Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
https://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/
https://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=40158
That's the best part of it... I thought the game was quite dead after 20 years instead all this makes me think it's still rocking wild !!!Welcome to the wonderful world of TFF where even is simple "Hello" becomes a debate on rules/skills.....
... and Thanks !!Glad to have you on board..
You know what? You're very right and very wrong.MattDakka wrote: Well for example I can say that in long perpetual private leagues the lack of Ageing and clawpomb let Dwarfs and Orcs grow in an uncontrolled manner, removing Ageing was another bad move.
Maybe nerfing clawpomb could lead to AV 9 being too powerful, and that would simply show how badly designed are AV 9 teams such as Orcs with their underpriced Blitzers and Bobs, and Dwarfs, with their underpriced Tackle spammer Longbeards, or maybe nerfing clawpomb just a bit could improve the game greatly.
Fouling in CRP is too weak, as many coaches would tell you, while the gimpsed teams are bad design, because by taking a look at online leagues they are underrepresented, so basically they don't "exist" (they are too rare).
If a good coach wants to play with some handicaps he can simply use less rerolls, buying less positionals and make a worse roster, this can be done with each and every roster.
Joke teams should be a bit more playable, currently they are too weak, to the point that you will hardly find them.
A weak team is one thing, a nigh-on impossible to play team is another one, especially after you start to find teams with tackle and mb.
If winning with a team is too unlikely then the majority of coaches will simply avoid to play it at all.
As much as I agree with your sentiment, defining 'fun' in your own terms and applying it as How Things Should Be isn't valid. If the ruleset didn't have a cogent spine that is worth taking 'seriously' no one would play it and we wouldn't be here reading and arguing.Dr. Von Richten wrote: But you're also very wrong, because the game isn't meant as a pure excercise in tactics and strategy; it's meant as a fun game that you play with friends;
True, but my point isn't that Blood Bowl is 'just' a silly game, tactics and serious rules are indeed important. My point is that Blood Bowl by (GW) design isn't a game without significant flaws from a 'seriousness' POV, and that if you don't accept that you will most likely be unsatisfied.Fassbinder75 wrote:As much as I agree with your sentiment, defining 'fun' in your own terms and applying it as How Things Should Be isn't valid. If the ruleset didn't have a cogent spine that is worth taking 'seriously' no one would play it and we wouldn't be here reading and arguing.Dr. Von Richten wrote: But you're also very wrong, because the game isn't meant as a pure excercise in tactics and strategy; it's meant as a fun game that you play with friends;
You're welcome!Arclight wrote:Hey Dr.,
That was well said. It actually makes a lot of sense to me when you put it that way.
I'm not really adding anything to this conversation, but I read that and sat back and thought about it and said to myself,
"Yeah. Yeah, that's a fair bit of truth right there."
So thanks. That is all.
- Dan