AzraelEVA
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
 Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 20:43 |
 
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Playing 5 turns per drive favours fast teams and it's a big disadvantage for slow teams.
Who would play Khemri or Dwarfs?
Khemri + Pouring Rain + opponent with Kick = almost impossible to score. |
You could make it so that a drive lasts for 3 turns and after that goes into overtime and drive continues as long as the Ball was moved at least 3 squares closer to the end zone at the end of the turn. If the attacking players fails to do that it is the end of the drive.
Also if Passing is supposed to play a bigger role in the game Khemri and Dwarfs will always get a big disadvantage no matter what you do. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 21:10 |
|
More simply, I would just make a half last 7 turns or 6.
Less than 6 turns could make almost impossible for slow teams to score (there are the Kick-Off events, even if weaker, they can disrupt an offensive drive).
The fact that Passing is supposed to play a bigger role is a reason not to make the running score harder for slow teams, not to make drives so short.
Otherwise it would be hard for the slow teams to score with passing AND with running game as well. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 22:57 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Playing 5 turns per drive favours fast teams and it's a big disadvantage for slow teams.
Who would play Khemri or Dwarfs?
Khemri + Pouring Rain + opponent with Kick = almost impossible to score. |
I actually have tried Dwarfs in this system specifically for that very reason, though... Khemri can be tough in some instances and might need a buff. In this setting giving Khemri throwers Big Hand instead of Sure Hands could mitigate their problem picking up the ball in such a setting.
Fumbelerooskie makes long play actually a thing even with Dwarves. If you have that on your main ball carrier you can run up, drop the ball... the second runner picks it up and hand it of to a Dwarven Blitzer... that is a pretty long play for Dwarves. Khemri can do something similar but with more risk, especially well it they have Big Hand instead of Sure Hands.
The trick is, that as the team develop, you need to pick skills that help you score a bit faster. You can't rely solely in removing players from the pitch in a 6-7 turns drive philosophy.
Dwarves score just fine in 5 turns generally if you intend to score as quick as possible. You generally need 2 turns to stabilise and then 2-3 turns to score is more than enough.
We are, or will, try it to see how it goes and in what way it will favour more mobile teams. Initially we will likely also completely forbid "One Turn Touchdowns" as well as part of the change.
It will be interesting to see the dynamic change on this type of games. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 23:16 |
|
About Big Hand: it would not be better than Sure Hands on the Thrower, unless you are planning to use a team rr to rr the Big Hand pick up.
With Big Hand, AG 2 and Pouring Rain it's 50% without team rr, with Sure Hands, AG 2 and Pouring Rain it's 55.55%. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 23:20 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | About Big Hand: it would not be better than Sure Hands on the Thrower, unless you are planning to use a team rr to rr the Big Hand pick up.
With Big Hand, AG 2 and Pouring Rain it's 50% without team rr, with Sure Hands, AG 2 and Pouring Rain -1 it's 55.55%. |
Yes... you are right... I have not used that skill for a very long time. They could just get that in addition to Sure Hands to improve on their performance a bit. Just call it magic hands or something... 
Perhaps better to give them extra arms instead (in addition to Sure Hands)... more thematic. The skeleton could be augmented with an extra throwing and pick up arm. Also help with handing over the ball between the throwers or even passing!!! |
Last edited by CAB on %b %07, %2020 - %23:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 23:27 |
|
I would just remove Pass from Throwers, add +1 MA and turn them into MA 7 Runners (or no +MA, but cheaper, 60k).
Passing sounds nice but without good Catchers throwing the ball it's just a terribly desperate move for Khemri.
Either Throwers and Catchers on the roster or Runners and no Catchers. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2020 - 23:41 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | I would just remove Pass from Throwers, add +1 MA and turn them into MA 7 Runners (or no +MA, but cheaper, 60k).
Passing sounds nice but without good Catchers throwing the ball it's just a terribly desperate move for Khemri.
Either Throwers and Catchers on the roster or Runners and no Catchers. |
I agree... make it MA7, Extra Arms, Sure Hands, Thick Skull, Regeneration and 80k price or something. Access to AGP as primary. An Anointed Runner.
You can now make the player into whatever you like. |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 01:17 |
|
The problem is the WIP rule... its from the thrower and can 50/50 go backwards... Simply make its a d6 scatter from the receiver and allow the new persons under the new flight path make interference checks and make it only applicable at less than 1 after modifiers. It becomes rare and still allows the throwing team to move the ball "forward" or in the direction intended.
And yes, as someone said earlier, Diving Catch becomes more important for both teams. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 07:36 |
|
| ClayInfinity wrote: |
And yes, as someone said earlier, Diving Catch becomes more important for both teams. |
No it doesn't. People won't pass as often. It's already pretty rare. No ones taking diving catch. |
_________________
 |
|
neubau
Joined: Nov 12, 2016
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 10:41 |
|
| CAB wrote: |
To be honest I don't put much stock in authoritarian or elitist BS so if you like to ridicule me or what I say that is up to you.
I do however respect people who are cordial even if argumentative and come with good arguments.
|
this is rich. you come here with a tone that makes others believe you have ties to gw, because you block every little criticism on the new edition, without having played a single game in the last 17 years on this site.
when people who like silly teams that only are playable because you sometimes roll some stats (all rotters/zombies/skeletons) or people who like teams with a long history (300 game skink legend with all the top 5 stats) or people who like passing (see this thread) complain that the new passing rules make passing absolutely horrible and not worthwhile, your arguments were:
deal with it.
and
you know you can ignore the rules and play like you want.
and
passing happens less often now but im fine with it.
and
in my table top group we are houseruling it like this. |
_________________
 |
|
dabassman
Joined: Feb 17, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 11:22 |
|
| neubau wrote: | | CAB wrote: |
To be honest I don't put much stock in authoritarian or elitist BS so if you like to ridicule me or what I say that is up to you.
I do however respect people who are cordial even if argumentative and come with good arguments.
|
this is rich. you come here with a tone that makes others believe you have ties to gw, because you block every little criticism on the new edition, without having played a single game in the last 17 years on this site.
when people who like silly teams that only are playable because you sometimes roll some stats (all rotters/zombies/skeletons) or people who like teams with a long history (300 game skink legend with all the top 5 stats) or people who like passing (see this thread) complain that the new passing rules make passing absolutely horrible and not worthwhile, your arguments were:
deal with it.
and
you know you can ignore the rules and play like you want.
and
passing happens less often now but im fine with it.
and
in my table top group we are houseruling it like this. |
I'm more irritated by your tone, tbh.
Personally, i like to read different views on the new rules and everyone should be allowed to express one's opinion. Maybe i don't agree, maybe I think someone's completely wrong, but I wouldn't call him a Troll or a liar.
Your summary of Cab's arguments („block every little criticism“, „deal with it“...) is simply not true.
It's like saying all your arguments were: „you played zero games here, wtf do you know about bloodbowl?“
And btw, I also love silly teams, 300+ teams and legendary stat freaks, and I'm sad that they will be gone (hopefully they can be transferred to a league...). But they are the one's who are „houseruled“ on this site. |
|
|
Fanky
Joined: Jul 07, 2016
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 12:11 |
|
About the Passing game we already crunched the numbers some pages ago tho. And they are baaad. That's not a subjective thing... numbers are there. And we know which teams are getting nerfed by it and which don't, that's also a fact. |
|
|
CAB
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 12:42 |
|
| dabassman wrote: |
I'm more irritated by your tone, tbh.
Personally, i like to read different views on the new rules and everyone should be allowed to express one's opinion. Maybe i don't agree, maybe I think someone's completely wrong, but I wouldn't call him a Troll or a liar.
Your summary of Cab's arguments („block every little criticism“, „deal with it“...) is simply not true.
It's like saying all your arguments were: „you played zero games here, wtf do you know about bloodbowl?“
And btw, I also love silly teams, 300+ teams and legendary stat freaks, and I'm sad that they will be gone (hopefully they can be transferred to a league...). But they are the one's who are „houseruled“ on this site. |
To be honest I still think silly teams will be viable in the future too for the most part... I don't think they go away. There are some oddities in that most teams now only allow 0-12 lineman instead of 0-16 which is odd.
High TV teams should also be possible with the new rules if one like to play with those. There is nothing in the rules that really restrict this other than redrafting after a seasons. If a season is like 20-30 games and there is no cap on redrafting then high value teams should still be a thing.
It just happen to be my opinion that the game is not and never was designed for high TV in general, not that you can't play with it. Just that it is a bit broken game-play wise in general and always was. This does not mean people can't enjoy it or still want to play this way.
I also understand that it rub some people the wrong way for saying that and I think I can take that...
When I play online on BB2 I always recycle my teams after about 10-15 games.
I also think it is kind of funny this person think I have something with GW to do... personally I don't like GW all that much. I don't buy their Blood Bowl miniatures out of principal (due to how they package the teams) and I don't play any other GW games anymore outside the odd game of Epic 40k or Warmaster. |
Last edited by CAB on %b %08, %2020 - %15:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 13:37 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | ClayInfinity wrote: |
And yes, as someone said earlier, Diving Catch becomes more important for both teams. |
No it doesn't. People won't pass as often. It's already pretty rare. No ones taking diving catch. |
yeah, I said that - it was a joke that no-one seemed to get. Felt like this thread is getting too serious - about 10 pages ago. |
|
|
stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2020 - 14:53 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Raising a Thrall wit...
Search
