RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
  Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 13:26 |
 
|
| koadah wrote: |
A sure sign that the world is going soft
|
Rules are rules!
And speaking of rules...
I had less trouble understanding the solutions to Schroedinger's equation for a quantum harmonic oscillator in 3 dimensions than understanding the rules of cricket. |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 13:40 |
|
| RDaneel wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
A sure sign that the world is going soft
|
Rules are rules!
And speaking of rules...
|
English football has allowed at least one substitute since 1965.
Unlimited is a bit much, but come on. You can't even change one player?
Even blood bowl allows that. 
| RDaneel wrote: | | I had less trouble understanding the solutions to Schroedinger's equation for a quantum harmonic oscillator in 3 dimensions than understanding the rules of cricket. |
Have you tried?
What did you find difficult about it?
Judging LBW? 
Blood Bowl Cricket? |
_________________
Summer Sprint Season. 1st Aug - 14th Sept. Open/Gamefinder play |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 14:19 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
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. |
Variables in game are fewer, because every player on the pitch that can make a move or an action increases the branching factor (the number of possible moves per turn). If you have, for example, only 2 players on the pitch, the things you can do every turn are very limited and easy to predict too. With 11 players left you can do more moves and actions on the board, thus multiplying by thousands the possible variables to play the turn.
| Garion wrote: |
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. |
Ok, and with few players left you are increasing the frustration to play a game. If I have to choose between increasing joy to win against the odds and decreasing frustration in a game potentially lasting 1 hour, well, I choose the latter.
Also, if a game starts 11 vs 11 with a coin toss, there is no reason why it should not start 11 vs 11 on 2nd Half as well.
The only difference is a coin toss, not coach's skill. So, the half starting with 11 vs 11 players is bad while the half starting with 11 vs 5 is fun because with 5 players you can struggle against the odds? It sounds as sadistic joy to me. Anyway, if you love to play 5 vs 11, there could be a rule saying that you are not forced to deploy 11 players.
That would make happy the people liking to play 5 vs 11 and the people wanting to start 11 vs 11 the 2nd Half.
| Garion wrote: |
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. |
Too bad that the CAS variance is so high and unreliable that often it's not a matter of throwing thrice the amount of blocks. Just a couple of Mummies with Mighty Blow and the LOS blocks are enough to start gaining the upper hand in terms of removals. That's not "brilliant coaching skill", but sheer dice rolling. If you consider that an accomplishment, ok, but I disagree. Cas often boil down to quality of blocks (with skills such as Block and Mighty Blow) rather that outblocking skillfully your opponent, especially when the team suffering the CAS has AV 8+ or less. Skills such as Block and Mighty Blow are default for some teams, or not hard to acquire after 1 game or 2.
| Garion wrote: |
But why are removals in a drive problematic? That's a huge part of the game. |
I'm not saying that there should be no removals during a drive, I'm saying that the current ruleset still has too many removals and I think they should be reduced. Too many removals are one of the reasons people don't play certain teams.
With too many removals the tactical aspect is reduced and the turns get less interesting to play (because with few players your options are narrowed down).
With 11 players assured at start of 2nd Half there would still be an advantage from removals (because the fillers would have Loner, so, not as good as rostered players).
They could even be worse than normal Journeymen by removing skills/decreasing stats/increasing the Loner roll.
For example a filler Dwarf Lineman could have Brawler only, no Tackle.
A filler Elf Lineman could have AG 3+ with Break Tackle or AG 2+ but -1 AV.
Just to make a couple of examples.
Or they could be Journeymen with Loner 6+, or both things (i.e. a weaker Journeyman with fewer skills/worse stats and Loner 6+).
They would not break the games, just make the 2nd Half more interesting to play.
The removals would affect the game, because an 11-man team with fillers is worse than an 11-man team with rostered players, but the team with fillers at least could try more things than a team with 5 players left.
I really don't think it would be bad for the game. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 15:52 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
Variables in game are fewer, because every player on the pitch that can make a move or an action increases the branching factor (the number of possible moves per turn). If you have, for example, only 2 players on the pitch, the things you can do every turn are very limited and easy to predict too. With 11 players left you can do more moves and actions on the board, thus multiplying by thousands the possible variables to play the turn.
|
Okay, well in 1 specific game in the specific way you mean it yes you have a point, but you are talking about a rule change that impacts EVERY game, not just 1 in a very specific way, so you have to look at it holistically. And as already explained if you make every drive 11 vs 11 it makes the game as a whole have less variation and presents coaches with fewer different scenarios to deal with.
| Quote: | | Ok, and with few players left you are increasing the frustration to play a game. If I have to choose between increasing joy to win against the odds and decreasing frustration in a game potentially lasting 1 hour, well, I choose the latter. |
Fair enough, that's just your opinion then. You find being players down frustrating, and at times it can be. But it can also be a fun challenge. In the majority of games this isn't actually a big issue, but you are discussing games with extreme tilt as if they happen every game, which isn't the case, and I'm all for a rubber band mechanic or two coming in to help in games with extreme tilt. But having 11 players every drive is boring and undermines what has happened in the game in the previous drive(s).
| Quote: | Also, if a game starts 11 vs 11 with a coin toss, there is no reason why it should not start 11 vs 11 on 2nd Half as well.
|
Why should it? You keep making statements like this as if they are rule that must be obeyed? Why must each half or drive be 11 vs 11?
| Quote: | | The only difference is a coin toss, not coach's skill. So, the half starting with 11 vs 11 players is bad while the half starting with 11 vs 5 is fun because with 5 players you can struggle against the odds? It sounds as sadistic joy to me. Anyway, if you love to play 5 vs 11, there could be a rule saying that you are not forced to deploy 11 players. |
That's just a silly thing to say... and you also seem to be suggesting coin toss is OP now???
| Quote: | Too bad that the CAS variance is so high and unreliable that often it's not a matter of throwing thrice the amount of blocks. Just a couple of Mummies with Mighty Blow and the LOS blocks are enough to start gaining the upper hand in terms of removals. That's not "brilliant coaching skill", but sheer dice rolling. If you consider that an accomplishment, ok, but I disagree. Cas often boil down to quality of blocks (with skills such as Block and Mighty Blow) rather that outblocking skillfully your opponent, especially when the team suffering the CAS has AV 8+ or less. Skills such as Block and Mighty Blow are default for some teams, or not hard to acquire after 1 game or 2.
|
We are in agreement about the cas table.. I think most are. Cas are too common now because of the bad changes made, and the impact this has on the apothecaries efficacy. But you are again sighting examples that don't represent the game in the vast majority of games. Sure we have all suffered from early cas leads that are fairly significant in determining the outcome of that drive. But this is still fairly uncommon. The average Cas a game on the site is around 2 for and 2 against a game and the average blocks is around 35 to 39. Coach ability is the biggest determining outcome on results.
| Quote: | | I'm not saying that there should be no removals during a drive, I'm saying that the current ruleset still has too many removals and I think they should be reduced. Too many removals are one of the reasons people don't play certain teams. |
I know you are not saying there should no removals, but deep down every change you have suggested is reducing attrition very heavily. I think deep down you would rather there wasn't player removal and Stunned was as bad as it got...
| Quote: |
With too many removals the tactical aspect is reduced and the turns get less interesting to play (because with few players your options are narrowed down). |
Again that's not necessarily true. There is absolutely a breaking point which is when resistance in futile. But the majority of games and the majority of the time in game you have a chance. Being a few players down can lead to having to make riskier plays to pop the ball free or pressurise an early score, or possibly withdrawing to keep players safe, or concentrating on removing some key opposition players for the remainder of the game. There are many tactical considerations that occur when things aren't going your way... Again the rules changes around always having 11 players significantly impact a coaches approach to the game and lessen the decisions a coach has to make, because if you are guaranteed 11 players every drive you dont have to be so considerate.
| Quote: | They could even be worse than normal Journeymen by removing skills/decreasing stats/increasing the Loner roll.
For example a filler Dwarf Lineman could have Brawler only, no Tackle.
A filler Elf Lineman could have AG 3+ with Break Tackle or AG 2+ but -1 AV.
Just to make a couple of examples.
Or they could be Journeymen with Loner 6+, or both things (i.e. a weaker Journeyman with fewer skills/worse stats and Loner 6+).
They would not break the games, just make the 2nd Half more interesting to play.
The removals would affect the game, because an 11-man team with fillers is worse than an 11-man team with rostered players, but the team with fillers at least could try more things than a team with 5 players left.
I really don't think it would be bad for the game. |
All of that is just unnecessary rules bloat though. And would be very hard to keep track of table top. You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the vast majority of games played. As I mentioned before the average number of cas a game is around 2 for and 2 against.
Since you are trying to fix a problem that impacts games with extreme tilt only (which are very rare), then looking at a rubber band mechanic that occurs during a drive under specific conditions would be the better way to handle things, if it is extreme tilt you are trying to fix. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 16:52 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
Why should it? You keep making statements like this as if they are rule that must be obeyed? Why must each half or drive be 11 vs 11? |
Why the game starts 11 vs 11 and not 11 vs 5? Answer: because it's supposed to be 11 vs 11 (which is the Holy Nuffle's number, by the way, as per fluff).
It could start with a random number of players, but it's more balanced if it's 11 vs 11. The fact that a coin is tossed suggests that having the possibility of starting (and getting an early removal advantage) is important. If 1st Half starts 11 vs 11 and it's considered balanced, why the 2nd Half should start 11 vs fewer players? There is no logical reason. Also, why the reserves? It could be just 11 players vs 11 players without reserves, if the game wanted to focus on removals. It would be even better, no reserves allowed, win through attrition. Would it be a good game? I don't think so.
| Garion wrote: |
That's just a silly thing to say... and you also seem to be suggesting coin toss is OP now??? |
Often games are decided by winning the coin toss. If a team can get an early CAS advantage or it can score before losing too many players (which is easier, if you start with a full 11-man team) you have an advantage. I'm not saying that the coin toss is OP, I'm saying that, with the current Injury Table and pretty easy removals, winning the coin toss gives a great advantage. It should not be like that. Winning the coin toss should not be so important. It would not be so important, if you could be sure to field 11 players on 2nd Half. That is my point.
| Garion wrote: |
But you are again sighting examples that don't represent the game in the vast majority of game. Sure we have all suffered from early cas leads that are fairly significant in determining the outcome of that drive. But this is still fairly uncommon. The average Cas a game on the site is around 2 for and 2 against a game and the average blocks is around 35 to 39. Coach ability is the biggest determining outcome on results. |
I play a lot and losing or removing quickly 2-3 players with AV 8+ or even AV 9+ is not that uncommon.
Coach's ability for sure matters, but don't sell me the tale that CAS are necessarily achieved through a superb coaching skill and quantity of blocks.
At the low TV we play a big factor is the roster and how many Mighty Blows and Block a team has.
It's not as silly as with Cpomb, but there are still too many removals.
Average CAS doesn't tell the whole story, the KOs are important too. They are more common than Casualties and affect a drive.
| Garion wrote: |
I know you are not saying there should no removals, but deep down every change you have suggested is reducing attrition very heavily. I think deep down you would rather there wasn't player removal and Stunned was as bad as it got... |
I'm for removals and attrition (one of the reasons I don't like tournaments is automatic healing), as long as a game stays playable for both coaches.
| Garion wrote: |
But the majority of games and the majority of the time in game you have a chance. |
And what's wrong with increasing the majority of games in which there is a chance by toning down the removals?
Basically my change just takes into account the +1 Mighty Blow modifier to the Injury roll. I use to check the AV and Injury rolls when I play or watch games and, even with my Injury Table, there still would be removals. It would not turn suddenly the game into "Pillow Fight Bowl".
| Garion wrote: |
Being a few players down can lead to having to make riskier plays to pop the ball free or pressurise an early score |
With few players that's not really an option, it's not going to work unless you are playing vs a super poor coach.
| Garion wrote: |
or possibly withdrawing to keep players safe, or concentrating on removing some key opposition players for the remainder of the game. |
Ok, you keep the players safe and then on turn 8 you hope for a 1TTD? If you have a freak, ok, what if you don't?
| Garion wrote: |
if you are guaranteed 11 players every drive you dont have to be so considerate. |
It can be looked from two sides: I could be more encouraged to try defending if I knew that I would start my offensive drive on 2nd Half with 11 players. With weaker-than-rostered-linemen fillers, not 11 stat freaks.
| Garion wrote: |
All of that is just unnecessary rules bloat though. And would be very hard to keep track of table top. |
Then let's use normal Journeymen, with a red ring or a differently painted base or whatever else to mark them. It should not be hard to do it in TT games.
| Garion wrote: |
You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the vast majority of games played. As I mentioned before the average number of cas a game is around 2 for and 2 against. |
Play Elves for a while, you will see that the issue exists. Consider the KOs during a drive too, because those are important too, not just the Casualties.
Moreover, toning down the Injury table would make Stunty teams more playable. That's another positive side.
Currently Stunty teams are too squishy, a less severe Injury Table would help them a bit. |
|
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 17:57 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
Have you tried?
What did you find difficult about it?
Judging LBW?
Blood Bowl Cricket? |
When I went to England to visit my uncle, I tried watching some matches on TV. I didn't understand anything at all. But to be honest, I didn't really try very hard. Is it very popular in the UK? |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 17:59 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
Why should it? You keep making statements like this as if they are rule that must be obeyed? Why must each half or drive be 11 vs 11? |
Why the game starts 11 vs 11 and not 11 vs 5? Answer: because it's supposed to be 11 vs 11 (which is the Holy Nuffle's number, by the way, as per fluff).
It could start with a random number of players, but it's more balanced if it's 11 vs 11. The fact that a coin is tossed suggests that having the possibility of starting (and getting an early removal advantage) is important. If 1st Half starts 11 vs 11 and it's considered balanced, why the 2nd Half should start 11 vs fewer players? There is no logical reason. Also, why the reserves? It could be just 11 players vs 11 players without reserves, if the game wanted to focus on removals. It would be even better, no reserves allowed, win through attrition. Would it be a good game? I don't think so. |
You are saying a lot of silly things in your replies now. Like why not start with a random number of players, or why not start 11 vs 5... It's making it near impossible to have a sensible discussion with you.
There are lore reasons why the game starts with 11, and reasons why there aren't infinite number of journeymen waiting to play for you pitch side on game day. but I'm not discussing the lore.
I already laid out why it undermines the game if you constantly refreshed back to 11 men. It also makes Reserves pointless on top of the reasons I've listed on the previous post, none of which you have responded to btw..
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
That's just a silly thing to say... and you also seem to be suggesting coin toss is OP now??? |
Often games are decided by winning the coin toss. If a team can get an early CAS advantage or it can score before losing too many players (which is easier, if you start with a full 11-man team) you have an advantage. I'm not saying that the coin toss is OP, I'm saying that, with the current Injury Table and pretty easy removals, winning the coin toss gives a great advantage. It should not be like that. Winning the coin toss should not be so important. It would not be so important, if you could be sure to field 11 players on 2nd Half. That is my point.
|
You've done it again, making silly statements... "Often games are decided by the coin toss"? Do you have any proof of that? I certainly don't think that's the case. Sometime the team that receives first can gain an advantage that drive, and potentially a small advantage overall (aside from Goblin who desperately need to receive first). I don't think it determines a winner most games... Again I think the bigger problem you are pointing to and not dealing with is heavy tilt during a drive... That could do with some looking at... But it's very rare that a few cas caused in the first half determine the outcome and most of the time both teams are pretty closely matched in the 2nd half, especially when teams carry reserves. Which are an important part of the lore and team building mechanics.
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
But you are again sighting examples that don't represent the game in the vast majority of game. Sure we have all suffered from early cas leads that are fairly significant in determining the outcome of that drive. But this is still fairly uncommon. The average Cas a game on the site is around 2 for and 2 against a game and the average blocks is around 35 to 39. Coach ability is the biggest determining outcome on results. |
I play a lot and losing or removing quickly 2-3 players with AV 8+ or even AV 9+ is not that uncommon.
Coach's ability for sure matters, but don't sell me the tale that CAS are necessarily achieved through a superb coaching skill and quantity of blocks.
At the low TV we play a big factor is the roster and how many Mighty Blows and Block a team has.
It's not as silly as with Cpomb, but there are still too many removals.
Average CAS doesn't tell the whole story, the KOs are important too. They are more common than Casualties and affect a drive. |
Yes, Kos are important too. and no I never said that Cas are always achieved through superb coaching skill, but more often than not if a team starts winning the Blocking tactical battle they will come out on top in terms of KO and Cas caused. It's just probability. There are many other factors of course, Av and so on. But this is all part of the game, learning when to disengage, change tactics and so on.
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
I know you are not saying there should no removals, but deep down every change you have suggested is reducing attrition very heavily. I think deep down you would rather there wasn't player removal and Stunned was as bad as it got... |
I'm for removals and attrition (one of the reasons I don't like tournaments is automatic healing), as long as a game stays playable for both coaches. |
But where is your proof that the games are not playable for both coaches currently? most games I play or watch are very close all the way. Some are very dicey. But most are fine.
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
But the majority of games and the majority of the time in game you have a chance. |
And what's wrong with increasing the majority of games in which there is a chance by toning down the removals?
Basically my change just takes into account the +1 Mighty Blow modifier to the Injury roll. I use to check the AV and Injury rolls when I play or watch games and, even with my Injury Table, there still would be removals. It would not turn suddenly the game into "Pillow Fight Bowl". |
we are in agreement about Cas table being problematic. The actually injury table is the same as before and in a position I'm happy with, why change something so tried and tested over years. I guess this is just down to taste really. But your idea just makes the game too soft, and also massively buffs Orcs, Dwarves and Undead... which is not really wanted
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
Being a few players down can lead to having to make riskier plays to pop the ball free or pressurise an early score |
With few players that's not really an option, it's not going to work unless you are playing vs a super poor coach.
|
Just not true... Sure it's harder vs the best coaches, but there is usually a chance. You are again talking about the biggest tilt games and talking about them as if they are all the time.
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
or possibly withdrawing to keep players safe, or concentrating on removing some key opposition players for the remainder of the game. |
Ok, you keep the players safe and then on turn 8 you hope for a 1TTD? If you have a freak, ok, what if you don't? |
In full agreement about Auto Max2 in this edition. It is terrible for the game, I hate that every team has OTT specialists now. It's so lame.. and has lead to so many teams lying down and saving their Multi rr to OTT in the last turn.
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
All of that is just unnecessary rules bloat though. And would be very hard to keep track of table top. |
Then let's use normal Journeymen, with a red ring or a differently painted base or whatever else to mark them. It should not be hard to do it in TT games. |
Sure but you've taken what I've said out of context, you were also saying they'd be loners but with additional nerfs... If you read your previous post it had far too much rules bloat.
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the vast majority of games played. As I mentioned before the average number of cas a game is around 2 for and 2 against. |
Play Elves for a while, you will see that the issue exists. Consider the KOs during a drive too, because those are important too, not just the Casualties.
Moreover, toning down the Injury table would make Stunty teams more playable. That's another positive side.
Currently Stunty teams are too squishy, a less severe Injury Table would help them a bit. |
[/quote]
Stunty teams are already perfectly playable... There are a few tweaks needed e.g. trolls should lose loner in goblin teams for example. But they don't need any more protection. In fact I think some of them are a bit too good in the right hands.
As for elves they are all performing pretty well this edition. Dark Elves are undoubtably the best now. And Pro Elves I wish they'd switch the Pa on the Blitzers and Catchers for NoS synergy. But Elves are still performing pretty well.
I think the issue you are trying to fix you are over stating. And I also think the issue you are trying to fix is not being addressed in your proposal. There doesn't need to be 11 every half... reserves do their job. They could get a TV discount, but that's all that is needed.
In terms of fixing Tilt in a drive, your proposal doesn't work. it doesnt impact the game during a drive.. And you just buffed Orcs, Undead and Dwarves!!! and with your proposal about Kicks on the OP you have nerfed Elves more!
Anyway... I'm done. You crack on. But I really don't think you've thought things through here... and basically I think you'd just be much happier if there were no cas, and everyone returned end of the drive. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 18:56 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
You are saying a lot of silly things in your replies now. Like why not start with a random number of players, or why not start 11 vs 5... |
That was a rhetoric exaggeration. Of course the game should not start with a random number of players. The game starts Half 1 with 11 and it would be sensible to start Half 2 with 11 players too, so the team winning the coin toss and throwing first the blocks (removing players too, probably) will not have the advantage of numbers on Half 2 too. I don't think I dodged your questions at all.
I know the lore too, the reason players are limited to 16 is because the Greenfield Grasshuggers kept on replacing players in a game vs the Asgard Ravens in 2482, so NAF decided to put a limit to the players on a team (BB 2nd edition Handbook, page 25).
| Garion wrote: |
I already laid out why it undermines the game if you constantly refreshed back to 11 men. It also makes Reserves pointless on top of the reasons I've listed on the previous post, none of which you have responded to btw.. |
And I have explained, I think, why starting a Half 5 vs 11 undermines the game. My reasons are as good as yours.
Reserves are already quite pointless, because you can't replace players during the drive. I don't suggest to replace players in a drive, just to add them at start of 2nd Half. Also, starting 2nd Half 11 vs 11 doesn't mean that no player would be removed during the 2nd Half drive.
Removals would still play a role in a drive.
| Garion wrote: |
You've done it again, making silly statements... "Often games are decided by the coin toss"? Do you have any proof of that? |
I have my experience suggesting it. There is a huge difference between receiving and kicking, especially if your team has no reserves. It's so trivial that I should not explain it. It doesn't require a scientifical demonstration to say that if I start with 11 Elves on Half 1 I can stall and score more easily than if I lose the coss and start my offensive drive on 2nd Half with 7 players. I find this quite game-deciding. Maybe the game won't be lost, but you are forced to play for the draw just due to lack of players.
I watch lots of games and even at low TV I see same TV teams and races losing or winning thanks to receiving or kicking on Half 1. Not because a coach outsmarts their opponent, but just due to the CAS/KO early snowball effect.
| Garion wrote: |
Coach ability is the biggest determining outcome on results. |
Coach ability and Casualties suffered/dealt.
| Garion wrote: |
But where is your proof that the games are not playable for both coaches currently? most games I play or watch are very close all the way. Some are very dicey. But most are fine. |
Too many games are ties. Often, these ties are due to lacking players to defend/attack and people stalling to secure the draw. I have no material proof, but I think that this is self-evident enough to everybody here.
| Garion wrote: |
But the majority of games and the majority of the time in game you have a chance. |
| Garion wrote: | | The actually injury table is the same as before and in a position I'm happy with, why change something so tried and tested over years. |
Because we could change it, nerf a bit the removals, and play games with more players left on the pitch, with more things to do rather than just trying to secure a tie or just survive and reduce the damage suffered.
| Garion wrote: | | buffs Orcs, Dwarves and Undead... which is not really wanted |
Why? If you make removals harder, Orcs Dwarfs and Undead get nerfed, not buffed. Mummies start with Mighty Blow and with the current table can get easily Casualties. Orcs and Dwarfs don't start with Mighty Blow but both teams are 6 SPPs away from a Mighty Blow.
I think, instead, that toning down the bash would actually buff Elves and all the teams suffering too much attrition.
| Garion wrote: |
Just not true... Sure it's harder vs the best coaches, but there is usually a chance. You are again talking about the biggest tilt games and talking about them as if they are all the time. |
It's not my experience. If you are very outnumbered, there is not much to do. The exception that comes to mind it's Vampires, but they are a particular team, able to bust cages with Hypnotic Gazes.
| Garion wrote: |
Sure but you've taken what I've said out of context, you were also saying they'd be loners but with additional nerfs... If you read your previous post it had far too much rules bloat. |
Just to be clear: my idea is adding Loner Journeymen at start of 2nd Half. I suggested to make these Journeymen weaker because they would be too good according to you, but my original rule is just adding Journeymen. Now, if it's hard to keep track of Journeymen added in 2nd Half, we should not even use the normal Journeymen in TT games.
It's not that hard to add a marking to a miniature in TT games. The interesting and smart aspect of Journeymen added at start of 2nd Half it's that they deal well with the variance of Injuries and failed KO rolls. Even your beloved classic Injury Table doesn't ensure that the Casualties/KO will be as per expected average. Hence the idea of adding Journeymen at start of 2nd Half.
Now, If I had suggested to replace immediately every removed played with a Journeymen, I would have agreed with you but, since these extra Journeymen are added only at start of 2nd Half and they can still be removed during the 2nd Half drive, I don't think they would break the game.
| Garion wrote: |
Stunty teams are already perfectly playable... There are a few tweaks needed e.g. trolls should lose loner in goblin teams for example. But they don't need any more protection. In fact I think some of them are a bit too good in the right hands. |
Weird that I very rarely find Stunty teams in the Box, if they are so good. A bit like Elves, playable but Season 2+ teams are a rare sight. We should tell people they are playable, then.
| Garion wrote: |
There doesn't need to be 11 every half... reserves do their job. They could get a TV discount, but that's all that is needed. |
What if it's a starting team and it can't afford to buy reserves? They must rely on expected removal under average and hope to start the 2nd Half with enough players?
Anyway, to make the discussion about Injury table less vague and handwaving, here's the % of normal and my Injury table:
My Injury Table
2-8 Stun 72.22%
9-10 KO 19.44%
11+ CAS 8.33%
Current Injury Table = my Injury Table with MB
2-7 Stun 58.33%
8-9 KO 24.99%
10+ CAS 16.66%
Current Injury Table with MB
2-6 Stun 41.66%
7-8 KO 30.55%
9+ CAS 27.77%
With normal Injury table removals (KO/CAS) are 41.65%
with my Injury table removals (KO/CAS) are 27.77%
it's a 13.66% difference. There still would be removals.
With normal Injury table + MB removals (KO/CAS) are 58.32%
with my Injury table + MB removals (KO/CAS) are 41.65%
It's a 16.67% difference. There still would be removals. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 22:28 |
|
LAMMer |
_________________
 |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2025 - 22:53 |
|
Prolly the first thing I've ever agreed w/ you on!
But 'sigh', this has, yet again, turned into one of 'those' threads...  |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2025 - 09:56 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
| Garion wrote: |
Stunty teams are already perfectly playable... There are a few tweaks needed e.g. trolls should lose loner in goblin teams for example. But they don't need any more protection. In fact I think some of them are a bit too good in the right hands. |
Weird that I very rarely find Stunty teams in the Box, if they are so good. A bit like Elves, playable but Season 2+ teams are a rare sight. We should tell people they are playable, then.
|
Only replying to this bit because I wasn't clear in my previous post. I do not mean there are stunty races that are too good. I was just saying they're mostly fine as they are. Gobbos need a little buff. And there are some that are a little too good for the tier they're meant to be... some are performing consistently better than some tier 2 teams. That's all..
As for the rest...
Ultimately though, it comes down to opinion. I don't think there is anything wrong with the injury table, and I do not agree with your assertion that most games are decided by the coin toss and early attrition... And yes I think your injury table makes the game far too soft, and it would buff the best races this edition even more. And your kick off idea would nerf Elves the most... |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Deep stalling mitiga...
Search
