Galak's LRB7 test rules coming to FUMMBL

[voyagers_uk]

smells like 3ed to me. Not that some of that wasn't great....

[cbbakke]

Nothing wrong with taking some of hte good from previous editions. As long as the "aging" word doesnt come back. I didn't mind it as much as most, but I know a lot of people hated it.

[Wylder]

So now that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with what Galak wants anymore, perhaps the thread title should be changed?

[garion]

So now that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with what Galak wants anymore, perhaps the thread title should be changed?

Was it ever really?

Plamoids rules went quite wide of what Galak was suggesting and then mine certainly have.

Although I still wouldn't mind heaing from him once I have finished my version of LRB7. To see what his critique is.

[plasmoid]

Hey - I have my own thread for my rules
I don't think I brought them to this one.

BTW Garion, I never meant to imply that you were somehow building an extension to NTBB. My critique might have sounded like that, but what I wanted to say was that to someone thinking like me, 'this and this' would be a problem.
(For example, I hated playing chase the dirty player. Don't ever want it back).

Cheers
Martin

[garion]

Anyway. I have finished, here are my rules below.

Still a couple of minor details to iron out, like the new star player costs and the re-pricing of one or two any help here would be appreaciated. Also I'm still not sure what to do with Dwarves so will probably leave alone. Amazons have changed a lot but need feedback and I'm still not sure about them either.

Enjoy and feedback please

bump

and they are saying you are cbbakke, I think they were refering to the fact that you were spamming many different topics/threads with the same question, it was a joke. Don't worry about it

[dodolulu]

wouldnt be a minor detail, but i like the part with right stuff and variable skill costs and would enhance that even more.

what about variable skill cost in reference to the statline of the player. say strenght skills cost 20k for str3 players, 10k for players with less than 3str and 30k for players with str4+ since str-skills are tailored to actions that involve str. break tackle or mighty blow are better on high str players since they can dodge on 2+ and can knock another player down easier.
same for agi-skills. leap or dodge are obviously far better on ag4 than on ag3 or less. a saurus with leap isnt 30k more valuable than one without.
i dont know if and to what stat G,P and M skills could be attached to.

[dode74]

Problem is diminishing returns and the relative effectiveness of stats. Example: a BT player dodges on 2+ (~83%) with ST4 and 3+ (~66%) with ST3. That's a 20% improvement in the odds thanks to having ST4. Your pricing system would require a 50% increase in cost for a 20% increase in effectiveness. The question then begs as to what happens when a player rolls +ST having already rolled BT. Similarly with leap you can leap on a 3+ (66%) with AG4 and 4+ (50%) with AG3 - that's a 25% increase in effectiveness for a 50% increase in cost. The difference is due to modifiers, obviously (+1 to dodge, +0 for leap), and the modifiers will make a difference to the effective value of the skill.

a saurus with leap isnt 30k more valuable than one without.

If you don't think it's worth it then don't give him that skill.

Too much complexity is a bad thing, imo.

[garion]

agree with dode here, also the traits system i have added and the changesto right stuff do enough of this anyway.

So anyway back to feedback on my rules please

P.S. any help with the pricing of those stars etc... would be greatly appreciated.

[Chris]

Moving away from peoples alternatives to proposed LRB7 rules that may never happen, do you think that the balnce int he game is right. Several people have said to me when I've been trying to interest people in blood bowl they don't like the incentive to keep the squad size as small as possible.

Would increasing the TV of skills reduce their attractiveness compared to additional players?

[dode74]

I think that question is more of one for the "16 player" thread, but I would disagree with your friends on this. TV-based MM incentivises a small squad, but league rules don't - inducements apparently only increase the underdog's win probability to about 33% in general. I think that perhaps your friends are overvaluing inducements? If you want to increase the incentive for a large squad then I think adding the bank rules and increasing the cost of inducements (wizard in particular, which I think may be a little underpriced anyway for some teams) is a better way, otherwise you penalise the development side of things.

[koadah]

Moving away from peoples alternatives to proposed LRB7 rules that may never happen, do you think that the balnce int he game is right. Several people have said to me when I've been trying to interest people in blood bowl they don't like the incentive to keep the squad size as small as possible.

Would increasing the TV of skills reduce their attractiveness compared to additional players?

Can you assure us that you are not cbbakke's second account?

IMO your friends think too much. Tell em to just play and see how it goes.

[spubbbba]

I think that question is more of one for the "16 player" thread, but I would disagree with your friends on this. TV-based MM incentivises a small squad, but league rules don't - inducements apparently only increase the underdog's win probability to about 33% in general. I think that perhaps your friends are overvaluing inducements? If you want to increase the incentive for a large squad then I think adding the bank rules and increasing the cost of inducements (wizard in particular, which I think may be a little underpriced anyway for some teams) is a better way, otherwise you penalise the development side of things.

Actually I see his point, at higher TV some teams do need subs and skills (often stats and doubles) to compete. Mainly the hybrid teams suffer from this as they will be more likely to have redundant skills versus more specialised teams and really struggle when down on players. They also tend to have players that need skills to be useful.

It’s pretty dispiriting to be facing a team that has 11 players as good as yours or better but is also getting inducements.

The other issue is that TV efficiency makes teams less interesting and you end up taking the same limited skills over and over. +MA on a Black Orc or Zombie 3rd skill was a viable option in LRB4 now I’d not take it and would consider firing the zombie if there were others with block already.

I do think wizards are too good for only 150K and should really be at least 200K.

[cbbakke]

I think that question is more of one for the "16 player" thread, but I would disagree with your friends on this. TV-based MM incentivises a small squad, but league rules don't - inducements apparently only increase the underdog's win probability to about 33% in general. I think that perhaps your friends are overvaluing inducements? If you want to increase the incentive for a large squad then I think adding the bank rules and increasing the cost of inducements (wizard in particular, which I think may be a little underpriced anyway for some teams) is a better way, otherwise you penalise the development side of things.

Actually I see his point, at higher TV some teams do need subs and skills (often stats and doubles) to compete. Mainly the hybrid teams suffer from this as they will be more likely to have redundant skills versus more specialised teams and really struggle when down on players. They also tend to have players that need skills to be useful.

It’s pretty dispiriting to be facing a team that has 11 players as good as yours or better but is also getting inducements.

The other issue is that TV efficiency makes teams less interesting and you end up taking the same limited skills over and over. +MA on a Black Orc or Zombie 3rd skill was a viable option in LRB4 now I’d not take it and would consider firing the zombie if there were others with block already.

I do think wizards are too good for only 150K and should really be at least 200K.

very well said

[garion]

I do think wizards are too good for only 150K and should really be at least 200K.

I completely agree, but I also think the problems we all face with wizards is because of a lack of bank rules. If your TV was being increased by your petty cash and you knew you were playing a team that were going to induce a wizard you could use your petty cash to get one aswell without giving your opponent more inducements as a result.