules rewrite from GW/the NAF (which I doubt is coming soon, and would they be trolling random Internet people/halflings for suggestions anyway?)
The issue (min-maxing aside) is that a CPOMB-heavy environment makes it difficult for opposing teams to stay at a high TV for very long. You might still win -- but you're almost definitely going to get a couple of your guys killed or permed.
And... it's not clear what the way around that is. Some people have talked about weakening piling on (by making it non-stackable, giving the ref a chance to ban the player, etc.), but piling on is the one skill in the combo that has a downside.
Maybe a casualty roll that gets to 10 only because of MB is automatically a BH, the way a 9 cas roll is for stunties? That would keep the competitive balance right for strength teams, while reducing the long-term damage somewhat.
If there were still secret weapon rolls, maybe a player with claws could carry a 10+ or something. (Which would be a problem for players who start with it... or a justification for making werewolves and snow trolls less overpriced?)
Not that there's any way to implement any of this, short of an official rules rewrite from GW/the NAF (which I doubt is coming soon, and would they be trolling random Internet people/halflings for suggestions anyway?)
Posted by Luohghcra on 2013-08-28 10:32:34
Love the 'you has clawpomb, your argument is invalid' comment. In my defense (if such comment is absolutely necessary), I have only fairly recently gained claw players on my CD's - mostly as a 'fight fire with fire' kind of response. Weak I know... (also, funnily enough my win % has gone DOWN since getting claw. PLUS, I still try to avoid cpomb as much as possible - one claw guy went frenzeh over po...)
With regards to the comments of others in terms of rule changes:
I wasn't attempting to come up with a 'fix'. More just provoke discussion.
I like harvest's idea though - very fluffy (and rightly so, coming from him!)
@Ehlers: if the CW's stayed the same price, and -ag.. well what then? Would it make a difference? I see it as affecting their ability to progress - not as easy to score with them, meaning their progression is harder.
Not to mention, how is a great, big, hulking, armoured dude as agile as a human catcher??
With regards to the comments of others in terms of rule changes:
I wasn't attempting to come up with a 'fix'. More just provoke discussion.
I like harvest's idea though - very fluffy (and rightly so, coming from him!)
@Ehlers: if the CW's stayed the same price, and -ag.. well what then? Would it make a difference? I see it as affecting their ability to progress - not as easy to score with them, meaning their progression is harder.
Not to mention, how is a great, big, hulking, armoured dude as agile as a human catcher??
Posted by danielcollins on 2013-08-28 11:00:15
Regurgitator. Man I miss the 90s.
Posted by Dhaktokh on 2013-08-28 11:00:29
Only solution is to change the pile on skill slightly. That would help.
For example:
* You have to push your opponent backwards to be able to pile on. That means that both down wouldnt work. Stand Firm would cancel it. Maybe even allowing sidestep, if you sidestep next to the piling on player, to stop pile on as well. But that last option is against the basic thought here.
* Cancel the +1 when you pile on.
* Skills like grab do not cancel the opposing player´s defensive skill when piling on.
* Not allowed to take jump up and pile on, on the same player.
This would help enough I think. I have a list of more alternatives ;-D
For example:
* You have to push your opponent backwards to be able to pile on. That means that both down wouldnt work. Stand Firm would cancel it. Maybe even allowing sidestep, if you sidestep next to the piling on player, to stop pile on as well. But that last option is against the basic thought here.
* Cancel the +1 when you pile on.
* Skills like grab do not cancel the opposing player´s defensive skill when piling on.
* Not allowed to take jump up and pile on, on the same player.
This would help enough I think. I have a list of more alternatives ;-D
Posted by B_SIDE on 2013-08-28 11:17:50
I would just eject players who roll doubles when piling on. It's supposed to be dirty play, so this matches the fluff and tones the skill down a lot.
Posted by The_Provocateur on 2013-08-28 11:39:24
Or, you know, we could start actually taking fend.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2013-08-28 11:47:44
RANKED BLACKBOX NOOBS WITH YOUR CLAWPOMB BLODGE OP NERDERY; UNNERF SNEAKY GIT 2014. RULES WERE BETTER OR WORSE PREVIOUSLY, AND IT'S YOUR FAULT, OR SOMEONE ELSE'S FOR EVERYTHING. RAAAAAA. INTERWEBZ BAD AND / OR GOOD. RAWWWRRRRRRR. KILL ALL MENS.
The rules is fixed. Every post upon them is wasted precious life seconds. All of you are wrong. Or right. Or both.
The rules is fixed. Every post upon them is wasted precious life seconds. All of you are wrong. Or right. Or both.
Posted by Luohghcra on 2013-08-28 12:22:47
Yeah, see the thing is I more wanted to discuss how Chaos as a team could be altered. I completely acknowledge that the rules are fixed. I'm not asking for them to change.
Fluff-wise, how does a hulking, armoured mofo move as agilely as a human catcher? An Amazon? I mean... seriously??
@Purplegoo: At least I had the presence of mind to not make this a forum thread? :P
Fluff-wise, how does a hulking, armoured mofo move as agilely as a human catcher? An Amazon? I mean... seriously??
@Purplegoo: At least I had the presence of mind to not make this a forum thread? :P
Posted by koadah on 2013-08-28 12:31:45
The Commissioners's word is law. The rules are only as fixed as the Commish want's them to be.
The case just hasn't been made well enough to change the Commish's mind. ;)
The case just hasn't been made well enough to change the Commish's mind. ;)
Posted by ClayInfinity on 2013-08-28 12:36:06
I dunno... I kind of like the fluff of Chaos teams killing everything with little disregard for the ball.
I would leave ClawPOMB as is and drop all players down to AG2. Encourage them to play the man and not the ball... its the fluff of it all!
And as a game mechanic, Khemri play as AG2 so its not the worst idea in the world!
I would leave ClawPOMB as is and drop all players down to AG2. Encourage them to play the man and not the ball... its the fluff of it all!
And as a game mechanic, Khemri play as AG2 so its not the worst idea in the world!
Posted by paradocks on 2013-08-28 13:05:48
i always like to think that there are alternate methods and counters against various tactics.. whether i believe this because im too much of a noob to know better im not sure
Posted by koadah on 2013-08-28 13:07:10
It is the playing the man that people don't like. :D
Their win% isn't that great with ag3. They're less than 50% in the Box
Their win% isn't that great with ag3. They're less than 50% in the Box
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-08-28 13:13:45
"Yeah, see the thing is I more wanted to discuss how Chaos as a team could be altered. I completely acknowledge that the rules are fixed. I'm not asking for them to change.
Fluff-wise, how does a hulking, armoured mofo move as agilely as a human catcher? An Amazon? I mean... seriously??"
The answer here is yes. Chaos Warriors are rather super. They have become something far more than a regular Old World Knight. Partly from the gifts of their god, partly embued from their armour and also their potential. Without doubt, the most awesome regular sized being in the warhammer world. If anything, they're almost a star player in their own right.
If anything, giving them MA5 is a bit of a compromise. All in all, I think they're portrayed rather well in bloodbowl. Obvious they're very good, but not broken. Also if you give them AG2, the roster is starting to mimic the Nurgle roster.
Fluff-wise, how does a hulking, armoured mofo move as agilely as a human catcher? An Amazon? I mean... seriously??"
The answer here is yes. Chaos Warriors are rather super. They have become something far more than a regular Old World Knight. Partly from the gifts of their god, partly embued from their armour and also their potential. Without doubt, the most awesome regular sized being in the warhammer world. If anything, they're almost a star player in their own right.
If anything, giving them MA5 is a bit of a compromise. All in all, I think they're portrayed rather well in bloodbowl. Obvious they're very good, but not broken. Also if you give them AG2, the roster is starting to mimic the Nurgle roster.
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2013-08-28 14:36:24
So this is what it feels like to read claymation? I always wondered how it would be. Thanks for the experience.
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2013-08-28 14:37:48
Making warriors AG2 almost only hurt interesting builds...
Posted by ClayInfinity on 2013-08-28 15:15:46
OK, I hear you on the issue of AG2 C.Warriors being damaging on a build perspective.
Leave the Warriors AG3, all the Beastmen AG2 (cloven hoofs = poor ball handlers) and then you'll encourage the Warriors to be the focus of the team and the Beastmen as make weight supports. It would slow Beastmen skill ups as well and hence you wont see the huge ClawPOMB numbers of beastmen.
Coaches would use one Warrior as the Ball Handler, the rest can be mixed use Chaos superstars and the Beastmen would be fodder.
It would also perhaps make the Minotaur a bit more attractive too as an anchor given the beastmen wont dodge as easily in defence.
In effect, you reverse the Nurgle roster with their AG2 Nurgle Warriors and AG3 Pestigors.
Leave the Warriors AG3, all the Beastmen AG2 (cloven hoofs = poor ball handlers) and then you'll encourage the Warriors to be the focus of the team and the Beastmen as make weight supports. It would slow Beastmen skill ups as well and hence you wont see the huge ClawPOMB numbers of beastmen.
Coaches would use one Warrior as the Ball Handler, the rest can be mixed use Chaos superstars and the Beastmen would be fodder.
It would also perhaps make the Minotaur a bit more attractive too as an anchor given the beastmen wont dodge as easily in defence.
In effect, you reverse the Nurgle roster with their AG2 Nurgle Warriors and AG3 Pestigors.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-08-28 16:40:44
That's kinda interesting, I'd like to see that play tested. But the bottom line is the Chaos roster broken? Nope, not really, it's just one skill. Easier to fix that.
Also I'd have fluff issues with ag2 beastmen and ag3 pestigors.
Also I'd have fluff issues with ag2 beastmen and ag3 pestigors.
Posted by pythrr on 2013-08-28 17:16:07
err, but yr CDsa have Clawpomb too
why you whine?
why you whine?
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2013-08-29 12:19:36
Because other people have clawpomb as well! >:(
Posted by Daudy on 2013-08-29 16:41:45
The correct answer is to wear your sequined 12 ply anti-clawpomb toilet paper more frequently Luo ;)