LRB favors AG teams (Rant)

High & Mighty · Post by **High & Mighty** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:57 pm

BullBear wrote:So, nowhere does the rulebook distinguish between block knockdowns and dodge knockdowns. It is very clear that the opposing coach rolls, AND clear that MB adds +1 to armour and injury.

The problem with that logic that your league missed is that nowhere does it say the dodger was knocked down by a player. Just that he was knocked down. The dodge rules even explicitly state that the opposing coach is rolling, not any particular player. That's just in keeping with the general habit in bb that the opposing coach rolls for bad things like armor rolls or ref rolls to try and help out the integrity of the coaches involved.

A player who is hit by a rock is knocked over and the opposing coach rolls for injury. Doesn't mean you get to use MB on it.

On the topic though, of course AG teams are going to be better at offense, they have more AG. But just as it's annoying to watch the elves rack up an easy SPP, it's probably alot more annoying to be an elf coach rolling for armor all day..."Oh look...9...wait, you have armor 9...Argh" Relative impunity from attrition is a very handy thing.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:04 pm

You still haven't shown us a single place in the rules where it says that the tackler rolls for armour. The opposing coach rolls for armour, of course, same as if you fail a go for it. But noone gets SPPs for it, and sure as hell noone gets to use mighty blow.

If you don't give a damn about the Oberwald, you should give some credit to the fact that in the thousands of leagues worldwide that played 3rd ed BB, yours is the only one that reportedly allowed the use of mighty blow on failed dodges.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:07 pm

We always played that the dodgers coach rolled for failed dodges/failed GFI's/etc.

There again, we were a pretty honest bunch.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:21 pm

What's all this about Leap being changed??? I read both the LRB and the Deathzone definitons and both are practically the same (except the LRB adds a little blurb about not having to dodge to leave the square you're leaping from).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:24 pm

you used to be able to do multiple leaps not you can only do one

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:40 pm

Right, forgot about that!

Smeborg · Post by **Smeborg** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:53 am

I think not. Maybe the perception of bias is more to do with THE PLAYING STYLE OF YOUR GROUP. It may be this playing style which favours AG teams.

The top coach in the world rankings (for the time being at least) is a Chaos Dwarf coach.

The top sides in the NAF rankings (taking the averages) are Undead, followed by Chaos Dwarfs (both some way out in front). Behind them are Skaven (3rd), Lizzies (4th) and Woodies (5th).

The only 2 tournaments I have attended featured finals between: Humies vs. Humies (the BB) and Undead vs. Orcs (CanCon - won by the Orcs).

I think the stats speak for themselves, and certainly don't suggest a bias towards AG teams. My own view is that the team rosters (not the LRB!) give an advantage to sides that mix ST and AG (however imperfectly), have at least one player type that can move 9 squares (after GFIs), and have some cheap cannon fodder. Races that don't have all these attributes need something exceptional in their roster to keep up with those that do.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

honeycomb kid · Post by **honeycomb kid** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:06 am

This is turning ugly.
Bullbear, who do you play that you think is restricted? As a long time blood bowler and I who played third edition, I think that this new edition is much more balanced, and does not really favour any team. Coaching and luck are now all that separate the winner from the loser, (neglecting any huge TR differences) as opposed to third ed, where race was a factor. Check this out: In third edition I had a skaven team with a 1 turn gutter runner and a stormvermin with MB, claws, fangs, DP. With 3rd ed rules thats +3 +3 to blocks and +5 +5 to fouls. Considering the average roll on 2d6 is 7 that means on a block you're most likely to get a badly hurt, and on a foul, you're most likely to kill the poor guy. (I was going to give him PO next) This previously harmless rat quickly rose to most CAs's in the league. Used effectively to create holes and always defended well, combined with the gutter runner, my team was undefeated (ever). I think THAT team was unbalanced. New rules prevent that stuff.

Maybe you just gotta change your tactics a little. I know someone here posted that strength teams should control the pace of the game. Couldn't agree more. You should be losing in the first half, tie it in the second, and win it in OT with his men on the pitch outnumbered 2 to 1. I like to sit on the line without scoring while you bash his remaining gimps into the cas box (even if i'm down at that point).

Oh and our team uses PO declared aforehand and I agree with it completely, and still take it. After all, what the hell is the use of a T.Z. if he's gonna get out of it on a 2+?

Thanks for reading my rant

Chaos Dwarf · Post by **Chaos Dwarf** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:24 pm

As another player in Bullbear's league I am going to have to disagree with him. For our first league the final was between Skaven and Chaos Dwarf. The Skaven won 3-2 and was a very close game. The second final was between Chaos and Woodelf. Also a close game 3-2 that went into ovetime. The third final was Dwarf versus Undead. Not an exciting match and I believe that that the Dwarfs won easily 2-1 (the dwarves had taken advantage of gambling rules and had about 300K which he used on freebotters for the final). Note in that third league we also had a High Elf team and an Amazon team that were both beaten in the playoff's. The forth league had Khemri as the top team and they beat out a nasty High Elf team so I don't see how agility teams are running away with our games.

In general a touchdown is easier to make (one die roll to pick up the ball) and gives you more SPP. That right there makes scorers advance faster than blockers most of the time and that's been a fact since third edition came out. I like the current verison and for once I will agree with Zombie and say it's very balanced.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:50 pm

Torg wrote:Right, forgot about that!

yeah that's a REAL major little change.

Post by **Dave** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:53 pm

unfortunately....

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:01 pm

Just read through this whole thread, and while the posters seem to convince me that the running teams appear to be a lot more even if not ahead, Bull Bear was just voicing his entitled opinion. No need to be so personal some of you.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:53 pm

Sorry Bullbear, gotta add my voice to the chorus. There's been some changes that impacted Power teams, as you mentioned, but I think the LRB changes have impacted AG teams far more.

The handoff rule is the single biggest one. You can't do an uninterrupted 2 turn TD from the backfield any more without a great deal of risk. It essentially took a textbook offensive play and made it impossible.

You also can't pick up the ball with the guy you blitzed with and move it to safety. This has made cage breaking a dangerous proposition for elves, usually they have to surround the cage to get tacklezones on the defenders to blitz the ball free, the inability to have the blitzer play "scrum half" and clear the ball after the blitz means that if you can't secure the ball your team gets clattered.

Changes to Leap and Diving Tackle hurt, inability to get Stand Firm hurt, Dauntless only on doubles hurt.

I play pretty much every team and I've found finesse teams to be far more difficult to play now than they were under 3rd ed. I do not believe any tuning needs to be done, I think all teams are very well balanced.

rwould · Post by **rwould** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:21 pm

The problem is the evidence being presented is unreliable.
Firstly, the rankings are determined by tournaments, which is a different kettle of fish to league play, due to progression etc.
Secondly league progression depends upon the teams in the league. If you are in a league full of strength teams the Ag team or two will suffer, as it will not get the easy matches it needs to build up the skills which makes it's team more survivable. However if you use a St team in a mostly Ag league the Ag teams will love it as they can build up the SPP's playing each other, moving them ahead of the St team(s) who will struggle to keep up after a few games.
Therefore most of the examples quoted, frankly, are irrelevant, as they represent a small snapshot. The best example would possibly be the online league, but even that is a problem due to the possibility of selective opponent choice.

However what I would say is that in a balanced league the overall position should be balanced between the different types of team.

Richard

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:04 pm

rwould wrote:The problem is the evidence being presented is unreliable.

I have to laugh at this as someone who does hypothesis testing for a living. The environment always effects the data. However over multiple league in Blood Bowl you don't see the AG teams running away with the leagues. In other words, while one league might not be a satisificatory test ... the multiple environments that can be viewed for this hypothesis provide a realible controls element to an opinion formed from the data.

IE your statement that the examples quoted are irrelevant is basically a invalid contention.

Galak

Talk Fantasy Football

LRB favors AG teams (Rant)

Does the LRB favour AG teams?