Little Buff for Big Guys

Got some ideas for rules? Maybe a skill change or something completely different!!! Tell us here.

Moderator: TFF Mods

Post Reply

Is this a good basis for a buff to big guys? Revoting OK

Yes! It's perfect.
0
No votes
Yes, in that it's not going to break the game.
2
29%
Yes, but you could go farther (post).
0
No votes
No, it's going to lead to problems (post).
0
No votes
No, big guys are supposed to suck.
3
43%
No, for some other reason (post).
0
No votes
Brownies, of some sort or another.
2
29%
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by mattgslater »

We've got a coach around here who's a great guy and everybody loves him, but he won't play with us because we play LRB6 and he's a fanatic for this archaic set of 3e-based houserules that are basically a rejection of the LRB process, like they took a 120º turn at Death Zone. We ferreted out his complaints one-by-one, and here's what we came up with:

1) Fouling is not good enough.
2) Big guys are not good enough.
3) Journeymen and inducements remove the reward for success.
4) There's no mechanism to help underdogs catch up.

I don't actually disagree with him categorically on any of these points. I told him that I'd solve 1 and 4 for him, and I did. He says it's not enough. He wants something to solve either 2 or 3. I'll do it if it'll work. With this in mind, do you like this idea? The standard is: does it break big guys or Stunties?

Team Players
Journeymen don't automatically lose Loner when hired. Whenever a player with Loner improves, there is a chance that player develops a new understanding of the game and a new bond with his teammates, losing the Loner skill. I'm not sure whether to make this a 6+ roll adding the player's rank, or to make it an AG roll at +2.

Ohhh... I get it
Players without G skill access learn more about the game every time they improve. For this reason, if the lowest die result on an improvement roll is less than the player's new rank, the player may select a G skill, at +30k value.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
User avatar
DoubleSkulls
Da Admin
Posts: 8219
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 12:55 pm
Location: Back in the UK
Contact:

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by DoubleSkulls »

You can do what you like... house rules is a core part of BB.

If you want to improve fouling then you could just make DP +2/+2 again. That helps you re-establish a generous risk reward ratio. My personal view is that fouling is probably a little too weak right now, and giving the automatic +1 for Av roll would be sufficient.

Big Guys ... just drop Loner. Simple and easy. They are too effective that way.

Inducements - well they are meant to be a lot better than previous handicapping systems since we didn't want the one sided games that were more prevalent in earlier editions. Simple solution is halve the money the underdog gets.

Journeymen is about making it easier for teams to recover from a bad start, so I'd keep them.

Underdog catch up - well the rules are meant to make it easier for underdogs because inducements make every game more competitive. So they don't need to catch up, but can compete anyway. One answer for your friend is to add inducements to give bonus cash, e.g. 50k inducement for an extra D6 of winnings or an extra MVP.

Reason: ''
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Smurf
mattgslater's court jester
Posts: 1480
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by Smurf »

He doesn't see the flip side that the stunties live longer compared to 3rd ed.

IIRC

MB gets through armour gets stunties reall hurt (breaking armour on a 6or7 depending if you are a halfling or Goblin):

6-7 - K'od = no change
8 = badly hurt
9 = seriously hurt
10+ = dead

1 in 6 chance of killing a stunty every time the armour is broken.

Then you have the Dirty Player, also netting a +2 throught armour and +1 for stunty.

And remember the rerolls, oh yes reroll the armour/injury

As far as I can see 3rd Ed was merciless on the little guys, more so than 6th.

Reason: ''
The Scrumpers (Wood Elf)
Timog (Chaos Dwarves)
Cursed Crypt (Khemri)
Fur Fur Furious (Skaven)
nick_nameless
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by nick_nameless »

1) Use the bank rules. This will tend to increase the TV disparity between young teams and old teams without necessarily increasing the game effectiveness of the old team (unless they spend, which is a good thing).

2) Use "Graduated Targeted MVPs". Teams at less than 1250 get to nominate 3 players. Teams at less than 1500 get to nominate 6. Teams at less than 1750 nominate 8. after that, random. You can require journeymen and/or Star Players to be included in some way or not. I prefer to require that player who earned SPPS be included if possible. The number of nominations is arbitrary. I just included them so there would be example numbers.

For fouling: you can buff sneaky git by giving an additional +1 to the dirty player bonus.

For big guys: Bonehead could not cost them their tackle zones and really stupid could only cost tackle zones on a 1. Wild Animal is fine IMO.

Reason: ''
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by mattgslater »

Nick and Smurf, I'm not sure you all understand. I'm not trying to fix a problem; I'm trying to bring a guy on board with a gesture. If I use an indirect mechanic that solves the same basic problem, I've not done myself any good, because this guy won't get it. (That's hard for me, because I love rulebook judo.) I do agree with his four points; I just don't think two of them merit fixes, and I only think the other two should be houseruled because I have easy/effective fixes in place.

Right now, we are:
1) All-but restoring the automatic +1 on fouls: you can assist your own foul.

We've agreed to include:
2) The Bank.
3) Foul, surf, and block-replacement (Chainsaw, Stab) Cas are worth 1 SPP.
4) Two new inducements, Free Beer (100k/250k) and Inspiration (200k). Both offer immediate and long-term benefit.

We're hashing over:
5) Some change to Loner so it doesn't hose Big Guys so bad.
6) Either a way to hose non-rostered players or an improved, but incomplete, mechanism to G access for ST5 players, preferably one that makes it more likely that the player will develop G skills late in his career.
Edit
7) Making Dirty Player +2 to either, and making Sneaky Git also work like Guard on a foul.
8) Introducing an ATC-like "consequences" table for ejections, so foulers suffer a chance of penalty beyond mere ejection.

One thing we talked about was removing Loner entirely and implementing a rule that only rostered players may use TRRs.

Ooh... when a ST5+ player improves, once in his career, he may opt to take a G skill if the improvement roll result is less than or equal to 2x rank? So it doesn't matter on the first roll, as it would only trigger on snake-eyes, which is a double. On the second roll it adds 4 perms, 8 on the third roll, 10 on the fourth, and on the 5th you pretty much are hoping "not +AG"! This more-or-less ensures that Big Guy will eventually get Block, and means that every once in awhile you'll see a Claw BoN or an Ogre with Tackle.

For Loner, we don't have to remove it; in fact, removing Loner is as much of a Big Guy fix as I want, and Chris (that's his name) would really like some G-access mechanism, so a half-measure seems called for. Instead of a chance to remove it, what about just softening it? We could add one to the Loner roll for each improvement, or we could make it a 5+ roll with a +2 for rostered players.

Or... we could change "Oh... I Get It!" from "take a G skill at 30k" to "remove Loner, and if the player doesn't have Loner, take a G skill at 30k." Mummies will almost go back to GS access, which is probably theoretically overpowered, but in practice is a good thing because the regular Undead coaches in our league are both in the second tier. It would also be a big buff for Ogres, which will make some guys happy.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
Smurf
mattgslater's court jester
Posts: 1480
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by Smurf »

I think the real point is:

Stunties are not pulverised into mash when they go down!

3rd Ed you could add MB to armour and injury and reroll the damn thing!

The fouling is fun and the missile dudes but the issue is this:

Stunty teams are not smeared across the pitch in a Gore Fest from the rules of 3rd Ed.

When you consider PO added your ST to the AV roll! with a reroll to use!

If the guy cannot see the benefit of having players not maimed, dead on such a regular basis then let him carry on with 3rd ed.

Reason: ''
The Scrumpers (Wood Elf)
Timog (Chaos Dwarves)
Cursed Crypt (Khemri)
Fur Fur Furious (Skaven)
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by mattgslater »

Smurf wrote:If the guy cannot see the benefit of having players not maimed, dead on such a regular basis then let him carry on with 3rd ed.
Yeah, by himself. But he's a nice guy and a good coach, and we want him on board if it doesn't mean we do anything we don't want to do, you know?

What's this about stunties? I have no intention of boosting stunties directly: this is about big guys. Yes, the first buff I suggested hits stunties, and yes, the buffs would be good for big guys in general and thereby benefit all the Stunty teams.

So, evolution II:

"Oh, NOW I get it!": Some players who don't have access to General skills on a normal roll have all the physical capacity required to perform the tasks, but are slow learners and take longer to develop the basic skills. Whenever a player with ST3 or higher improves, if the lowest improvement die result is than or equal to the player's (new) Star Player Rank, the coach may rid the player of the Loner skill in addition to selecting an improvement as normal; if this happens, add 10,000 gold to the player's value in addition to the value of the skill. If the player does not have Loner, he may be given a General skill; if he does, add 30,000 gold to his value, as if he had taken a doubles-only skill. Once the player has selected a General skill this way, he may not use this ability again.

Intended upshot:
1) Big guys are neither "meh" as now, nor "no-brainer" as Chris wants, but rather "meh" to start, likely evolving into superstars.
2) Ogres are the biggest beneficiary, followed by Khemri and Chaos Pact, then Undead, Halflings, and Goblins. That's good, because we have Tier-2 coaches running Undead and CP, and the dangerous Undead team already in use won't get great mileage out of it, already having two Block Mummies and all. The other teams on that list are all kind of underpowered anyway. The "losers" are elves and Amazons, which tend to be the teams the veterans play. Oh, and Dwarfs, Slann, and Vamps, which are scarce around these parts.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
neverworking
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:17 am
Contact:

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by neverworking »

The way this is written it would appear that a big guy could first use the ability to rid itself of loner, then use it a second time to get a general skill, which I assume is the intention. It would also appear that a player could roll a double, and opt to take an agility skill or possibly stat bump and still be free to take advantage of this option at the subsequent level if they were willing to risk it (at 16SPPs you'd have a 2/3s chance of being able to take a general skill with the roll). I'm not sure how many players would really risk opting for dodge, side step, etc. just to "exploit" this loop hole, but just thought it should be pointed out.

It might not be that arduous but the rule as written requires some extra book keeping, which is usually undesirable, and the wording could confuse a few folks. A simpler but quite similar rule might be: at level 4 (31 SPPs) any st5 player that has not taken a double skill or stat boost may opt to take a double skill rather than rolling as normal (so no chance at stat bump here); in addition all players on a roster at 31SPPs (or perhaps 51spps or 16spps) lose the loner skill if they originally had it. Players who lose loner in this way add 10k to the team value. No extra book keeping under this system.

Level 4 is often a place where players will restart a big guy anyway if they don't make the double, and under your proposed rule 5 times out of 6 they would make it there if they hadn't hit it earlier.

Personally I think taking off loner is worth more than 10k, as the loner skill does more than just make re-rolling harder, it also tends to cause that player to act later in the turn and thus make less actions and less important actions. Losing loner will cause some of these big guys to suddenly be a much bigger part of the play, which will in turn probably increase the number of casualties they cause. I don't think its bad to go that route, but I do think 10k is a pretty cheap price tag for it.

Reason: ''
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by mattgslater »

Actually, you could take a G skill on a double without invoking this rule, leaving you free to use it again.

But yeah, I see your point. Lose Loner at 16 SPP and gain G access at 51, I'll propose that.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
tussock
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 5:03 am

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by tussock »

1) Fouling is not automatic, it's late game fun (or late in the half with men spare, or secret weapon player off anyway), or any time against a valuable player out caught out on their own. I still use it, just not every turn.

2) Big guys are not good enough by intention. They're overpriced and do much less than you'd expect. You should be able to buy off loner on doubles, but if you want to win you don't carry a big guy on the roster. If you want useful big guys, remove loner and lower the price by 20k each. Don't add general skills, that's not their job.

3) Journeymen and inducements are not good enough by intention. They're overpriced and do much less than you'd expect. Being able to buy any Journeyman who eats your MVP is fine, we've all had enough with retiring the 9 and 10-man teams after game one.

4) The mechanism to help underdogs catch up is playing more games while the big dogs get stuck around TV 200 and slowly accumulate injuries on their stars and a pool of Journeymen they can't buy.

I like Death Zone too, but everyone just bought Morg (Morg II, Morg III, Morg IV, ...) and the Dirty Players had more SPPs than everyone else put together. Playing vs high TV Chaos or Undead was the last game your team would ever play, so no one would ever play them. Fun stuff, but never lasted more than six or eight games per team, and you absolutely could not bring a team in late and survive your first couple matches.

Reason: ''
Smurf
mattgslater's court jester
Posts: 1480
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by Smurf »

Big guys are fun. Now and then they can be awesome. But star players are such where as team BGs need that loner and negaskills.

Otherwise it's constant blitzing withthe big guys. Now and then you do but when you have to you may want a more reliable player.

Yes you can develope a mean BG and people will argue on how to do it.

But for all the bad loners out there there are nicer and smoother rules that are more enjoyable to the carnage wrecking rules of 3rd Ed. I remember people used to exploit the rerolls for breaking armour or injuries and whimpered at having Dwarves do the same.

The game is much more fluid now with different styles of play. This is a stark contrast to all the Strength teams of 3rd ed who could quickly max out their squishing abilities.

Reason: ''
The Scrumpers (Wood Elf)
Timog (Chaos Dwarves)
Cursed Crypt (Khemri)
Fur Fur Furious (Skaven)
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by mattgslater »

I agree with you on each count, tussock. I think our whole league does. But I think you're off on our objectives.
tussock wrote:1) Fouling is not automatic, it's late game fun (or late in the half with men spare, or secret weapon player off anyway), or any time against a valuable player out caught out on their own. I still use it, just not every turn.
I'm looking for a happy medium between too-good 3e fouling and not-good-enough CRP fouling. In our current league, two seasons in, I'm the only coach to have committed more than three fouls. It simply must be better, or it's a whole aspect of the game that we're not going to end up using at all.
2) Big guys are not good enough by intention. They're overpriced and do much less than you'd expect. You should be able to buy off loner on doubles, but if you want to win you don't carry a big guy on the roster. If you want useful big guys, remove loner and lower the price by 20k each. Don't add general skills, that's not their job.
I actually don't want to buff big guys much. Getting rid of Loner with no price-break was the original plan; it was rejected because some coaches didn't categorically want to drop Loner, while others wanted improved-but-imperfect access to G skills, so that any Big Guy at 51 SPP was pretty much guaranteed Block.
3) Journeymen and inducements are not good enough by intention. They're overpriced and do much less than you'd expect. Being able to buy any Journeyman who eats your MVP is fine, we've all had enough with retiring the 9 and 10-man teams after game one.
This is where our league can't come to a consensus. Some people think any kind of serious benefit to the underdog ends up punishing his opponent for success, and others think that before the new Journeyman system we had too many coaches quitting on the game. I think Journeymen are a touch too good, but not so much too good that we should do without them. We have in the past floated with the idea of making them inducements, so if you're down-men against a lesser team you just start without full strength. We've also considered costing them as Mercenaries. In the end we'll probably take no action here.
4) The mechanism to help underdogs catch up is playing more games while the big dogs get stuck around TV 200 and slowly accumulate injuries on their stars and a pool of Journeymen they can't buy.
Ah, but we play scheduled seasons. Many teams won't play enough games to see that stuff happen, or it'll just be happening at about the time the postseason comes up.
I like Death Zone too, but everyone just bought Morg (Morg II, Morg III, Morg IV, ...) and the Dirty Players had more SPPs than everyone else put together. Playing vs high TV Chaos or Undead was the last game your team would ever play, so no one would ever play them. Fun stuff, but never lasted more than six or eight games per team, and you absolutely could not bring a team in late and survive your first couple matches.
His house rules were sort of a proto-LRB thing, with limit 1 star, rostered big guys, 4+ Regen, and an independent Cas table. It's not as broken as straight 3rd. But yeah, I remember the days of Dirty Players jetting way ahead, and I don't want to go back.

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
User avatar
mattgslater
King of Comedy
Posts: 7758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Far to the west, across the great desert, in the fabled Land of Comedy

Re: Little Buff for Big Guys

Post by mattgslater »

Ah-ha! Rostered players add rank/2, rounded up, to Loner rolls! So a big guy with between 6 and 30 SPP fails on a 1-2, and one with 31+ fails on a 1. Stars, Mercs and JMs have no such benefit, though it would be easy enough to let skilled Mercs play at 3+. Non-stunty players whose improvement roll is less than or equal to Rank+2 may select a G skill at 30k.

Better?

Reason: ''
What is Nuffle's view? Through a window, two-by-three. He peers through snake eyes.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and tackle zones: Reddened blades of grass.
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
Post Reply