Taking Back Blood Bowl

[dode74]

I'd argue that with CRP, the standard roster size dropped from 16 to 12, meaning that injuries and KOs taken don't just cut into your bench, but quickly cut into your active roster. This makes bashy-killy considerably more viable as a strategy.

How are you defining "viable"? It certainly doesn't win more matches. Besides, any decision to not buy bench players is a strategic decision - you can choose to have more than 11 or 12 if you think it will make your strategy more "viable". I'd also contend that rosters that small are not really "standard" in leagues, long-term or otherwise. 13-14 seems more popular from the teams I've looked at in those environments, and a drop below that in MM/B environments is due to the extra emphasis it places on TV.

While I agree that a good commish should handle this, I also think that it is bad for a rule set to require that.

It's not a requirement, it's an option. Most of those reporting in voyagers' thread aren't saying there is an issue, and those who house-ruled aren't saying they did so because of an actual issue but because they preconceived one. No one ruleset can cover the range of environments BB offers, so it's not unreasonable to suggest house ruling is the answer.

hutchinsfairy -

If someone feels that there is a problem with ClawPOMB in the current ruleset then what difference do previous rulesets make?

Expectation. If someone comes into BB cold then the level of violence might be higher than they expect, particularly with reference to other games they might have played. People who have played older, more violent rulesets are already aware of that level and have the expectation it will be high.

[hutchinsfairy]

If someone feels that there is a problem with ClawPOMB in the current ruleset then what difference do previous rulesets make?

Expectation. If someone comes into BB cold then the level of violence might be higher than they expect, particularly with reference to other games they might have played. People who have played older, more violent rulesets are already aware of that level and have the expectation it will be high.

Valid point. I don't know that anyone's complaints about ClawPOMB have read like "unexpectedly violent" to me but I suppose that could be part of it.

[Milo]

I still feel that anyone who rages against ClawPOMP lacks a historical understanding of the game.

Really appreciating your take on things generally but this bit doesn't make sense to me. If someone feels that there is a problem with ClawPOMB in the current ruleset then what difference do previous rulesets make? I can see the relevance when it comes to understanding how CRP evolved but not how that might have any bearing on how ClawPOMB works.

It doesn't make a difference to the rules, but it makes a difference in the REACTION to the rules. The general violence level is much lower than it has been in previous editions.

I think, in general, there are still improvements to be made to the game for long term (50+ games) leagues. I personally don't like that the handicap and TV system work to force coaches to strip their team down to a bare minimum. I really don't like it when teams go under 11 players and use Journeymen on a regular basis intentionally.

But I don't think that necessarily needs changes to the core rules, such as nerfing ClawPOMB. I think a set of extended rules specifically for long term leagues would be the way to go. In shorter leagues or tournaments, I think ClawPOMB is fine.

[Darkson]

Not sure money is less plentiful either. Sure, per game a team earns less money, but it used to count towards TR (not TV) so unless saving for something expensive it was often dropped asap. Add in that you had to buy all replacement players, unlike now with journeymen to keep your numbers up, and I seem to have a lot more spare treasury than I ever did in the past.

And on the subject of less Blood, don't forget the old pitch invasion which could potentially kill 6 players per side.

[Regash]

I personally don't like that the handicap and TV system work to force coaches to strip their team down to a bare minimum. I really don't like it when teams go under 11 players and use Journeymen on a regular basis intentionally.

But is that a problem of the rules or those players trying to exploit them to the max?
No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone to figure something out to exploit a rule or two.

[Kaiowas]

I personally don't like that the handicap and TV system work to force coaches to strip their team down to a bare minimum. I really don't like it when teams go under 11 players and use Journeymen on a regular basis intentionally.

But is that a problem of the rules or those players trying to exploit them to the max?
No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone to figure something out to exploit a rule or two.

both, but you can only fix one of those . When you have such an interesting puzzle of a meta game (squad management) obviously folks will plumb the depths of min/maxing. To not do so leaves you behind.

i play in a no inducements league on fumbbl, which is the opposite end of the spectrum, but it offers a totally different puzzle, all 16 man rosters constantly but big differences in squad TVs. So it still has problems, but different problems

[Bakunin]

But if people are going to talk about reforming the BBRC and changing the rules then we'll talk about changing rules.

Whenever the topic of changing the rules comes up people will tell you what they think is wrong with the current set.

. . .

[Milo]

I personally don't like that the handicap and TV system work to force coaches to strip their team down to a bare minimum. I really don't like it when teams go under 11 players and use Journeymen on a regular basis intentionally.

But is that a problem of the rules or those players trying to exploit them to the max?
No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone to figure something out to exploit a rule or two.

both, but you can only fix one of those . When you have such an interesting puzzle of a meta game (squad management) obviously folks will plumb the depths of min/maxing. To not do so leaves you behind.

You're both right, and that was what I meant. Sometimes you catch that sort of thing in beta, so to speak, sometimes you have to wait until the ruleset gets in the hands of all the min-maxers in the world to spot it. I think it's a flaw that the rules ALLOW the min-maxers to do that, personally. Journeymen in themselves are a great rule intended to allow brutalized teams to play a game without being short a bunch of players. I don't want to see that rule removed, but perhaps some rules could be set in place regarding retirement of players (minimum of 11 players or you can't retire, maybe?) to prevent misuse.

[Milo]

And on the subject of less Blood, don't forget the old pitch invasion which could potentially kill 6 players per side.

I saw that happen in a league championship match between two really good Wood Elf teams. First kickoff was a pitch invasion that KILLED three players from one of the teams and knocked out a couple of others. What should have been a great match turned into a rout.

Really happy with the new pitch invasion rules.

[plasmoid]

Hi Guys - most notable Dode, Milo and Darkson:
Just to reiterate: My point was that any comparison between between 3rd ed. and CRP needs to take into account that in CRP Cash is (for some teams) harder to come by, and that the roster size has shrunk.

Darkson said:

Not sure money is less plentiful either. Sure, per game a team earns less money, but it used to count towards TR (not TV) so unless saving for something expensive it was often dropped asap. Add in that you had to buy all replacement players, unlike now with journeymen to keep your numbers up, and I seem to have a lot more spare treasury than I ever did in the past.

Sure, in CRP some team types have plenty of Cash. Others struggle.
In me experience with 3rd ed., there was no serious shortage of Cash.
Remember the massive winnings modifiers?
Or the Random Events Cards like Big Match, Number One With a Bullet... or the gate one that gave you 10K gold per 10K fans. The last two could easily put 200K in your pocket.

I also don't remember flat out dumping Cash, because the handicap table only had to 2 relevant tresholds, and even those rarely closed the gap between teams. But I do remember that freebooters were at half Price, so you could really screw with TR for important games. Like firing your wizard (150K), then freebooting him for the championship game.

Dode said:

I'd also contend that rosters that small are not really "standard" in leagues, long-term or otherwise. 13-14 seems more popular from the teams I've looked at in those environments, and a drop below that in MM/B environments is due to the extra emphasis it places on TV.

I think 12 is pretty standard for the damage resistent teams.
13 for everyone else (who can afford it. Stunties go higher.)
I recently discussed my fairly squishy team (Brets) online and immediately got the advice to cut the team from 14 to 13 players. Even though I stated it was explicitly for TT play.
That was the wisdom of the web

Milo said:

But I don't think that necessarily needs changes to the core rules, such as nerfing ClawPOMB. I think a set of extended rules specifically for long term leagues would be the way to go. In shorter leagues or tournaments, I think ClawPOMB is fine.

I think you could do anything with CPOMB for the purpose of short term Leagues and tournaments. It wouldn't matter, because CPOMB is almost impossible to get in those environments.
As a stray thought, I thought I'd bring this up: I think the biggest problem in BB is pointless/dead drives. Perhaps this is also why stalling is disliked by some. I don't think it is the close/intense stalling drives that get on peoples nerves, but rather the drives why one side is heavily outnumbered and can do nothing relevant for most of a half. These drives can occur randomly, but CPOMB makes them a lot more likely.

A completely different take on this would be to leave CPOMB alone, and make KOs stay on the pitch as double stuns. KOs would give a significant on-pitch advantage, but not one that would let you camp out near the opposing EZ for 6 turns.

Cheers
Martin

[WhatBall]

A completely different take on this would be to leave CPOMB alone, and make KOs stay on the pitch as double stuns. KOs would give a significant on-pitch advantage, but not one that would let you camp out near the opposing EZ for 6 turns.

Cheers
Martin

Double-stun? Yes please!
That way my ClawPOMBer(s) have time to take out a few more players and then come back and finish you off if you are foolish enough to try and stand back up.

Milo is 100% correct in that a nerf to ClawPOMB will have zero effect on TT/short leagues and be of benefit to long-term leagues and perpetual play. It is a win-win to change it as a core rule, because the two biggest online sites that have perpetual play try and stick to the core rules and don't want to house rule. And the TTers are unaffected.

[WhatBall]

Dode said:

I'd also contend that rosters that small are not really "standard" in leagues, long-term or otherwise. 13-14 seems more popular from the teams I've looked at in those environments, and a drop below that in MM/B environments is due to the extra emphasis it places on TV.

I think 12 is pretty standard for the damage resistent teams.
13 for everyone else (who can afford it. Stunties go higher.)
I recently discussed my fairly squishy team (Brets) online and immediately got the advice to cut the team from 14 to 13 players. Even though I stated it was explicitly for TT play.
That was the wisdom of the web

I would lean more to Dode's numbers here. I like to carry at least 13, even on sturdy bash teams. 14 is usually ideal. You expect to lose a few, more if you are more frail, but for bashers you should plan on having one or two ejected for removing opponent players. In most big leagues I stop looking at TV too closely and just plan on being big enough to take on any inducements.

[koadah]

Milo is 100% correct in that a nerf to ClawPOMB will have zero effect on TT/short leagues and be of benefit to long-term leagues and perpetual play. It is a win-win to change it as a core rule, because the two biggest online sites that have perpetual play try and stick to the core rules and don't want to house rule. And the TTers are unaffected.

Is that really what Milo meant?

As the teams get bigger you'll be looking for 13/14 players. Even 15 if you like fouling.

[dode74]

I would lean more to Dode's numbers here. I like to carry at least 13, even on sturdy bash teams. 14 is usually ideal. You expect to lose a few, more if you are more frail, but for bashers you should plan on having one or two ejected for removing opponent players. In most big leagues I stop looking at TV too closely and just plan on being big enough to take on any inducements.

Yeah, my numbers are based on an observation of numbers of players on the various teams in the leagues for which I have data.

Is that really what Milo meant?

Yeah, I interpreted that quite differently to WhatBall as well.

[WhatBall]

Yes, I read it wrong because I was skimming. Milo has the opposite view of what I believe is necessary, which is a fix in the core rules for ClawPOMB, because it will help online perpetual play and long-running leagues and it will have absolutely zero effect on tournaments. I wanted to point out that house rules are a garbage fix when you are talking about the two big online sites who will likely never use the house rules for their core divisions.