Down with Re-rolls!!!!

[Joemanji]

I think this is an excellent idea, especially for tournament play. However, replacing re-rolls is not the best way to introduce momentum into the game IMO. Your original suggestion of allowing re-roll counters to perform this second function is fine IMO. But I would be equally interested in seeing how it worked with skills and/or inducements.

[tenwit]

I like the idea too. The enhancement to the Darkside Slide (throw the ball to an empty space then gather it immediately) seems like an easy thing to abuse, so how about making momentum purely skill based? Make a skill for each of passing (so fumbles don't cause turnover), dodging, blocking and catching. I don't know if there should be a skill for failing picking up, it might give Thro-Ras too much hope.

Don't add a skill that allows a momentum continue after a pass that didn't result in a catch attempt; that would mean that you'd have to pass to someone with the catch momentum skill, and have them fail the catch, in order to put the ball downfield and still allow someone else to pick it up.

[MadLordAnarchy]

I've found a strong link between those who go for heroic plays and a love of rerolls. I think this is a great idea in concept but I'm a game manager type coach and it would probably play into my hands which I don't really think is the outcome you're looking for.

Rerolls are extremely boring. Momentum sounds more interesting but one of the two great leap forwards in 3rd ed was turnovers and I'm personally not at all keen to see any reduction in that truly great element of the game.

[Jural]

Well thanks everyone for the feedback.

Personally, I don't think the idea has much merit if it's included alongside re-rolls. The game changer is that success and risk of turnover are decoupled, and allowing players to use normal re-rolls means you can build a team and play them exactly like right now! It does give riskier coaches options, but I still think the risk adverse will come out on top.

Oh, and the other change that needs to come with this- Block is somehow modified. Either to a re-roll of the block die, or to a re-roll of at most one of the block die. Then the game becomes more wide-open indeed.

I'm going to try out these rules and I'll post the results. The games I tried late last year and early this year were a blast, I hope to have the same fun with improved rules.

[SillySod]

but I still think the risk adverse will come out on top

The ones who will come out on top are those who can accurately calculate risk vs reward. That goes for any system, including one with only momentum counters.

[Jural]

but I still think the risk adverse will come out on top

The ones who will come out on top are those who can accurately calculate risk vs reward. That goes for any system, including one with only momentum counters.

A coach can win at Blood Bowl repeatedly by careful team building, good anticipation of the opposition's movement, and completely minimizing his own risk. Judging the relative merits of a high risk vs. low risk action can be avoided almost entirely, as it is almost always the case that the low risk option is the correct move.

That's a direct result of failure = turnover. By minimizing turnover, you are succeeding more often.

Now I agree with you, the truly great Blood Bowl coaches are the ones who know that it's worth it to try that pass with theitr dwarves, or to cage up and pound with their elves. But it's not a pre-requisite for being a decent Blood Bowl coach.

That's what I like about the momentum counters... I believe it's a way to make conservative coaches who don't take risks start to lose more often. Risk will be required more often, success will be assured less often.

I'd even posit that at some level you agree with me Silly Sod. We both enjoy playing Vampires, and they are one of only two high risk, high reward Blood Bowl teams. But the coolest thing about Vampires is that they don't only have success and failure, they have a middle ground (Failed OFAB rolls.) They are truly unique in Blood Bowl in that you can fail your roll and still end up accomplishing something (lending an assist and hypno-gazing.)

That doesn't mean you agree with my idea, but it probably means you enjoy some aspects of the game that I do.

[SillySod]

I was gonna mention vampires.... I suspect that alot of their appeal for you (as with me) is putting coaches completely out of their comfort zones, thats something which sorts the good from the excellent

[Jural]

I was gonna mention vampires.... I suspect that alot of their appeal for you (as with me) is putting coaches completely out of their comfort zones, thats something which sorts the good from the excellent

That's an excellent way of putting it. I love the Dark Elf squad as well because they can put people out of their comfort zone, and Slann as well. (Wood Elves also... but they do it by cheating.) But none of them are anywhere near as good as Vampires at doing it.

[tenwit]

they can put people out of their comfort zone, and Slann as well.

Slann have a comfort zone? Really?

But seriously, folks.. I think I'll campaign for VLL to change from +1 to leap to a momentum-like result in our league (frog goes splat but no turnover). I think that most of my opposition would quite like to see a few more of my blitzers risk it all and end up in the blender...

[Marcus]

Concept and "Problem"- De-couple success and turnovers. At the moment, a coach who seeks to minimize turnovers also ends up succeeding more often (why? because Blood Bowl typically has two outcomes- sucess and failure+turnover.) Why should this be? A troll slayer dodging past an elf and hitting the ball carrier down die probably won't succeed very often, but the current rules means you are an idiot to even try it!

My issue with this is your problem isn't a problem. Bloodbowl isnt' a game of successes. It's a game of risk-management. The best coaches get to where they are because they know how to improve their own risk:reward ratio at the expense of their opponent's.

Skills are generally designed to do one of 3 things: Increase risk to your opponent (tackle, passblock); decrease risk to yourself (dodge, block); or introduce new risk:reward opportunities (throw team mate). The core mechanic of the game is the turnover mechanism. The risk side of the ratio is almost always the turnover, how big a risk it is depends on the reward you're after.

By allowing the opportunity to remove the risk from a given play, you completely subvert the core mechanic. Managing failures is inherent to success in Bloodbowl and to do anything to get rid of that is misjudged. The problem isn't that it's difficult to dodge a trollslayer past an elf to blitz the ball carrier, the problem is you didn't play well enough if that's your best option. Your opponent played well enough to leave you only with risky plays: that is rewarded in this game and should remain so. That is Bloodbowl

[Joemanji]

Concept and "Problem"- De-couple success and turnovers. At the moment, a coach who seeks to minimize turnovers also ends up succeeding more often (why? because Blood Bowl typically has two outcomes- sucess and failure+turnover.) Why should this be? A troll slayer dodging past an elf and hitting the ball carrier down die probably won't succeed very often, but the current rules means you are an idiot to even try it!

My issue with this is your problem isn't a problem. Bloodbowl isnt' a game of successes. It's a game of risk-management. The best coaches get to where they are because they know how to improve their own risk:reward ratio at the expense of their opponent's.

Skills are generally designed to do one of 3 things: Increase risk to your opponent (tackle, passblock); decrease risk to yourself (dodge, block); or introduce new risk:reward opportunities (throw team mate). The core mechanic of the game is the turnover mechanism. The risk side of the ratio is almost always the turnover, how big a risk it is depends on the reward you're after.

By allowing the opportunity to remove the risk from a given play, you completely subvert the core mechanic. Managing failures is inherent to success in Bloodbowl and to do anything to get rid of that is misjudged. The problem isn't that it's difficult to dodge a trollslayer past an elf to blitz the ball carrier, the problem is you didn't play well enough if that's your best option. Your opponent played well enough to leave you only with risky plays: that is rewarded in this game and should remain so. That is Bloodbowl

The core mechanic of the game is indeed the turnover. And as you mentioned there are many skills that alter this already. Sure Feet gives you a 5 in 6 chance of avoiding a turnover. Pro a 50% to roll again etc. Tackle removes a Gutter Runner's 5 in 6 chance of avoid a turnover if he fails a dodge roll.

So the would be no difference from a new skill that said "roll a dice if the player turns over, on a 4+ the action fails (and he falls over etc) but no turnover occurs". Just a different framework. So why no allow it as an Inducment or whatever.

My reason being, I think that the turnover mechanism is slightly too powerful. A simple snake eyed GFI can destroy a game. Giving a coach a one off chance per match to ignore this would be a great tactical option IMO. Preventing him from both re-rolling and using a momentum counter on a failed roll creates choices. Interesting choices.

Also, I think it brings fun options into play. Dodging a trollslayer past an elf is the wrong option if you have no others left. But if you have plenty of other options, it would still be nice not to be forced into always taking the sensible, conservative one.

I also like the resource management choices. For example if a coach had to choose between re-rolls or momentum counters. If offers different styles of coaching.

[Jural]

Concept and "Problem"- De-couple success and turnovers. At the moment, a coach who seeks to minimize turnovers also ends up succeeding more often (why? because Blood Bowl typically has two outcomes- sucess and failure+turnover.) Why should this be? A troll slayer dodging past an elf and hitting the ball carrier down die probably won't succeed very often, but the current rules means you are an idiot to even try it!

My issue with this is your problem isn't a problem.

There's a reason the word problem is in quotes. I'm solving a "problem" here, but it's not a problem with the game. It's the difference between what I'm proposing and what the game is now.

It's why I consider it a different game. I'm perfectly OK with some people not thinking the other game is a good idea. Some people play LRB4, or second edition, or major house rules. I may find some people enjoy my variant when it's all said and done.

But some people will always like the status quo, for good reasons or for no reasons. But you won't find me arguing with them, it's a hobby!

[Marcus]

My problem is simply that it punishes intelligent play. Any turn where I've left my opponent with no better option than attempt an utter fluke is a good turn. Allowing people to try for those utter flukes isn't making the game more exciting IMO, it's just turning it into KiddieBowl where no-one has to fail and everyone stays fwiends.

If you want to play the game with training wheels go right ahead. I'll be over here playing Real Man's BloodBowl [tm]

[MadLordAnarchy]

Minimising risk is smart BB but not manly BB. Jural is right in that he's identifying a lack of the spectacular. Risk taking special plays just don't happen.

I don't think the proposed solution is right though as the sudden change in fortune of turnover is what made BB playable from being merely fun in 2ed.

[Marcus]

I disagree that spectacular plays never happen. Good players use them all the time. The conservative route is not the single route to victory. Smart players play the odds - some plays have a higher risk and commensurate higher reward. Knowing how to leverage that risk correctly is the skill of the game.

Players who always play conservative are like like turtlers in any game from Arcade beat-em-ups to poker: easy to defeat because their go-to style is easy to predict. I find the hardest players to beat are natural gamblers: players who know when to risk the farm on a big payoff.