Losing Racial Characteristics on a Double

[narkotic]

@Harleqin

...nothing, as long as the big guy is playing in your team

[Sixpack595]

Sounds good to me. That or they lose them on a doubles stat increase maybe (55, or 66). You can choose either the Mor S increase or drop the nega trait. I agree the price could go up a bit tho.

My thought is that the Neg Traits should be lost at 51 SPP's. Maybe higher if testing showed it was too early but I think it would take most big guys a long time to reach 51 SPP's.

[Darkson]

I voted yes, but would go with the double after 51SPP's.

Pariah, how long before the Davenport Dumdums lose all their Boneheads

[Longshot]

In our league, we use this house rule:
On a double 1, you can remove it or take one (for skavs, chaos...), And you can take a Trait that you shouldnt (Orc can take jump up on a double 1)

My kroxigot is now clever!!

[DoubleSkulls]

In our league, we use this house rule:
On a double 1, you can remove it or take one (for skavs, chaos...), And you can take a Trait that you shouldnt (Orc can take jump up on a double 1)

My kroxigot is now clever!!

I quite like that - 1/36 chance isn't really game breaking and gives you the slight chance of developing stars, getting rid of "Big Guy" or the other negative traits.

[Indigo]

so you are saying on a double 1 you can remove the big guy trait, thus allowing you to buy another Ogre/Troll etc.

remember, only one player with big guy on the roster, but if that player loses Big Guy...

that idea seems flawed

[DoubleSkulls]

I was under the impression that the Big Guy trait just stopped you using team rerolls, so getting rid of it does not allow a 2nd Ogre etc.

[GalakStarscraper]

I voted no.

I always hated three things of the 2nd ed. Rules:

1) on pitch magic users!

Huh ... this is one of the more fun aspects of the MBBL2 league. Of course the rules have changed a lot since 2nd edtion. But the vast majority of the coach like the new on pitch rules for spellcaster in my league.

They've been submitted to BB Mag for a house rules type article ... might see print by the end of the year ... (2 years of playtesting should be good for something ... )

Oh and on topic ... no Big Guys should never lose their RCs IMO.

Galak

[Marcus]

I'm dead against either version.

Changing the chance from a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 36 doesnt' make it better either. Even if you made it a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrance, it just means the guy that was lucky enough to roll it has a killer player on their roster. I'm not into watching superteams develop by luck. There's enough luck involved in team development with doubles/stat increases as it is.

Bloodbowl teams are defined by their disadvantages. A good coach is one who overcomes their own team's disadvantages and exploits their opponents. If the only thing you need to overcome your disadvantages is a lucky roll then you've dumbed down the game which, IMO, can't be a good thing.

I like Negative traits as they stand. You can't completely get rid of them but if you build your team right, and choose your skills right, you can mostly work around them. That is as it should be.

[Longshot]

to Marcus:
well, the teams are quite balanced but can we really say it with only 15 years old?
As you said it, there is already a lot of luck inside of BB developement. So 1/36 is not a big deal for me.
And more than that, i know a lot of players that wish the star players possible!!
With that system, Morg and friends are possible.
Anyway, i will post a poll about our rule

[Ghost of Pariah]

Let's see. The team that I've kept progreesing has played 4 games and 2 ogres have reached their first skill level. Using that math I'd say it's gonna be... ...carry the one... ...move the decimal... ...figure in the rotation of the Earth...and...

Answer: A long ass time!

[Marcus]

That's kind of my point. The more unlikely you make it the more annoying it is when some cheesy coach manages to roll it up and get rid of the negative trait. No-one else is going to have a hope in hell of getting the same thing, because it's so rare, so that one player is going to dominate.

It in no way adds anything to the game. You give someone the opportunity to make a lucky roll and get a far better team for it. Where's the skill, risk or interest in that? The sole purpose for having it there is because you might want to roll your own Big Guy stars, not because it makes the game itself any better.

If you're that keen on Big Guys without negative traits then why not make it something that everyone can get? Quick thoughts:

(a) Remove 1 trait instead of a skill selection at a given number of SPPs (instead of 3rd skill, 4th, 5th?)
(b) Allow the removal of negative traits on doubles but only once the big guy has got SPPs in all four of Completions, Interceptions, Touchdowns and Casualties (he's proved he's an all-rounder and not just a thumping machine)

[Ghost of Pariah]

Isn't that what i said? Remove it at 51 SPPs. That's something everyone gets. So what if some get there first? That's kinda the point of the experience system isn't it?

[Munkey]

Isn't removing the negatrait at 51spps even less balancing? Now that scary Big Guy with 4 skills suddenly isn't a wild animal either.

I know it doesn't happen often but do Big Guys with extra skills need an extra boost?

Besides do this and the Rat Ogre becomes a superb ball handler

[Trambi]

I prefer the Pariah idea perhaps combinated with the longshot idea or the double 6 idea.