Expert BB-moved from vault

[Pink Horror]

I would love to do a real redesign on Blood Bowl!

I would like to say that if anyone gets it stuck in his head that he should actually write something like this, make sure it's an entirely separate game from Blood Bowl (no GW trademarks, different board, no block dice, etc.). You wouldn't want trouble from GW if your game actually gets popular.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

If you want a redesign, then base all AG-values and actions on 2D6 rather than 1D6. Just let players do AG-checks for AG actions.

Elvish throwers and catchers would start with AG 9 (which would resemble AG 4 of the current system, all other elves and throwers/catchers would start with 8, ordinary linemen with AG 7, AG 6 or less for the rest.

A simple conversion of your suggestion would be to use a D10 and AG checks would require you to roll under your AG score. (with appropriate mods of course) but I'd rather see it apply to passing/catching skill seperation. It just adds more depth. It would be entirely possible to build elf teams who are dodgey and agile but not dominating lords of the pass play.
Using the old 2nd type system would also make it possible to combine the ST score into the passing score to determine ranges. A goblin's max range should be shorter than an elf's. An ogre should be able to chuck it the length of the field but not be able to hit the broad side of a barn.


Discussing this only confirms for me that Blood Bowl would be better as a more complex game than the streamlined version they are going for.


For example, one of the things that's always been an issue is the amount and impact of injuries on the game. Streamling this and removing fun stuff from the game doesn't fix it...it just takes out the fun to be had from carnage.
It's simple too. If you have a table where one end is a good result and one end is a bad result and the middle is a curve that moves towards those ends the best way to decrease the impact of the extreme poles is to expand the middle curve. Not chop off one end!!
I think we could make a great game...hell monkeys with typewriters could make a better game than JJ.

[Azurus]

Discussing this only confirms for me that Blood Bowl would be better as a more complex game than the streamlined version they are going for.

Couldn't agree more. Problem of course, is that if you can cope with a more complex game, you're not in GW's 'target demographic'.

I think I'd prefer 2d6s over d10s, because of the non-linear increase in difficulty. A jump from making a check on AG 7 to 6 is less of a change than from 6 to 5. I think this is good, since it allows easier representation of a player that is great/terrible at something.

As for the injuries, I've been talking about increasing the ratio of KO's and BH's to SI/RIPs for years now (which I think is similar to what you mean). Nobody ever listened, mind.

How about splitting ST into AT (attacking ST) and DF (defending ST). I think a blitzer (for example) with AT 4 and DF 3 (or even 2) fits the concept of a 'blitzer' better.

[Asperon Thorn]

For the most part I like the game system from third and LRB better than it's predecessors. But there were a lot of things in second edition that I really liked because it gave the game a lot of flavor.

One of the things that I like out of 3rd and LRB is that there are only 4 stats. Having 10 stats like a basic trooper in warhammer fantasy is something I don't want to deal with. I rather worry about chainsaws than have to worry about someone's toe touching stat increase.

Asperon Thorn

[Joemanji]

How about splitting ST into AT (attacking ST) and DF (defending ST). I think a blitzer (for example) with AT 4 and DF 3 (or even 2) fits the concept of a 'blitzer' better.

A more elegant way of representing this is a single stat with two components. So players could have a ST stat of the form 4(3), where the first number is their attacking ST, and the number in brackets their defensive ST.

Personally, whilst I am intrigued by an "expert" version of BB, with seperated passing and AG stats, and maybe 2D6 scales, this would still be on a relatively conservative level. For example, there have been calls to split MV, ST and AG into disperate components. That is a jump from four stats to seven! That is a level of change which would be near impossible to balance using any intuitive experience of basic BB.

For the sake of reference, I'll list the comparitive probabilities for AG rolls of the current D6 and possible 2D6 scales (assuming that the 2D6 scale does not have the +1 feature of the current 2D6 scale.):

Code: Select all

 AG    D6      2D6
 1    33.3%    -
 2    50.0%    2.8%
 3    66.7%    8.3%
 4    83.3%    16.7%
 5    83.3%    27.8%
 6     -       41.7%
 7     -       58.3%
 8     -       72.2%
 9     -       83.3%
10     -       91.7%

As you can see, the biggest issue with a 2D6 scale is that there is no close correspondence between the current AG3 and an AG in the 2D6 scale. So any such change would require a reworking of the game from the ground up, primarily in terms of player costs.

I find it ironic that the slight disruption to the LRB status quo from the Vault would lead people to a totally untested framework that would require years of testing ... but hey, there you go. It is interesting nonetheless.

[Darkson]

I find it ironic that the slight disruption to the LRB status quo from the Vault would lead people to a totally untested framework that would require years of testing ... but hey, there you go. It is interesting nonetheless.

(Please note, this is no having a go, or disagreeing with you, just making a point)

If we'd kept the complexity we all ready had (ie LRB 4) then I'd have been happy to keep with it, and probably have kept my desire for more complexities to 40k (ah, 1st and 2nd edition ). But with JJ obviously wanting to take (or being told) BB in the same direction as 40k/WFB, to make it simpler to target they're beloved 12yo demographic, then I support this idea, even if it never get's anywhere.

I thought the Specialist games were meant fo the mature gamer (in experiance, not so much age), ie the ones that can deal with complexities, and don't need everything handed to thm on a plate.

[Azurus]

How about splitting ST into AT (attacking ST) and DF (defending ST). I think a blitzer (for example) with AT 4 and DF 3 (or even 2) fits the concept of a 'blitzer' better.

A more elegant way of representing this is a single stat with two components. So players could have a ST stat of the form 4(3), where the first number is their attacking ST, and the number in brackets their defensive ST.

I like this. Presumably the same format could be used for Move(Sprint) and Agility(Passing) that have been presented elsewhere.

That is a jump from four stats to seven!

You're right, we can't have that! Coaches would be confused to have odd number of stats! We'll have to break up AV into getting hit(falling over) as well!

That is a level of change which would be near impossible to balance using any intuitive experience of basic BB......So any such change would require a reworking of the game from the ground up, primarily in terms of player costs.

That's the fun of it! There's no point starting over if everything just ends up the same.

I find it ironic that the slight disruption to the LRB status quo from the Vault would lead people to a totally untested framework that would require years of testing ... but hey, there you go. It is interesting nonetheless.

I can't speak for the other guys, but I just like making stuff up. It's great fun to see how things would work if some of the basics are changed.

Great post, by the way. Very coherent and easy to read (unlike most of mine )

[Joemanji]

No offense taken.

Having played most of my BB in a GW over the past few months, I can tell you there is a strict rule that only over 16s are allowed to play specialist games. 12 year olds are forbidden from playing BB etc. in store. It seems to create an atmosphere where 14/15 year olds are excited about breaking into the more complicated systems.

As an aside, I hope you don't think that GWs drive to simplify their games is solely aimed at bringing in the kids! The majority of gamers I have met in the 16-24 demographic find games too complicated not because of their age, but their intelligence. It is a sad fact (I believe) that the majority of gamers never have a full, or even very good, grasp of the rules of whichever game they play. This is not represented on a forum like TBB, where the population is made up of the intelligent die hards, but it is true of the wider populus nonetheless. GW will seek to simplify their games to bring in more punters of all ages, not just kids.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing; more gamers means more opponents and a healthier BB scene. But there should perhaps be another, optional layer of more sophisticated rules for games such as BB. I'd like to see some form of Galak's on-pitch wizards in the game, for example. Never going to happen though.

Personally, I believe that the biggest problem with Inducements is that they are too difficult for many gamers to grasp. I would say that more than half of the the coaches I have met at GW recently struggle to accurately put together a 1 mil roster, even using a calculator. Working out which Inducements to buy might put people off BB simply because it involves some degree of maths. Sad but true.

[Darkson]

God, if that's true then there's no hope!

[Gandhi]

Oh my... , now I feel smart

[Azurus]

Hope Nazgit doesn't mind me stealing his table (and intro to it), but I found it interesting to run a couple more possibilities. I've left off a couple of the higher probabilities to concentrate on a similar range of results to the d6.

For the sake of reference, I'll list the comparitive probabilities for AG rolls of the current D6 and possible scales (assuming that the 2D6, d10 and 2d8 scales do not have the +1 feature of the current D6 scale.):

Code: Select all

 AG    D6      2D6    d10    2d8
 1    33.3%    -      -      -
 2    50.0%    2.8%   -      -    
 3    66.7%    8.3%   30%    -
 4    83.3%    16.7%  40%    -
 5    83.3%    27.8%  50%    -   
 6     -       41.7%  60%    23.4%
 7     -       58.3%  70%    32.8%
 8     -       72.2%  80%    43.8%
 9     -       83.3%  90%    56.3%
10     -       91.7%  90%    67.2%
11     -       -      -      76.6%
12     -       -      -      84.4%
13     -       -      -      90.6%

If we assume that we want results in the same range as with the d6 rules (around 30-some to 80-some %), we see that 2d6 gives us one extra result in the same range (assuming we ignore the 'peaked' AG5 result for the d6), and we get 2 extra for both d10 and 2d8.

The 2d8 roll also gives us an analogue to AG3 (67.2% compared to current 66.7%), and also has another level between (old) AG3 and AG4, which I think is something that people are interested in. The d10 roll has no analogue to AG3.

So, oddly, I think the numbers taken on their own show that 2d8 rolls are the best option. Problem is the idea of rolling 2d8's all the time just sounds horrible. The d10 rolls are decent two, but the lack of something close to AG3 may prove unsettling.

Anyway, something to think about, at least

[Darkson]

Azurus, want to post the same for D12, D20 and possibly 2D12?

[Azurus]

Azurus, want to post the same for D12, D20 and possibly 2D12?

lol, depends how bored I get

Or you could do the next two, then Dark Lord the two after that, and just keep passing it around.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Dark Lord doesn't do math.

I'll write fluff, create images, and create PDF's.

I'll even brain storm on the rules but I don't believe in the superiority of math.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

[Azurus]

Well, as requested, lots more numbers. (Though I have a sneaking feeling Darkson only asked to see if I'd do it )

Code: Select all

AG     d6     d8      d10     d12     d20     2d6     2d8     2d10   2d12
1     33.3%   12.5%   10%     8.3%    5%      -       -       -      -
2     50%     25%     20%     16.7%   10%     2.8%    -       -      -     
3     66.7%   37.5%   30%     25%     15%     8.3%    -       -      - 
4     83.3%   50%     40%     33.3%   20%     16.7%   -       -      -
5     83.3%   62.5%   50%     41.7%   25%     27.8%   -       -      -
6     -       75%     60%     50%     30%     41.7%   23.4%   15%    -
7     -       87.5%   70%     58.3%   35%     58.3%   32.8%   21%    -
8     -       87.5%   80%     66.6%   40%     72.2%   43.8%   28%    19.4%
9     -       -       90%     75%     45%     83.3%   56.3%   36%    25%
10    -       -       90%     83.3    50%     91.7%   67.2%   45%    31.3%
11    -       -       -       91.7%   55%     -       76.6%   55%    38.2%
12    -       -       -       91.7%   60%     -       84.4%   64%    45.8%
13    -       -       -       -       65%     -       90.6%   72%    54.2%
14    -       -       -       -       70%     -       -       79%    61.8%
15    -       -       -       -       75%     -       -       85%    68.8%
16    -       -       -       -       80%     -       -       90%    75%
17    -       -       -       -       85%     -       -       -      80.1%
18    -       -       -       -       90%     -       -       -      85.4%
19    -       -       -       -       95%     -       -       -      89.6%
20    -       -       -       -       95%     -       -       -      93.1%

d6 line includes the current +1 to everything.
all other lines are chances of rolling 'less than or equal to' the listed number. All single dice rolls have the 'highest no auto-failure' listed too. (the lowest no for the d6 line)
Once again, I've missed off the extremes, since I'm not really interested in stats that give much less than a 20% chance of success.
Oh, and I've missed off 2d20 because I couldn't be bothered with it. (and it would have made the table twice as long)

If the code flows over onto extra lines on your screen, tough - change the resolution .