koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 15:09 |
 
|
| RDaneel wrote: | | 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? |
Try to hit the ball with the bat far enough that you can run between the sticks to score points.
Try not to get out by having the ball caught without bouncing or by batter failing to get to the sticks before the ball.
If you can hit the ball to the pitch boundary, you get points without even needing to run.
That's pretty much the gist of it. Where do you live that you don't have a similar kind of game?
Oher stuff you can ask about as it comes up.
It is not as popular as it used be. It's pretty massive in India though. |
_________________
Summer Sprint Season. 1st Aug - 14th Sept. Open/Gamefinder play |
|
sebco
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 15:42 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | If I think of Sweltering Heat, which removes players randomly and that could stack with injured players (so, a team with 3 players out could could have 5 players out due to exhaustion, on average), I don't think it would ruin the meta.
... |
To sum up, I think that this rule of 11 players minimum at the start of 2nd half would benefit fragile rosters (4 elf rosters, skaven, but also imperial nobility, for example) who would use it often and would disadvantage rosters with high armor value who would use it rarely.
The impact of this rule also depends on the journeyman offered. Recovering a lineman at 70k is not the same thing as recovering a lineman at 20k. In short, this is theorybowl, I have never played with the rule you propose, but I am convinced that it would impact the meta and that it would require roster modifications for rebalancing and that is what is holding me back. |
_________________
I like cheese but don't call me skaven ! |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 15:46 |
|
I just played another game where my KO didn't recover and started the 2nd Half with 5 players vs 11.
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=4641673
If for you starting a Half 5 vs 11 is fun and balanced, ok. This match is not theorybowl, and it's not an uncommon occurrence.
It can be summarized up with defensive rush spam, which is broken, and too many removals despite minimizing blocks suffered.
Even rush spam is awful for the game. Your opponent starts rolling dice, they don't fail, you are forced to risk as well and then snakes end the game.
With 1 rr per turn again and rushes 2+, 3+, 4+ people would be more careful on defence.
About the bash team: it's true that a bash team doesn't need as much as a fragile team reserves, but on the other hand, losing a single player on a bash team affects it more than a fragile team. So, it would be balanced, because it happens less often, but when it happens the effect on a bash team is greater, especially on offence. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Aug 10, 2025; edited 5 times in total |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 17:03 |
|
Whoah, whoah, whoah!
Have you forgotten what this thread was about? This was supposed to be a complaint by you about "deep stalling" and thinking of ways to make it less prevalent.
You were the one employing it in this match. There's a very simple solution in this scenario if you dislike "deep stalling", and that's simply to not do it. You have agency!
But regardless, this was a match where a team engaged in trying to "deep stall" which resulted in them not scoring and all their players getting stamped on because they were too busy "deep stalling" rather than supporting each other. So, how is that evidence for your case? If this particular match is evidence for anything, it's evidence that getting your players beaten up is one useful counter to anyone attempting to "deep stall". Whether or not this was an outlier, it worked in this game and was a good thing in terms of dissuading "deep stalling". So if you think "deep stalling" is still too prevalent, your conclusion should surely be that this sort of game should happen more, not less, to dissuade "deep stalling" even more than at present. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 17:23 |
|
I'm fine with anti-stalling rules as long as even my opponent can't stall easily (with the rules I described, i.e. the imaginary line and the rock thrown by the crowd when stalling near End Zone).
I played like that because there are no anti-deep stalling rules.
If I had scored fast without stalling in that game I would have lost surely. I just failed due to snakes, but the approach was right. Feel free to do better with Wood Elves, I will watch you. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 21:35 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | If I had scored fast without stalling in that game I would have lost surely. |
Sure, that's an argument you can make. But this game doesn't help to make it. A link to one game doesn't really tell us much as evidence, but in so far as it tells us anything at all, or if you want to hold it up as some kind of exemplar of a point you want to make, then this match shows that by trying to "deep stall" a player lost and their team got beaten up. Well, good!
You'd want to show games where by stalling you avoided getting beaten up, or when you tried to score lots of touchdowns and got mullered for your efforts. Linking that game is just strange as it goes completely against the point you're supposedly making.
On a completely separate point, if you do conclude that limiting touchdowns is the only way for elves to play, that's really not ideal in terms of teambuilding. If you can possibly find another way to try and win with elves, that should be preferable by far. Elves are a) crunchy, and b) bloody expensive. All other things being equal, elves should prefer to win half their games 4-3 and lose the other half of their games 3-4. Orcs or dwarves won't really care if they stall out matches so that they win or lose 1-0 or, if they're really lucky, 2-1. But elves really need the extra touchdown cash!
If there's a way to try and win by aggressive scoring and concentrating on turnover touchdowns, even if you concede more touchdowns yourself overall, that will always be strategically better for elves than being really consistent at always scoring in eight turns when you receive, just from the respective amount of winnings that different teams need in order to thrive. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2025 - 22:59 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | | If I had scored fast without stalling in that game I would have lost surely. |
You'd want to show games where by stalling you avoided getting beaten up, or when you tried to score lots of touchdowns and got mullered for your efforts. Linking that game is just strange as it goes completely against the point you're supposedly making.
|
This game was linked to show that starting the 2nd Half outnumbered is not that unlikely. Today I played 3 games, in 2 of them started the 2nd Half 8 vs 11 and 5 vs 11. It wasn't to show that deep stalling is always successful. I used deep stalling in WE vs Lizardmen, with Vampires vs Necros I didn't. I started the 2nd Half in both games outnumbered.
I didn't struggle a lot to find 2 actual examples, I just played 3 games today.
If I started keeping track of the games where a team is massively outnumbered it would not be hard to have a huge sample in little time. I don't think it's necessary to show that to people here, who play BB on a regular basis.
They should have experienced that already.
About Elves scoring lots of TDs: in the Box, where real BB takes place, you won't see Elven teams winning 4-0 or 4-3 very often.
The extra cash for the TDs is not worth being butchered.
When you see those scores it's quite likely that one coach was picked by the Elven coach or really terrible dice/events happened.
If Elves score TDs like a machine gun they will be pounded on the LOS more often than they should. It's a recipe to have a wrecked team in 1-2 games. |
|
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 11, 2025 - 01:05 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
Try to hit the ball with the bat far enough that you can run between the sticks to score points.
Try not to get out by having the ball caught without bouncing or by batter failing to get to the sticks before the ball.
If you can hit the ball to the pitch boundary, you get points without even needing to run.
That's pretty much the gist of it. Where do you live that you don't have a similar kind of game?
Oher stuff you can ask about as it comes up.
It is not as popular as it used be. It's pretty massive in India though. |
Hey, thanks! I always wondered wat the heck was going on in cricket.  |
_________________
"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 11, 2025 - 01:11 |
|
Blood bowl was not primarily conceived as a competitive game. Like the other classic GW games it comes from narrative gaming.
Sometimes the story is that half a team is beaten from the pitch. Being a two player game, it is sometimes your team sometimes the opponents.
My advice for BB Coaches: learn to like the stories where you are not the winner.
(Also I would like to bring in reserves during a drive)  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Deep stalling mitiga...
Search
