Fixing ClawPOMB without hurting ClawMB or POMB

[mattgslater]

It has occurred to me that the real problem with ClawPOMB is the three-part stack (four with Block). Four-part (direct) skill-stacks are pretty rare in this game, and this one shouldn't be as deep as it is. If you don't believe me, spend a few hours speccing high-TV games on FUMBBL. So the fix I see is to keep 'em from stacking.

Do you like this fix? As an addendum to Claw, note that it requires proper leverage to get maximum benefit, so cannot be used by a prone player. Doesn't touch ClawMB, doesn't touch POMB, cripples ClawPOMB.

[Kort]

I answered "Maybe" because I think that PO+MB is already too strong against AV7 players who do not have AG4 to help them dodge away.

Claw is decried because it virtually makes every player AV7 and so everyone can feel the pain.

Granted, most AV7 players have mitigating skills (Dodge being the most common), but add Tackle to the stack and you are back to square one.

So in my opinion, the ClawPOMB stack does not need more "fixing" than the TacklePOMB one.

[mattgslater]

So you think the fix would be in PO? Like, if PO only works if you get a pow or stumble? Or if PO rerolls are unmodified? Not willing to nerf MB; the implications are too far-reaching. I also think ClawPOMB is more of a problem than TacklePOMB, because Dodge isn't the only means low-AV teams tend to have to prevent knockdowns, while high-AV teams usually have to trust in their AV until it turns into a numerical advantage. Claw hurts bash more than Tackle hurts speed.

[GalakStarscraper]

mattgslater ... I still stick with the suggestion that Doubleskulls and I gave several weeks ago if a chance was to be made.

A re-roll of Armour or Injury by a player with Piling On may not modify these rolls with any of his other skills.

So if you use a Piling On re-roll you cannot use Mighty Blow or Claw on the re-roll either for Armour or Injury. That best addresses the issue at hand.

Tom

[Darkson]

I voted no, because Claw/PO/MB doesn't need "fixing".

[dode74]

Claw hurts bash more than Tackle hurts speed.

True, but claw is far less available than tackle, which mitigates the effectiveness.

What needs fixing again? The win% is in range, so what's the problem?

[DoubleSkulls]

It has occurred to me that the real problem with ClawPOMB is the three-part stack (four with Block). Four-part (direct) skill-stacks are pretty rare in this game, and this one shouldn't be as deep as it is. If you don't believe me, spend a few hours speccing high-TV games on FUMBBL. So the fix I see is to keep 'em from stacking.

I'm not convinced this is a real problem outside of the FUMBBL/Cyanide pure open TV match making environment. If you want to fix those there are lots of things that could be done without changing the rules of the game for everyone.

If you really believe that Clawpomb needs a small nerf then I suspect you'll need to do quite a lot to reduce the combos. I may even go so far as to say that changing the rules to only allow an active player to use a single skill on the armour roll or a single skill on the injury roll may be better.

Claw/MB effectively gives break Av 8s and KO on 7s
pomb just stops you using MB on the reroll
clawpo is weaker since you'll probably only use PO on injury.
Clawpomb is much weaker since you can't use all 3 on a single block, and all you've got is the versatility to use PO on Av or injury if you don't do anything with other.

The numbers for that might be interesting and the impact on high TV bash teams may affect the skills selection - encouraging fewer killer builds in those environments (which is the problem you are trying to solve)

[EastCoast]

Why not have the PO player get stunned instead of just prone?

It leaves more opportunities for the opposing coach to foul that player, and limits that player to 4 pile-ons per half. It turns Pile on into a more strategic skill, as opposed to using it every time armor breaks.

I'd rather have that as opposed to the skill stacking going away personally.

[mattgslater]

Part of the thing is that only the full stack is overpowered. ClawMB is essentially playing a skill to negate a paid-for bennie, and POMB is only really good against guys who have accepted a low AV in exchange for added value somewhere else. But ClawPOMB turns an AV team's major asset to ashes across the board: once man-down it's almost impossible to stop, and high-AV teams generally have mobility issues that make it hard to play the ball from a numerical disadvantage. Without all elements of the stack working together, the other bits are just kind of cool.

[garion]

I answered "Maybe" because I think that PO+MB is already too strong against AV7 players who do not have AG4 to help them dodge away.

Claw is decried because it virtually makes every player AV7 and so everyone can feel the pain.

Granted, most AV7 players have mitigating skills (Dodge being the most common), but add Tackle to the stack and you are back to square one.

So in my opinion, the ClawPOMB stack does not need more "fixing" than the TacklePOMB one.

+1 av7 teams do just get hurt too much by MB PO. Back in LRB4 I regularly used to clear the filed when playing Av7 teams just with MB and probably 3 fouls a game. Thats not to say I believe MB vs av7 was overpowered, but it was very powerful but now with PO re-rolling the injury as well it is just crazy powerful. Although it is worth saying those 2 or 3 fouls I did back in LRB4 were a lot more effective that they would be now.

I am interested to know actually and hopefully someone knows -

Now this ruleset obviously went through some huge changes none bigger than removing ageing which was aweful in my opinion and I was glad to see it gone too, but it was also quite an important game mechanism back in the day. Alot of the added bash seems to be to make up for the lack of ageing now so the player turn around is just as frequent as in previous editions.

What interests me is - was the nerf to the apoth for this very reason or was PO imroved for this reason or both?

Personally I will always stick to my guns when I say I think PO just re-rolling Av was perfectly good. In LRB4 it was a second tier skill. Big guys would take it occasionally so they didnt have to risk throwing a block two turns running (the skill statistically doing that second av roll for you). It would also still get used against key players like Skinks Wardancers and Gutter Runners etc... and even in the new ruleset with Claw and MB stacking I think a re-roll just to the armour would still be pretty deadly for the hyperbash teams.

But I would like to see Galaks suggested change tested as it may well be enough in a world without ageing. Plasmoid similarly suggested a change which I would like to see tested. I also wouldnt mind it if PO was kept the same but could only be used by big guys. The fluff reason - they have the weight so falling on someone is going to hurt. When you see Goblins with PO it makes me laugh, imagining them falling on top of an Ogre and ending their career. It would also encourage teams to take their big guys rather than refusing in order to keep their TV down. It would also give you something to think about tactically. Do you blitz with your big guy who has no block and requitres a 2+ to move but has PO, or blitz with your normal blitzer who can't pack quite the same punch.

[DoubleSkulls]

Well one way to change PO is to revert it somewhat to earlier versions. In LRB1(?) PO was add ST to Av roll - after you saw the dice. That was far too good (PO mummies... ).

I simple change, and one that keeps the effectiveness to high ST players would be to keep that mechanic of PO adding ST to the Av roll, but making it so you go prone before the dice are rolled. That feels like it may reduce the effectiveness of the combo because you can't dice the optimal combination of skills, but you can still stack to gain benefit.

[garion]

Well one way to change PO is to revert it somewhat to earlier versions. In LRB1(?) PO was add ST to Av roll - after you saw the dice. That was far too good (PO mummies... ).

A simple change, and one that keeps the effectiveness to high ST players would be to keep that mechanic of PO adding ST to the Av roll, but making it so you go prone before the dice are rolled. That feels like it may reduce the effectiveness of the combo because you can't dice the optimal combination of skills, but you can still stack to gain benefit.

Couldnt you use it in conjunction with Diving tackle in one of the editions as well? I may be wrong but I seem to have a vague memory of being piled on by a Mummy because of diving tackle at some point.

I also think reverting it back to adding St to the Av roll would probably be too much especially when Claw is so wide spread.

What do you think about only limiting the skill to Big guys or maybe even strength 5+ players. That way stat freaks could still obtain it; mummies, tomb guardians and all the big guys could take it too. It would encourage people to take big guys more because of the extra punch they could provide. It would also still keep Chaos as the killingest race about because their Minotaur gets Mutation skills on single rolls so could achieve the CPOMB combo easily.

[Corvidius]

Hate stat limited skills. Getting a strength bust sucks enough without it robbing you of a paid for skill as well.

PO as a strength off of armour would be fine but it would means Claw, Piling On big guys would pretty much be auto breaking armour and having plus 1 to the injury roll. I still think that's awesome but possibly less bloody than just now.

Edit: originally typed on mobile with predictive text. Corrected spelling.

ps. Mino+Piling On would be plus 6/7 to the armour roll under the old rules.

[garion]

Hate stat limited skills. Getting a strength bust sucks enough without it sobbing you of a said for skill as well.

PO as a strength off of armour would be fine but it would means Claw, Piling On big guys would pretty much be auto breaking armour and having plus 1 to the injury roll. I still think that's awesome but possibly less bloody than just now.

I dont really understand any of what you just typed? Can you explain again please?

[plasmoid]

Hi Garion,
I'm so on the fence on all of this. I do think (C)POMB is too much.
But a lot can be done to mitigate it.
Sometimes it just feels like a lot of posters would rather whine than play the damn game. Call me a salty old sea dog, but the violence has gone down and down and then down some more. Sigh.
On the other hand, I do think the game is more interesting when bash doesn't hold all the cards, and the more I think about it, the more fully developed bash in classic 3rd ed. was ba-roken.
So I think the game would be better off with a bash nerf.

What interests me is - was the nerf to the apoth for this very reason or was PO imroved for this reason or both?

Apoth was nerfed to compensate to increase loss of players - which was decreased by weakened fouling and removal of ageing.
Also, it was part of improving the TV-system (and handicap system). The old apoth was sooo much better than it's 50K price tag.

I've posted the bash-math on FUMBBL, but I might as well post it here.
I've included PiOn as just an armor reroll (idea 3)
AFAIK it would make PiOn the weakest of the bash skills. No harm in that, but then it shouldn't come with a negative. IMO.

Code: Select all

Version   ! POMBav9 ! POMBav8 ! POMBav7 ! POMBgob ! MPOMBav9 ! MPOMBav8 ! MPOMBav7
==================================================================================
1994-2002 ! 18.90   ! 23.41   ! 27.01   ! 33.44   ! 28.98    ! 33.34    ! 36.78
CRP       ! 17.48   ! 24.97   ! 32.47   ! 36.33   ! 32.47*   ! 32.47*   ! 32.47*
Idea 1    ! 14.98   ! 22.02   ! 29.26   ! 33.66   ! 25.88*   ! 27.38*   ! 29.26*
Idea 2    ! 13.5-   ! 19.5-   ! 25.3-   ! 30.48   ! 25.3-*   ! 25.3-    ! 25.3-*
Idea 3    ! 13.73   ! 19.31   ! 24.59   ! 31.34   ! 24.59   ! 24.59   ! 24.59
FUMBBL    ! 13.73   ! 19.31   ! 24.59   ! 31.34   ! 19.19*   ! 26.16*   ! 32.85*
==================================================================================

Oh, the numbers are 'chance to KO or worse' and includes a 20/36 chance to knock down.
Idea 2 and 3 are virtually identical. Idea 2 though has a slightly elevated chance to CAS, and a significantly smaller risk of going PiOn prone.

Cheers
Martin