Talk Fantasy Football

hello,

to bring up new concepts, one source could be what one thinks is a gamedesign flaw (despite all the fun blood bowl is), so i would like to get some inspirations from you.

personally, i dont like that some rolls are far more important than others, eg an amour roll of 12 is nice, but not as teamchanging as an skilluproll of 12. one might say that it all equals out after some skillups, but the law of large numbers hardly catches at 50-100 skillups and so you see some teams with lots ot statups and others with none.
same goes for injury-rolls and winnings, so to say off-the-pitch rolls.

i dont like that the hardest-hitting teams are also the ones that can soak up the most "damage", while there arent real glascannon-teams or they arent as dangerous as the turtle-teams.

i dont like some skill/anti-skill dynamics, eg tackle is absolutely useless if theres no one with dodge on the other side. in opposite to grab-side step where every skill has its advantages and both cancel each other out, that is a good dynamic imho.

i dont like that agilty has such a steep "importance curve". ag>3 is desirable, ag3 is ok and ag<3 is ignorable, for either most statups or statlosses through injuries.

i dont like that blodge > all.

i dont like that blocking is genreally such a lowrisk action in comparison to other actions.

so pls inspire me with things you dont like.

To be honest it sounds like you don't really like what makes blood bowl, well, blood bowl!

I actually think mechanic wise there aren't any massive holes in the game.

Blodge is great early game, but if you are up against a developed hitting team, that dodge don't mean anything, so your going down on 2/6. Similar to an unskilled block.

Only gripe really is I wish clawpomb wasn't quite so good, but have negated some of that by playing Norse my self!

Do think mighty blow/piling on+/- claw needs to be looked at, other than that and the gap tiers(which I actually like) no real issues!

I don't like that the human team lacks, but ideas to fix that have been hashed out for a very long time.

I don't like: Claw, Mighty Blow, Piling On spam; Dwarf and Chaos Dwarf Tackle spam; Amazon Dodge spam; Dirty Player nerf, with all those Clawpomb killers around; Decay on Tomb Guardians; the Kick Off table and Weather events, that can be game-changers; Turn Over for failed dodges (failing a dodge is a penalty in itself); the new apothecary and the injury system: I outblocked more than one opponent and I suffered more casualties, in my last matches; Agility rolls based on 1 die, instead of 2 dice; the Passing mechanic (fumbles are too easy).
Just the first few things that come to my mind.

Slamming dice cups, marking squares you want your player to be in, measuring with the range ruler from squares you haven't got to yet and other such 'gaming aids'.

Corvidius wrote:measuring with the range ruler from squares you haven't got to yet

If you mean after the pass has been declared, that's allowed in the rules.

Darkson wrote:

Corvidius wrote:measuring with the range ruler from squares you haven't got to yet

If you mean after the pass has been declared, that's allowed in the rules.

Both before and after. But "When you are instructed to measure the range, place the ‘0’ at one end over the centre of the square of the player throwing the ball and the red line that runs up the middle of the ruler over the centre of the square of the player the ball is being thrown to." led me to believe that was how range was measured, from the player who is throwing it while he is in that square.

I can see how people would take "It is perfectly acceptable to pre-measure the range to several players at any point during the throwing player's move before you declare the target of the pass." as meaning you can measure whether you are in range before deciding to gfi for example but it does say you can pre-measure to any square, not from any square as far as I can see.

And yes, i'm aware that passing charts make the point slightly moot but it still bugs the hell out of me.

The fact that I am bit crap at it really

Heff wrote:The fact that I am bit crap at it really

I was expecting a one word response there.

...whining...

burgun824 wrote:...whining...

yup!

Corvidius wrote:

Heff wrote:The fact that I am bit crap at it really

I was expecting a one word response there.

Oh and Dwarves obviously. Happy now?

Heff wrote:

Corvidius wrote:

Heff wrote:The fact that I am bit crap at it really

I was expecting a one word response there.

Oh and Dwarves obviously. Happy now?

Slipping a bit, aren't we.

Getting soft, sees himself with a beard.

thank you all so far

Haribo wrote:To be honest it sounds like you don't really like what makes blood bowl, well, blood bowl!

I actually think mechanic wise there aren't any massive holes in the game.

Blodge is great early game, but if you are up against a developed hitting team, that dodge don't mean anything, so your going down on 2/6. Similar to an unskilled block.

Only gripe really is I wish clawpomb wasn't quite so good, but have negated some of that by playing Norse my self!

Do think mighty blow/piling on+/- claw needs to be looked at, other than that and the gap tiers(which I actually like) no real issues!

two things. what makes blood bowl, well, blood bowl?

and you seem to mistake imbalances with design flaws. i assume blodge is balanced, its just cheesy that they are the most taken skills in the game. so are other things i dont like. overall everything in blood bowl might be balanced as the measured winning-% are all in the range where they are wanted to be.