New Handicap Table ... right idea?

[Sixpack595]

What exactly is the goal of the table? TBB has all kinds of solutions to problems that are not clearly defined. At what TR should a team be unbeatable to a new team? 150? 175? How often are they winning now? Without this we can't really say whether or not the new table is better.

My main concern is that some will help too much, some too little. A TR 130 Woodie or Skaven team can OTS. Palmed Coin is a near win for them if it goes to OT no matter how good the other team is.

[GalakStarscraper]

What exactly is the goal of the table? TBB has all kinds of solutions to problems that are not clearly defined.

Defined problem: JJ wants the rules to a point where the underdog wins about 1/3rd of the time when playing up in TR so that leagues could admit new blood in without resetting.

The current handicap table doesn't even come close to fullfilling this.

At what TR should a team be unbeatable to a new team? 150? 175? How often are they winning now? Without this we can't really say whether or not the new table is better.

Actually you can from my experience with the current handicap table. You get teams 80 points apart where the underdog gets no help at all. Then you have teams only 25 points apart where they get 2 of the most powerful results on the table. That's not a system really working well. By seperating the table into levels then appropriate handicaps come into play at appropriate times, and you don't get a team being slammed because of a lucky dice roll on the handicap table.

My main concern is that some will help too much, some too little. A TR 130 Woodie or Skaven team can OTS. Palmed Coin is a near win for them if it goes to OT no matter how good the other team is.

2nd concerned vote about the OT .. so I'll get rid of it.

Galak

[Sixpack595]

How much of an underdog? 10pts? 25? 50? 100? I just don't think any handicap table should help a dog beat a team up 70 or 80 pts. I agree the current table is pretty crappy, and this concept is better, my only concern is the actual events rolled.

Defined problem: JJ wants the rules to a point where the underdog wins about 1/3rd of the time when playing up in TR so that leagues could admit new blood in without resetting.

The current handicap table doesn't even come close to fullfilling this.

I think the best bet at the bigger tables would be to mitigate damage rather than win games.

I like Virus cause it encourages coaches to drop niggled players. When a team has 6 niggles there are times when 3 or 4 miss, good for the dog. When they all show up it sucks. Why not make virus increase the odds of them missing...4+?


I think its a step in the right direction, the only issue is which ones are good, which need to be changed.

[Raven]

Personally speaking, I think an advantage of 25 or less in the TRs shouldn’t qualify any team for a handicap. Therefore, maybe no handicap should cost 25 points or less?

Thinking about alternative or new handicaps, I came up with the following. Feel free to comment but bear in mind that I created these really hastily (within 15 minutes actually!) so bear with me.

Extra Training: Your team has worked long and hard all week for this opponent. You may take an extra team re-roll to use for this match only. Varies; the cost is equal to the team’s usual starting cost of a re-roll divided by 5,000.

Total Training: One player has been working really hard for this week’s match, going above and beyond the usual training regime. Pick a player on your team. He may take one extra skill to use for this match only, just as if he had rolled a New Skill result on the Star Player Table. This skill may be taken from a category normally denied to that player. 25 points.

Harsh Training Regime: The opponent head coach has been driving his players too hard and one player in particular has exhausted himself. Pick a player on the opposing team. He loses one of his skills (not traits) for this match only. 15 points.

Merchandising Deal: Either you or your opponent has struck a lucrative new merchandising deal. If you chose your team as the beneficiary, you gain a one-off payment equal to your team’s FF x 10,000gp. (Note that as an alternative, you could set a limit based on whether or not the coach’s team miniatures are painted, to represent the new kit they receive. The maximum any coach could receive would be 10,000gp per fully painted figure.) If you choose your opponent to be the beneficiary, then the merchandising deal backfires. The fans grow annoyed at the constant changes in kit and recognize it as a money-making deal. The opposing team therefore loses 1 point of FF permanently and all the money currently in their treasury. 50 points.

Catfight: Before any one kick-off you may declare that your team’s cheerleaders lay into the opposing team’s cheerleaders and a huge catfight ensues. Move the turn markers on 1 square each due to the players, fans and even the Ref being too distracted at the hair-pulling and clothes-tearing. As your cheerleaders are victorious you automatically win any related rolls for the rest of the game. In addition, the opposing coach permanently loses all his cheerleaders. 15 points.

Insider: One of your assistant coaches used to work for the opposing team and has given you all the secrets of their plays which your players have studied hard. As a result, all Dodge rolls the opponent coach makes suffer a –1 and any AV rolls you make as a result of a block are also at –1. 75 points.

[GalakStarscraper]

Why not make virus increase the odds of them missing...4+?.

Because it would be a very potentially deadweight major handicap roll. In the MBBL2, I've seen this event rolled several times where the other team didn't have a single niggled player. You should not have any rolls in any of the tables that would have no effect on the current game.

Galak

[Raven]

You should not have any rolls in any of the tables that would have no effect on the current game.

I don't mean to repeat myself but this wouldn't be a problem if it came down to choice rather than random die rolling.

[GalakStarscraper]

Raven ... couple of items.

I've seen a proposed purchase system like you described. The problem is that not all events are equal and very quickly only a very few of the events on any table I've seen would ever be bought. For those that like a little more variety in the game this system doesn't yield that.

Also such a system is always quickly too good. If I can purchase Appearance Fee when my opponent is low on cash or Virus if he's got niggled players then the impact of every handicap becomes vastly increased as each one will have maximum effect when used.

Now for the items you just posted:
Extra Training and Total Training are already on the Handicap Table proposed by this thread.

Harsh Training is good and falls in line with the stuff in the 20 point table that mostly targets opponent's players.

Catfight and Merchandising Deal break one of the rules that was a goal of the new handicap table. No permanent effect to either team after the game is over.

Finally Insider. I think you meant AV rolls against my team are at -1 which is not what you wrote. Again ... a decent major handicap ... but I'm not sure it accomplishes much more than the Doctor In the House? result on the new proposed table.

Galak

[Raven]

Thanks for responding, Galek.

I've seen a proposed purchase system like you described. The problem is that not all events are equal and very quickly only a very few of the events on any table I've seen would ever be bought. For those that like a little more variety in the game this system doesn't yield that.

Well, obviously, I bow to your experience. But I would have thought this was a good thing as you weed out the stuff nobody uses (which would be impossible to do on a random table). The variety of a choice handicap table could be immense and I imagine would offer more than a rnadom table(s). But hey, that's just the way I envisage it.

Also such a system is always quickly too good. If I can purchase Appearance Fee when my opponent is low on cash or Virus if he's got niggled players then the impact of every handicap becomes vastly increased as each one will have maximum effect when used.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'always quickly too good' although I understand that knowledge of the other team will make some handicaps more desirable than others. But surely that doesn't mean the value will increase? What's the difference between choosing Appearance Fee and hoping to roll it? If you get it when it's random does it cost less? Or to put it a better way, should it cost more if you can choose it?

Extra Training and Total Training are already on the Handicap Table proposed by this thread.

No, they're not. Sorry, I should have made the differences clearer. I changed Extra Training slightly in terms how much it costs, making the cost in handicap points relative to the usual starting cost of the respective race's re-roll. So a human team would pay 10 points for the Extra Training handicap (50,000gp divided by 5,000 equals 10) but a Dwarf team would only pay 8 points (40,000gp divided by 5,000 equalling . I think this is a little more balanced as re-rolls are meant to represent a team's training and organisation, thus if the handicap is 'extra' training it should also reflect this.

Total Training is likewise subtley different to Intensive Training, which I think you were referring to. The change here is that the player can take any skill and not just a skill from his normal categories and subsequently it costs a little more. For example, a human lineman could take a passing skill for one match only.

And while I'm thinking about this, are the handicaps reflected in the TR balance accurately? For example, a human team losing 1 to 3 re-rolls would lose the equivalent of TR5-15 but this handicap costs 20. A Magic Sponge is the equivalent of an Apothecary or TR5 but costs 20. The Team Anthem gives you +3 FF but costs 10 and so on.

And wouldn't it be better to distribute the cost more evenly? Say, for example, the Bad Habits handicap: why not instead of rolling d3 and losing that many re-rolls for a cost of 20, why not say you can choose to remove 1 re-roll for each 10 points you pay, up to a maximum of 3?

Sorry, those were just some odd thoughts that suddenly occurred to me.

Harsh Training is good and falls in line with the stuff in the 20 point table that mostly targets opponent's players.

Thank you but one question: I priced this at 15 points. If gaining a temporary skill (i.e. Intensive Training) only costs 10 why would you say making an oppenent lose a skill costs 20? I thought a little more because of the choice but is it worth 10 more? Is this really equal to potentially losing 3 re-rolls, for example?

Catfight and Merchandising Deal break one of the rules that was a goal of the new handicap table. No permanent effect to either team after the game is over.

Fair enough. I love the idea of Catfight however, so maybe that could be changed to the winning team gaining another re-roll (the players trying extra hard to impress/or in fear of those tough ladies).

Finally Insider. I think you meant AV rolls against my team are at -1 which is not what you wrote. Again ... a decent major handicap ... but I'm not sure it accomplishes much more than the Doctor In the House? result on the new proposed table.

Oops, yes that's what I meant. I think Insider offers a viable alternative to Doctor In the House? because not only does it improve your players' chances of not getting injured (which Doctor In the House? does not; it decreases the type of injury) and it also reduces the chances the opponent has of dodging for the whole game (which is why it should be expensive; it would be a killer for an agility team). An agility team (or any novice team) would be much better off against a strong team with both Insider and Doctor In the House?

Thanks again, Galak!

[Longshot]

Sorry Grumble, but with reducing the casualties, i am not sure this is a good solution.

Sorry, Raven but you can't say 'it s the spirit of the game but i want to get rid of it..'

A lot of people enjoyed the cards, right. But it was too much.

The table is too less, or may be not well suited.

Galak, could you check the Andy Table. If i remenber well there was diffenrent tables form low difference to high difference.

And some stuff were nice and went with the fluff and so on.
But it would need a feedback !

[Raven]

Longshot wrote:
Sorry Grumble, but with reducing the casualties, i am not sure this is a good solution.

Why not? Why can't you have the 'choice handicap' table set up as I roughly suggested but with something like these following options added:

Under Scrutiny: The opposing team has become renowned for the large number of suspicious injuries it causes and so has come under the eye of the league's governing body. As a result, the head coach has given the players strict instructions that they're not to kill anyone. The opposing team cannot cause a death in this game. If a death is ever rolled on the injury table, the coach must re-roll the result. Note that deaths caused by other effects, such as falling when going-for-it or being hit by a rock, still apply. [25 points]

Under Close Scrutiny: The opposing team has become infamous for the large number of suspicious injuries it causes and so has come under the ever-watchful eye of the league's governing body. As a result, the head coach has given the players strict instructions that they're not to harm anyone too badly. The opposing team cannot cause a death of Serious Injury in this game. If a death or Serious Injury result is ever rolled on the injury table, it is treated as a Badly Hurt result. Note that deaths or Serious Injuries caused by other effects, such as falling when going-for-it or being hit by a rock, are also reduced to Badly Hurts. [75 points]

I'm Warning You, One Last Time...: The opposing team has become widely feared for the large number of suspicious injuries it causes and so has come under the ever-watchful eye of the league's governing body. As a result, the head coach has given the players strict instructions that they're not to harm anyone... at all! The opposing team cannot cause any Injury worse than a KO in this game. If a death, Serious Injury or Badly Hurt result is ever rolled on the injury table, it is treated as a KO'd result. Note that deaths, Serious Injuries or Badly Hurts caused by other effects, such as falling when going-for-it or being hit by a rock, are also reduced to KOs. [100 points]

This way, underdog coaches can choose either a bunch of normal handicaps (such as palmed coin and so on) or spend all their handicap 'money' on protecting their own team and ensuring their survival (and they will be restricted in how much they can protect themselves by the difference in TRs). If the latter option is chosen, then a good game will still be played and enjoyed. Chances are the higher-ranked team will win the game but the lower-ranked coach can play without fear of losing half his team and being unable to compete in the next two or three matches. (Note the emphasis I put on the word choose there; it seems to me that most TBBers prefer choosing than a random result.)

• Longshot wrote:

Sorry, Raven but you can't say 'it s the spirit of the game but i want to get rid of it..'

I can't? Well, aside from the fact that you have no right to tell me what I can or can't say (by all means tell me your opinion or tell me my opinion is right or wrong but not whether or not I can speak! ) and aside from the fact that I said no such thing (I did say 'I do think the new table you've devised is better than the old one but I just don't think it's the right idea,' however), this is big news to me! You can't say something is in the spirit of the game but it needs to go?

Wow... so much for half of the BBRC's decisions then. Such as: Ogres now playing on only a few teams (although 'in the spirit of the game' they would play with any/every team); or fouling being restricted (because Blood Bowl players never foul); or even... getting rid of the Special Play Cards? After all, they're very much 'in the spirit of the game' but...

A lot of people enjoyed the cards, right. But it was too much.

...even you thought they unbalanced the game! Honestly, and with all due respect, you were speaking rubbish when you said that you can't remove/change rules that are 'in the spirit of the game.'

The table is too less, or may be not well suited.

I didn't understand this, sorry. Could you make it clearer? Do you think a table is too weak? Which table? Galak's? What is it not well-suited to? You? The game in general? A high difference in TRs? A low?

[Full_Block]

I voted no on this table. The league I’m currently in uses a similar system, except that you roll d66 for the handicap after choosing to roll on the Good Karma (10 points), Random Events (20 points), or Desperate Measures (50 points), and I loathe it. With only one exception, every team in the league had a TR of 200+, and I had to start with a novice team. Needless to say, I’m now on my third team and they’re taking quite a beating, just like the previous two.

I’d much prefer for our league to use the LRB handicap table because at least that way I’d have a fighting chance. Under the new handicap tables, I get slaughtered. Basically, the problem is this: there’s nothing worth having on either the Good Karma or Random Events tables. The weather scroll is okay against a team that relies heavily on a passing game but that’s pretty much it. I could hope for handicaps that let me win any Kick-Off table rolls but while this would keep my team from getting hurt the effect would be insignificant to the opposing team.

The only handicaps that are worthwhile (i.e. will reduce the opposing team in strength and thus increase my chances of both wining and surviving) are on the Desperate Measures table. And herein lies the rub…

Under the LRB system, my novice team playing a TR200+ would get four rolls on the handicap table. Chances are, one decent roll would occur. Maybe I’d get nothing good, maybe I’d be lucky and get several decent handicaps. But I’d get four handicaps. And then, I get to choose one. I get to pick the handicap that would benefit me most (which, more often than not, is In the Bag or Running Late).

However, under the system my league uses, I’d have to opt to spend points on the Desperate Measures table in the hope of getting something decent (i.e. In the Bag or Running Late). But I only get two rolls. Two handicaps and they’re still random. I might get shafted and end up with Doom and Gloom, Appearance Fee, or I am the Greatest!, none of which benefit my team to any great extent.

For the record, I’d prefer the LRB table to these three tables. But I’d prefer a points-system where you can pick-and-choose even more.


And on a slightly related note, doesn’t anyone think that the idea of paying ‘points’ for things that are out of your control is a strange concept? What I mean by that is the descriptions for the three handicap tables. I can accept the term ‘Desperate Measures’ because your team resorts to desperate measures to handicap the opposing team. Simple enough. I can understand the term ‘Dirty Tricks’ because it means pretty much what it says. But ‘Good Karma’ and ‘Random Events’? If they’re random- (or karmic-) driven then why should you pay points to get them? Good karma implies that you’ve worked hard and so the universe/God/the-powers-that-be/whatever has rewarded you. Does the table represent that? Hardly. Of the 8 Good Karma handicaps, 3 are benefits granted because of hard work (but are not karmic rewards), 2 are dirty tricks, while only 3 are completely random and might represent true karmic retribution. And what about Random Events and Dirty Tricks? Well, 5 are neither random events nor dirty tricks! And only 4 handicaps on the Desperate Measures table are actually desperate measures!

Sorry to rant and rave, but I just don’t like the terminology. If we’re going to be stuck with these godawful tables, could we at least change their names? Howabout ‘Petty Ploys,’ ‘Dirty Tricks’ and ‘Desperate Measures’?

[Jugular]

Petty Ploys? and the other two you came up with were the same. Without getting into some philosophical arguments over what Kharma is does it really mattter all that much how their named. It's obvious they haved been pulled from the Special play cards. I think they're perfectly fitting and interesting and fluffy enough. Your argument sounds little petty tbh.

As far as I'm aware in the LRB if you get four rolls on a table you get all four results you dont have to pick one. Under the proposed new table you would get at least 2 rolls (as it was changed to 40 points). If you can't get any benefit from 'Doom and Gloom' or 'I am the Greatest!' then I suggest you give up on any handicap system suiting your needs.

In the end you're basically suggesting that your luck is better on the LRB table and thats why you want to use that instead.

You're always going to have trouble joining an established league and you can't expect to win many games. As far as getting bashed either choose more lasting teams (orcs or dwarves for example) or learn to run away a little more. I'd take it as an opportunity to learn to be a better coach. If the handicap tables were too good I'd get bored.

[GalakStarscraper]

If I'm 100 points down ... I'd probably take one 40 and three 20s. This would probably do a pretty good job of at least making sure I don't get nailed.

I think there is a pretty big difference between the tables being used by your league and these tables especially since the Desperate Measures table is a 40 point table.

In fact, my league just started using it and so far coaches have picked two 20 rolls instead of a 40 roll for the two games with TR diffs of 40 to 55. So I'm watching this as it may mean that the overall mix of the 40 table isn't attractive enough to be worth two 20 rolls. Appearance Fee is the one that I'm really wondering about at this point as it could be a null event which isn't good. The other 7 I'm pretty happy with as they won't be null events.

Galak

Galak

[Full_Block]

Petty Ploys? and the other two you came up with were the same.

Well, no. Desperate Measures might remain the same (because, as you'd know if you bothered to read my post attentively, I admitted that title was apt) but calling the second table Dirty Tricks is different to calling it Random Events and Dirty Tricks. And if handicaps are meant to be things your team/coaches/cheerleaders have done or acquired to increase their chances of winning, then Petty Ploys is a better and more appropriate title than Good Karma.

Without getting into some philosophical arguments over what Kharma is does it really mattter all that much how their named.

No, of course not. I've just heard a rumour that the BBRC are going to rename all the teams Human #1, #2, #3, etc. After all, it doesn't really matter if an Orc team is called Human Team #12, does it?

It's obvious they haved been pulled from the Special play cards.

You are obviously wrong here. The cards were called Random Events, Dirty Tricks, and Magic Items. So where is Magic Items? Where did Good Karma come from? Or Desperate Measures?

Your argument sounds little petty tbh.

Maybe but at least I gave some thought to my argument, which you, judging by your inaccurate responses, did not.

As far as I'm aware in the LRB if you get four rolls on a table you get all four results you dont have to pick one.

Try reading your LRB. I quote from the table on page 43: "[TR difference]101+ [Rolls]4 + pick a fifth result of your choice." Can't get much clearer than that, can you?

Under the proposed new table you would get at least 2 rolls (as it was changed to 40 points).

Try reading the post again (actually, just try reading something... anything!). I stated quite clearly that my league uses a 50 point Desperate Measures table. So I would get two rolls. Two random handicaps. Compared to four random handicaps and one picked on the old LRB table.

If you can't get any benefit from 'Doom and Gloom' or 'I am the Greatest!' then I suggest you give up on any handicap system suiting your needs.

Doom & Gloom costs 50 points. For that I can make the opposing player lose between 1 and 3 TRRs, depending on how many they have. It's usually 1 or 2, as only one team in our league has more than 6 TRRs. Gee, how great is that. My lethal opponents, who possess a large number of highly skilled players (who thus do not need the use of TRRs), have to play me with 2 TRRs rather than 4. Gee, my life has been spared!

I am the Greatest! Wow, two randomly selected players don't like each other. So (to use an example that actually occurred in our league), if I'm playing an Orc team with 4 BOB Star Players, 4 Blitzer Star Players, and an Ogre (this was before the 2003 Rules Review), they might not be able to field one Goblin and an Orc lineman with no SPPs at the same time. Phew! Breathes deep (but decidely sarcastic) sigh of relief.

I can gain benefit from these handicaps, of course. But it doesn't happen very often because of the huge TR difference in the first case and the random nature of the handicap in the second case. The changes made to these handicaps in the proposed tables is an improvement to be sure but not much of one.

[GalakStarscraper]

I can gain benefit from these handicaps, of course. But it doesn't happen very often because of the huge TR difference in the first case and the random nature of the handicap in the second case. The changes made to these handicaps in the proposed tables is an improvement to be sure but not much of one.

Full_Block ... not much of one?????

Old I'm the Greatest 50 points and two random .... new 40 points and two highest SPP players

Old Doom & Gloom 50 points for D3 reroll loss ... new 40 points for losing every reroll on a 1-5 D6 roll.

Those are changes in a category definitely higher than "not much of one" ... basically I agree with you that your table isn't good enough but your experience with that table I'm not sure links up with the new one being discussed.

Galak