Talk Fantasy Football

One of the tougherthings to balanced in Bloodbowl, IMO, is the balance between having enough blood to keep teams from all getting to > 2000TV while at the same time keeping it hard for a team to be destroyed. Once a team gets to high TV you can run into a feedback loop where replacement players die since they don't have skills, and you can't afford to keep replacing them.

One simple solution would be to cut back on the blood part...but again that will just cause TV inflation. So, with that in mind I suggest a modification, call it "rookie resilience" to injuries for players with no skills - after rolling for injury, apothecary, and regeneration the player's coach rolls a D6. On a roll of 4+, the player has mostly shrugged off the injury due to his youth - treat the injury as badly hurt.

This will not help the coach in game since he will still lose the player for that game, but by halving the number of SI/Death that rookies take, it will make it easier to rebuild a team and give a bit more incentive to replace those highly skilled players with SIs. Overall it will have a small effect on TV inflation though, because once the player has even one skill he is just as killable.

Thoughts?

Interesting idea

I posted a similar idea (or at least one with similar intent) which came at it from the other direction - increasing the blood:

On making a roll on the casualty table the player must add the number of gained skills to the d68 roll, with anything going over the 8 being the next "level" of injury. For example, a level 4 player (3 gained skills) rolls 37 on the injury table - he adds 3 to that and it becomes 42. That way "older" players have a greater chance of picking up debilitating/career-ending injuries while the young bucks play on.

That, combined with a reroll of the MVP (or some alternate method of MVP selection) would force an increase in high level player turnover while allowing the rookies to skill up more quickly.

I too like the add skills to injury roll - though would have the table done slightly diferently i.e.
11-40 BH
41-50 MNG
51-60 Same as currently with 58 becoming 58-60
61+ Dead
Not quite as harsh so wouldn't think the MVP rule would need to be changed.

It would encourage teams to run a few superstars (who the apoth is reserved for) and rookies. I'm not sure that's a good thing or not.

DoubleSkulls wrote:It would encourage teams to run a few superstars (who the apoth is reserved for) and rookies. I'm not sure that's a good thing or not.

In a league, wouldn't you want to take any skill you can? The idea is that rookies are at such a disadvantage in highly developed leagues...consider the classic Block, Fend line fodder compared to an unskilled rookie. Wouldn't you rather have the former, since he is more likely to stay on the pitch then the latter, even if he is less likely to get an injury?

In a MM structure, I could see teams specifically trying to trim to have a couple stars, but it is MM, you generally shouldn't care about TV for your next game anyway - a BH is as bad as a Dead (baring functional team destruction of course).

I agree coaches would be less likely to use the apoth on rookies, but how often would you do that now? And this is roughly equivalent to an apoth anyway meaning that the rookies are already covered.

Finally, from the BB fluff isn't the idea that teams have a few stars and then a bunch of low level players as opposed to everyone being high level?

On a tangential note, one issue with this that does occur to me is that it would tend to help teams with expensive somewhat fragile players the most - WE, DE, etc who already have very high win percentage in MM. It would merit consideration if this would unduly help them in leagues.

DoubleSkulls wrote:It would encourage teams to run a few superstars (who the apoth is reserved for) and rookies.

Isn't that the very definition of Min-Maxing?

DoubleSkulls wrote:It would encourage teams to run a few superstars (who the apoth is reserved for) and rookies. I'm not sure that's a good thing or not.

Teams do that anyway, and not always by choice.

What it would also do is put the high level cpomb players at greater risk (one apoth is rarely enough ) for those minmaxing teams running a few of those with rookies. It would also help players ameliorate the loss of, say, experienced BOBs (and other high potential slow TV-gain players) more easily.

dode74 wrote: On making a roll on the casualty table the player must add the number of gained skills to the d68 roll, with anything going over the 8 being the next "level" of injury.

The problem with that IMO, is that it increases the chance of team death by making it easier for a cash strapped high TV team to suddenly lose a bunch of players at once.

swilhelm73 wrote:In a MM structure, I could see teams specifically trying to trim to have a couple stars, but it is MM, you generally shouldn't care about TV for your next game anyway

I am under the impression most Cyanide and many FUMBBL games are played in TV matched format - so coaches care intensely about removing any fat from the team.

For many teams a 90k lineman with block & fend is not better than two rookies for 100k.

DoubleSkulls wrote:

swilhelm73 wrote:In a MM structure, I could see teams specifically trying to trim to have a couple stars, but it is MM, you generally shouldn't care about TV for your next game anyway

I am under the impression most Cyanide and many FUMBBL games are played in TV matched format - so coaches care intensely about removing any fat from the team.

For many teams a 90k lineman with block & fend is not better than two rookies for 100k.

I play in cyanide leagues exclusively now, though I've played in Cyanide and FUMMBL MM. You shouldn't care about TV for your next game doesn't mean people don't of course. And if you want to win I would argue that 90k Lineman is better.

THere are other ways to accomplish some control over high end teams versus newer teams.

Accelerate spiraling expenses.
Require a minimum # of 0-16 (or 0-12) players
etc.

How Would "Rookie Resilience" make sense on Zombies, Skeletons and Rotters? Vampires? They are not so young and lithe.

It seems like you want to give every player a regen roll on any injury until they get a skill. Undead/necro and Nurgle players get 2. Vampires as well. Seems a little over the top to me.