Talk Fantasy Football

The random way does favour the line. AG3 and better can quickly rack up quick passes to level up. From my experience TV bloat is not an issue because the levelling effect does not truly level. The idea of line with one or two skills is nice. The pick up fo wrestle/block and guard are welcomed.

Does choosing the MVP player work sensibly? In my imagination and my league they would all go to the hard-to-skill players like mummies, black orcs, big guys, etc.
(I randomize it between those alive)

Void wrote:Does choosing the MVP player work sensibly? In my imagination and my league they would all go to the hard-to-skill players like mummies, black orcs, big guys, etc.
(I randomize it between those alive)

It's an optional rule in CRP, so I guess so.

We use a house rule that we borrowed from another league:

MVP
At the end of each game, each coach nominates two more players than the number of MVP's they will receive. Randomly determine which players get the MVPs from this group. Multiple MVPs can not be awarded to the same player.

It's worded like that because of a house rule inducement:
0-1 An additional MVP may be purchased with an inducement cost of 300,000.

It works for us, let's the slower to skill players keep up a little.

Darkson wrote:#1 - if you take Stars, mercs and journeymen the occansional lost MVP is the price you pay.

CRP random MVP allocation for me as well.
If somebody takes journeymen, he can hire them after the match, this way the MVP is not lost.

Changing from random to a more controlled MVP situation does give some teams a huge advantage.

You have to pay for starting skills or stats that give you an increased chance of gaining spp’s. So if you can pick 3 players on your team and randomly allocate one of them the MVP it really helps those players with low AG and/or MA and no starting bashy skills.

It means a lizardman or nurgle team for instance should be able to skill up their saurus or warriors probably twice as fast. It will also change how you pick a starting team as increasing the odds of getting the MVP is a key reason to start with 4 Black Orcs or 6 Saurus at the detriment of other factors.

I don’t think disallowing it going to dead players, stars or mercs is a bad house rule though. It can be a little disheartening to have one of those games where you get thrashed and get no cas, TD’s or completions. It may encourage players not to dodge the strongest or killer teams if there is an actual prospect of gaining something from the game.

spubbbba wrote:Changing from random to a more controlled MVP situation does give some teams a huge advantage.

You have to pay for starting skills or stats that give you an increased chance of gaining spp’s. So if you can pick 3 players on your team and randomly allocate one of them the MVP it really helps those players with low AG and/or MA and no starting bashy skills.

It means a lizardman or nurgle team for instance should be able to skill up their saurus or warriors probably twice as fast. It will also change how you pick a starting team as increasing the odds of getting the MVP is a key reason to start with 4 Black Orcs or 6 Saurus at the detriment of other factors.

I don’t think disallowing it going to dead players, stars or mercs is a bad house rule though. It can be a little disheartening to have one of those games where you get thrashed and get no cas, TD’s or completions. It may encourage players not to dodge the strongest or killer teams if there is an actual prospect of gaining something from the game.

Agree, but I would allways start a lizardman team with all 6 saurii no matter how MVP's were allocated.

Generally you can say that being able to target MVP's make min-maxing easier as you don't waste MVP's on fodder.

What targeted MVP does do is make it easier for developed teams to recover from deaths of particularly difficult-to-skill players (e.g. BOBs, FGs, Saurii), which I think is a good thing. You could prevent the min-maxing issue by allowing the recipient of any targetted SPP to have a maximum number of SPP already, otherwise the MVP goes random. A max SPP of 16 for the targeted MVP might be appropriate to allow players to get to 2 skills fairly easily without them being able to build up skillstacks.

dode74 wrote:What targeted MVP does do is make it easier for developed teams to recover from deaths of particularly difficult-to-skill players (e.g. BOBs, FGs, Saurii)

That could be an interesting idea for an existing league, especially if a new team wants to join.
When starting the league from scratch, I like that BOBs, Mummies, Sauri etc. start without block and there aren't getting it too soon, as it allows the rest to prepare for the uninvitable. Allowing them to assign MVPs to that players would give those teams advantage over those where everybody can skill-up - like Elves.

First of all, I am sorry for disturbing the dead thread. However, I came across this post that includes what I think this is a very good idea.

Nod_Hero wrote: It's worded like that because of a house rule inducement:
0-1 An additional MVP may be purchased with an inducement cost of 300,000.

In 3rd edition, the incentive to play higher rated teams was extra cards and extra MVPs. Nod_Hero's house rule adds the missing MVP incentive back into the game. While doing nothing for the match at hand, it may help underdeveloped teams catch-up. I think 300,000 might be on the expensive side, though.

Would anyone like to comment on the MVP inducement? Perfect, underpriced, overpriced, or plain stupid?

In our league (SAWBBL), both coaches pick six of their players, number them 1-6 and then each coach rolls for the opposing team's MVP.

kyrre wrote:Would anyone like to comment on the MVP inducement? Perfect, underpriced, overpriced, or plain stupid?

300k is way overpriced, in my opinion. I wouldn't look at it twice, at that cost.

We pick a random player who was healthy for the game (so MNG players can't be MVP of the game that they missed).

By our house rules, Mercenaries and Star players can not be MVP, but Journeymen can.

As DZ1: nominte 3

kyrre wrote:First of all, I am sorry for disturbing the dead thread. However, I came across this post that includes what I think this is a very good idea.

Nod_Hero wrote: It's worded like that because of a house rule inducement:
0-1 An additional MVP may be purchased with an inducement cost of 300,000.

In 3rd edition, the incentive to play higher rated teams was extra cards and extra MVPs. Nod_Hero's house rule adds the missing MVP incentive back into the game. While doing nothing for the match at hand, it may help underdeveloped teams catch-up. I think 300,000 might be on the expensive side, though.

Would anyone like to comment on the MVP inducement? Perfect, underpriced, overpriced, or plain stupid?

IMHO it is terrible. Inducements are made so that the underdog has a better chance at winning the match (which is the point of the game).

This give you no advantage for winning. You give up that to farm your team better.
This is personal and I appreciate that not anyone feels like that, but for me that is NOT BloodBowl.... I call it Farm Bowl and I hate it.
If you don't care about winning the match please don't come to play.

Now what if you could buy an MVP *before* the game?
Helps you win and helps you develop your team.