koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 00:43 |
 
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 01:00 |
|
We don't need consensus and we aren't going to submit our findings to GW, but for the purposes of custom tailoring experiences, it's good to know some the squeekiest wheels out there. I don't know what to do about amazons and vamps as teams for example, but given some of the back and forth, it might be worth looking into adjustments for league play if they're a consistent problem in leagues (without reaching for the banhammer entirely) |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 01:32 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Garion wrote: | | It seems Wildly Inaccurate is changing to "from the receiver" in Sept... Not that that's enough to make passing good. But it least its a small step... |
Too small to give me any real hope. |
This doesn't fix passing for some rosters, but it will save punting and HMP. On the flip side, it will make Bombardier slightly better.
HMP at -3 is now 7/12 to scatter 3 or less, 1/4 to scatter more than 3, and 1/6 to fumble. If you have Cannoneer, and Pass in the event of a fumble, it's 7/9 to scatter 3 or less, 7/36 to scatter 4 or more, and 1/36 to fumble. That's actually not bad.
Punts are better too, but sometimes not in the way you expect, which is actually good design for punts, yes? Punts aren't supposed to be super reliable, they're just also not supposed to be typically fruitless.
The gain isn't as big with bombs. Sure, close counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but not-so-close also counts in punts, but in bombs not so much. Still, the current rules are actually worse for them than the old "mod 1 is a fumble" was, because at least if you got mobbed you'd blow up your marks too. But this is better still, as there's a chance the deviation might not matter much.
| mrt1212 wrote: | | I think after 5ish years of this, we should be doing a full inventory of what isn't good about the ruleset, even if GW is a mini business that accidentally makes games for them. |
I made an effort to compile all these complaints at the bottom of page 8, if that helps. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 09:29 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | O
Niggling Injuries are pointless.
|
That's a strange take. Niggles are the best version of the injury they've ever been. This is one of the best changes of the edition imo. It's made them non impactful in terms of team building, whereas in previous editions it was often auto fire which was too much, and it increases the players chance of dying on the cas table. Great change ! |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 10:59 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
I think after 5ish years of this, we should be doing a full inventory of what isn't good about the ruleset, even if GW is a mini business that accidentally makes games for them. |
Remember their next edition is in development pretty much as soon as the current edition is released. Give or take a year or breathing space... so they are always playing catch up... |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 11:43 |
|
About Niggling Injuries: yes, they increase Dead and decrease Badly Hurt chances, but SI, NI and -Stat chances are unaffected, which is wrong (every result on the table should be affected).
They would be really perfect if they increased the chance of SI, NI and -Stat as well.
Moreover, yes, the new NIs are better than the old ones, but, on the other hand, the BH result is less likely, so, in the "current match dimension", where you want to use the Apo tactically, the Casualty table got worse. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 11:58 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | About Niggling Injuries: yes, they increase Dead and decrease Badly Hurt chances, but SI, NI and -Stat chances are unaffected, which is wrong (every result on the table should be affected).
They would be really perfect if they increased the chance of SI, NI and -Stat as well.
Moreover, yes, the new NIs are better than the old ones, but, on the other hand, the BH result is less likely, so, in the "current match dimension", where you want to use the Apo tactically, the Casualty table got worse. |
Why is it "wrong"?
Yeah the new apo sucks...they could've and should've handled this much better. Returning it to something between crp and lrb apo. In terms of success probability... |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on Jun 18, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 12:02 |
|
There is no linear progression when NI modifiers are added to the Casualty dice rolls and only BH and Dead chances are affected by the NI modifier.
0 NI
1-6: BH 37.5%
7-9: SI 18.75%
10-12: NI 18.75%
13-14: -Stat 12.5%
15-16: Dead 12.5%
With 1 NI
1-5: BH 31.25%
6-8: SI 18.75%
9-11: NI 18.75%
12-13: -Stat 12.5%
14-16: Dead 18.75%
With 2 NIs
1-4: BH 25%
5-7: SI 18.75%
8-10: NI 18.75%
11-12: -Stat 12.5%
13-16: Dead 25%
SI is always 18.75, NI is always 18.75, -Stat is 12.5%, no matter if the player has 0, 1, 2, or even 3 Niggles.
It would be better and more realistic too if the NIs increased the SI, NI, -Stat chances as well. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Jun 18, 2025; edited 3 times in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 12:07 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | There is no linear progression when NI modifiers are added to the Casualty dice rolls and only BH and Dead chances are affected by the NI modifier.
0 NI
1-6: BH 37.5%
7-9: SI 18.75%
10-12: NI 18.75%
13-14: -Stat 12.5%
15-16: Dead 12.5%
With 1 NI
1-5: BH 31.25%
6-8: SI 18.75%
9-11: NI 18.75%
12-13: -Stat 12.5%
14-16: Dead 18.75%
With 2 NIs
1-4: BH 25%
5-7: SI 18.75%
8-10: NI 18.75%
11-12: -Stat 12.5%
13-16: Dead 25%
SI always 18.75, NI always 18.75, -Stat 12.5% no matter if the player has 0, 1, 2, or even 3 Niggles.
It would be better if the NIs increased the SI, NI, -Stat chances as well. |
I get it's not linear... but why is that wrong?
Is it just your preference to have it linear? |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 12:11 |
|
It would make the NI players more prone to get further permanent injuries, not just to be killed.
As it is now, the player can just be BH less likely and Dead more likely, the in-between SI, NI, -Stat results are unaffected.
It would be more logical and realistic if SI, NI, -Stat result were affected too.
Also, would cripple a bit more the players than now (thinking of stat freaks). Currently there is more short-term damage (MNG injuries affecting the single game you are playing, making Apo less effective) than long-term damage (lasting injuries crippling a player and encouraging to fire them).
I think it would be better to have BH back to 50% for tactical Apo's usage and NIs affecting all the results on the table, not just BH and Dead.
It would be great for both NAF tournaments and perpetual leagues, in my opinion.
Just for the sake of it, I had this idea:
Casualty Table D8
1-4: Badly Hurt 50%
5: Seriously Hurt (MNG) 12.5%
6: Seriously Injured (NI) 12.5%
7: Lasting Injury (-Stat) 12.5%
8: Dead 12.5%
When a player without any NI is injured, roll a D8.
If a player has 1 or more NIs, roll as many extra D8 as the NIs and apply the highest roll.
For example, a player with 2 NIs would roll 3D8:
6, 2, 1 = 6 = Seriously Injured NI
The Apo may rr a D8 once per game and apply this result (ignoring all the D8 rolled), instead. Badly Hurt result is automatically healed.
This way, the more NIs a player has, the higher chance they will suffer a worse Injury and the tactical Apo gets more useful than now. The healing chance is not affected by the stacking NIs, while the severity of Casualties gets affected by stacking NIs.
Instead, if we wanted to reduce the Apo's healing chance due to stacking NIs as well, the Apo could rr a single D8, then applying the highest result of all D8 (as an aside, wasting the Apo would be less common). |
Last edited by MattDakka on Jun 18, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 17:16 |
|
Okay. I understand what you're getting at. Still not convinced there is a problem with how niggles function (though you agree this is the best version of niggles ever), though I do agree with the apo issue.
I wonder if you have worked out the probability of your system for each additional niggle obtained.
Also I'm curious if using a D8 (which i like) wouldn't adding +1 to the roll be more straight forward than rolling additional D8s, that don't actually come in the box? |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 17:24 |
|
If you added a +1 to the D8 table above you would get this:
1-3: BH 37.5%
4: MNG 12.5%
5: SI 12.5%
6: -Stat 12.5%
7-8: Dead 25%
That would still have the issue of decreasing the BH chance to 37.5%, increasing the Dead chance to 25% and leaving the MNG, SI and -Stat chances the same, 12.5%. This is why I suggested to roll the extra D8s. It's a way to get rid of the modifier issue. The stacked NIs' extra D8s make the permanent injuries more serious. For example, result 8 has the same chance as result 7, on a D8, but 8 is higher than 7 (thus has a higher priority value) and this, plus the extra D8s rolled, increases the chance to suffer more serious injuries as the NIs stack.
About the D8s not available in the boxed set: it's not that hard to roll a single D8 twice or thrice or just getting the extra D8 somewhere.
If we have to talk about the missing components, not even the boxed teams have the full roster. The single D8 doesn't seem to me a big issue (also, many people playing a game like BB generally own some D8s).
You can even generate multiple random D8 rolls with a smartphone.
Moreover, it would be unlikely to have players with more than 2 NIs. They would be either fired or get crippled/killed before stacking 3+ NIs. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Jun 18, 2025; edited 5 times in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 17:39 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | If you added a +1 to the D8 table above you would get this:
1-3: BH
4: MNG
5: SI
6: -Stat
7-8: Dead
That would still have the issue of decreasing the BH chance, increasing the Dead chance and leaving the MNG, SI and -Stat chances the same. This is why I suggested to roll the extra D8s.
About the D8s not available in the boxed set: it's not that hard to roll a single D8 twice or thrice or just getting the extra D8 somewhere.
If we have to talk about the missing components, not even the boxed teams have the full roster. The single D8 doesn't seem to me a big issue (also, many people playing a game like BB generally own some D8s).
You can even generate multiple random D8 rolls with a smartphone.
Moreover, it would be unlikely to have players with more than 2 NIs. They would be either fired or get crippled/killed before stacking 3+ NIs. |
yeah.. again... I don't mind that it only reduces BH and increases. Death.. So we will agree to disagree there....
Also I think you should look at your probability if it is "+1 dice, highest result wins"...
Regarding teams not being in a single box.... eesh I hope that's resolved! There was a lot of talk about the next edition rosters being altered to match what's in the box.... Which would be catastrophic. Though the latest rumours suggest the boxes are being re-worked. Guess we will see  |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 17:45 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
Also I think you should look at your probability if it is "+1 dice, highest result wins"...
|
I genuinely don't understand what you mean there, sorry! Please, may you explain it? |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2025 - 17:48 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
Also I think you should look at your probability if it is "+1 dice, highest result wins"...
|
I genuinely don't understand what you mean there, sorry! Please, may you explain it? |
I'm saying you should include the probability for your idea for each additional niggle.
Just like you did here for the current rules -
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=778624#778612 |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
2016 Rules - Tournam...
Search
