Talk Fantasy Football

kyrre wrote:

garion wrote: If the rule had changed to pick 6 players and roll, I think it would be fine. Or even if it was still random but discounted any players that suffered an injury worse than MNG, as well as discounting star players.

I have used opponent pick 1, D16 pick one, I pick one for the D3. Very much optional though.

sure, its "optional", that old argument ... the problem here is the vast majority of people will use the core rules, and if it really doesnt matter - why did they feel the need to change it when in CRP the D3 rule was already listed as an alternate rule you could use.

Its not the biggest deal ever I agree. But still a miss step nevertheless imo.

plasmoid wrote:I actually thought re-drafting was a pretty clever solution to an obvious problem with the rules.
It just didn't make my top 3.
I could have easily picked half of the options above. Settling for 3 was hard.
Cheers
Martin

It is a tough one. A lot of people have said try love the game in the 1400-1600 range the most (not all certainly). However off pitch "deaths" are hated so the game veers towards the low 2000s (generally). Especially for the bash teams go.

I don't mind the pick 3 rule. I feel it helps mitigate the effective removal of piling on for bash teams. Pick 6 sounds better though.

If you are talking about the majority, then I think the pick 3 was a good move. It seems more accessible for newer and more casual coaches IMO.
Old hardcore coaches can do a Darkson.


Redrafting sounds clever. Maybe too clever. Slapping on a TV cap does me.

TopsyKretts wrote:Only 3 choices? I could have ticked off almost all.

Just what I wanted to say. In my wanderleague I use most of the additional rules and that totally changes the game. All of a sudden just watching what happens on the field is so much more meaningful, as you're catapulted from the coaching positio into the overall club manager position.

Thank you for voting. Using three choices for voting was a deliberate choice on my part, a single vote ends up skewing and distorting the result as good things het hidden by big factors, but if you can select as many as you want then it can become meaningless, given the three biggest vote getters maybe 4 votes would have been a better number. On reflection it was likely those threee categorizes would get picked most, although new models I was not sure about after all in all these intervening years 3rd parties have popped up to fill the void so were new miniatures (and in a different scale shock horror!) really what people were clamoring for?

Bloodbowl has always been a customizable game, so any change groups have disagreed with or holes that need filling have been dealt with in leagues, nearly every change I have seen in the current incarnation has at least one person say thats how they were already doing it. (There are exceptions here)

The drafting seems to be an attempt at a "soft" TV cap, a hard one invites the discussion of what level and what team benefits most from where it is set. TV is not an absolute measure of a teams capability, just the current incarnation of an evolving system of gauging capacity to help produce games that are more competitive.

Anyway I just enjoy playing the game, maybe not at the time, but afterwards I tell myself it was enjoyable.

PS Just because you have three votes doesn't mean you can extoll the virtues of more than the three you nominated!

New and updated starplayers are great, makes Res tourneys way more fun.

The things I like most about the latest version of Blood Bowl are:

> A more rational Pass Action sequence.
> Reintroduction of the Passing Ability (PA) characteristic, which was originally in the 2nd edition rules.
> Optional randomized skill improvements, so teams with lower survivability rates can skill up faster.
> Temporary retirement for heavily injured players.
> The Redrafting rules.
> Adding Halfings to the Human team roster (if Orcs can have Goblins, it's only fair).

I'm loving the random skills. Thought I'd hate it and that nobody would use it. And you do get some non-optimal builds. But you can skill your players quickly, they're mostly "sort of" useful, and you get some really unique and unexpected players.

The "multiple rerolls in one turn" rule is growing on me. It makes those desperate turn 8 kamikaze plays less unlikely and can lead to some thrilling turns. (I've been burned as well, kept waiting for my opponent's Vampires to have something go wrong, but with 4 rerolls he had the perfect turn against me ...)

I definitely like that we're getting new players, and that old players are finding new aspects of the game.

I like that throwers are now vastly more important for anything more than an utter desperation passing play; there's a reason Quarterbacks get paid more than other positions, it's hard! But I hate the "Wildly Inaccurate" rule, it's almost always significantly worse than a fumble. Passing was risky and unreliable in the old edition, and the "fix" makes it riskier and less reliable.

I sort of like the effect that redrafting has, making it painful to keep highly advanced players and preventing the kind of super-advanced teams which (let's admit it) kind of slow down and break the game after a while. But I hate, hate, hate having to make such painful economic decisions for my own teams!!!

I like that Star Players are more viable for their cost in a league; I think they're designed to help out an underdog in league play. Sure half my elves were killed last game, but at least I get Eldril now! But they seem to be "too good" at tournaments where coaches can design a team around a specific star.

I really do like that the designers are going back to the zany roots of the original game. I always felt like Jervis and the BBRC had started to take themselves way too seriously. I've noticed some popular miniatures games are starting to go this direction as appealing to casuals can be a financial benefit.

X-Wing Miniatures game for example, I have heard rumors they will be getting a 3rd edition, with the deathmatch style being nixed over scenario and objective based play. On one hand this opens a massive design space, on the other it's tricky to balance.

Rolo makes an excellent point with the stars and tournaments. Though I suspect a tiering or Star Player tax can fix that and historically having special rules for tournaments was fairly common.

I hope as the design continues, the GW team will continue to focus on ball skills. I think catch should have a +1 in addition to the re-roll, and similar benefits to ball skill mutations would be nice. The key design failure in my opinion of the LRBs was the continued focus away from the ball. The Necro team (one of the newest designs) did not have a single ball skill and was arguably the best non-ag/non-str roster.

To me the game started off as a silly game played by teenagers for something to do in the 90s, then the LRB phase took the game in a more streamlined and balanced direction for competitive play as we grew in to our 20 and 30s, now we are seeing some of the more random stuff as we plough along in our 40s and our competitive sentiments dissipate.....

Anyway, On to the other part of the topic. We have certainly had a lot of Blood in bloodbowl, over the last few revisions. As for ball skills I think that's a direction we need to be thinking about. You can win by ensuring there is no one to stop you, punch a whole through and work your way down, you can dodge through an opposition line or you could throw it over the top. The problem with the last two options is any player trying that approach is going to be left vulnerable behind enemy lines. Ball skills "only" benefit you when you have the ball while the classic skills Block and Guard help both ways, many of the other combat skills similarly. The ball skills should help people score quickly but that is not what most players want to do. Even a dodgy team wants to turn over another team when they have the ball which largely means getting into a position to fight the ball loose. Again the combat skills are to the fore.

Maybe the ball handling ability should have been separated from the moving agility so catching, pick up and passing has one characteristic and dodging, leaping and maybe make things like shadowing an Ag test. Instead of only the passing being separated. This obviously has implications for the effectiveness of catchers and throwers at their respective job, but some skills could be used to sort that bit out.