MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Aug 06, 2025 - 14:34 |
 
|
Heavy attrition at start of 2nd Half would be less severe by adding Journeymen up to 11. That would make games less based on going back and more trying to actually score, as a game is supposed to be.
Developed Throwers are not really a thing in this ruleset, only developed running-type ball carriers.
Developed Throwers cost too much for what they add and can't be kept for many games. It's not advantageous to do it.
It's a ruleset made for hybrid teams.
I know that stalling is part of the game, and the rule would not stop deep stalling, it would make it a bit harder.
I simulated several kick-off using this rule, just to test it, and there would be still enough room to go back and stall, just not too deep every game like now, barring some kick-offs.
Kick would become very useful and the game would be more strategic.
Kick deep vs bash teams, kick short vs agile and hybrid teams.
Score fast and kick short, trying to pressure the ball and score again.
This is something which rarely happens, most games tend to be ties due to the excessive stalling involved.
As an aside, I would use another house rule to make stalling near the End Zone riskier:
- If the attacking team's player carrying the ball can score without rolling any dice refrains from it, roll a D6 at the end of that turn: first turn of stalling they get hit and knocked down (with AV roll) by a rock from the crowd on a 6+, second turn 5+, third turn 4+ and so on to a minimum of 2+.
This could help Elven teams a bit, they could lurk nearby a bash team cage hoping for a rock and a good scatter. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Aug 06, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
 Posted:
Aug 06, 2025 - 14:48 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
Do you want to discourage people from playing elves even more. |
+1 |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 06, 2025 - 23:00 |
|
Interesting Matt, but I'd rather see field goals implemented if we are gonna change the game up a bit.
3pts TD, 1pt FG. Ta-Da!
Edit:
Heck if adding actually kicking, lets add in extra points too & go NFL style w/ 6pts TD, 1pt EP, 3pts FG! |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
moph
Joined: Sep 16, 2020
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2025 - 00:40 |
|
+1 for field goals.
To get stalling out of the game you must lay your hands on the 2 halves of 8 turns structure of the game. But that would entail a lot of rebalancing. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2025 - 20:59 |
|
I'm not that familiar with that kind of deep stalling, thinking about the objections/issues others raise with that particular rule, I'm wondering about alternate rules that might serve the purpose. As I do (or did in editions with better passin support) like to just keep a good passer far back, often alone or with one screen.
Perhaps some sort of 'off-sides' rule? so that you could have the passer, and maybe 1-2 others stay back to screen the passer lightly, but you can't just retreat everyone to cover the ball in your own end zone.
Though personally, all the forms of anti-stalling rules I've tried to developed rely on fluff more than rules; specifically they rely on the fluff of the crowds being rowdy in bloodbowl, and the anti-stall rules I've designed all work by the crowd getting angry/bored at the stall/lack of excitement and invading the pitch; a growing chance to do so the longer the stall lasts. |
|
|
Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2025 - 21:07 |
|
Its interesting because American Football, the source material for the game, has a function that already creates a requirement for incremental progress with the first down system.
I think it would port over pretty easily with not many rule changes and would encourage elves to engage on offense and defense more aggressively while also giving some ability to win against bashier squads by making the defensive reward for risky play much greater. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2025 - 21:56 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2025 - 22:24 |
|
In American Football there are no teams with 5 players left vs a full team.
It's hard to snatch the ball if you have few players left.
Often, even a full team can't get the ball.
Although Blood Bowl has been inspired by American Football and Rugby and may look similar, actually the games are very different and can't be really compared.
Another house rule I'd like to try is weakening a bit the cage, by cancelling the ball carrier's Tackle Zone when a blitzing player tries to dodge or leap into it (fluff: the ball carrier is busy holding the ball and can't assist the tackle).
That would make ball sacking a bit easier.
With -3 to Dodge it's very hard and after that there are usually 2 corner Guards protecting the ball carrier.
Defensive could cancel Guard on a Blitz (but not on a Block) Action, that would help too.
Elven teams with 5 players left could try to sack the ball a bit more easily.
A Leap with AG 2+ could be an unmodified 4+ roll (regardless of Tackle zones). It's worse than old 3+ Leap but better than current modified Leap.
With all these tweaks ball sacking through cage leaping would have better chances to work than now.
1 rr per turn, otherwise the sequence could be too easy. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2025 - 22:48 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | In American Football there are no teams with 5 players left vs a full team. |
Unlimited substitutions. Pfft.
A sure sign that the world is going soft
| MattDakka wrote: | Another house rule I'd like to try is weakening a bit the cage, by cancelling the ball carrier's Tackle Zone when a blitzing player tries to dodge or leap into it (fluff: the ball carrier is busy holding the ball and can't assist the tackle).
That would make ball sacking a bit easier. |
Didn't we used to have leap & break tackle?
Just jon All Stars and gaze the cage away.  |
_________________
Summer Sprint Season. 1st Aug - 14th Sept. Open/Gamefinder play |
|
Tomay
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 09:56 |
|
Just change the injury table to less SIs again to keep key players on the pitch.
Used to be if you started with over 9 players on a wood elf team you were pretty sure you'd win. |
_________________
Join now and "Create a Legend" |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 10:44 |
|
| Tomay wrote: | Just change the injury table to less SIs again to keep key players on the pitch.
Used to be if you started with over 9 players on a wood elf team you were pretty sure you'd win. |
The second sensible point in this threat. The new casualty table is really bad for the game.
Though on the plus side at least they have finally fixed Niggles. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 10:50 |
|
Both Injury and Casualty tables should be changed, for example like this:
Injury Table (2D6)
2-8: Stunned
9-10: KO (Thick Skull turns KO into Stunned on 4+)
11+: CAS
Casualty Table (D8 )
1-4: Badly Hurt
5: Seriously Hurt (MNG)
6: Seriously Injured (NI)
7: Lasting Injury (-Stat)
8: Dead
And, even with these tables, 11 players should be assured at start of 2nd Half, to make both halves worth to be played. Winning the coin toss should have less impact on a game. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 12:15 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Both Injury and Casualty tables should be changed, for example like this:
Injury Table (2D6)
2-8: Stunned
9-10: KO (Thick Skull turns KO into Stunned on 4+)
11+: CAS
Casualty Table (D8 )
1-4: Badly Hurt
5: Seriously Hurt (MNG)
6: Seriously Injured (NI)
7: Lasting Injury (-Stat)
8: Dead
And, even with these tables, 11 players should be assured at start of 2nd Half, to make both halves worth to be played. Winning the coin toss should have less impact on a game. |
Those tables, specifically the first have gone too far the other way... Remember that on 2D6 the probability is non linear, the effect of that injury change is huge.... too much. People enjoy injuring opposing players. You are significantly reducing that.
There also should be no guarantee of 11 players... That would detract from the overall variability of game scenarios. The beauty of Blood Bowl is every game throws up new challenges, new scenarios and puzzles. I remember games where I have won with 4 High Elves vs 11 undead in the 2nd half for example, (vs a good coach), these are memorable because you won against all odds.
I understand you want to reduce severe tilt, which is in theory a good idea. But your proposal isn't the answer, the auto 11 players is again too far. However some kind of functional handicap system could be nice, like reworking Prayers to Nuffle into something meaningful and that helps reduce tilt, or a handicap system of sorts. There are rubber band mechanics in games like MCP and they work brilliantly, and there could easily be something similar in BB in games where they quickly degenerate into foregone conclusions.
Also a more simple solution to having a higher probability of fielding 11 players 2nd half is to encourage taking reserves. This could be done in a number of ways. But the most simple is reduce the TV of linemen after the 11th player. It's nonsense that reserves beyond 1 or 2 can often be seen as bloat. Having a bench for the 2nd half should be good team building practice theoretically, and by reducing their TV you'd encourage teams to have more reserves, thus reducing the number of games you'd have a depleted team.
As an aside - personally I'd like the squad management to go much further and you actually have a squad of 24 with half the number of positionals in reserves too. E.g. Wood Elves would get 1 extra Wardancer they can keep in their Squad, however on match days they can only pick up to 16 players and only 2 Wardancers to have in the squad. This would also you allow to build squads with specific functional players e.g. Block Tackle players in reserve for when you face Zons for example, but if you face a team with no Blodge you could then leave them out of the match day squad in favour of a more useful player you'd developed for the opponent you're facing. This way you wouldn't get punished in TV for taking skills that have no use against specific opposition. It would also make players like the Sneaky Stabba more attractive... You could leave them out the squad for the vast majority of games, but if you are facing zons or other Av8+ or < then you could consider adding them to your match day squad of up to 16. This would also give you some cover when playing with teams like Lizardmen who suffer big time! if they have 3 Squad Saurus for when they suffer heavy cas....
But anyway the squad thing is for another day.. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 12:36 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
There also should be no guarantee of 11 players... That would detract from the overall variability of game scenarios. |
There is still variability. There could be 5 Elves with 6 Loner Journeymen, 7 Elves with 4 Loner Journeymen and so on. If we want to talk about variability, there are more variables when the teams are 11 players vs 11 players, because the branching factor is way higher with 22 players on pitch than with fewer than 22. It's maths, not an opinion.
| Garion wrote: |
I remember games where I have won with 4 High Elves vs 11 undead in the 2nd half for example, (vs a good coach), these are memorable because you won against all odds.
|
I guess those games where when Elves could actually pass the ball and sack the ball. With the current ruleset both things are harder.
| Garion wrote: |
But your proposal isn't the answer, the auto 11 players is again too far. However some kind of functional handicap system could be nice, like reworking Prayers to Nuffle into something meaningful and that helps reduce tilt, or a handicap system of sorts. |
Maybe it's me, but I play BB mainly for moving players on a pitch, not to get random Prayers on Nuffle which don't really help when I'm terribly outnumbered. I prefer to move players and try moves, it's way more active from a gameplay perspective.
| Garion wrote: |
Also a more simple solution to having a higher probability of fielding 11 players 2nd half is to encourage taking reserves. |
That doesn't fix the issue of removals while a drive is being played, though. KO 8-9 is not that hard, and this before considering Mighty Blow. When you consider it, the odds of a KO are even greater.
When I'm defending or attacking I want to have enough players on the pitch to play decently my drive, if outnumbered I'm forced to play passively just to reduce the damage, not to try stuff. It's not fun and not interesting either, and this happens quite often, even at low TV. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 13:04 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
There also should be no guarantee of 11 players... That would detract from the overall variability of game scenarios. |
There is still variability. There could be 5 Elves with 6 Loner Journeymen, 7 Elves with 4 Loner Journeymen and so on. If we want to talk about variability, there are more variables when the teams are 11 players vs 11 players, because the branching factor is way higher with 22 players on pitch than with fewer than 22. It's maths, not an opinion.
|
No, your response and maths is factually wrong. By definition there are more variables/ more scenarios when there are more permutations. Because - in the game as it currently is, you can have 11 vs 11 or 11 vs 5 etc... In your proposed ideas you only have 11 vs 11, and the many variations of what can occur when there are 11 vs 11. But when you can also have other starting numbers it only adds to the variability. It has every possible permutation of 11 vs 11, plus all the other permutations too. Therefore there are more variance.
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
I remember games where I have won with 4 High Elves vs 11 undead in the 2nd half for example, (vs a good coach), these are memorable because you won against all odds.
|
I guess those games where when Elves could actually pass the ball and sack the ball. With the current ruleset both things are harder. |
No, incorrect again. It was that era, but I had zero completions that game, or sacks... The point though is that you are removing the potential joy of winning against the odds, and uphill battles, or protecting a win with only 3 or 4 players.
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
But your proposal isn't the answer, the auto 11 players is again too far. However some kind of functional handicap system could be nice, like reworking Prayers to Nuffle into something meaningful and that helps reduce tilt, or a handicap system of sorts. |
Maybe it's me, but I play BB mainly for moving players on a pitch, not to get random Prayers on Nuffle which don't really help when I'm terribly outnumbered. I prefer to move players and try moves, it's way more active from a gameplay perspective. |
You have not really considered what I am discussing in relation to rubber band mechanics. I'm not saying Prayers is the answer, especially in their current form, as they are currently a waste of time. Anyway... What I am saying is there are better solutions than what you propose and MCP is a living example of a game with a rubber band mechanic that works extremely well. Having 11 players every drive is not the answer. It undermines the accomplishments of the team that caused the cas. e.g. If you have skilfully out played your opponent to the point you have done 3 times more blocks in the first half then you should really have the benefit of winning that blocking battle. It shouldn't be reset for the next drive. Now I'm not saying this is the solution... but just so you understand, this would be a rubber band mechanic... if you have less than 7 players on the pitch your team gain Iron Hard skin for the remainder of the drive.
Again to be clear... I'm not saying that should be a rule. I'm just explaining what a functional in game rubber band mechanic could look like. Reducing severe tilt is something worth thinking about, we are agreed on that point. I fundamentally think you are on the wrong path making cas so hard and always having 11 vs 11
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
Also a more simple solution to having a higher probability of fielding 11 players 2nd half is to encourage taking reserves. |
That doesn't fix the issue of removals while a drive is being played, though. KO 8-9 is not that hard, and this before considering Mighty Blow. When you consider it, the odds of a KO are even greater. |
But why are removals in a drive problematic? That's a huge part of the game. Also if tilt is too big then yes a rubber band mechanic could be good. But your solution doesn't resolve that either. You have just made the game unbelievably tame.. people enjoy cas, people enjoy pitch clearances. You have simultaneously made Cas MUCH more unlikely, and KO also more unlikely. Plus you said above that you would like KO'd players to return to the pitch with much higher frequency....
Instead of all your rules changes you are proposing, it sounds like really if you think about it you'd enjoy the game more if there were No KO or cas, because you'd always have your full team to play with... |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Deep stalling mitiga...
Search
