Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
 Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 02:27 |
 
|
| VillainousIntent wrote: | | I miss stat freaks |
Every developed ball carrier becomes one now, because people just save for it.
I miss when random linos became them tho. |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 04:09 |
|
I think +MAx2 ball carriers don't really qualify as "stat freaks" more like "selectively bred" |
|
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 05:36 |
|
| Carthage wrote: | | I think +MAx2 ball carriers don't really qualify as "stat freaks" more like "selectively bred" |
I mean, you take the +MAx2, but you're hunting for the +AG really |
|
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 20:29 |
|
+2 skills like DP, MB. Too great an advantage on 2d6 curve.
Wildly inaccurate not deviating from target square.
I counted 15 skills (without accounting for the mutations tree) that most good coaches would never pick. That's more than one whole skill-group. Just merge things down, change things up. Make everything useful, no need for newbie traps and random-roll potholes. It's bad design. We can do with 8 skills in every tree, the game already has a d8 die for resolving bounces, make use of that.
Teams with block/dodge on linemen while retaining G access on primary. Make Amazon linewomen A primary G secondary. Increase Norse linemen cost. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 21:08 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | JanMattys wrote: | | The more a team needs them, the higher the cost. |
And that's clearly bad design. It should be the other way around. |
First of all, that's your opinion, so don't use clearly please  It makes sense if you think about it: You pay things for their value. The more a reroll brings to the table, the more its value is higher for the team. The less you really need it, the less value it brings. For humans, a reroll is not a life or death thing. For Tomb Kings it might well be.
Second, yeah, I can see where you come from. I really do. The fact is, many teams without skills often already make up for it with incredible statlines. Chaos Warriors have an incredible statline, for example, and that's something a human positional will never reach without a lot of spps and a bloated tv increase.
If "bad teams" had cheaper rerolls they could field a full roster more easily, and become competitive way earlier than intended.
That's the thing to remember (you might like it or dislike it, but it is not bad design, just a decision): the tiers are not intended to be equal. It is written in the rulebook that lower tiers must be considered as a challenge for the player, so they are supposed to be a tougher team to develop. The general idea of "making up for it" goes directly against the rules as intended.
As for the stunties in your example, I consider them a whole different thing. Stunties are meant to be a messy, funny thing of their own and while on principle I agree that cheaper rerolls wouldn't make stunties particularly competitive, I don't look favourably at things that trim their tv even more. In a blackbox environment there's already a lot of teams relying on low tv stunties to smash the asses of recovering teams with fouls, stars and a long bench. Hell, the behaviour even crept to leagues with underworld, which is not a stunty team but works the same way. Lowering their tv would exacerbate the problem imho. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 08, 2025 - 01:07 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | It makes sense if you think about it: You pay things for their value. The more a reroll brings to the table, the more its value is higher for the team. The less you really need it, the less value it brings. For humans, a reroll is not a life or death thing. For Tomb Kings it might well be. |
That's correct from an economic perspective, where things increase value according to how much they are demanded and sought after on the market.
From balance/gameplay perspective, instead, a team lacking skills should get a way to make up for the lack of it, in my opinion.
If rrs were cheaper, a weak team without skills could buy more (or even the same number, but it would have a lower TV, thus facing fewer skills or getting more Inducements).
Also, it quite fits the fluff: if I remember well, there was a fluff part I read somewhere talking about how much Goblins' game plans rely on enthusiam, hope, cheating and not on athletic skills.
Cheaper rrs could simulate the enthusiasm and the tryhard spirit of the Stunty (and tier 2) teams. Cheating, in Goblin's case, could be represented by 0-2 rostered Bribes.
They work hard, (don't get me wrong here: not saying that Goblins are well-trained, organized and cooperative players) they play putting effort into it with fouls and wacky crazy actions, but still they don't get big results, because in the end they have a poor statline and not many skills (and they can't even build so much long-term anymore, due to Re-Draft and their own squishiness, so they are going to lack the skills/stats, thus they need rrs). Cheaper rrs would not turn them into monster teams with super players.
| JanMattys wrote: | | I really do. The fact is, many teams without skills often already make up for it with incredible statlines. Chaos Warriors have an incredible statline, for example, and that's something a human positional will never reach without a lot of spps and a bloated tv increase. |
Sure, and I even know that the Chaos Warriors' cost was not just due to their starting statline, but to the long-term progression potential they had (due to S and M skill access, mainly) as well.
In former rulesets, when Cpomb was a thing, Chaos started weak and then became a powerhouse at high TV. The rr price could have been considered a sort of "handicap", then.
Now though, to get back to current edition, with Re-Draft such long-term potential is not a thing anymore, so I think that Chaos (just to stick to your example, but not only Chaos) could have cheaper rrs. Would suddenly Chaos become tier 1 if its rrs were priced 50k? Would Imperial Nobility become tier 1 with 60k rrs? I don't think so.
| JanMattys wrote: |
If "bad teams" had cheaper rerolls they could field a full roster more easily, and become competitive way earlier than intended. |
Cheaper rrs would make weaker teams a bit more competitive, of course, as any price discount, but I really doubt that they would suddenly skew heavily the relative intended tiers. I can't figure Chaos or Chaos Renegades turning suddenly to tier 1 team if their rrs were discounted by 10k. I really don't. They could be too good maybe without Season Re-Draft (with freaks and kill stacks), but not with it.
| JanMattys wrote: | | the tiers are not intended to be equal. It is written in the rulebook that lower tiers must be considered as a challenge for the player, so they are supposed to be a tougher team to develop. The general idea of "making up for it" goes directly against the rules as intended. |
Sure, tiers are not intended to be equal. My point is that making the weaker tier rrs a little cheaper would not make all the tiers equal, but the differences would be narrower and some rosters, for example the Stunty ones, would be more fun/less frustrating to play, without being overpowered. The spirit of different tiers would still be there, just the differences would be smaller (or, at least, the tier 2+ teams less frustrating to play).
| JanMattys wrote: | | In a blackbox environment there's already a lot of teams relying on low tv stunties to smash the asses of recovering teams with fouls, stars and a long bench. |
I play a lot in the Box with Season 2+ teams and I rarely face Stunty teams like you described. It's true that sometimes I faced some minmaxed teams (Ogres and Gnomes come to mind) but these teams had developed players built before Re-Draft (so, not normal teams). They were not a common pairing either.
I don't experience this "Stunty ambush" phenomenon you say. Stunty teams are mostly played for the Box Trophy or because some coaches love them, but as far as I know not to ambush recovering teams. Super low TV Snotlings with Star Players were a problem, but that exploit is gone. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Things we dislike of...
Search
