Cards vs Table

[Relborn]

But if it can be done with a handicap table, where you make a roll and take the result, how much more difficult could that be for cards ? Maybe I just do not see the problem, because I did not try to make a new set of cards ...

That would work of course, but unfortunately the current handicap events aren't balanced either.

I'm not offering any solutions here as i haven't got any, its a horrible vicious circle which i want to get of

I have no solution either, but when it comes down to some balanced effects I would rather see them on cards than on a table. I kow that's more a point of personal taste, but I really enjoy those bluffing games when you have a single card left in your hand and your opponent runs for the endzone ...

[noodle]

I like to think of Blood Bowl as a strategy game with dice, not a card game with dice and some strategy.

I don't get why people think cards are overpowered and dominate the game. In 7 years thats not my experience.

My opponent had Pit Trap, Banana Skin, Hide The Ball and Mine yesterday and I still won 2-0!

however with my team vastly better (290 vs. 209) I expected to win. I should have lost, given the cards, but I played an all out attack game to counter them, and put so much pressure on his team that he made mistakes (well, rolled ones)

Basically, without the cards, the superleague would be dull, boring and predictable. There would be absolutely no point in playing and the league would suffer - people would start dropping out of division 1 or avoiding the more experienced teams too...

At least the cards encourage games like these...

games are usually only won on cards if they are very very close anyway - where without cards they would be won on a dice roll - not strategy...

The good players always end up at the right end of the table (except me)

[madhobbit]

I like to think of Blood Bowl as a strategy game with dice, not a card game with dice and some strategy.

And I agree. This whole thread comes down to the difference in experiencing the game. To some people it's the more strategic the better. To others it's the more random and whackier the better. I don't think you'll ever get them all to agree to the level of strategy/whackyness.

[Skummy]

I should have lost, given the cards...

That's pretty much the whole reason. I hate seeing games in which two teams are evenly matched, but the cards decide the game. I like games decided on strategy and dice rolling, and not on drawing cards at the beginning. It takes a bit of the fun out, IMO.

[cidervampire]

I really miss the cards, it encouraged more interesting play in that you were encouraged to try to score rather than drag the clock down because you were in the lead and in a safe place. Obviously the cards shouldn't be so whacky as to remove all strategy from the game but rather be there to throw a few unexpected suprises into the game. Certainly the game is a bit more stale without them

I prefer cards to the tables as with tables theres no way in keeping a play secret until its played without being exceptionally prone to cheating. Also the bluff value is fun.

[juck101]

the cards were great fun but unbalanced.
The idea of an unbalanced balancing stystem should be a clear mistake. The cards are very random but the game seams very predictable now in general.
In my league we are using "Milo's Layered Handicap table" http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/handicap.html
So far plays very well and far more 'fair' system than the cards of even the table in LRB2. Try the table its gReAt

[blackgobbo]

The BBB handicap table is a card-based system- Isn't it?
Down here we're still pretty much attached to the Living Rulebook handicap table (I know, it's pretty boring and almost never changes anything, but at least it's safe)
Anyway I wonder what results you are getting with the BBB system

cheers,

BG

[ScottyBoneman]

The BBB handicap table is a card-based system- Isn't it?
Down here we're still pretty much attached to the Living Rulebook handicap table (I know, it's pretty boring and almost never changes anything, but at least it's safe)
Anyway I wonder what results you are getting with the BBB system

cheers,

BG

That is what I am seeing.

Because of the mechanics of most online leagues, there is the high ability to chose your matchups. Combine that with the fact the you can't really count on the Handicap table to really handicap at all and it gets stifling. FtF leagues can deal with this more naturally.

I pride myself on never 'camping out' for best match-ups but I have been playing Undead mostly. In my view we have a situation where the cagey/bashing team coaches tend to be the ones that want to eliminate the randomness of cards, but then are outraged that too many Agility team coaches don't feel the need to expose themselves more then they need to.

[noodle]

I should have lost, given the cards...

That's pretty much the whole reason. I hate seeing games in which two teams are evenly matched, but the cards decide the game. I like games decided on strategy and dice rolling, and not on drawing cards at the beginning. It takes a bit of the fun out, IMO.

We weren't evenly matched - that was the point!

I hate it when I lose on a dice roll, but no-one suggests removing the dice... Cards are random, dice are random. They're both massive game winners! And its more fun that way...

Advances are based on luck too. What if someone to their credit creates a gross team? Oh well, with no decent handicap or cards (or any randomness) that team wins every time.

How interesting

Net result - less people playing, less interest.

This doesn't happen in tournaments - so cards are unneccessary.

Of course we'll never agree.. I just have the experience of our league and its members to go on...

[Acerak]

I think the problem is what constitutes a set of balanced cards. I've considered this myself and its virtually impossible to generate say 12 or even 24 balanced results.

Heck, I've done it myself and I have a good 36-card deck. You can find it here:

http://www22.brinkster.com/angelli/bloodbowl

Click on Rules and then click the Special Plays link. The document is posted in table format, but each coach in our league has a laminated deck.

Anyway, some cards are better than others, but that will always be the case. The aim is to keep them useful, to keep them from being overpowering, and to reintroduce that random element that is missing from the LRB game. Over 100 team-games of testing...rousing success. They've yet to be altered.

Cheers!

-Chet

[ScottyBoneman]

I think the problem is what constitutes a set of balanced cards. I've considered this myself and its virtually impossible to generate say 12 or even 24 balanced results.

Heck, I've done it myself and I have a good 36-card deck. You can find it here:

http://www22.brinkster.com/angelli/bloodbowl

Click on Rules and then click the Special Plays link. The document is posted in table format, but each coach in our league has a laminated deck.

Anyway, some cards are better than others, but that will always be the case. The aim is to keep them useful, to keep them from being overpowering, and to reintroduce that random element that is missing from the LRB game. Over 100 team-games of testing...rousing success. They've yet to be altered.

Cheers!

-Chet

I think there is a key notion here. They do not have to be the same level of power, they just have to be not overpowered while either adding a chance for a weaker team to win or helping them recover.

[Babs]

Seriously, in the BBRC I suggested to Jervis that we get some 'fixed' cards out.


His big issue was cost - but he did like the idea of a table which could be used like cards - and then cards released as an alternative way to use the table. (Using a standard deck of cards to represent the results on the table was also favourably looked at).

So the big issue is rewriting the decks so they aren't game makers or breakers, but still giving a leg up.

I'd love to work with people to help to do that over the next 12 months - because I would love to have revised and 'balanced' cards back in the game.

Part of the issue will be revisiting the handicap. If cards have less 'potency' (And I think that might be good) then will a bigger handicap require more cards?

Is the best way to calculate handicap sheer difference in TR? Can it be done a better way that is still simple?

[Skummy]

How about defining exactly what you want the handicap system to do? I've heard a lot of people say they think the current system is too weak. But what exactly do they want? Should the handicap system have results that make the teams equal or even give the advantage to the lower team, or should the team with the higher TR always have the advantage, and the handicaps give minor bonuses?

[Dave]

good one skummy.

I'd like to help Babs, but am not entirely sure of the time available.

[DoubleSkulls]

How about defining exactly what you want the handicap system to do? I've heard a lot of people say they think the current system is too weak. But what exactly do they want? Should the handicap system have results that make the teams equal or even give the advantage to the lower team, or should the team with the higher TR always have the advantage, and the handicaps give minor bonuses?

To my mind handicaps should always be aimed at helping the underdog either survive or win the game - to make it more competitive and interesting for both coaches. IMO Handicap results should have no effect outside of the game being played (apart from preventing permanent damage to a team).

I believe Neo spent a while trying to work out win% for given TR diffs and where he thought the handicap table should leave it.