Piling On compromize

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

Moderator: TFF Mods

koadah
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by koadah »

harvestmouse wrote:...Which is the other problem is that we have distinctly different formats we play. Resurrection, closed short leagues, progressive match finders, long term progressive league and progressive match makers. All of which are using the same rules. This feels a bit daft. Sure the in game rules should be the same, but some of the formats are so vastly different they should have bespoke conditions.....rather than everybody playing with the same out of game ruleset that ends up being a compromise.
+1

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by Darkson »

harvestmouse wrote:...Which is the other problem is that we have distinctly different formats we play. Resurrection, closed short leagues, progressive match finders, long term progressive league and progressive match makers. All of which are using the same rules. This feels a bit daft. Sure the in game rules should be the same, but some of the formats are so vastly different they should have bespoke conditions.....rather than everybody playing with the same out of game ruleset that ends up being a compromise.
+2

And let's be honest here, the formats where Clawpomb might be a problem (I say might because all the data shown has not shown Clawpomb teams win more than they should), such as Fumbbl and Cyanide, are not the formats the rules were written for - I've yet to see a TT league where you can play one of 100s/1000s of opponents, often with no end goal in sight.
Those formats should be pushing for a 'house rule' that works for their "league", rather than blindly following rules written for TT leagues for say 20 people playing one or two games a week, as is allowed by the rules.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
User avatar
JPB
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:17 am

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by JPB »

@harvestmouse
I see, there were just some mixed messages.

Still, if you don't mind PO/MB, as you said it's fine, why do you support a PO nerf to nerf Clomb? (You called PO the skill to address). That nerfs MB/PO too. Isn't that a contradiction? From that angle (i.e. MB/PO is fine, Clomb isn't) you would have to nerf Claw.

And the argument that it's the last skill of the combo and that there is no counter are actually arbitrary and situational, e.g. it can be any of the three skills that is “the last” it's only a matter of how you look at it. Mathematically it's the total that matters, not the order of adding. Even more so, as you've pointed out, the problem is Clomb (Claw) not MB/PO. And the Fend counter not working is apparently not a counter problem but this twisted TV problem of shaping, inducements and min/maxing, which has basically everything in a knot and a conundrum. And which just blows my mind sometimes. And if that is the case, I would say Clomb isn't even the problem but the TV system and the ability of a coach (or even necessity) to stop team progress to get an edge.
As I pointed out the Fend player should win out against a Clomb player. Or to put it differently the skill and counter system is actually fine it only can't apply as Fend is not considered being worth 20k. Perhaps, as you've said, Fend only needs to be cheaper, rather than nerfing Clomb, or the TV system needs an overhaul.

Considering that there are more complex and complicated issues at work (TV, different formats) it seems a bit odd that “PO requires a TRR to re-roll armour” is the solution or point of contestant. Feels off to me.

I'm not even sure Clomb is actually a problem, I only look at it from that angle that 58% off-pitch and 27% casualty seem to high and the system should cap at circa 50% and 20% (roughly a straight injury roll). And then I got intrigued by the idea to give skills more clearly defined roles. However, that's more of a system concept, than a Clomb discussion (it only plays into it).

And I really don't like this nerfing and rewriting of PO, which makes no sense to me.

P.S. And this “format” point may be actually taking it too far, as it's actually not different formats, but the same format at different points or in different circumstances, but it is the same campaign format. The boardgame just never gets there (and neglected it). The only different format are one-off games (tournaments) and they should have less problems (or they develop team selection systems to deal with them). It really is for the most part a problem of the campaign (league) format. (And basically since 1993, in one form or another). I'm also not convinced of the idea to “balance campaign”. Always struck me as a bit of a contradiction, if not impossible.
dode74 wrote:IF you want an "elegant" solution with an amount of randomness involved then the "POW only" option resolves that. "PO may only be used if one of the Block dice is a POW result". Advantageous to higher ST, also advantageous to good positioning and lots of assists (and works well with guard on the team), you have some control over the odds of when you get to use it, and no extra dice rolls required. It's one I'd like to see tested.
This concept does sound interesting (encouraging to set up 3D blocks etc.). However, to get a „pow“ is never better than 42.13% (3D block, should be 91 of 216 posibilities), which is roughly a 4+. And a 2D block is 30.556% (a 5+).
Isn't that a rather hard nerf of PO? It's basically a (covered up) “needs to roll a 4+ to be used”, but most of the times it will be a 5+.
Not sure how team re-rolls play into it. Normally a successful block isn't re-rolled, but a player without Block/Tackle (Ogre) may re-roll the block regularly and get up to (66,51% (I think?), about a 3+). However, I'm not sure how sustainable that is, and 42.13% is probably the max.
EDIT: It has been pointed out that I've made a mistake here. Math is not really my strength. I usually get there but I usually have to make a mistake first, too.
In this case I needed to compare it to the block chance. So a 3D and 2D block is basically both a 4+ on a D6 (as pointed out below), but the actual advantage is to increase the chance of using PO from 30.556% (2D) to 42.13% (3D). I think that should be correct now, I hope.

Reason: ''
koadah
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by koadah »

I would have liked to try "PO and claw cannot be taken on the same player."

I don't think that inconveniences anyone else too much.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by dode74 »

JPB wrote:This concept does sound interesting (encouraging to set up 3D blocks etc.). However, to get a „pow“ is never better than 42.13% (3D block, should be 91 of 216 posibilities), which is roughly a 4+. And a 2D block is 30.556% (a 5+).
Isn't that a rather hard nerf of PO? It's basically a (covered up) “needs to roll a 4+ to be used”, but most of the times it will be a 5+.
Not sure how team re-rolls play into it. Normally a successful block isn't re-rolled, but a player without Block/Tackle (Ogre) may re-roll the block regularly and get up to (66,51% (I think?), about a 3+). However, I'm not sure how sustainable that is, and 42.13% is probably the max.
Well, to get to use PO in LRB6 you needed a DS or DD result which was 55.556% for a 2D block; with BD an option (which is relatively rare as most players will have Block) it's 62.889%. The reduction from that to 30.556% is down to 55% usage (i.e. you get to use it 55% of the time you otherwise would have) without the BD and 47.82% with the BD, which is almost equivalent to your 4+ roll.
Similarly for a 3D block it's 70.37% to get a DS or DD (87.5% with BD). DD only is 42.13%, which is still 59% usagefor DS/DD and a 48% usage for DS/DD/BD. Still almost the same as your 4+ roll.

Reason: ''
harvestmouse
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by harvestmouse »

Darkson wrote: And let's be honest here, the formats where Clawpomb might be a problem (I say might because all the data shown has not shown Clawpomb teams win more than they should), such as Fumbbl and Cyanide, are not the formats the rules were written for - I've yet to see a TT league where you can play one of 100s/1000s of opponents, often with no end goal in sight.
Those formats should be pushing for a 'house rule' that works for their "league", rather than blindly following rules written for TT leagues for say 20 people playing one or two games a week, as is allowed by the rules.
I fully agree. TT shouldn't suffer for an online problem. There was nothing wrong with the PO rules for resurrection or short progression leagues. Having the rule changed removes an aspect of the game for no reason.

I'd also agree that CPOMB teams win rate probably isn't too far out of line. The problems are that a. Winning with CPOMB is less skill biased. b. The long term and continual effect it has on teams damage and recovery. c. The amount of CPOMB you will find. d. Turns games into what is referred to as a 'coin toss' game. i.e. winning the coin toss to some extent determines the outcome of the game. e. How enjoyable these games become (that being not).

The problem with house ruling is how it's perceived. A lot of coaches really dislike house ruling. Also with house ruling is that it's not universal. One site has one rule, another site something different. Both of these are unappealing to the general punter. However if the powers in charged made the decisions for say 3 environments; non-progression, closed divisional leagues, open perpetual. That would help out a lot.

Ok JPB
JPB wrote:Still, if you don't mind PO/MB, as you said it's fine,
Steady there JPB. I speak in a wonderful array of colours, not just black and white. I dislike POMB. I dislike it because of the conveyor belt of POMB/tackle blitzers being reproduced on a mass production level. I dislike the bias of player removal by one player type and I dislike it because there's little thought put into whether or not to leave your 10 spp per game blitzer prone or not. Pre-LRB 5 fouling was so powerful you'd really think twice about it and whether you could protect your blitzer. Now there's little thought gone into it.

What I said was there's little broken about the combo. It doesn't break the game. Therefore my opinion on the combo isn't relevant to game balance.
JPB wrote:why do you support a PO nerf to nerf Clomb? (You called PO the skill to address). That nerfs MB/PO too. Isn't that a contradiction? From that angle (i.e. MB/PO is fine, Clomb isn't) you would have to nerf Claw.
Hmmmmm I don't know you and I see you are a very recent joiner. I am wondering how much experience you have with online perpetual gaming. Without knowing the environments and lets be fair it is Cyanide and FUMBBL where this is a problem; I really don't think you can understand the issue. I feel you don't understand the issue and are looking too much into damage percentages.

The fluff behind chaos rosters is that they are the most damage inflicting rosters. So much so that some famous teams care so little about the ball, they spend more time hurting players than scoring. In this sense CPOMB is doing the job how the fluff describes.

Another point is that chaos rosters have already had a severe damage nerf. Pre lrb5 they had more powerful claw and a skill called Razor Sharp Claws (RSC). This as a combo gave you 2+ on the armour (any armour value) and 2+ on the injury roll. This is more powerful than CPOMB and yes was a problem. The difference being that both of these were double rolls for the chaos rosters. This meant you tended to see less of them. It also meant (and something that lrb5 onward changed) that the luckier you were with rolling doubles or the more games you played to recycle players, the more you would see these players.

So claw was reworked. And reworked claw works beautifully (although a bit of a fluff sore). So with claw already reworked and working from a mechanical point of view, very well why would you pick on claw because of its effect on a combo.

Affecting or removing PO has less of an effect on the game that tinkering with Claw or MB. It really is only put on one type of player. That being the player tasked with having no balling duties and simply there to remove other players. MB is a massively important skill. It comes as standard on most big guys. You tinker with that, you tinker with a whole player type. The more you tinker, the more you are predicting what will happen in gaming environments. Stats do not tell the whole story of coach morale regarding the gaming environment. You simply cannot solve issues like these by not knowing them and looking at figures.
JPB wrote: And the Fend counter not working is apparently not a counter problem
I'm really not going to get into the 'Fend' debate more than I have. However if you wish to I suggest you go to FUMBBL and start a 'Why not take fend to combat cpomb' thread. You will get a lot of replies by coaches with 1000s of games of experience of working in a CPOMB environment.
JPB wrote: but this twisted TV problem of shaping, inducements and min/maxing, which has basically everything in a knot and a conundrum.
Yes and no. Which takes us back to my points made to Darkson. How about Fend costing 0TV in a perpetual match maker division? I wonder what affect that would have? For me min/maxing from lrb5 onward in progression is much more of a problem than CPOMB, but that's me.

However CPOMB isn't just about minmaxing (and actually FUMBBL has combated that to an extent. It also suits the most powerful teams too, possibly even better. Add to the fact that inducements were never meant to be an equalizer and that more 'artful' teams that reach a high TV tend to be 'pruned' by high TV CPOMB teams means that they dominate at high TV. Not by win percentage, but by attrition. You may reach high TV and beat a CPOMB team. However could you keep doing it? No, because you won't have a team left to do that.

This adds another problem. Recycling of teams. Teams other than those that can sustain a TV tend to be recycled. It's easier to start with a new team, that shoots up and reaches a point and then is retired. Or a treading water problem. Where teams find a happy TV area. Here they tread water, avoiding the worst of min maxing but also avoiding the worst in multiple CPOMB rosters. Finding a TV niche and sitting there. The fact an environment forces this sort of gaming is a real problem for me.
JPB wrote: And if that is the case, I would say Clomb isn't even the problem but the TV system and the ability of a coach (or even necessity) to stop team progress to get an edge.
TV is a system that was (for me) primarily developed for TT resurrection or limited progression environment. In those environments it works exceptionally well and shouldn't be touched. However some of the online divisions are totally different animals. Again see my earlier points. Handicapping again. It is perfect in some environments but less than perfect in others. Why in a divisional league would a team with less TV (but maintaining it) top of the division get a handicap vs the bottom team with a higher TV? To award the top coach on his management skill? That goes against the premise of handicapping. Again this is an environment (for me) that needs a certain degree of bespoking.
JPB wrote: Considering that there are more complex and complicated issues at work
Yes it is very complex. Changing one thing has an effect on other things. Not just figures, but coaches. How they will behave and feel with changes. Therefore the less you change, the less likely you'll muck things up.
JPB wrote:And I really don't like this nerfing and rewriting of PO, which makes no sense to me.
I think a lot would agree. Possibly it's a shame. Certainly not how I would deal with it either. However it's simple and in a world where we are now. With GW taking back the reigns but with less experience than 1000s of coaches out there. Small changes that aren't going to come back and bite you, are probably better than massively overhauling a system that........could have an array of effects you cannot predict.
JPB wrote:And this “format” point may be actually taking it too far, as it's actually not different formats, but the same format at different points or in different circumstances, but it is the same campaign format. The boardgame just never gets there (and neglected it). The only different format are one-off games (tournaments) and they should have less problems (or they develop team selection systems to deal with them). It really is for the most part a problem of the campaign (league) format. (And basically since 1993, in one form or another). I'm also not convinced of the idea to “balance campaign”. Always struck me as a bit of a contradiction, if not impossible.
The in game format is the same (and therefore the rules for in game should be the same). Yeah outside of the game there are 2 formats; progression and resurrection. Further to this there are different divisions (particularly in progression). Team management is different depending on the division or format. CPOMB is spammed differently depending on the format/division. I think you can break it down like this:


1. Resurrection. TV works well in resurrection and shouldn't be touched. CPOMB is very rare and usually impossible.

2. Short term progression leagues with an end goal. TV/Inducements work well here. CPOMB is possible but not to the degree it will have an adverse effect.

3. Long term leagues with divisions. TV breaks down to a certain extent (for me here). However minmaxing isn't too much of a problem due to your opponent not being chosen by TV. Inducements don't work well for me (as described above). CPOMB could be a problem, but commissioners can place limits on how many of each race participate.

4. Perpetual open environment where you choose your opponent. CPOMB outside of closed competitions isn't too much of a problem (as you can simply choose not to play them). However coach behaviour follows sheep like patterns. If one coach finds a way of gaming the system, others will follow. Games are suggested via TV, therefore being competitive for your TV is optimum. The environment can lead to a wolves and sheep division.

5. Perpetual environment where matches are chosen by a match maker. Cyanide has one. FUMBBL has one. The premise behind the idea is honest. You don't choose your opponent and you have a fair match up. However the criteria on how the matches are chosen can be gamed. You have no way of refusing a game, therefore you face what is put before you. Here without adjusting the match maker to be biased CPOMB is a massive problem. Minmaxing is a massive problem.

And really the crux of it is number 5. This type of division highlights the fundamental problems of spammed CPOMB. Now if it was say.........1 turning. You wouldn't here so much about it. You get 1 turned to death and move on (with your team). However with CPOMB there's a stark reminder for you next game (your fallen comrades). And if you get spammed CPOMB again? Another reminder. And again? Well how long until you give up or join the CPOMB ranks? Not long for most.

Reason: ''
harvestmouse
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by harvestmouse »

2 threads discussing the same problem by the same author? That's a little confusing particularly as both threads are bound to spiral way out of the original idea.

AFAIK I was the first to come up with the ST5 scenario. (I may not have been, but on FUMBBL where the problem first arose I was). I also added the frenzy option too.

Fluff

To perform a pile on move takes great strength or momentum. Therefore only players of ST5 + or those frenzy may take pile on. Frenzy players may only pile on, on the second block of a frenzy move.

PLUS POINTS

*Buff (by nerfing others) to big guys.
*Give Khorne linmen S access and then you make the Khorne roster more in line with its fluff.
*More thought and skill goes into piling on for frenzy players (do I take the pow or the push on the first hit?)

NEGATIVE POINTS

*Correcting fluff by first correcting rules.
*Goes against LRB5 onward thinking by rewarding lucky rolls or by being able to play a large amount of games.
*Gives some rosters an edge over others.

For me I think far too many changes were made for LRB 5. Pile on being one. Far better would have been an LRB 4.5 environment (IMO) and take it from there. I feel perpetual gaming is inferior now, than it was in LRB 4, but with some major improvements to individual mechanics. Inducements and Journey Men being massive improvements for example.

One of the big changes that hurts this type of rule change is to remove lucky rolls and being able to play large amount of games to give major advantages over those that can't. For example the removal of traits. If you were to go with this type of rule change, it's more of an LRB 4 and earlier way of thinking rather than the more modern (everything being available) style.

Reason: ''
User avatar
frogboy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: South Wales

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by frogboy »

Just some quick ideas...

How about improving Fouling, Dirty Player and Sneaky Git rules, allowing people to stick the boot into them "pesky" Piling On players?

Or make them Stunned after Piling On?

New Skills?

Trample - a player with this skill is able to move across a player which is either Prone or Stunned. Make an Armour Roll for the Downed player. [General Skill access]

Extra Stompie Boots - A player with a set of these boots may add 1 to the Armour or Injury dice roll when using the Foul action or Trample skills.

Reason: ''
I'm a British Freebooter, will play for any team including Undead (I have my own Apothecary). Good rates.
harvestmouse
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by harvestmouse »

Well fouling/dirty player was nerfed for LRB 5 onward. It probably did need nerfing, but maybe not as much as it was nerfed.

Attrition in CRP is/was more than LRB 4 right? So what would upping fouling do?

Would POMBers be more careful? Certainly not at first, so early stats would be different to stats 2 years down the line.

Overall though, attrition would be too high? Tough to call, but probably.


Another idea would be to affect the match made divisions

"Travelling is to Blood Bowl games is extremely expensive. So to save on travelling funds 50% of games are played in your home or surrounding area." E.g. Chaos teams play in the chaotic wastes. Humans play in the old world. Elves play in and around the North West. Lustrian teams play in Lustria.

PROs
Chaos teams deal with each other to a certain degree.
Fluff is fine.
Scissor teams (that tend not to do well at high TV) have a perfect environment.

CONs
Coaches dislike mirror matching (never really understood this one).
It allows for a certain amount of 'elf balling' which would open a whole new kettle of problems.

Reason: ''
User avatar
frogboy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: South Wales

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by frogboy »

Well you will certainly know the numbers better than me.

Yes the idea is to make them more careful.

Im not a fan of mirror matches either, i dont like this idea, but i do like trying to think outside the box. Regional games would be good if all teams were included but with different benifits, but not thinking about Piling On now. But this is probally covered in some way by the stadium rules.

I'd rather see Ogres improved in some way, more positionals, better range of Star Players.

Another thing i was thinking of, as a kind of deterent. For Fouling and Piling On could be the winnings...

Something like, roll a dice everytime your oppenent caused a casualty in the game from either Foul Actions or Piling On. For each roll of a (insert number here) reduce opponents winnings by 10k and add 10k to your own winnings

Reason: ''
I'm a British Freebooter, will play for any team including Undead (I have my own Apothecary). Good rates.
Mystic Force
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:30 am
Location: The Colonies

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by Mystic Force »

I like to tackle these topics by asking the opposite question to tease out some meaningful information which helps progress the conversation.

1) Why do we need CPOMB?

2) Why do we need PO?

Namely what is the positive reason for these things to exist. If no one can voice a good reason for the necessity, but instead falls back on "Because it is allowed" then generally I believe there is a problem to be solved.

I think changing of rules to make an activity enjoyable and entertaining is entirely reasonable. This is why the shot clock exists in Basketball and offside in football (soccer). I am convinced that the problem is mostly confined to a certain environment, namely one that GW does not support, so it is not really their problem and therefore unlikely to be fix.

Reason: ''
I am a pro "fun" guy.
User avatar
frogboy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: South Wales

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by frogboy »

It exists so Orcs/Dwarfs dont get too strong.

Reason: ''
I'm a British Freebooter, will play for any team including Undead (I have my own Apothecary). Good rates.
harvestmouse
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by harvestmouse »

1) Why do we need CPOMB?

The fluff behind Chaos is that they are all about the killing and less about the balling. Blood for the blood god Bowl for the...wait we don't have a ball god! Chaos rosters niche should be about clearing the field first, then strolling the ball in. This is their niche.

2) Why do we need PO?

Variance? The more variance we have. The more a coach has to consider. The more he has to weigh up, the more he has to counter. This adds more layers to the game....as long as the skill isn't too powerful. Is PO too powerful? No it isn't.

As Frogboy said in lrb4 the durable S access rosters were a bit too strong. (Dwarfs, CDs and Orcs). In LRB 5 there was a change to claw. Nerfed in that it only worked on AV8 and above however it became regular access for chaos, chaos 'pact' (edited) and nurgle rather than double access. This meant the fortunes of Dwarfs and Orcs plummeted substantially. The fact that few enjoyed playing against the bore 1-0 or bore draw against these 2 rosters meant there was little sympathy. ***k those T8 score Dwarfs.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by dode74 »

harvestmouse wrote:2) Why do we need PO?

Variance? The more variance we have. The more a coach has to consider. The more he has to weigh up, the more he has to counter. This adds more layers to the game....as long as the skill isn't too powerful. Is PO too powerful? No it isn't.
I have to disagree here. Too much variance removes agency: it takes away from what the coach can and cannot control and that is arguably less fun. I'm not arguing for chess-bowl - certainly some randomness is part of the fun! - but there is a point where the randomness is too much. I agree PO isn't too powerful in that it doesn't create, on average excessive casualties. What it does is create a wide variance in the casualties such that some games have almost none and the lack of effect makes it a whitewash for the opponent, and some games are a teamwipe - neither one of those is particularly fun.

Reason: ''
User avatar
frogboy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: South Wales

Re: Piling On compromize

Post by frogboy »

dode74 wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:2) Why do we need PO?

Variance? The more variance we have. The more a coach has to consider. The more he has to weigh up, the more he has to counter. This adds more layers to the game....as long as the skill isn't too powerful. Is PO too powerful? No it isn't.
I have to disagree here. Too much variance removes agency: it takes away from what the coach can and cannot control and that is arguably less fun. I'm not arguing for chess-bowl - certainly some randomness is part of the fun! - but there is a point where the randomness is too much. I agree PO isn't too powerful in that it doesn't create, on average excessive casualties. What it does is create a wide variance in the casualties such that some games have almost none and the lack of effect makes it a whitewash for the opponent, and some games are a teamwipe - neither one of those is particularly fun.
I have to disagree with your disagreement...

Playing against bashy teams requires more thought on how to play. I'm not just talking about your avarage coach using Orcs for the first time but if your playing that coach who has built up a propper hurty team.

For example... Normal tactics dont work against it, you might screen off the ball and cage up, but if the bashy coach is not going for the ball the whats the point? Your five players down already with a cage whilst you oppenents rubbing hands together maximumising them 3 die blocks.
Same as stalling, leaving half your team protecting a ball for 5 turns whilst the other half of your team is overwhelmed.

Just saying, piling on dont kill people, rappers do... No wait thats wrong? Anyway just a thought, carry on :orc:

Reason: ''
I'm a British Freebooter, will play for any team including Undead (I have my own Apothecary). Good rates.
Post Reply