MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Nov 15, 2020 - 23:48 |
 
|
FUMBBL season should be 15 games long so I was thinking about this scenario. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 00:05 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | FUMBBL season should be 15 games long so I was thinking about this scenario. |
Yes... and I believe that you are more likely to find a combination of both selected and some random skills here and there in this case.
I think that the current system in BB2020 are mainly balanced and thought to be used in leagues with a smaller number of games per season. Divisions there are suppose to be as close to four teams per division as possible with every team playing two games against each team per season plus play off. That is about 8-12 games per season before redrafting. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 00:13 |
|
why.. why would you think 4 teams per division is standard? I've literally only played in one league that worked that way, ever. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 00:27 |
|
| Nelphine wrote: | | why.. why would you think 4 teams per division is standard? I've literally only played in one league that worked that way, ever. |
Both BB2016 and BB2020 are suggesting leaguse to be broken down to smaller divisions. BB2016 was even more explicit in this and said you should break up the league in two division of four if you were eight players.
BB2020 rules just say you should be at least four in a division but also suggest to divide the league in separate division to make them more manageable.
If you then look at the redrafting rules there is a suggested cap at 1300TV... if you play around 8-10 games the number of cash you get seem to link pretty well with this and the cap of 1300TV. If you play more games you often reach the cap with just the number of games played alone.
So yes... leagues are probably suppose to be somewhere around that amount of played games per season.
I don't think the system start to break down until past 15 games or so per seasons.
Obviously I'm only projecting based on what I read in the rule book and how the drafting system work and what have been proposed in the past before. I think that divisions of about 4-6 people for traditional bard game leagues seem perfectly OK to me.
In an online community it obviously is allot easier to find people and build much larger leagues and division structures.
In my community there are perhaps a dozen people willing to play Blood Bowl but only half of those are reliable, unfortunately...  |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 01:45 |
|
Right, just so you know (if you read the various threads), one part of the reason 15 games and 1350 tv cap was suggested, was specifically so that the coaches who lose a lot (66%+ of their games) would reach the cap, and thereby avoid having a situation where 'winners keep winning' became a thing. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 01:56 |
|
| Nelphine wrote: | | Right, just so you know (if you read the various threads), one part of the reason 15 games and 1350 tv cap was suggested, was specifically so that the coaches who lose a lot (66%+ of their games) would reach the cap, and thereby avoid having a situation where 'winners keep winning' became a thing. |
Yes... I think it probably will work pretty well. The cash from played games, winning games etc have been halved as well so it match well with playing more games than what the drafting rules otherwise advocate in general. |
|
|
Lyracian
Joined: Oct 29, 2015
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 13:45 |
|
Personally I think Passing is one of the worst table to roll random skills on. My estimate from reading the rules is 12 games in the 'average' season. Which means about 1550 kgp budget.
If I end up buying a new Thrower game 10 of 15 [using proposed FUMBBL season length] then I would use Random as there is a chance to get a cheap skill and rehire that player. I am mostly expecting to start with a new rookie the next season so do not mind that opportunity cost.
From the start of a season Skill wise I will just go with Block and Dodge. Not worth worrying about the once per game when I need to roll 3+ or 4+ with a pass re-roll rather than a 2+. |
_________________
Nuffle wills it.
Lyracian. |
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2020 - 13:55 |
|
Given passing is generally a sub-optimal tactic, I would be developing throwers as defensive ball retrievers first, one of them as a leader caddie, and then when the opportunity comes up in a wild scrum, then yes, the emergency short pass is a valid option.
I cannot see myself building the deep passer with maybe the exception of the High Elf team... |
|
|
CoachGrantichrist
Joined: Apr 10, 2020
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 01:26 |
|
My thoughts on playing fumbbl as an American football fan, in previous seasons was that passing was under powered and needed a significant buff.
Reading through this thread seems like it got nerfed and that makes me less likely to play under the new rule set. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 02:09 |
|
| CoachGrantichrist wrote: | My thoughts on playing fumbbl as an American football fan, in previous seasons was that passing was under powered and needed a significant buff.
Reading through this thread seems like it got nerfed and that makes me less likely to play under the new rule set. |
It has not actually been nerfed as much as it has been transferred to a specialised positional player type.
Throwers now actually are way less likely to fumble the ball and most proficient throwers can also avoid "Wildly Inaccurate" results.
The ball are way more likely to end up either as an accurate throw or an inaccurate throw. With proper positioning even an inaccurate throw are pretty safe.
I have at least played a bunch of games with the new rules and there are some rather subtle changes to have a much bigger impact than you might first think.
It actually is a bit easier to sack the ball due to the ability to jump over prone players, passing also is allot stronger with the right skills. A skilled thrower actually make sense now.
Even a regular player can usually throw at least an inaccurate throw pretty far now that before would have been a Fumble result. This actually is something you need to take into consideration.
Obviously some team are still going to be relying on pure running strategies. But skills like fumbleruskie will even be able to change those in quite interesting ways.
You really need to play with the new rules before making judgement about them. I still think that even the new rule set will end up pretty much like the old if you allow high value teams.
One thing is that fouling have become the new way to attrition stalling and agility teams will now be very good at fouling reliably due to how Sneaky Git is changed.
There are so many small things that changes the dynamic of the game in ways you probably don't understand until you actually played the new system.
There are many small changes that will have a much greater impact on the general play and feel to the game that is hard to understand until you actually try them. League play will now be very different than before due to skill progression and redrafting rules. |
|
|
Niessuh
Joined: Dec 11, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 09:47 |
|
I have played some TT games with the new rules and I have to say that I'm sorry but I'm not able to see where the pass has improved, with the exception of human and skaven "like-elf" throwers.
Previously, passing was something almost marginal, according to the statistics only the high elves threw more than once per game on average ... for most teams these passes were just desperate plays, and now those desperate plays are even more unreliable.
But what has changed with regular, organized passing that make it more useful that before? I do not see a single thing:
-more expensive throwers that now are the only valid players for the passing game.
-wildy innacurate result added
-more passing skills that dilute its usefulness
-AG 5 magic is gone
So passing now is more unreliable, expensive and requires specialization. On the other side, other aspects of the game has really improved: the running game (fumbleroskie and sure hands), fouling (guard + sneaky git + pile driver), blocking (pro, brawler), dodging (break tackle + pro, jumping over prone players), big guys (throwing team mate, brawler, getting G skills) stunties (getting G skills also)...
Yes you could do a thrower that work within the new rules, as you could do a nice thrower in the past. But Blood bowl is a game of efficiency, And passing is even more inefficient than before. How do I efficiently spend my spp if I usually do eight blocks and two dodges per turn while I pass twice per game at most? Sure I could roll randomly at the P skill table to get some cheap passing skills, but I could also randomly roll at the S table with a dwarf lineman. Witch results are better?
If the GW designer thought that limiting passing to throwers and making it more expensive would get players to pass more, then he is being delusional. For me, the fact that the passing ability has been separated means that I can completely ignore it and focus on the other really important aspects of the game.
IMHO, If future editions wanted to do something useful and reliable with passing (a big if) then you should start by thinking why this is the only action that requires at least two rolls subject to failure (and more counting interceptions). |
Last edited by Niessuh on %b %17, %2020 - %10:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
CrookfangRob
Joined: Jan 22, 2019
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 10:14 |
|
Passing is less reliable even for specialised positionals. I don't see anything to suggest it isn't.
For example - I have an AG5 elf thrower. In the current ruleset she can ping the ball up to 7 squares on a 2+ and up to 10 on a 3+. I know she wont be inaccurate, so all I have to worry about is a fumble on snakes, and I can plan for that as I know the ball will fall in her TZ if the pass fails.
New rules, she loses the AG5 for throwing (and even if she didn't, as we have discussed above a 1+ passer is the same as a 2+ passer), and now it's 3+ to pass 7 squares and 4+ to pass 10 squares. Percentage-wise, that's a big hit and there is also the added Wildly Inaccurate which means that I can no longer bank on a failed pass (which is much more likely) landing in my TZ - it could go anywhere.
This is all at exactly the same TV. To get her as good as she was previously I'd have to add 2 skills; accurate and cannoneer.
Passing has been nerfed in the new rules. I don't see any way you can argue otherwise. |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 10:50 |
|
I think new passing changes the meta a lot.
Like, the way deep kicks work for fast teams, often you can force a pass from a goat or hobgoblin, but every decent team has a +AG one to let that work now, suddenly that's a 5+ short pass play, or a bunch of dodges and GFIs? Completely changes the setups needed to cover a deep kick, and makes for drives starting way back in your own half sometimes.
And so if most bash and a lot of mixed teams simply don't build throwers at all, and you do build a thrower, even just a Leader/HMP platform, the bash has to spread out, bash can't just pick up a loose ball and chuck it back to a cage nice and easy, the team has to get to the ball, while preserving a path forward.
There's so many teams have like an AG 5 ghoul now, and they don't normally pass in games, but when they do it's a game-winning effort, and that's now back to 5+ instead of 2+ at six squares? Totally different how you approach a drive that's got messy, recovery options.
It implies changes to the whole meta. Dorfs look great with just the skill changes, but against a team with MA 7 everywhere that can HMP? Where do you even stand players? It's not good enough to pick the ball up if it gets loose, you've got to get the team around it. With MA 4? MA 5? When the other team can pass?
So sure, casual long bombs are gone, that old AG 5 strong arm accurate I'm always building in teams, doesn't exist at all. But that chorf recovery play that is suddenly a 6+ instead of a 3+ off a +AG bull? That's gold for teams who do have someone who can grab a scatter and get it to someone fast, or who can chase down the bash trying to run it back. |
_________________
  |
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 12:18 |
|
| Niessuh wrote: | I have played some TT games with the new rules and I have to say that I'm sorry but I'm not able to see where the pass has improved, with the exception of human and skaven "like-elf" throwers.
Previously, passing was something almost marginal, according to the statistics only the high elves threw more than once per game on average ... for most teams these passes were just desperate plays, and now those desperate plays are even more unreliable.
But what has changed with regular, organized passing that make it more useful that before? I do not see a single thing:
-more expensive throwers that now are the only valid players for the passing game.
-wildy innacurate result added
-more passing skills that dilute its usefulness
-AG 5 magic is gone
So passing now is more unreliable, expensive and requires specialization. On the other side, other aspects of the game has really improved: the running game (fumbleroskie and sure hands), fouling (guard + sneaky git + pile driver), blocking (pro, brawler), dodging (break tackle + pro, jumping over prone players), big guys (throwing team mate, brawler, getting G skills) stunties (getting G skills also)...
Yes you could do a thrower that work within the new rules, as you could do a nice thrower in the past. But Blood bowl is a game of efficiency, And passing is even more inefficient than before. How do I efficiently spend my spp if I usually do eight blocks and two dodges per turn while I pass twice per game at most? Sure I could roll randomly at the P skill table to get some cheap passing skills, but I could also randomly roll at the S table with a dwarf lineman. Witch results are better?
If the GW designer thought that limiting passing to throwers and making it more expensive would get players to pass more, then he is being delusional. For me, the fact that the passing ability has been separated means that I can completely ignore it and focus on the other really important aspects of the game.
IMHO, If future editions wanted to do something useful and reliable with passing (a big if) then you should start by thinking why this is the only action that requires at least two rolls subject to failure (and more counting interceptions). |
I think you will be wrong... together with a few of the other subtle changes to the game passing will happen a bit more now. I don't think it will change a huge but there are important changes that will impact.
1+ passing obviously will work better than 2+ passing, my interpretation of the rules is that successful passing trump unsuccessful passing so 1+ passing completely remove "Wildly Inaccurate" passes altogether as do many other skills as well.
The fact that everyone now can throw the ball and have a pretty good chance for it to become inaccurate rather than a fumble WILL change how passing work quite literally.
This has been used several times in the game that we played, very good when sacking the ball for example or to get away from a bad spot. Even a 6+ PA stat can still be used for something.
You also don't get to turn SPP on a thrower into something else as they get a large majority of their SPP from throwing the ball... so they can afford to take the throwing skills accordingly.  |
|
|
CrookfangRob
Joined: Jan 22, 2019
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2020 - 12:29 |
|
| CAB wrote: |
1+ passing obviously will work better than 2+ passing, my interpretation of the rules is that successful passing trump unsuccessful passing so 1+ passing completely remove "Wildly Inaccurate" passes altogether as do many other skills as well.
|
Can you show us in the rules where that is the case?
Otherwise I think you're confusing 'should' with 'is'. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Claw/MB
Search
