October Review ... what's missing

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:30 pm

There's a lot of good stuff here that I'll get on the list for the review over the weekend.

Galak

Balrog · Post by **Balrog** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:50 pm

Oh, one last thing, let's nip this in the bud, shall we?

-Do NOT remove the Multiple Block skill

As things stand a lot of people are confused about this skill, and the feeling I get is that anything that is confusing is dropped. Please, do not get rid of this skill! We don't need to dumb down the game, if this skill causes confusion just make sure that the appropriate examples are clearly stated.

-Balrog

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 6:51 pm

Note to self:

Add what happens if you want to GFI to Leap (allowed/not allowed) where does the player fall down.

Galak

BTW I know the answer is allowed and starting square, but the LRB is very vague. For years I thought you were not allowed to GFI to Leap since the rulebook says that Leap uses 2 squares of Normal movement and GFIs are not normal movement. ... However, I've been told this is unfortunate wording of the Leap skill. However, this unfortunate wording is still there so it needs cleaned up.

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 7:21 pm

That is another example of why terms like "normal" shouldn't be used in rules. How are we supposed to know what's normal in the game?

Pink Horror

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 8:46 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:Note to self:

Add what happens if you want to GFI to Leap (allowed/not allowed) where does the player fall down.

Galak

BTW I know the answer is allowed and starting square, but the LRB is very vague. For years I thought you were not allowed to GFI to Leap since the rulebook says that Leap uses 2 squares of Normal movement and GFIs are not normal movement. ... However, I've been told this is unfortunate wording of the Leap skill. However, this unfortunate wording is still there so it needs cleaned up.

Depending on who you talk to, you'll get a different answer. I don't think you can GFI to leap.

John -

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:58 am

John,
I think that's why he wants it clarified.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 6:56 am

Not sure if someone's already posted this, but sort out which, if any, Star Players will play for Amazons and Norse.

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 9:12 am

Thanks Galak, a great list with a lot of valid points on them.. Snots should be at the top, but otherwise, great..

My only point would be that the kick off table and the weather table should be reviewed to better balance them and also to add more excitement. At present, the kick-off table runs from horrendous rolls (I seem to remember one particular pitch invasion that cost me dearly..) to slight things like cheering fans or change in weather..

Given how little the weather actually changes, I fail to see the point.. Weather needs to be more likely to affect a game and a change in the weather should actually mean that it changes, not that the crowd gasp in anticipation as a cloud passes overhead...

Also, not sure about kicking rules, but as you pointed out, I haven't tested them and I doubt our league would implement them at any rate...

Just my usual comments..

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:25 pm

Oh, one last thing I just discussed with Lucy...

I'd like to get other's feedback on this issue..

We need to bring back bonus MVPs as part of the handicap system.

Why? Well, now the cards have been replaced by the handicap table, there is significantly less incentive for new teams to join a league or take on bigger teams once they are in there. In the old days, a new team had the possibility of increased income, magic helmets, lots of free goodies, PLUS an extra MVP or 2 to help them up the ladder.

Now, there is less cash and no MVPs to be offered, it is harder to start out a new team. Of course, after a few games that team itself has a higher TR thanks to those extra MVPs, but no longer receives a bonus as it is on a par with the others.

This is in itself a self-balancing rule which, IMHO, should never have been removed. It only affects small teams in their first few games and really encourages new coaches to join established leagues.. We have used this rule continuously in Amsterdam with no ill effects, and so I think it should be considered for re-inclusion..

Any comments?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:53 pm

I agree but many think that the extra aging rolls is a bad thing. mvp = advance = aging.

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:00 pm

Other teams should have more NI's (etc) than the newbie team. and the beginning rolls only fail on double 1's. Shouldn't make people to scared....

Although I am scared.
yesterday was the first time I didn't fail an ageing roll in quite a while..
Lucky me

Lucy

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:48 pm

Norse wrote: We need to bring back bonus MVPs as part of the handicap system.

Check out this thread for a different treatment on the topic:

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=1721

I agree that the handicap table needs to be bumped up a couple of notches. There are some absolutely useless handicaps on that table.

I'm not overly keen on the bonus MVP idea. I've seen way too many "I've got a starting team, who's got a 250TR team I can get some MVPs off" games in the OLBBL. I'll freely admit this might be somewhat different in smaller leagues though.

I think the kind of head start we're looking for is:

A steeper curve for team progression - Aging effects and experience rolls address this from both ends of the spectrum

Handicap rolls that actually improve your chance to win a game - If I get one more "that babe's got talent"....

Marcus

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:41 pm

One point of disagreement mate..

if a new team wants to trade off an impossible match for 3 extra MVPs I say go for it! It's a risk which some teams would take (Dwarves, for example

) but others could not afford to take (Wood Elves spring to mind..)

It helps some teams develop quickly, but only if the players stay alive!

I'll agree about handicaps though if you'll agree the weather table needs changing..

Deal?

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 4:27 pm

I recall Neo (or Chet?) saying somewhere that multiple MVPs were a significant contribution to the ultra high TR teams, which is why they were deep sixed in the first place, so you may well be p*ssing into the wind on that one.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:41 pm

THE SKILLS AREN'T COMPATIBLE. You don't have the option of anything longer than a quick pass with dump off, as is right and proper.
You can't reduce the range of a Quick pass.

Yeah but you could make them compatible easily enough. Strong Arm makes a short pass into a quick pass, so then you could dump off further.

Just make Strong Arm say it makes each range the previous range. For most purposes that means exactly the same thing.