NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - Handicap table
mosalva - Oct 31, 2003 - 05:18 PM
Post subject: Handicap table
Anybody know if there is any plans to modify/substitute the handicap table. As it stands now, I'm not all that sure it plays a significant part in the game. I must say I missed the old cards!
Puckohue - Nov 01, 2003 - 02:15 AM
Post subject:
The other day I played a game with my TR 206 Skavens against a TR 140 Undead. I lost the game, mainly because of the handicap table which made all of my players with niggling injuries miss the game. A veteran team is bound to have a bunch of players with nigglings.
But no, I have no idea if there're any plans to modify the handicap table 
Indigo - Nov 01, 2003 - 03:12 AM
Post subject:
dunno if it'll become official but one of the BBRC (Milo) came up with a great handicap table that I think is under consideration.
zeuzism - Nov 01, 2003 - 04:05 PM
Post subject:
In our Leage we play with the old Death Zone cards... AND FUN WE HAVE!
We use the same handicap difference table and also roll for cards using the old table, so now you get extra cards = more fun! I think BB should be all about insanity, that makes it so enjoyable, faiorness is of no importance. It should be unfair. 
Tutenkharnage - Nov 01, 2003 - 05:01 PM
Post subject:
My league uses a new set of cards. And I have to say that they're great.
-Chet
Xtreme - Nov 01, 2003 - 06:40 PM
Post subject:
Are you still using your famous grab bag cards or is this a new set?
lackey - Nov 03, 2003 - 03:12 AM
Post subject:
zeuzism wrote:
extra cards = more fun!
Depends on your tastes. I've played most versions of BB, with and without cards, and have to say that, IMHO, the game is better without. I like knowing that, if I've played well (and my dice don't kill me 
), then my opponent can't just play some random card to stop me scoring.
What I do miss from 3rd ed. is the extra MVP's you'd get from playing a better team. Sure you'd get a pounding (which you'd expect if Lancaster City played someone like Man Utd.), but you get plenty of experience and kudos for taking that beating.
Doug
zeuzism - Nov 03, 2003 - 06:36 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
What I do miss from 3rd ed. is the extra MVP's you'd get from playing a better team.
I agree absolutely. There is no more fun playing a better team. You don't get a lasting reward, just a pounding.
Sanne
mikeyc222 - Nov 03, 2003 - 02:54 PM
Post subject:
i actually wrote a long email to andy hall(which he asked my permission to print in a future issue of BB mag...WOOHOO!!) about this. with the current system there is NO incentive for a lower TR team to participate in a league with higher TR teams. in 3rd ed there was with the extra MVP becuase eventually you would catch up. now, the ONLY way to catch up is to score more and hurt more. the problem is, if you're 50 or more points behind your opponent chances are that won't happen, so the rich just get richer(in SPPS that is)
Doubleskulls - Nov 04, 2003 - 03:10 AM
Post subject:
lackey wrote:
What I do miss from 3rd ed. is the extra MVP's you'd get from playing a better team.
IMO dropping MVPs is a good thing. The handicap (whatever form it takes) ought to only even out the odds for the game being played
Effects like giving an extra apoth (magic sponge/iron man) are good for ensuring that you don't get hurt too much.
Lazerus_101 - Nov 04, 2003 - 03:58 AM
Post subject:
Yeah I must say I liked the old SP cards. They added spice and variety to the games. They also meant even when things were going badly you would sometimes have a last ditch hope.
noodle1978uk - Nov 04, 2003 - 04:01 AM
Post subject:
We still use the cards AND the extra MVPS... This combined with a points handicap system and a modified SPP and ageing progression balances teams perfectly 
and caps teams at 300-350 T/R (if they keep winning!)
However I would agree that in a league where all teams start at the same time extra handicap is not relevant...
But in a big league with TR between 100-350 I think extra MVPs actually make it worthwhile playing a big team, since you're not going to get any other SPPs on average!
I say - if your league doesn't like something, change it... Build your own handicap table or deck of cards Its not like either will ever be used in tournaments....
mikeyc222 - Nov 04, 2003 - 07:52 AM
Post subject:
noodle1978uk wrote:
However I would agree that in a league where all teams start at the same time extra handicap is not relevant...
not always true. i had a team that was fairly even in the league but then had a few games in a row where i lost SEVERAL players. i was hopelessly down and now i never want to play that team again because with the current system, there is NO way i will ever be able to compete with the other teams in that league. i ended up about 50 TR points down and just kept getting further and further behind with every game.
mikeyc222 - Nov 04, 2003 - 07:54 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Effects like giving an extra apoth (magic sponge/iron man) are good for ensuring that you don't get hurt too much.
while getting a result like "sponsorship" is pretty f'in useless most of the time.
Khaine - Nov 04, 2003 - 10:21 AM
Post subject:
I've had something like that happen and actually had the handicap table save my butt with a starplayer sitout in my favor or a bit of bonus cash to recover with. Although I do agree it could use some revamping and as I now there aren't alot of fans of the dreaded "Cards" they did add some fun results to the game 
. They took a bit of skill out of it though...
Zinak - Nov 04, 2003 - 12:12 PM
Post subject:
The old cards were way too powerful. I think we should all be able to agree to that. It was way too easy for cards to determine the outcome of a game (Burst Ball vs a dwarf team is a great example).
The new system however has the opposite effect. On Saturday I played my first league game (with a new team) in a league where existing rosters are carried over from previous leagues. I was down by 50+ TR.
Handicaps I got:
Permanent IGMEOY... we were both non-fouling passing teams... had no effect
Choose Weather... again both passing teams so I had to pick Nice Day lest I screw myself more than the opponent.. no effect
Palm Coin... I win the coin toss? Worst event ever... I had a 50/50 chance of winning that anyway... no effect
Bribe the Announcer. new team. No one had any SPPs so MVP at start of game made no difference than at end... no effect
Iron Man... this one sounded good... until my catcher never had his armour broken so it didn t matter... no effect
FIVE rolls and no effect? That s crazy. The results need to be better and more universally usefull... some results only help if you roll well or have guys with the right SPPs. Some only help running teams. Some only help when playing passing teams etc... it s too easy to be no help at all. Perhaps have bonus MVPs be a more common result, as they were a nice incentive to play more advanced teams... now you get nothing (except beat) and Handicap table does almost nothing to level the playing field.
Incidentally... I won the match.
noodle1978uk - Nov 04, 2003 - 02:36 PM
Post subject:
Zinak wrote:
The old cards were way too powerful. I think we should all be able to agree to that.
Not in the slightest
Its bloodbowl, if you want a "fair" strategy I might suggest chess... Dirty tricks, unforseen events and luck in general are a big part of what makes a league colourful and its usually the way trophies are won and lost...
In our league there are enough games to balance things out over a season, and play offs ennsure that one off mishaps don't lose a team the season.
IMO of course 
Mordredd - Nov 05, 2003 - 05:05 AM
Post subject:
I agree with noodle on this one. In addition the cards lent a healthy amount of random variety to the game that is sadly lacking now. It was also a good thing that teams would occassionally lose re rolls, or their savings, or have a player peaked.
I also think that people are too harsh on the current table. For example, the palm coin derided earlier by Zinak. A certainty is better than a 50/50, and who recieves first often determines the flow of the game. If your opponent scores first and you're the one chasing then the pressure is all on you. In any case the stronger team should win most of the time, so the table should only make it possible to achieve a level playing field. To this end some of the results will be minor to useless.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 05, 2003 - 05:42 AM
Post subject:
Keep in mind that JJ's goal which was printed and been printed in BB Mag and in emails comes down to this:
1) TR caps for teams between TR 250 and 300
2) A team 50 TR points weaker should win 1 in 3 games played.
I know who I would make this happen currently, but it is the goal.
Galak
Indigo - Nov 05, 2003 - 06:24 AM
Post subject:
IMO the cards were way too unbalancing and often reduced the game to a lottery. Having played loads of matches without them, I recently tried it with them and when I "banana skinned" on a dodge to score as well as an unseen shield stopping a TD pass I didn't think "That's BB - jolly and random !" it was more like "I'm beating this guy but because he happened to draw two cards I've been denied". Totally ruined the game for me... I'm pleased they've gone never to return.
Zinak - Nov 05, 2003 - 08:18 AM
Post subject:
I have seen and been victimized by same thing Indigo is talking about countless times. The old cards often determined the outcome of the game when the two coaches were of comparable skill. Wackiness is cool, Bloodbowl should be fun... but losing the game due to randomly allocated cards just sucks. It really devalued good coaching and strategy.
Zombie - Nov 05, 2003 - 08:19 AM
Post subject:
Yeah, cards being gone is definitely a good thing.
noodle1978uk - Nov 05, 2003 - 09:11 AM
Post subject:
Well I think some people have been playing without cards for too long
There are ways and means of avoiding the worst a card can throw at you and the best players do this - by not putting themselves into a risky situation when they KNOW their opponent has a card up their sleeve...
I rarely see a game decided totally on cards anymore. Even Burst Ball, Assassin and trampoline trap etc have become less intense now people know how to deal with them. Simply saying "their unbalancing" is a bit simplistic - so are the dice...
Why do you find them so unbalancing? Is your league set up so that one defeat due to cards would ruin a team's season? What is your main reason for playing Blood Bowl?
These are the questions I asked when setting up the league's rules. I can't think of anyone who now dislikes our setup (well not to my face haha! )
Quite frankly kick off results (riot, blitz, pitch invasion and even perfect defence) and the weather have a far greater impact. Should we remove those as well?
As for Jervis comments:
1) TR caps for teams between TR 250 and 300
2) A team 50 TR points weaker should win 1 in 3 games played.
I agree with 1 though this is happening in our league under the current rules (LRB with a few additions, and cards, which tend to pull teams to around 250, both ways)
2 - Horribly simplistic approach JJ! What I would agree with is 1 in 3 wins a team with a team rating of 2/3 the other wins...
Vitally important since TR is NOT linear...
e.g 150 will usually thrash 100 even with cards (about 1 in 5 they win from our records - over 2000 games)
BUT! A team of 250 beats 200 only 65% of the time....
So I think you have to think PERCENTAGE - like our handicap is calculated in our league.
If JJ reduces the team progression AGAIN I will lose faith in Blood Bowl as a game. Year on year reducing the speed at which a team develops will not impress my public! Some of whom just don't play that many games - why bother HAVING team progression - i.e. why bother playing...
So I'd like to see more game balancing effects rather than crippled team progression.
And our league now has 28 members and has seen 78 games played since Oct 4th!!! 
:
Indigo - Nov 05, 2003 - 09:35 AM
Post subject:
Kick Off table results can be planned for - e.g. a balanced setup in case of PerfectD, player placement in case of quick snap etc. and some of the more unbalancing ones, like Riot & Pitch Invasion are toned down in tournaments to try to prevent one bad KO roll ruining a players game when they've paid to play.
The old "dice are not balanecd" statement is simply untrue. Dice are STATISTICALLY balanced, so if you make a dodgy with a human blitzer then you will fail 1 in 3 attempts. That kind of risk can be factored into your plans. Indeed, that's why players advise doing "less risky" actions first! The cards negated all of that - you could create a play whereby you had tactically outsmarted your opponent but then they simply used a card that ruined it (and IIRC usually capitalised on it and scored 
). Skill had nothing to do with it, just the luck of the draw. The cards were not statistically balanced. Imagine playing in a tournament final - would you prefer a palmed coin & a extra training card, or a trampoline trap & unseen shield (for example)?
Nah, they're broken!
Some of them make good handicaps though, when suitably adapted.
The moral of the story?
Coach skill, tempered with luck, should decide things on the pitch. Off-pitch, let the handicaps help.
noodle1978uk - Nov 05, 2003 - 10:09 AM
Post subject:
Indigo - I would NEVER advocate using cards or even basic team progression at a tournament - and we don't!
I was talking about long term leagues...
If JJ wants to make a 100 rated team beat a 150 rated team 1 in 3 times he can either...
1) Make the handicap better - i.e. like cards (which we use now!)
2) make the 150 rated team "worse"
If 2 is selected I doubt very much we will take a blind bit of notice of the new rules in our league.
Shafting team development just because of a rather dubious desire to "balance" the game is the wrong way to go in my opinion
And as for cards - you quickly know the deck and CAN plan for cards... In fact we regularly do... In they way we play
mikeyc222 - Nov 05, 2003 - 10:40 AM
Post subject:
i must echo a previous sentiment...if you want strategy play chess.
but i play orcs, what do i know. lol
we don't use cards in our league but i would like to see a second league started up for "fun" that uses cards. i personally think the reason people started to hate on the cards is because they started to take the game too seriously and losing wan't "fun"
remember people, as cool as BB is, it is just a game after all.
Zinak - Nov 05, 2003 - 10:44 AM
Post subject:
I don t see how you prepare for Burst Ball or Invisible sheild. Some cards were guaranteed drive killers, other guaranteed TD scorers (was it Inspiration that let a player auto-succeed in ALL rolls they made).
I think the cards were sometimes worse in long term leagues. I remember one team having Doom and Gloom (I think that s the one... loose a RR permanently, it s been a while) played on him in three games. He had zero rerolls going into his 6th or 7th game.
Over the course of the season cards could make or break teams.
Kick off table can seriously hamper a drive, but nothing close to what the cards could do.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 05, 2003 - 11:37 AM
Post subject:
Xtreme wrote:
Are you still using your famous grab bag cards or is this a new set?
It's a new set. Well, it's "new" in the sense that it hasn't been seen before, although it's "old" in that old standbys (e.g., Knuckledusters) are still there. The difference is that we've gone back to designing cards that all have roughly the same amount of impact - or that could work out for you - but we've removed the old "cause a turnover" clauses and the "automatic score" bits. It's a highly refined, heavily tweaked set that has stood up untouched now for the last 7 months (100 games).
Basically, the deck functions as a reflection of most of this thread: it adds variety, it adds unpredictability, it avoids turning the game on its ear when possible, and it gives the 'dogs a chance. Not a certainty - a chance. We've had a couple big upsets that were helped in part by cards, but the cards were never enough by themselves - the underdog needed a perfect sequence of rolls at one point, or a key bad roll by the opponent, etc. Similarly, we've had near upsets that were undone by a super play by one of the favored team's top guns: an interception, or a key blitz, what-not, what-have-you. The point is, the cards often made the game more interesting. And they do so in a more consistent manner than the current table.
You can see a chart of the cards with playing card assignments in the Rules section of the NFL website:
http://www22.brinkster.com/angelli/bloodbowl
If you'd like a printable copy of the cards in actual card format, send me a message. If I get a lot of messages, I'll put the cards on-line in that format as well.
Cheers!
-Chet
Darkson - Nov 05, 2003 - 11:44 AM
Post subject:
Well, I have to admit, I stopped playing BB before the cards were released, but having got a set and reading through them, I'd have found them fun for a few games, but there are to many unbalanced cards in there.
However, for a fun non-league game, I'd be happ to play with them.
noodle1978uk - Nov 06, 2003 - 02:23 AM
Post subject:
Zinak wrote:
I don t see how you prepare for Burst Ball or Invisible sheild. Some cards were guaranteed drive killers, other guaranteed TD scorers (was it Inspiration that let a player auto-succeed in ALL rolls they made).
I think the cards were sometimes worse in long term leagues. I remember one team having Doom and Gloom (I think that s the one... loose a RR permanently, it s been a while) played on him in three games. He had zero rerolls going into his 6th or 7th game.
Over the course of the season cards could make or break teams.
Kick off table can seriously hamper a drive, but nothing close to what the cards could do.
You can prepare for burst ball by scoring earlier than you otherwise would - I've seen it before (of course the guy was bluffing and he didn't have burst ball ) - and then receive the ball again...
"Inspired play" allows a player to pass every roll - great as you can get an easy TD out of it - but thats a waste. Use it to get yourself out of trouble, evening things up...Using it when you could have scored without it is also a waste. It is a "god" card tho
BAD HABITS permanently reduces your rerolls
Its interesting that you think cards can permanently affect a team - well yes! - 3 bad habits in 3 games is monumentally unlikely. Try shuffling the deck
I think you will find ageing permanently affects a team. And a pitch invasion killing a player on 74 SPPs, that kinda affected my team permanently...
If anything adding cards for more randomness will on average have no effect (what with the cards being neutral overall).
Cards tend (in my experience) to be an incentive for people to play (ooh I might get something good ) which can only be a good thing...
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 02:49 AM
Post subject:
I disagree with the "go to Chess for strategy" line of thought, as it suggests that all the good players are simply lucky. I doubt that's what you intended people to think, but it is easy to make that connection...
The handicap table has the right idea by taking inspiration from the cards but removing the insanely powerful ones and removing the "unexpected play killers". i.e. you know from the start which player is Iron Man, so although it's a great boost to the underdog it then allows better strategy to play a part too (maybe not a great example but you get the idea).
I'm not against a system that rewards the underdog and provides incentives to play, I'm just against the sheer randomness that the cards represent. We just need a better handicap table...
Mordredd - Nov 06, 2003 - 04:40 AM
Post subject:
The sentiment is not "go to chess if you want strategy" it is "go to chess if all you want is strategy".
The biggest problem I've had accepting the table is that it totally removes the element of surprise. That authentic 'how the f*ck did they do that' moment of panic as your smugly superior best laid plans get blown apart. This removes all the tension and excitement from the game, at least for the higher TR team.
I quite liked the possibility of teams permanently losing re rolls, FF or cash. Having players arrested, press ganged etc. Under the current system the big guys have little to fear from playing a minnow. Similarly not every team can be described as fair and balanced, cough'flings, or said to have an even chance against every other race, so arguing it all comes down to coaching ability is BS.
lackey - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:05 AM
Post subject:
noodle1978uk wrote:
You can prepare for burst ball by scoring earlier than you otherwise would
Can't burst ball be played at any time, so you're opponent would just play it as you move your player into the TD zone? How can that be prepared for?
Quote:
Cards tend (in my experience) to be an incentive for people to play (ooh I might get something good
) which can only be a good thing...
I much prefer to play people who are there for the fun and challange of matching wits with the opposing coach, rather than are there on the off-chance that something good may randomly happen.
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:11 AM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
The biggest problem I've had accepting the table is that it totally removes the element of surprise. That authentic 'how the f*ck did they do that' moment of panic as your smugly superior best laid plans get blown apart. This removes all the tension and excitement from the game, at least for the higher TR team.
This is where we are completely differing then - the best laid plans getting blown apart by an audacious counter-tactic is one thin, but getting shafted because he has an overpowered card is another! The best, tensest games come not from having a card ready, or fearing the card your opponent has, but from well coached plays countering each other. 1-1 in turn 14 when it can go either way is much more tense than simply fearing the card. And less sickening than losing to a card too. If I was then beaten in said match 2-1, although I'd be gutted I could at least say "best coach won" or at the least "best coach won with a bit of luck too". If the card comes into it, it's more like "I'd have won if it wasn't for that f**king card , I was better than him"
Mordredd wrote:
I quite liked the possibility of teams permanently losing re rolls, FF or cash. Having players arrested, press ganged etc. Under the current system the big guys have little to fear from playing a minnow. Similarly not every team can be described as fair and balanced, cough'flings, or said to have an even chance against every other race, so arguing it all comes down to coaching ability is BS.
I can see how bigger teams losing a re-roll/FF/cash is worthwhile, although I don't think cards are the way to do it. A multi-tiered handicap system, whereby coaches can get many rolls on a "minor effect" table, or fewer rolls on a more powerful table could be the way to go. That way, if they fancy their chances despite the TR gap they can take a few "minor" tricks that could help them swing the match but at least the opponent can TRY to do something about it! Alternatively, if they know they are outclassed (Halflings or Gobbos - whatever) then they can take a chance and go for rolls that are more likely to boost their cash/FF/team, or potentially damage their opponents team (maybe hitting star player(s), cash, FF, RR)
lackey - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:26 AM
Post subject:
Indigo wrote:
The handicap table has the right idea by taking inspiration from the cards but removing the insanely powerful ones and removing the "unexpected play killers"... We just need a better handicap table...
I agree. After a quick glance Chet's card deck looks like a nice comprimise, and it sounds like it's had more play testing and tweaking than the original card decks could have got (No criticism of GW intended, just that the combined size of the 3 decks was at least 100-150 cards, with that amount of randomness it'd take a long time to properly tweak).
The card decks are part of an anomalous period of GW history, when everything they did seemed to include as much randomness as possible, for example the random magic & physic decks for WFB and 40k. This frequently led to games (within my group of friends at least) which were not all that balanced or fun due to random chance. Hence they have, with good reason, returned to more balanced, less random, methods for these games, and I am thankful that the same reasoning has, to a certain degree, been applied to BB.
Mordredd - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:45 AM
Post subject:
I think that you have something of a logical contradiction going here. What, exactly, is the difference between getting a lucky card that helps you win the match and getting lucky rolls that help you win the match?
Besides, who said anything about 1 overpowered card? I certainly did not. It was the surprise, couldn't be planned for element I was after. A combination of unconventional play, audacity and luck that allows real teams to take on and beat their superiors. In game terms this is very unlikely to happen, as the numbers are so heavily weighted in favour of the higher TR team. The cards enabled you to pull off unconventional surprises, which the table emphatically does not.
The likes of Burst Ball are just like the wizard used to be. It stopped one TD in a gruesomely unfair, can't be stopped way. If you were made to play it at the beginning of your turn it would be a lot better. You would lose a turn for playing it, which I think is a fair price. Combined with making it a pretty damn rare occurrence and I wouldn't have a problem with it being played on me.
Mordredd - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:56 AM
Post subject:
Lackey, you are wrong about the randomness. In the old days of 40k you did not buy wargear. You bought a roll on the wargear/weapons/grenades/etc table. This was extremely random. You still randomly generate your spells in WFB, Ld in Gothic, territory in Necromunda etc.
The problem with the level of randomness with the cards in BB was that both teams got them. You could have 3 each without a handicap. In fact, a handicap of 2 cards could be cancelled out completely by unlucky rolling. With the current low numbers for the handicap even the likes of Burst Ball would have a low impact (relative to before) as it would convert, say, a 1-0 win into a draw. And there would have to be a large TR difference for you to have a second card, let alone a third, to swing the game in your favour.
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 06:27 AM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
I think that you have something of a logical contradiction going here. What, exactly, is the difference between getting a lucky card that helps you win the match and getting lucky rolls that help you win the match?
We need to differentiate when the "luck" is brought into the equation. A higher TR team may have lower odds for failing actions, but will still fail them - that's not good or bad luck, just statistics. The cards are biased, so although still random you are more likely to get overpowered cards because there are more overpowered cards in there.
Mordredd wrote:
Besides, who said anything about 1 overpowered card? I certainly did not. It was the surprise, couldn't be planned for element I was after. A combination of unconventional play, audacity and luck that allows real teams to take on and beat their superiors. In game terms this is very unlikely to happen, as the numbers are so heavily weighted in favour of the higher TR team. The cards enabled you to pull off unconventional surprises, which the table emphatically does not.
First of all you say you need unconventional play to beat a better team, then an unconventional surprise?!? Why is a surprise (in the form of a card rather than a surprising play) needed to allow a low TR team to beat a high TR team? As you've said, good, bold/unconventional play and maybe that little bit of luck is what is needed. That desperate long bomb, or throwing every man at the rolling cage only to stop it on turn 8. When Newcastle play a minnow team, like Birmingham for example , they should expect Birmingham to raise their game and try risky tactics in an effort to win, rather than things they can't plan for like adding extra men. We need something similar in Blood Bowl, something the low TR coach can use but what the high TR coach can try and counter.
What is needed is a system that either a) boosts players so a coach can get more out of them than normal or b) affects teams so if a coach is not willing to try for the win they can boost their team or retard their opponents after the match.
I'm not sure why you think a surprise is the solution to allow a low TR team to beat a HR team. Is it not something that can boost a low TR to sufficiently higher levels to increase their chances of winning temporarily (one match) while still allowing coach skill to be a factor?
Remember what the problem is. We want teams that are 50TR or so lower to be more competitve. Using the cards, you still have the chance that in a more even contest, say 10 or 20 TR difference, one team gets an uber-card and then is at an unfair advantage. The scale of the handicap given to the underdog needs to reflect the difference in TR. Hence my tiered handicap proposal.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 06, 2003 - 06:57 AM
Post subject:
Indigo wrote:
What is needed is a system that either a) boosts players so a coach can get more out of them than normal or b) affects teams so if a coach is not willing to try for the win they can boost their team or retard their opponents after the match.
I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
Cutting down the opponent's team permanently never worked here. Coaches always bribed their way out of the worst cards. It's a system that's doomed to failure without a "must be played, can't be countered" rule in place. And that rule would be more or less unenforceable.
-Chet
noodle1978uk - Nov 06, 2003 - 06:59 AM
Post subject:
A few points...
1) The surprise element of cards is fantastic, and so much more like a model of a "real world" which I like Blood Bowl to be... Dirty tricks ARE PLAYED in the Blood Bowl universe...
2) There aren't all that many "overpowered cards" in the decks in actual fact, and all they need is a bit of tweaking. I don't mind a rule saying you have to play them in your turn, but I'd prefer to keep them "overpowered" - its just more fun that way and a HELL of a lot of strategic thinking involved!
3)Uber cards are over rated - planning for burst ball happens a lot in our league... but sometimes its just tough luck - not very often - perhaps 1 in 10 games in my experience
I'll come back to this - work has interfered!
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 07:16 AM
Post subject:
I think we need to bear in mind the cards are never coming back. Is it not going to be better to focus on some new handicap tables instead?
I personally dislike the "sticking things onto playing cards" ideas too, using tables in a book is neater for one thing, and you can't "lose" an entry in the table like you can a card And it's a helluva lot less fiddly!
noodle1978uk - Nov 06, 2003 - 07:27 AM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
Cutting down the opponent's team permanently never worked here. Coaches always bribed their way out of the worst cards. It's a system that's doomed to failure without a "must be played, can't be countered" rule in place. And that rule would be more or less unenforceable.
-Chet
Interesting points!
These are the very two we have faced over the last 7 years in our league (and ours is one of the UK's biggest).
RE: The first point - with ageing, new winnings table, loans (teehee) and the cards, team ratings are naturally sucked towards a single flat plateaux between 250-300. Cards actually help level this as does handicap MVPs - it works BOTH ways
RE:point 2 - We decided to present a list of cards which COULD and COULDN'T be bought off. We also said random events MUST be played...
And you're right it *is* unenforcable - But so is ageing and cheating in general!
If people realie its a game they will usually accept it... Oh and a high team rating is not desirable!
but good points that we did see for many years under 3E
Overall LRB is better for balance, but we just prefer surprise cards to the table, and we prefer cards to balance a game rather than slowing team development
noodle1978uk - Nov 06, 2003 - 07:35 AM
Post subject:
Indigo wrote:
I think we need to bear in mind the cards are never coming back. Is it not going to be better to focus on some new handicap tables instead?
I personally dislike the "sticking things onto playing cards" ideas too, using tables in a book is neater for one thing, and you can't "lose" an entry in the table like you can a card
And it's a helluva lot less fiddly!
Which is a shame because I'd love to have them back and better - more balanced
They're only not coming back because they're not cost effective to produce... GW is going away from cards in general...
So yes - lets focus on the handicap table.. Anyway of re-introducing surprise? I'd say the table needs seriously beefing up.
mikeyc222 - Nov 06, 2003 - 08:08 AM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
but what if you are the ONLY low TR team in a league where you don't choose who your opponents are but are told who they are. what then? you are DOOMED to be decimated every single match. in open format leagues i can see where it may be a problem but with structured leagues you might as well drop out. then again, if you play in a league like mine and even consider dropping out you are threatened with not being aloowed back in the league because you messed up the "careful planning of their season."
so your statement isn't really applicable in all situations. only in open format leagues.
noodle1978uk - Nov 06, 2003 - 08:34 AM
Post subject:
Its not great in an open format league - you basically can't catch up...
So we keep the extra MVPs - they're quite rare anyway...
This is a much better solution than:
1) No handicap at all - smaller team decimated 
2) Stalling bigger team's development - boring for the bigger team
With winnings penalties and ageing all that will happen with MVPs is that the team cycle will be sped up. Team ratings will NOT spiral out of control like in 3E (650 anyone??!!!!)
But I digress.
Indigo - Nov 06, 2003 - 09:18 AM
Post subject:
mikeyc222 wrote:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
I believe firmly in the former, but I'm quite against the latter. Boosting a team because of handicap is an incentive to play a bigger team simply to ramp your team up with an influx of cash, SPPs, whatever. There's no focus on team development or play - it's more akin to the "ever-increasing spiral" of TR development in vanilla 3E.
but what if you are the ONLY low TR team in a league where you don't choose who your opponents are but are told who they are. what then? you are DOOMED to be decimated every single match. in open format leagues i can see where it may be a problem but with structured leagues you might as well drop out. then again, if you play in a league like mine and even consider dropping out you are threatened with not being aloowed back in the league because you messed up the "careful planning of their season."
so your statement isn't really applicable in all situations. only in open format leagues.
this seems like a more extreme situation as most leagues tend to be balanced. remember every league has to have a bottom team... take it on the chin
consider reasoning with them - ask if it's possible to reset your team if it's that bad, but keep your league results to date.
or find a more reasonable group of players
noodle1978uk - Nov 06, 2003 - 09:29 AM
Post subject:
Its a very familiar situation in our league - but then our league is rather big - so oddball stuff comes up a lot more!
Reseting the team could be WORSE...
If you have some bad luck (lose 4 players dead despite conceding just 4 casualties like I did!) then your entire season could be over...
Now I don't like people giving up on their team - and I wouldn't anyway (just complain all season ) but with the cards (or a better handicap table!) there would be some incentive to keep plugging away
Rather important in a "fixtured" system too
Anyway - am off home now
mikeyc222 - Nov 06, 2003 - 09:29 AM
Post subject:
granted, but what is the point of resetting and being put EVEN FURTHER behind?
and the situation isn't THAT extreme as it happens to at least one team in our league every single season.
Doubleskulls - Nov 06, 2003 - 09:41 AM
Post subject:
noodle1978uk wrote:
lets focus on the handicap table.. Anyway of re-introducing surprise?
Why can't you have a table result that is you automatically succeed a die roll? And one that allows you to make your opponent automatically fail a dodge/catch/GFI whatever.
Although you'd both know your opponent had the automatic success/failure to play you can't control when he does it. So you have interesting tactical situations where you try to force your opponent to use the handicap.
lackey - Nov 06, 2003 - 10:35 AM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
The problem with the level of randomness with the cards in BB was that both teams got them. You could have 3 each without a handicap.
I think that the problem is in the amount of difference between the effects of the cards. Randomly drawing 3 cards and getting a burst ball and 2 minor cards has much the same effect on the game as drawing 1 card and getting burst ball, especially if your opponent doesn't get any helpful cards. What is needed (and what Chet's table appears to do) is to have a more subtle effect on the game, and to have less difference in magnitude of game effect between the best and worst cards. The original decks were basically a couple of great cards with lots of filler.
Re: randomness. Yep, I'll be wrong on the details , been some time since I played any of these games. I was mostly thinking about the card-based systems, which they've phased out now (I think, correct me if I'm wrong...). These tend to limit you to one copy of a spell/effect/etc per game, so only one player could possibly have pick the most powerful effect, while the other player would make do with crud. This effect was more apparent for the WFB system (which would have 10 cards per school of magic), but the same problem occured with the BB cards, although this was diluted by the large number of filler cards.
Mordredd - Nov 06, 2003 - 10:47 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
A higher TR team may have lower odds for failing actions, but will still fail them - that's not good or bad luck, just statistics.
Yes, in the long term. The problem with these statistics is that they only hold true over literally hundreds of results. The luck comes with the distribution. Do you roll 6 on the 3+ then 3 on the 6+ or 3 on the 3+ and 6 on the 6+? My Ogre team is a good case to examine as every player has to make a roll to move. There are turns when I don't fail one, and turns when I fail as many as 8. The last game most turns were like the latter whereas in the previous game they were mostly like the former.
Quote:
The cards are biased, so although still random you are more likely to get overpowered cards because there are more overpowered cards in there.
Of course the cards are biased. They're a handicap aren't they? And the few overpowered ones are there to balance out the underpowered ones. Gives the team a surprise advantage they weren't expecting. Or in the case of the underpowered ones not enough of a boost to equal their opponents. Besides, there is a simple solution to those that would, now, be too much (merchandising, blatant foul). Take the card out and burn it.
I have not been saying that a surprise is the solution to a lower TR team winning, just that it is more exciting. The not knowing what's coming. It is far more nerve shredding than knowing exactly what the other guy's got, and then coldly planning to neutralise it.
Quote:
That desperate long bomb, or throwing every man at the rolling cage only to stop it on turn 8.
Besides, your idea of unconventional play seems to be my idea of stupidly unlikely to work play. It's not that easy to put together a successful 'unconventional play anyway. What are you going to do? Dodge with Dwarves? Block with Wood Elves? Many of the cards allowed one of your players to make some sort of heroic/briefly brilliant play that, when used at the right time, could allow you to score an unexpected TD. That is one of the things that I am after. A slight and temporary improvement in a player combined with the element of surprise.
As for extra men on the pitch, and the like, cheating has always been a part of the game. The cards were the only way that you could cheat without, er, cheating.
Other cards reduced the other teams capacity to field players, through illness/press gang etc. And then there were ones like half time team talk which boosted your teams morale/team strength/whatever at later stages of the game, not just at the beginning. The old cards had variety and depth, and were spread across the game, from start to finish. Some of the cards are too harsh to be used any more, but that doesn't make the whole system broken.
Quote:
Using the cards, you still have the chance that in a more even contest, say 10 or 20 TR difference, one team gets an uber-card and then is at an unfair advantage.
I'm afraid that is still possible. 6 Wood Elves miss the first drive. The Dwarf team then spends 8 turns beating the crap out of the other 6. The other half of the team turns up for the second half to find all their friends KO'd or worse. Balanced?
Zombie - Nov 06, 2003 - 04:38 PM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
I have not been saying that a surprise is the solution to a lower TR team winning, just that it is more exciting. The not knowing what's coming. It is far more nerve shredding than knowing exactly what the other guy's got, and then coldly planning to neutralise it.
More exciting, yes, but less rewarding. I guess it all comes down to what you love most about the game: the randomness or the strategy. Both are valid answers, and we just have to accept that not everyone likes them equally. Right now the trend is towards less randomness and more strategy, and i have to say that i like that trend!
Lazerus_101 - Nov 06, 2003 - 05:47 PM
Post subject:
yeah but I believe some of what makes blood bowl fun to play and not just like all the other games is the sometimes hilarious and whimsical things that can happen.
I remember back in 40k when Ork Madboys were fun. Now they are just boring.
Zombie - Nov 06, 2003 - 07:09 PM
Post subject:
Like i said, to each his own.
Dave - Nov 07, 2003 - 01:36 AM
Post subject:
I thinkl the problem is not the randomness of the cards (not more random than Pitch Invasion od Blitz, can make quite a difference) but the fact that they, at least most of them, have an immediate impact on the game.
Take 'is it a TD?' .. it not only robs your opponent off a TD (if played wel) but will see him lose a player into the crowd (4/6 chance) that's kinda harsh
noodle1978uk - Nov 07, 2003 - 02:35 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Why can't you have a table result that is you automatically succeed a die roll? And one that allows you to make your opponent automatically fail a dodge/catch/GFI whatever.
Although you'd both know your opponent had the automatic success/failure to play you can't control when he does it. So you have interesting tactical situations where you try to force your opponent to use the handicap.
I like this idea a lot This keeps the "surprise" element in a way. You could even bring back dirty tricks like "mine" in the same fashion... I also like the idea (can't remember where I saw it) of different levels of handicap.
Mordredd - we keep blatant foul - Its a fantastic card.I will probably cap merchandising...
I suppose one of the reasons we keep cards (or would beef up the handicap) is because our league is a) enormous and b) has Team ratings between 100 and 364
Mordredd - Nov 07, 2003 - 05:20 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
More exciting, yes, but less rewarding.
Sorry, but I don't accept that. How is it less rewarding?
I don't accept that you have to choose between randomness and strategy either. The handicap table is random, so you can't plan your game until you know what you've got. There is still plenty of strategy if you don't know what's coming.
Do you act like it's going to be a complete cake walk and play boldly with big risks, and hopefully a high score? Or do you play really cagey and safe until you find out what cards your opponent has up his sleeve? Or do you just play how you always play on the grounds you can't do anything about his underhand tricks anyway?
I agree with Lazerus_101 that the cards added an undertone of humour, and an overall air of the game being played for fun. I think that many people are now taking the game way too seriously now. Hence the big fuss, and in some cases over-the-top hostile abuse, about IP.
Yes, some of the cards were kinda harsh, but if you failed to guard against 'is it a TD?' when your opponent had a card you deserved it. Besides, being denied a TD is a good way of making a surprise win for the under dogs more likely.
Indigo - Nov 07, 2003 - 05:22 AM
Post subject:
kinda what I was meaning
it removes the unbalancing suprise and makes you think more rather than relying on card...
Mordredd - Nov 07, 2003 - 05:28 AM
Post subject:
I have now had the chance to read through Tutenkharnage's table. Looks good to me, though I notice that the jacks/queens/kings weren't used.
The table could be expanded with another 12 entries, and a D8 used for the tens column instead of a D6. More variety = more fun.
People could then roll on the table, or buy a cheap deck and draw cards instead. (Lose a card? Chuck the lot and buy a new one.)
noodle1978uk - Nov 07, 2003 - 05:51 AM
Post subject:
Indigo wrote:
kinda what I was meaning
it removes the unbalancing suprise and makes you think more rather than relying on card...
Well thats not how you should use cards! If you go around relying on a crad you will inevitably end up with egg on your face. The strategy of knowing EXACTLY when to use a card is amazingly complex - I've only realised that recently watching the "newbies" in our league play....
How many times do I see burts ball played on the first TD? Wrong decision! Use it as insurance on YOUR possession and take more risks...
Or assassin played just as a TD was about to be scored - again - wrong time! Use it when he has his ball carrier in HIS half - to get a TD...(hopefully)
last night I used razzle dazzle to get OUT of trouble (of course he used inspired play - nullifying the cards completely!)
How you use cards has a strategy all of its own... Good players make the most of them, worse players waste them... The same is true of defending against cards. Good players always have their team set up to cope with any eventuality, worse ones do not, and consequently they are badly affected by cards where the experienced player is not...
Individually I think the cards are fine. Its the fact that you can get multiples stacking (mine+pit trap+burst ball) that causes the problem.
I like the idea of buying dirty tricks/magic items with money (or handicap points) keeping the TD stoppers as one per match - then randomly rolling/choosing an "event" which may or may not apply to both teams. Thats how I would do it.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 07, 2003 - 06:50 AM
Post subject:
mikeyc222 wrote:
but what if you are the ONLY low TR team in a league where you don't choose who your opponents are but are told who they are. what then? you are DOOMED to be decimated every single match. in open format leagues i can see where it may be a problem but with structured leagues you might as well drop out. then again, if you play in a league like mine and even consider dropping out you are threatened with not being aloowed back in the league because you messed up the "careful planning of their season." so your statement isn't really applicable in all situations. only in open format leagues.
Open format leagues are the only league format mentioned in the LRB. By definition, a closed-format league has created a house rule problem. The league needs to generate its own solution. If the league decides that extra MVPs are a good solution, that's great. But that problem doesn't really apply to the LRB version of the game, so it doesn't need the same fix.
-Chet
Tutenkharnage - Nov 07, 2003 - 07:05 AM
Post subject:
Indigo wrote:
I think we need to bear in mind the cards are never coming back. Is it not going to be better to focus on some new handicap tables instead?
Cards could make a comeback, in theory. It simply won't be a GW-sponsored comeback. Consider:
Indigo wrote:
I personally dislike the "sticking things onto playing cards" ideas too, using tables in a book is neater for one thing, and you can't "lose" an entry in the table like you can a card
And it's a helluva lot less fiddly!
Cards offer one advantage over a table: surprise. This means that you can create situation-dependent circumstances that dictate when you can play the card. A table loses much of the flexibility - accordingly, the LRB table is built to be played pre-game. Why pretend the surprise element exists when it's clear that it will be negated by the table format?
Well, you "pretend" so that you can create more interesting special plays, of course. Consider the table used in my league. It is a table - we've simply transferred everything over to some very sharp, laminated Special Play cards emblazoned with our league's logo. Very nice!
But you can use the table or the cards. GW could even use such a table officially, perhaps...and then rely on an independent organization like the NAF to provide the printed material.
Think that's financially impossible? Consider: We printed and laminated each 36-card deck at a cost of $5 US. That's it. Think that wouldn't drive up membership in this organization? Think again
Now, back to one last point:
Mordredd wrote:
I have now had the chance to read through Tutenkharnage's table. Looks good to me, though I notice that the jacks/queens/kings weren't used.
The table could be expanded with another 12 entries, and a D8 used for the tens column instead of a D6. More variety = more fun.
People could then roll on the table, or buy a cheap deck and draw cards instead. (Lose a card? Chuck the lot and buy a new one.)
The table could certainly be expanded. However, I was satisfied with the size of the deck relative to two factors:
1. Ability to be used as a D66 table
2. Manageability
The first point isn't essential - as you noted, you could use a D8 to cover some added possibilities. But the second was very important. The deck is very manageable, and much easier to balance at a reasonable number of entries. Sure, the cards aren't perfectly "equal" - but I believe they're all "balanced," which is a different issue. As my assistant commish commented to me last night, "Some cards will always be viewed as the best, and some will always be viewed as the worst. That's just the way things work."
I'm going to pull a Monty Python and just end this skit abruptly.
Cheers!
-Chet
Sjapie - Nov 07, 2003 - 07:45 AM
Post subject:
Our league is using the current handicap table but we've taken out a couple of the lousy results and included a couple new ones to replace them. The league has a set number of games and teams having to play one another have the same number of games under their belt. Still in case something like losing 2 or 3 players happens sending you down to the bottom of the league, we have included the extra MVP's. It is working out very well.
kalten - Nov 09, 2003 - 03:55 AM
Post subject:
Intresting, in our league we use both! Because we play two games against each team we play one with the cards and one with the table - it is up to the players which game they play with which set of hadicap, but it seems to balance out quite nicely.
garth - Nov 27, 2004 - 11:22 AM
Post subject:
Quote:
Its bloodbowl, if you want a "fair" strategy I might suggest chess... Dirty tricks, unforseen events and luck in general are a big part of what makes a league colourful and its usually the way trophies are won and lost...
Amen brother.