Garions Rules Finished

[Darkson]

Garion, why do you get so defensive when anyone questions your rules?

Do I think Plasmoid's rules are right? No.
Do I think your's are right? No.
Did I think mine were right? No.

You will never please everyone. If someone disagrees with your premise, so be it. Repeatedly posting the same list of changes is not going to sway anyone that thinks you're wrong. That's what Toby did and cbbakke does, and it doesn't work for them either.

[plasmoid]

Hi Garion,
given the points posted I'd like to say that I do value fluff - but not overly so: For example, I have no need to wreck the vampire team because a DYK states that one was so bad that the fans put them out of their misery (I'm not saying you do either). I've tried real hard to make changes that stayed true to the fluff - I know you don't get the PO and the SG one, but I'll save those for a later post. (Interestingly) Just like yourself - I value diversity and fun greatly.

But on a completely different note:
Since you're messing with the kick-off table, I'd love to see riots made more likely. I think all those 15 turn 2-1 grinds are just so f*cking boring. Tactical, sure. Fun, not so much. Making riots more likely would make playing the clock a slightly weaker tactic.

Cheers
Martin

[garion]

Hi Garion,
given the points posted I'd like to say that I do value fluff - but not overly so: For example, I have no need to wreck the vampire team because a DYK states that one was so bad that the fans put them out of their misery (I'm not saying you do either). I've tried real hard to make changes that stayed true to the fluff - I know you don't get the PO and the SG one, but I'll save those for a later post. (Interestingly) Just like yourself - I value diversity and fun greatly.

But on a completely different note:
Since you're messing with the kick-off table, I'd love to see riots made more likely. I think all those 15 turn 2-1 grinds are just so f*cking boring. Tactical, sure. Fun, not so much. Making riots more likely would make playing the clock a slightly weaker tactic.

Cheers
Martin

I don't have issue with the vamp change from a fluff perspective really, I think that change can make some sense, in that the thralls would be slightly hardened after years of being bitten, I have a problem with that change as I think it makes them perform too high above their tier. Imo that change could push them up to tier 1 or just short of it and that is not where they should be. I love vamps because they are already a very good race but a challannge to play. I just feel boosting them that much makes them far less challanging to use. The rr change is good though because their tv always feels over inflated because of how expensive their rr are.

As for increasing the chances of Pitch invasion happening more, the answer is no. As I have already said the table is meant to be ordered by the biggest game breakers are the least probable and that result can ruin a game in one roll of the dice so it stays where it is.

[garion]

Garion, why do you get so defensive when anyone questions your rules?
.

Im not getting overly defensive, I am just asking for feedback so I can see things from someone else's perspective and I.have made a number of small changes as a result of discussions. Also if people raise issue with something I feel strongly about I will reply explaining why that decision was made.

There are still 2 very minor points in this rule set I am not 100% about but no one has raised issue with them yet.so I guess I can assume they are ok.

If you are reffering to my list of aims I posted after thadrins post, that was to illustrate how my goals differ completely from what martin is doing as he may not have read what they are earlier in the thread.

Also I would still very much like to hear some feedback from yourself once you have had time to read it. As I believe some changes would probably be quite similar to the ones you made for arbbl.

[plasmoid]

I did read the list.
I figured some of them wasn't differences at all, but just your way of saying that you're doing the same thing in a different (and for you better) way.
But I didn't figure it really was a discussion worth getting into.

I do still think that the roster changes were made true to fluff. IMO, the only fluff broken is fluff stating just how terrible the weak teams are. So it feels to me like you took your main objection - tiers must stay - and renamed it fluff. And even that fluff was only broken if you take the fluff to accurately describe by how big a margin the weak teams should be weakest. I'm shooting for 3 tiers too: Top of 'old tier 1', Bottom of 'old tier 1' and Top of 'old tier 2'. I have no problem should Vamps or Ogres cross into the Bottom of old Tier 1, they'd still be among the weaker teams. And Gobbos and Halflings will still be at the bottom.

Cheers
Martin

[garion]

Incorrect. What I am doing is completely different to you. As I posted above you are trying to make rules and roster changes to narrow the tiers. I am trying to make rule changes and few very minor (except zons) roster changes to address the issues I listed on the previous page which are very very different to wht you are looking at.

I also am not taking the tiers in to account based on fluff, that is also an incorrect assumption.

I want to keep the tiers because IMO it adds more variety to the game, and I personally like the challange of starting with a more testing team sometimes. I would hate all teams to be in 1 tier or 2. I think it would be deterimental to the game. There are many other reasons I think the tiers as they stand now (or as they stood in LRB4) should be kept, but there have been many threads about this already so no point going down that route again.

I understand what you are doing, its not for me but I have said I think it is a good thing for those people that do want all the teams to be equally balanced. The only part of the new rule changes I have to object to are the change to PO and Sneaky Git because they just do not make sense and I think you could have achieved the same goal in a way that does, and those are the changes I was referring to when I say they make no sense from a fluff perspective. Though some of the roster changes don't make sense either, but if you want me to talk more about them I will post in your thread if you like?

Anyway, thats enough about NTTB.

[tchatter]

As for increasing the chances of Pitch invasion happening more, the answer is no. As I have already said the table is meant to be ordered by the biggest game breakers are the least probable and that result can ruin a game in one roll of the dice so it stays where it is.

Agree with this, but I also agree with what Plasmoid stated above, I'd like to see Riot happen more often than not.

As far as Sneaky Git and having it fit fluff, I think that Plasmoid put in a mechanic for Secret Weapons that have Sneaky Git without having to add a lot of rulespeak and for foulers with it as well. As far as fluff, I would picture it more as the Ref sends the Sneaky Git off, but the Sneaky little Git instead keeps trying to sneak his way back into the reserves. In order to do this within the current rules Plasmoid sent him to KO and let that mechanic take care of it. If you wanted to truly handle it fluff wise, then you would need to add a new mechanic to the game in order to allow the sneaky git to come out of the sent off box.

[garion]

Or you could just bring back secret weapon rolls. Which is a tried and tested system that worked perfectly.

[spubbbba]

Surely the fluff reason for sending a player to the KO box is that rather than being a UK football red card for fouling it is an Ice Hockey sin bin penalty.

I am under the impression that this kind of penalty is more common in US sports so I could see that fitting in BB quite nicely. The players chances of recovering on a 4+ represent the ref deciding to let him out, it being random seems quite appropriate as getting caught for fouling is very random in crp.

I would hate if BB were to go down the all balanced route that 40K and WHFB aim for as it would never be possible to manage that with so many teams. Plus there would always be some team that was weaker or stronger so we’d get all the whining like we do with 40K nid players about their codex being rubbish or about the Grey knights being too good.

[plasmoid]

Hi Garion,
what I meant with the fluff=tiers comment was simply how you objected to the vamp change for making vamps 'better than they ought to be'. I can only get that 'ought' to come from the fluff. I agree that vamps provide a good challenge currently. Ideally, that's a good place (for me) for gobbos and flings. A good challenge. Not a stupid challenge. And vamps (for me) could be more competitive, but still among the weaker and hence challenging teams.

I did read you on FUMBBL saying that pretty much all the roster changes were un-fluffy, which suprised me. But maybe we have a differing perception of the fluff.

I do think we have more in common than you think we do.
We certainly have the same goal in mind (diversity & fun), but go about it in different ways.
Especially at the middle of your list, I think we have things in common:

To make team building more about developing teams evenly instead of the 4 stars and 10 scrubs that most teams build like in crp.
I think this is mainly a TV-matching issue, which is why I've stayed away from it.

To make doubles skill rolls an always take must have occasion.
True. That's a difference.

To make doubles skill rolls provide greater team individuality and diversity.
While I agree with the goal of more skill diversity, I'm not thrilled about the doubles angle as I don't want to hand the edge to the prolific coaches (beyond what they already get from growing their team). But I'm not that hung up on it. I just chose a different route. Making skills generally more equal or equally interesting would be interesting, but could quickly result in a huge overhaul, which I want to avoid.
But I am striving for more skill diversity! Like yourself.
At the basic level, I'd expect there to be fewer CPOMB skill choices and anti-CPOMB choices (i.e. in a super bashy environment, most skill picks become bash or survival out of necessity).
Not only that, but by trying to make more teams into valid opponents, I hope to force coaches to make wider skill selections. If I can't rely on my CPOMB players to just p*ss all over my gobbo opponent, and his roster isn't just a laugh in the first place, perhaps I should pick a skill like Tentacles with just a player or 2. I also see anti-elf skills on the rise both as singles and doubles choices.
Yay for diversity

To maintain the tiers as they are meant to be.
Heh, it sounds so dogmatic. I do maintain the tiers as well. I'm not looking for total equlibrium. I don't even think it can be acchieved. Nor am I looking for hard numbers that will force me to make endless changes.

To give the stunty teams more of a chance at a mid-higher Tv after being completely screwed over by the changes to the rules (not rosters) between lrb4 and 5. The thing that really hurt them the most is PO and how fouling is terrible in CRP.
Yay. I do this too! I buff fouling - especially for the cheap A-access players. I nerf the impact of PO - and stunties get the biggest break statistically. And I help them along with the roster buffs.

To make the bashing potential of teams more evenly spread between all the rosters instead of so heavily in favour of the CPOMB races, though still with a bigger advantage for the bash teams, and the brave mutation coaches.
I spread it it too. I lessen the impact of the CPOMB, and add a more generally available damage mechanism (buffed fouling and dedicated foulers (doubles guy with DP+SG))

To make staying prone a risky place to be instead of the safest place to be like it is in CRP.
Me too. Again, I think dedicated foulers will reappear. Also, standing up will be less dangerous, making the dirt nap comparatively not as spectacularly safe.

To make taking big guys more cost effective.
Not a bad idea at all. But I'll restrain myself.

To make Mutation teams more varied as they are consistently described in the fluff in all editions of the game, instead of being one of the most one dimensional,
Again, a fine idea. As stated earlier, it would be cool if there were fewer must-have skills. But it would be a rather large overhaul.
On a side note, nerfing Claw specifically will hopefully make things slightly less monotonous.

To add more of a tactical element to fouling and to bring it back to the overall game. CRP has always felt to me like positional play has become far less important in the wake of victory via attrition alone game mechanics.
Me too. Though I do hate the 'Game Within The Game: Hunt the DP'. But as I said I think dedicated foulers will be back.
And I do think that lessened killpower/attrition overall will make positional play more important.

[snip]
No one will ever agree on rule changes, but that is because some people want all the skills and teams to be vanilla so there is greater "balance". I would hate that more than anything, i want the game to about variety as it has always been albeit to a lesser extent now. I like many flavours not just vanilla.
See, at the very basic level, I don't think this is a remotely accurate portrayal of what I'm trying to do.
Balance (and certainly not a 'relaxed' balance) does not equal vanilla.
For example, I don't understand what is vanilla about 3 trolls or more useful snotlings.
Nor do I see how replacing very generic starting skills (Mighty Blow, Block, Dodge) with unique starting skills (Grab, Juggernaut, Fend) is vanilla.
If anything, I prefer the counter with 24 flavours of awesome ice cream, rather than the one with Squid Ice, Turd Ice - and then the Vanilla that everyone is having

Frankly i would even rather all skills to be random over the situation we have found our selves in now, but that is for another thread all together lol

Hey, I played in a league with semi-random skills for roughly 8 years. It was great fun. But talk about an overhaul...

See - we're brothers
Cheers
Martin

[garion]

But in Bloodbowl a foul has always been a sending off offence. That should not change to fit the purpose of one little rule. Also why would a babe help the player come back from the sin bin.

It makes no sense.

Also this is the wrong thread for discussion about that stupid rule. When Secret weapon rolls are just better, and have been tried and tested and worked perfectly.

[plasmoid]

I think this goes beyond loving the fluff - I'd say usually going that much into details reflects disliking the over-arching idea.
But anyway - 3rd ed. had argue the call. This is the player being good at arguing the call. After repeated complaints he is eventually let back on.

Considering that this particular rule has gotten an unusually high ammount of thumbs-up, I think that would do just fine.
Cheers
Martin

[garion]

Hi Garion,
To make team building more about developing teams evenly instead of the 4 stars and 10 scrubs that most teams build like in crp.
I think this is mainly a TV-matching issue, which is why I've stayed away from it.
It is mainly, but as I said, I would like my rules to work in both environments, there is no reason why it couldn't

To make doubles skill rolls an always take must have occasion.
True. That's a difference.

To make doubles skill rolls provide greater team individuality and diversity.
While I agree with the goal of more skill diversity, I'm not thrilled about the doubles angle as I don't want to hand the edge to the prolific coaches (beyond what they already get from growing their team). But I'm not that hung up on it. I just chose a different route. Making skills generally more equal or equally interesting would be interesting, but could quickly result in a huge overhaul, which I want to avoid.
[snip] (just repeating this bit) Yes something else I am totally against, making skills more equal all skills equal = boring game. Its like making all cards in magic equal. It would completely suck, I have specifically made skills better to make more skill interesting, like the old stand firm was (except without making it too good), I do not want Claw to becopme vanilla, I think you have taken it too far the other way now.

To maintain the tiers as they are meant to be.
Heh, it sounds so dogmatic. I do maintain the tiers as well. I'm not looking for total equlibrium. I don't even think it can be acchieved. Nor am I looking for hard numbers that will force me to make endless changes. I disagree, the changes you have made to your rosters look awefully like you have pushed all the teams together in to one tier (except stunties) I wanted to maintain the broarder spectrum.

To give the stunty teams more of a chance at a mid-higher Tv after being completely screwed over by the changes to the rules (not rosters) between lrb4 and 5. The thing that really hurt them the most is PO and how fouling is terrible in CRP.
Yay. I do this too! I buff fouling - especially for the cheap A-access players. I nerf the impact of PO - and stunties get the biggest break statistically. And I help them along with the roster buffs. Yup we agree here in principle. But your fouling buff just isn't good enough. +1 to av makes no difference (i am playing in 3 leagues with this rule, it still sucks), and the sneaky git change doesnt stop them being sent off. They just go to the Ko box now, where they still miss the rest of the drive. Also you have kept PO, the single stupidist thing about CRP and you have kept it RR injury, which means stunties will still be slaughtered with ease.


To make the bashing potential of teams more evenly spread between all the rosters instead of so heavily in favour of the CPOMB races, though still with a bigger advantage for the bash teams, and the brave mutation coaches.
I spread it it too. I lessen the impact of the CPOMB, and add a more generally available damage mechanism (buffed fouling and dedicated foulers (doubles guy with DP+SG)) In principal same target here yes. doesnt do it for me, players are still safest on the ground. All teams will still be pilling on all over the place, also sneaky git and PO just dont make sense!

To make staying prone a risky place to be instead of the safest place to be like it is in CRP.
Me too. Again, I think dedicated foulers will reappear. Also, standing up will be less dangerous, making the dirt nap comparatively not as spectacularly safe. again your fouling change isnt enough and the sneaky git part doesnt make sense.

To make taking big guys more cost effective.
Not a bad idea at all. But I'll restrain myself.

To make Mutation teams more varied as they are consistently described in the fluff in all editions of the game, instead of being one of the most one dimensional,
Again, a fine idea. As stated earlier, it would be cool if there were fewer must-have skills. But it would be a rather large overhaul.
On a side note, nerfing Claw specifically will hopefully make things slightly less monotonous.
I dont think it will, those teams might take claw and tentacles now, but they will not look beyond that because the others all stink

To add more of a tactical element to fouling and to bring it back to the overall game. CRP has always felt to me like positional play has become far less important in the wake of victory via attrition alone game mechanics.
Me too. Though I do hate the 'Game Within The Game: Hunt the DP'. But as I said I think dedicated foulers will be back.
And I do think that lessened killpower/attrition overall will make positional play more important.
I have also addressed the hunt the DP situation with the blatent foul skill, which also the addresses the foul at the start of the half and never again problem. This will mean people can get their 2+ 2+ fouls in like lrb4 but they will have a far higher chance of getting sent off, it is a deterent more than anything, to stop elves wrestling everyone all the time and leaping in to cages with ease etc, also you say you too feel that positional play has become less important, but there is no mechanic in your rules to stop elves throwing them selves in to cages every turn, leaping all over the place etc... nor is there any real reason not to Pile On every turn you can, and you actually got rif of the risky part of Pile On which was Pile On when the Av wasn't broken with the first hit which means people don't even have to consider the implication of going prone now.

anyway my answers are in red. But I think we have very different goals, or have achieved very different goals anyway.

I think this goes beyond loving the fluff.
But anyway - 3rd ed. had argue the call. This is the player being good at arguing the call. After repeated complaints he is eventually let back on.

Considering that this particular rule has gotten an unusually high ammount of thumbs-up, I think that would do just fine.
Cheers
Martin

yup argue the call stops a player being sent off. This is not arguing the call this is getting sent off then somehow getting back on to the pitch with help from a Babe?

[dode74]

this is getting sent off then somehow getting back on to the pitch with help from a Babe?

The way I see it is that the player sneaks (see what I did there) from the sin bin into the dugout, and the babe can help by distracting the ref. Failure to do so sees him try again at the next drive (hence the use of the KO box to indicate that he isn't permanently off the pitch).

[garion]

this is get
ting sent off then somehow getting back on to the pitch with help from a Babe?

The way I see it is that the player sneaks (see what I did there) from the sin bin into the dugout, and the babe can help by distracting the ref. Failure to do so sees him try again at the next drive (hence the use of the KO box to indicate that he isn't permanently off the pitch).

Lol. I was waiting for someone to say that. All I have to say about that is :facepalm: