AFK_Eagle
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jul 23, 2004 - 00:18 |
 
|
Do you consider dark elves an AG team? Are Nurgles, Dwarves, Chaos, Lizards and Norse bashy teams? Does playing these "bashy" teams 8 times in my first 12 games qualify as willing to play? Point of fact was, I actually caused more cas to these teams than they did to me! In my turn I'd lay down the block where I could, and dodge away where I couldn't. In his, he'd be left with only a single blitz to try to take me down, and blodge goes a long way when the enemy's chances are limited. Granted, my record in those first 12 games was only 5-2-5, but that's more from poor coaching decisions in-game than from the two teams playing. |
_________________
Listen to Eagle! Eagle is good, Eagle is wise!
Founder of the E.L.F.--These elves will play anybody! |
|
Raek1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2004 - 00:57 |
|
well your idea is terrible in one word high elfs and dark elfs have ag4 and av8 and just dont play the bashier teams if u dont like it, or if u do have some guts then do, but thats jus MO im sure noone will agree with your crazy idea but youv brought everyone together to have a rant |
|
|
Karposittogdale
Joined: Jul 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2004 - 01:29 |
|
We strive for peace with acts of war
The beauty of death we all adore |
|
|
Ansbach
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2004 - 02:05 |
|
Bad Idea. Agility-speed teams are better at Blood Bowl than Strength-bashing teams. The fragility of speed teams is the equalizer. Limiting casualties would be like giving AG & MA boosts to bashing teams! |
|
|
Wombats
Joined: Oct 31, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2004 - 02:44 |
|
>I guess playing elves vs bashers is not good.
It's okay at low TR - The game is balanced for that but over 200 it really begins to show.
I think that's where people have issues and rightly so - Fumbbl enables teams to go on a lot longer than they would in table top.
The solution proposed is not the answer - But at least it is putting something forward so TR 200+ won't always be a basher's game or for elite elfy coaches who a few and far between.
There are cherrypickers (I'm guilty myself I'm sure) and then there are high TR coaches with a lot of skill (Roos comes to mind) who work very hard to compete at high TRs simply because of the stats of their racial roster aren't designed for high TR play.
Cherrypickers are just whining but I believe high TR elfy coaches have a legitimate complaint about the rules. |
_________________
Ninja versus Pirate . . . Ninja WINS!
www.realultimatepower.net |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 01:26 |
|
It's not only the elf coaches who suffer at increasing TR. Goblins, Halflings and Skinks die faster the more tacklers, mighty blowers, claws and dirty players enter the arena. |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 01:49 |
|
| Delta wrote: | Sorry but even that won't make me play any of my Elves against Dwarves.
I just don't like playing them. I find them tedious and boring.
And it's not down to a fear of bashing. I have on occasions happily played Khemri / Necro's / Chaos. (Although I will tend to avoid a team kitted out with multiple Claw/RSC/DP - my choice). |
I'm with Delta on this one, it is not just out of casualty concerns that my elf teams rarely play bashers (they do do so at times though).. it's also because it rarely leads to interesting games, depending on the luck the elves either win 6-1 or lose 1-0. Either way, not very exciting, IMO. But if there was no such thing as deaths or permanent injuries, then yes I'd probably play more of these matches. And NO I'm not suggesting anything like "no deaths and permanent injuries" for elves or any other teams except for the "no progression" teams of course.. |
|
|
Player_2
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 02:02 |
|
I think MixX has hit the nail on the head there, if you dont want permanent effects to ruin your team play in a non progression environment. Problem Solved. Next thread. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 02:44 |
|
As a sidenote: I really miss the bold "It's called BLOOD Bowl"-statements here! 
Or did I just miss them?  |
|
|
Delta
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 02:59 |
|
Hey people.....its Bloodbowl!!!
(Mirascael...this is for you!!) |
_________________
Cain is for Charlie and Delta is for Cain |
|
Mother_Sparrow
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 04:03 |
|
In the old days of live Blood Bowl at the local roleplaying-club, we made up of our own rules... one of these was that an injury roll of 10 was badly hurt... 11 was seriously injured... but if you hit 12 one had to roll an additional d6. On a roll of six, the player died... but on a roll of 1-5, one would have to roll the SI-table and go down 1-5 on the list... for example a roll of 5 and 24 (Gouged Eye) would become a 51-52 (Damaged Back) niggling injury... This worked well and ones players rarely died... made everyone happier.
I might even suggest that an injury roll of 10-11 would lead to a d6 aswell where 1-4 would be badly hurt and 5-6 would be a serious injury, to make those heartbreaking stat-drops even more of a rarety. I think that limiting casualties, in the manner suggested, really screws up the realism... but making them rarer is just another interpretation of how things might look in year 2500, when Blood Bowl is played...?
We were also able to hire surgeons to remove injuries... in exchange for a conciderable amount of money of course... and at slight risk of making the injuries worse...
Another solution might be to simply allow teams to have more apothecaries? 2 or 3? or even 5? I don't know... Maybe 1 or 2 for orc and dwarf teams with high AV and 3-5 for elves and skaven? and for realism - NOT allow the apoth action to happen while the injured player is in the midfield brawl... this action should happen in the dugout, imo...
Aside that I would like to agree with some of you, that this is a FANTASY game... The important thing ought be having the best time possible, not the most realistic time possible... > I think most of us appreciate the fact that our players get better and better all the time... that's what really make this game worth playing so much.. . watching ones teams grow and grow... we do our best to make them survive, and... personally. .. I really feel that I've wasted a **** of alot of time and effort when my best players die... Don't you agree?
I also think that the ageing rule is MUCH too violent... Can't seem to find any realism here... Maybe age per games played instead of SPP? It must be possible to grow a young talent without him ageing like the nazi-sympathic wanker in "Raiders of the lost Ark"...
Well, it's just suggestions, so don't kill me just yet > |
|
|
the_grey_ghost
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 07:58 |
|
You know what, I don't think that it is that bad an idea to have an upper limit of 1 death and 1 Serious injury per game max.
All the other injuries still count for XP. Teams don't get aniliated. It would be heaps fun.
You would still suffer with allot of Miss next games. Which is fair.
I like the Vault prototype rules where Niggles count for allot less then they do now. They rule. It isn't fun loosing half your team in a match!
Yea Loosing players is a part of Bloodbowl. But Curbing the entire team loss is a great Idea. Onya Thread Creator |
|
|
blitzwing
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 09:43 |
|
This is bloodbowl, not fairybowl last time i checked
if Christer wants to he could make this "fairybowl" an alternative game. At least that would stop mixing violent and non-violent players. You wouldn't get the "no..please you don't need to foul anyone"
There is no reason to deny sadistic players the absolute dark pleasure of destroying the opposition: that would be unfair. It is that dark malevolent feeling that has made me return to FUMBBL
In conclusion, i support a parrallel game called fairyball or moanball  its a win-win solution for violent/non-violent players. There should be NO change to bloodbowl insofar as CA are concerned.
however...one very very intelligent suggestion has been made by MOTHER SPARROW to have more apothecaries for teams that are weak. I have been entertaining this thought for bloodbowl but as yet am undecided
furthermore i agree with sparrow that aging is to severe. Should be by games;not spp |
|
|
Paradiso
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 15:19 |
|
Thank you for reminding us what it is we're playing.
Is the idea really workable into the game? Nah, not really. Is it a noble thought though? Absolutely. I think we'd all agree that more variety in matchups is better. And yet rather than using an unworkable example as a jumping off point for ideas, most of the forum goers are more than happy to call it stupid and mosey along.
Multiple apothecaries, now that might be another thing altogether. |
|
|
AFK_Eagle
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 24, 2004 - 15:50 |
|
What drives me crazy is to not use your apoth early in a match to negate an injury, for fear you'll need it later on somebody more valuable. Then later comes, match is over, and you haven't needed the apoth after all. So here you have a niggle/RIP player and an unused apo laughing at you. What I'd love to be able to do is use the apo after a game same as in-game. If you get to the end of a game and have the apo unused, you're given the option to negate one of the perm injuries on a 2+ d6 roll, just as in-game. You get the chance to not have the perm follow you around; the enemy still got to play the rest of the game without that player present; everybody wins. If you want to argue how "too much time has passed to help" then instead of completely negating the perm, just change it into a MNG. Still miss the person as if an SI, but without that nasty niggle or stat decrease.
That's my take on the apo issue. |
_________________
Listen to Eagle! Eagle is good, Eagle is wise!
Founder of the E.L.F.--These elves will play anybody! |
|
|
|
BB2016 Ranked, Leagu...
Search
