Garion's CRP 2nd Edition WIP

[garion]

Wow, suddenly players have more stats which I would love to see in operation. There is something really fun (for me) to have players who are more specialised in terms of what they can and cannot do but was this always part of the plan?

Just wish that I could test this online somewhere or as part of Galak's pbem program but I am interested in hearing feedback on this for sure.

It was always my intention to bring back TS (throwing skill) from 2nd edition, just hadn't got round to it. But T (toughness) wasn't part of the plan. This idea came about while I was trying to work out how to make snotlings not a complete waste of time. I thought about making them ST1.1 as I thought it was funny, but this didn't really work. There were a few other players as well that I thought could benefit from having higher or lower St than toughness which you can see in the document. It gives human catchers a bit more resilience without turning them into blitzers and tones down the horribly cheap and powerful black Orcs by giving them 4T but only 3St so they are a little weaker in offence, but just as strong in defence. The more I thought about it the more I liked it and I thought it would be better giving players the ability to specilialise in being - a solid blocker type wall of a player by taking +T or an out and out blitzer by taking +st. It also gave me another option for the mutations by turning Collosal Girth into +1T when being blitzed, sort of like the anti Horns mutation, I liked the way this worked as well, sort of like wet cornflour, the harder it is hit the more solid and impenetrable it becomes.

Yes I want to test them out as well but sadly I don't think Galaks PBEM tool can't do it because the code was corrupted to a point where I don't think it can be adjusted anymore. However it may already have options there to make this possible, would need someone more in the know to confirm this???

I am trying to learn how to code in C++ and Java script atm, so give it 10 years and I might have my own client for testing rules lol I'm finding it very tough going

[mattski]

The best thing about adding in the new stats is that it diminishes the importance of ST. Now coaches would actually think about keeping a player who can still take a hit even if they can't give one back, or vice versa. Also, it would see more players think about creating passing players since I see that TS is the same cost as a double skill. Very subtle change this that I think would add an awful lot to the nature of teams and players. Yes, I would really like to play some games under these rules but as you say, the PBEM code is seeming down for the count.

Edit: A long time ago I asked Tom if it was possible for players to have differing ST/AG depending on what they were doing. ST was a no but AG was a possible but it would have to be selected by the coach at the time. So sadly it looks as though a simple change of the Pbem is out of the question. I think that Plasmoid was looking at the code, or getting someone else to, at one point. Have a chat with Galak though and see what he says.

[dode74]

I think you've overcomplicated this. Better than introducing new statlines (especially where the majority are the same as the "old" version) would be a new skill applied to the players you want them to apply to. I would use:
Toughness (Extraordinary) - the player's ST is increased by 1 when blocked.
Glass Jaw (Extraordinary) - the player's ST is decreased by 1 when blocked.
Spiral Throw (Extraordinary) - the player's AG is increased by 1 when attempting to throw the ball.
Weak Arm (Extraordinary) - the player's AG is decreased by 1 when attempting to throw the ball.

You get the same effect with far fewer (nugatory, in most cases) stats.

Also, costing would need adjusting whether you go for the statlines or the skills.

[garion]

The best thing about adding in the new stats is that it diminishes the importance of ST. Now coaches would actually think about keeping a player who can still take a hit even if they can't give one back, or vice versa. Also, it would see more players think about creating passing players since I see that TS is the same cost as a double skill. Very subtle change this that I think would add an awful lot to the nature of teams and players. Yes, I would really like to play some games under these rules but as you say, the PBEM code is seemingly down for the count.

Yup, the idea, was as you say to make passing cheaper, and to make building passing specialists a little easier for all teams.

I think you've overcomplicated this. Better than introducing new statlines (especially where the majority are the same as the "old" version) would be a new skill applied to the players you want them to apply to. I would use:
Toughness (Extraordinary) - the player's ST is increased by 1 when blocked.
Glass Jaw (Extraordinary) - the player's ST is decreased by 1 when blocked.
Spiral Throw (Extraordinary) - the player's AG is increased by 1 when attempting to throw the ball.
Weak Arm (Extraordinary) - the player's AG is decreased by 1 when attempting to throw the ball.

You get the same effect with far fewer (nugatory, in most cases) stats.

Also, costing would need adjusting whether you go for the statlines or the skills.

Yar as said the finer details like costing need looking at, but over complicating is not something I have a problem with, dumbing down of the game is something I would be very concerned with and while I get your point about using extraordinary skills to do the same job, which is of course feesible. It detracts from the beauty of having the extra stat line, which as Mattskii has pointed out, opens up new development opportunites, which - as stated in the introduction is the point of this rule set; to make team development more diverse and unique which is my biggest concern with the current rules.

[dode74]

I think we fundamentally disagree with where the issue lies then - to me it's more about TV-based MM reducing your options (which, as a mechanic, it does because it rewards efficiency over anything else) rather than the ruleset. You see some highly diverse teams in leagues.

Given that, it's probably best I leave you to develop this thread. I still have some small objection to the name of "CRP 2nd Edition" as it implies an evolution of CRP (which it isn't - it's a revolution back towards previous editions), but I do really like some of the things in here - I'm a big fan of the Taunt skill, for example. I hope you get the chance to test this out.

[garion]

You see some highly diverse teams in leagues.

Yup I disagree, teams are all developed in the same way now in leagues too because all skills are now to open to pick. The only difference between leagues and MM is in MM stat increases largely get ignored and in league stat increase rarely get ignored. The development path is much the same for every player now, St players all get the same 3 or 4 skills, agile players all get the same 3 or 4 skills, mutation teams only consider Claw as an option maybe an extra arms on one player or a big hand on one players and tentacles on one or two, but by and large those three skills, Horns, FA DP VLL and PT all get ignored and linemen are now less useful than ever. But anyway thats enough of my feelings about the current situation, we will no doubt all have slightly differeing views on things as said the whole point in these rules is to make teams more unique and bring back a bit of the joy I feel is missing from developing players.

[mattski]

I actually think that simply adding the two extra type of stats would be enough to see more diverse teams. Traits I could live without; one of the better things that the LRB did was to equalise skills. Maybe the new stat lines and a narrowing of skills so that they were position based rather than attribute based (which would give a bump to lineman since in my mind's eye they would be able to have a wider selection of skills than any position player.

More choice is always good and forcing coaches to make tougher choices on player development and retention can only be a good thing for coaches who are more interested in having to think about what it is that they are doing. Now, if we can only do something about lowering the ubiquity of block...

[garion]

I agree the two sta lines would go someway, but the equalising skills thing you refer to was one of the things I didnt like so much. I liked that skills were tiered as well, the best of which were traits in LRB4 so I have returned to that, but I have also tried not to upset the work that was done in CRP too much hence not returning Jump Up to trait form and other skills that were changed slightly. Pilling On I have made a trait because it is far and away the best skill in the game and the only skill that breaks the fundemental rules of BB - no re-rolls are allowed on av and injury. I have made Leader a trait to stop throwers only use being leader caddies, that is a big annoyance for me, they should be there for passing not giving you a re-roll so I have returned that to its lrb4 state, as a general trait. then there is Leap, I made Leap a trait because of wrestle mainly the option of making as many leaping players as you like has never sat well with me since wrestle was introuduced, the beauty of Leap in LRB4 was that most ball carriers would have block and there was no wrestle, so leap really was a last ditch attempt type manouvre. Now with Wrestle, Dauntless and leap all free skills it is too easy to free the ball up when you are elves/skaven. I call this type of style that agile races now use hyperball, and is the closest match to hyperbash (hyperbash being the CPOMB). Finally Stand Firm, was great fun in LRB4 but yes it possibly was too good, I would take it over dodge for my human blitzers and other players of that type, by toning it down but keeping its lrb4 function it makes picking one or the other a tougher choice, a human blitzer would now have to choose between dodge, Stand Firm and pilling On, on a double and with the added T stat line I think it would differ depending on which stat increases they have obtained. Rather than the current every double is dodge or Guard.

The other trait is a 2nd edition skill brought back, this was for two reasons, firstly - I liked the skill, secondly it opens up new development opportunites and skill combinations and again makes picking doubles a little bit tougher than just going for Guard with elves, on the whole I 'm sure they will still take guard and MB but it will be nice to have a diving tackle dirty tackle player in your team, especially if you have a taunt player or two to pull players into his tacklezone.

Instead of making mutations doubles or just claw a trait, which was a consideration, I took it back to random mutations, this is again for a number of reasons. First of all the fluff i one of the books describes chaos teams being the most colourful, bizzare and unique of all the teams, (or something along those lines). Well this couldnt really be further from the trueth in their current incarnation where all you see is cpomb player after cpomb players and little to no uniqueness in their rosters. So making them doubles, I have provided 12 mutations, improving the lesser ones, and adding a couple of new ones and bringing back others from older editions. The 1 in 12 chance of getting Claw makes it less likely than it was when it was only doubles, but between claw and RSC there is a 1 in 6 chance of getting a basher skill which makes it the same odds as a double. However the price of mutations is only 20k to most teams so it is still better in that respect. Also all of the mutations add something good to your team so it isnt a total gamble and makes for more unique teams. It does becomes more a gamble when using expensive players like a beast or a really developed Gutter Runner etc...

anyway that is just some of my thought process, if you were wondering.

Also nothing can be done about block really, wrestle has been brought in which adds another dimension to it, but to change block in any way would change the rules dramatically, and to stay true to teh game and do away with block you would have to return to 2nd ed blocking really, where more often than not nothing happened as a result of the block.

[plasmoid]

I think for every step you take, the rules will become better and better for you, but at the same time you'll be narrowing the appeal.
Just saying.

[mattski]

Is there a real reason as to why you are only introducing a new (well, new to some extent) stat for throwing? Is it to really encourage throwing? Because in one way it would make more sense to have either three different AG values (Dodging, Throwing, Ball Handling) which is very likely a non-starter or to move all ball activities (throwing, catching, pick-ups and intercepts) to one value and then have dodge to another.

I know that once you move away from one value to judge all then you are opening up a real Pandora's box in terms of how far you go (as indeed Plasmoid alludes to) but it is one of those things that it does seem a little limited to just move throwing to its own stat.

[garion]

I was considering throwing and catching too, but would like to keep the throwing seperate for now, otherwise the throwing and catching combined will just be too similar to everyones current ag skill to make it worthwhile.

I like throwing on its own as it will encourage specialist throwers more as they will work out cheaper with their stat increases etc... It is also one of the stat lines from 2nd edition. There was also one for catching as well back then, (I think it was called cool as in keeping your cool or something along those lines) but I don't see enough value add in making more than 6 stats, nor do I want to make it too complex. Also from a fluff perspective throwing is a unique skill, picking up the ball and catching is not really, a high agility shoul dbe able to do both.

@ Plasmoid -

I get where you are coming from, but at the moment, I am just doing this for me to see what my finished rules will look like.

As said before in this thread there is a reason why it is called CRP2nd edition. Which is -
2nd edition was fiddly/long winded to play but was redeemed by the depth of it's team building element, there were so many options you could pursue. The 3rd edition's streamlined game play mechanism was a breath of fresh air in terms of reigniting interest in the game but from the beginning it was clear it lacked the same complexity regarding developing a team over a campaign. Trying to combine the best of both worlds seems to me to be a fantastically worthwhile idea and while difficult to strike the right balance between the second edition complexities and 3rd edition and on's dumbed down rules set there are great things that can be learnt from both extremes.

For instance, 2nd edition had rolling substitutes, something that I will not be bringing back, attrition adds to the speed of the game and the tactical element as well. 2nd edition tended to become bogged down in endless block rolls which made games longer. Also the turn over rule is vital to the game now, and not something I would like to get rid off. So by keeping the mechanics of the game from 3rd edition and on and combining it with the development/options available in 2nd edition should make for a more interesting game as long as I get it right. These are the key points for me. Changes to fouling and the ref are for me just bringing back the best of LRB4, same with traits, as I have said many times, I want diversity to be the key. As you say this may not be to everyones taste, many people probably like that the game is more simple than it has even been (excluding Kerunch! if you count that). But personally I would like a bit more complexity, certainly tougher decision making on skills and more interesting unique players.

Hopefully I will be able to get this playteststed someday, just for fun and curiosity really and I already have enough people that have contacted me saying they would like to play test it to cover most races in the game. So things looks quite good in that respect and regardless of whether people like these rules more or less than the current version, it would still be fun, because the basic mechanics of 3rd edition still remain and it is still bloodbowl, with its roots very true to what has come before

[plasmoid]

Oh don't get me wrong.
I loved 2nd ed! I rocked at it
I was certainly wacky and fun. (Though personally, I like the current edition better).
Not sure I agree on 2nd ed. and team building.
Mixed race teams, sure, but at tournaments it was all Dark Elf + CD + Big guy.
Other than that, you rolled up your 8 stars, and that was that...
Except for purchasing rookies and hoping they'd develop into stars. That was fun!

Cheers
Martin

[Darkson]

Personally (other than moving stats to being based of D8s, D10s or even D12s), I'd like to see Agility split into a "moving" agility (for dodging) and a "ball-handling" agility (for picking, throwing and catching).

[garion]

Personally (other than moving stats to being based of D8s, D10s or even D12s), I'd like to see Agility split into a "moving" agility (for dodging) and a "ball-handling" agility (for picking, throwing and catching).

The whole D8 or more debate is something I had considered as well, but for me that is a step too far at the moment, I quite like the way the odds work with blocking doging blocking etc... with D6 at the moment, but obviously understand the reasons to move it towards D8 namely so luck becomes less of a factor in games which i totally get. Feel free to come up with some stat lines of the basic 4 teams (Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Wood Elves) using D8 and it will give me something else to think about.

and you are the 2nd person that said that might be a better way to go about it (making it A and ball handling) so true to form, i will have a think about that as well, my concern was that it might make al the BH stats too similar to the current Ag, although I guess changin the stat line to D8 will make that less of an issue. Hmmm.

Would like to hear more from you on the rest of it if possible darkson. I know we don't see eye to eye on everything but we also seem to have a similar love for LRB4 in some respects.

@ Plasmoid -

Except for purchasing rookies and hoping they'd develop into stars. That was fun!

That is what I was refering to more so than spamming CD DE BG lol

But you get what I meant anyway I'm sure

[mattski]

If AG was split into halves (dodge and ball) rather than having throwing as being something more unique what changes would that make to the rosters? I have been thinking about this and one of the dangers of having ball-handling as a separate skill is how you don't fundamentally change some teams. Orcs, for example, in your list are pushed even more (if only slightly) into being a power and not a throwing team but how would they be changed if the TS became ball-handling? Blitzers would be shash at picking up the ball which seems wrong (is it?) so the pressure would be to move them back to three again and then what has the change bought about?

Just thinking about it but I am beginning to think that the 'best' choice is to only alter it for throwing or to have three separate AG categories: Dodging, Throwing, the rest. Just how many people would like to see a creeping stat-line like this is of course somewhat arguable...

Edit: Just downloaded and had a look at the old 2nd ed. rules (wow, it seems like such a long time ago) and interestingly the players had seven stats; of course one of those was sprint but even so...I would love to add more complexity to players but there is a break point (taken to its logical conclusion every AG act would have its own value including differing abilities to throw at different ranges, eeek!) when it stops being constructive and just adds more for the sake of it.

I love the breaking up of the strength though it would need to be playtested and costed but I just can't help but think that it is such a radical change why not do the same with agility rather than just trying to buff throwing slightly. Your rules of course so take or leave as much as you care to.