Talk Fantasy Football

If it skilled a guy, of course.... yes, it would be better.

Would not love it, but it would be OKish....

I would still try to kill that guy at any opportunity anyway.
But I would not be so angry about it.

Rolex wrote: 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.

It used to Blood Bowl, though. A number Cards(max 3 or 4), a number of MVP (max 2 I think) depending on the difference in team rating. I will provide the old table over the weekend.
If you wanted to hire star players, you had to spend gold from your treasury. For a single match, they were half price.

I guess whoever invented the new inducement felt the cards were too random, or not enough to make up the difference, or possibly too powerful.

Rolex wrote: If you don't care about winning the match please don't come to play.

Personally, I care about getting to play a round of tabletop Blood Bowl first, fun second, winning third, and team development on a very close fourth. Would you not play me? Would you say no to give my zombie team a beating? Do you refuse to play against halflings?

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

This is an interesting addition to the idea. It would also make the 300,000 price more reasonable as it brings give you extra chance in match at hand.

20,000-50,000 TV levelup for 300,000.

kyrre wrote:

Rolex wrote: 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.

It used to Blood Bowl, though. A number Cards(max 3 or 4), a number of MVP (max 2 I think) depending on the difference in team rating. I will provide the old table over the weekend.
If you wanted to hire star players, you had to spend gold from your treasury. For a single match, they were half price.

I guess whoever invented the new inducement felt the cards were too random, or not enough to make up the difference, or possibly too powerful.

I remember it very well.
And it was wrote off. Because playing matches where you stand absolutely no chance just to skill up players is not good and not fun.
That new inducement (the after-the-match version) in the match is 100% useless.

kyrre wrote:

Rolex wrote: If you don't care about winning the match please don't come to play.

Personally, I care about getting to play a round of tabletop Blood Bowl first, fun second, winning third, and team development on a very close fourth. Would you not play me? Would you say no to give my zombie team a beating? Do you refuse to play against halflings?

I think you misunderstood me.
I play everything and absolutely against everything. I have played leagues with halflings, Ogres, Underworld, Khemri.... and I have played to win every single match with each of those races.
What I don't like is my opponent not caring about winning but just about skilling up. If I win against someone who does not try to win.... it all feels pointless.

This is an exemple.
I faced once an opponent that tried to make an "agreement".
He told me: "I don't care about these match, I am already in the playoffs. I just need 3 completions, than you can score as much as you want."
I cracked my knuckles and told him: "You should have not told me that. Now I will teach you that in BloodBowl, blood comes first".
14 fouls and 3 deaths in one game... all on players that had made a completion.

I see. I would not appreciate a matchup like that either. Just one notch above coaches agreeing to one turn touchdown each other for 16 turns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hihEhsdwiIk

Ahem, but 300k is far too much. Even at a 100k I probably would think twice.

I've no issue with underdogs "catching up" with overdogs in a contained league setting (as long as they got a chance later to play as almost equals later), but elsewhere I think not.

I'd agree that "Farmbowl" is a bit crappy, but hey, I used to play 3rd edition > 20 years ago(!) so I've some affection to the old ways.