Talk Fantasy Football

Personally, I don't much miss the old Piling On.
But I get that there are people who do.
And I also get that a few teams might actually need Piling On.

So - I came up with a compromize. Any good?:
Piling On (Strength): The player may use this skill after they have made a block as part of a Block or Blitz action, but only if they are currently standing adjacent to the victim and the victim was kocked Down. You can re-roll the Armour roll or Injury roll - but if your player is Strength 4 or less, then this requires you to spend a team reroll. The Piling On player is Placed Prone...yadda yadda yadda

In a nutshell, ST5+ players use CRP piling on, ST4 or less players use GW piling on.

Cheers
Martin

The best direction for me. But not the ST5 or more. I imagine Chaos Warrior which roll a 12 for improvement and he's double awarded. First with +1strength and second for free access (no team re-roll) to piling on. Good for cheaters and a very rare killer for lucky players.

I was thinking about: You can use a team re-roll to re-roll the Armour roll or Injury roll except boneheads. They loved piling on so much that is natural move for them. If a player with Bonehead skill use piling on skill, you can re-roll the Armour or Injury roll without spend a team re-roll.

Hi all

What about something like the below:

Piling On (Strength): The player may use this skill after they have made a block as part of a Block or Blitz action, but only if they are currently standing adjacent to the victim and the victim was knocked Down. The player must roll a D6. If the total is equal to or higher than the players strength, they may re-roll the armour or injury roll etc. The Piling On player is Placed Prone regardless of whether this test was successful or not etc etc etc

So Ogres and pieces are more likely to get to use it, and the downside is you could end up on the floor with nothing to show for it.

I think you mean 'equal or less than their Strength', otherwise it's better for Snotlings than Ogres!

Pieta wrote:The best direction for me. But not the ST5 or more. I imagine Chaos Warrior which roll a 12 for improvement and he's double awarded.

Yeah but PO itself wasn't really a problem. It was the amount of it that could be spammed on a team with the claw and mighty blow combination. This is one player and would only have the combination at best after 4 skills and wouldn't have block. Correct me if I am wrong, but PO was never a problem in resurrection, only really online where large amounts of games are played.

I have always been an advocate of the ST5 thing (I may have come up with it). I also like the frenzy option too (pretty sure I came up with that). Both of which could bump weaker rosters and players.

Darkson wrote:I think you mean 'equal or less than their Strength', otherwise it's better for Snotlings than Ogres!

I know what I meant! Snotling power hour!

Twelfman wrote:What about something like the below:

Piling On (Strength): The player may use this skill after they have made a block as part of a Block or Blitz action, but only if they are currently standing adjacent to the victim and the victim was knocked Down. The player must roll a D6. If the total is equal to or higher than the players strength, they may re-roll the armour or injury roll etc. The Piling On player is Placed Prone regardless of whether this test was successful or not etc etc etc

So Ogres and pieces are more likely to get to use it, and the downside is you could end up on the floor with nothing to show for it.

I don't really miss Piling On, but I have disliked almost all of the proposed fixes I've seen, as they seem clunky or introduce new rules concepts we haven't seen in Blood Bowl. It's astonishing to me how logical and simple this fix is. I'd love to see this playtested and made official if it ends up feeling balanced.

A d6 roll based on ST is basically the balance method of Loner, Bone-head and Jump Up, which adds additional balance rolls to the game, steadily complicating it with in-between-actions rolls, which is not optimal.
Furthermore the actual problem is not PO itself.
If the argument would be that PO is so devastating that it needs balancing, then you actually would have to nerf MB into the ground. As both skills are fairly similar in damage. In fact, one could argue MB does more damage than PO. And most coaches probably agree as they pick MB consistently over PO.
But the problem is that coaches add PO to MB, which is basically doubling a player's damage output, which is the actual/assumed problem, not PO itself. It's just the skill that was convenient to cut. (i.e. it is a combination, not a skill, that creates the problem).

And if you want to address that problem: giving players better access to PO the higher their ST, is probably the wrong approach. As it basically adds Clawpomb back into the game, except for players with low ST, and if it's the other way round, PO is not very interesting again and players are reduced to Claw/MB again as they are right now.

Not sure what is logical or simple about it. EDIT: In hindsight it occurred to me that he probably meant “logical fluff-wise, i.e. high ST is better at piling on”. Which I'm personally not agreeing with as fluff dictating game mechanics may be neat but it rarely works, and rarely results in good mechanics.

Also PO is an interesting design. It challenges coaches to make a choice. In opposite to MB which is pure and simple spam. But for some reason there is the common consent that the problematic skill in MB/Claw/PO is PO. Probably because there is also a common consent to rather use MB than PO (the skill that few people are missing). I'm not sure of the integrity here.

Otherwise,
The whole point of the compromise seems to be to allow Ogre teams to use PO again. In which case the „bone-head“ suggestion is better than the one based on ST. Then again, if that is the intention, you could also simply create a special team rule and say that Ogres playing on Ogre teams are allowed to use PO without TRR (and not also Ogres on Human teams, Chaos Pact or Kroxigors etc.).
Honestly, if that is the intention, there is no reason to beat around the bush. Besides it can be argued if many other ST5 players even need PO (Wild Animal, Treeman, Prehensile Tail, Tentacle, Guard), most are better left on their feet.

I'm also not sure if allowing ST5/bone-head/Ogre players to use PO again, is actually a compromise, or rather a hot fix for one of the holes the removal of PO created.
Which may actually be the real issue.

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.

@Wifflebat: Yeah maybe you are right. If you're going to make something too complex or not really in the feel of the other rules, it probably is better to remove it. However this is a trend that happens with player removal skills, due to how unpopular player removal is to coaches having their players removed! We lost RSC as an example. However examples of work arounds are also present. Fouling and claw being examples.

Claw is a situation where the rule now is quite ugly (in that it isn't very realistic) but works very well. I think even a purist like me can turn a blind eye to a workaround like this.

@Dode: The biggest problem I see with that, is it could make killers more 1 dimensional. E.g. you forego block and head straight to tackle. If your player is on the floor, no need for block anyway. So the clawpomb spam teams may not put block on beastmen at all. 1 of the problems with lrb5 onwards compared to lrb4 (which I think we can say is a fairly big change in direction) is less variety of build in progression teams. Obviously, this is speculation.

@JPB Yeah but yeah but. POMB isn't really a problem. Player removal is a part of the game and an essential part of the game. And POMB by itself, isn't overly bloodthirsty. There should be players on the field that specialize in ****ing your star up. The only real problems with POMB as a combo are

(1) that it's rather 1 dimensional (all teams that have S access guys (particularly blitzers)) tend to make a POMB tackle player, if not 2 or 3. This leads (or lead to) similarly or identical players appearing on most teams.

(2) the lack of a counter. Fouling under LRB4, would be perfect "Oh why sir, I do feel obliged to kick you in the teeth, since you so conveniently placed yourself on the floor". However under lrb5 onward, it simply doesn't work well enough or cheaply enough, especially for teams that hurt from being POMBed the most. Fend isn't a good argument, as it's not as good at defending as POMB is in removing. So the more fend you have the higher your tv and the more pomb you'll face.

The problem is CPOMB and the lack of counter and the amount it is possible to spam CPOMB. How it works (or should work) even that isn't so much of a problem. Chaos after all should be the rosters that specialize in killing your players. They really should have combos like this. The problem is the amount you face in a game and the games after. If you're a high elven prince commanding a team of glorious silver armoured, feathered plumed adoniseseses. You wouldn't expect to come across a chaos team very often (in the imaginary world of Blood Bowl). They ain't that common around Ulthuan and your boys aren't that keen on foreign food. However in the online match making environments where you cannot choose your opponent they are.......common very very very very common. And that's the problem. The imaginary world and the internet world are unfortunately different.

You will regularly come up against chaos type rosters that have 3 CPOMB players or more (and others that building the parts). Whats more they maybe quite cost effective. Possibly only having a ball carrier and kicker outside of fodder and CPMB.

That's where the problem lies with the PO skill. Looking at it as an individual skill you're right. It isn't as much as a problem as MB. However facing a spam of it with a skill that pisses all over your armour with no counter all game long and facing it game after game simply breaks the game of its potential and long term balance.

@Dode: The biggest problem I see with that, is it could make killers more 1 dimensional. E.g. you forego block and head straight to tackle. If your player is on the floor, no need for block anyway. So the clawpomb spam teams may not put block on beastmen at all. 1 of the problems with lrb5 onwards compared to lrb4 (which I think we can say is a fairly big change in direction) is less variety of build in progression teams. Obviously, this is speculation.

Not sure why you'd do that: Tackle doesn't make a DS into a DD result, it simply prevents use of Dodge to stop a Knocked Down. You're also less likely to be able to be on the floor (since you're less likely to be able to use PO), so Block would be a solid defensive skill for when PO isn't an option.

It's worth noting I'd like to see a change to Horns as well to make it less powerful as a spammed skill: the ability to get a 2d Blitz with anyone on your team is pretty strong. Personally I would force a follow-up (think Frenzy without the second block) for starters and consider requiring at least one square of movement (as per old Horns) if needed. *That* would nerf your killer beastmen.

Maybe true.

Or go back to LRB4 horns where you needed momentum.

That might be the better solution (and is what I meant by "old Horns"), making basing those killers potentially (not always, obvs!) advantageous since they would need to dodge to use horns.

@harvestmouse:
My post was actually about pointing out that when the problem is a combination of skills, you can't just pick one of those skills and declare it the problem. As you said in the last paragraph: individually MB and PO are equal, but then you continue saying the problem is the PO spam with a skill (which skill? MB or the armour re-roll of PO?) pissing over your armour, and the lack of a counter for it.
Why PO spam (if I did read that correctly)? Why not MB spam? I mean where do you see the difference regarding spam, counter or damage between MB & PO? The only difference I see is that PO has a counter (Fend), MB doesn't (except +1AV), MB spam works a lot better than PO spam, both do equal damage (PO is a few points better) and PO has a drawback (placed prone), MB doesn't? So why is it PO pissing over the armour and ruining the balance? But not MB?
And I assume you do suggest a PO nerf. In your first post you supported the „PO needs a TRR unless the player has ST 5+“ idea. I'm just not sure, as you also said „player removal is part of the game and PO/MB isn't overly bloodthirsty”. Which seems odd as the PO/TRR version basically removes PO.
Not sure what your position is really. (except maybe too many players have MB/PO? But then shouldn't you suggest a team or turn limitation? Like only one player per turn may use PO, or only two player per team may pick PO?)

And to your two points:
(1) Everything in BB is one-dimensional. It's always Block, Dodge, Guard etc. BB is a game in which certain skills are much more better than others, and consequently more regularly selected. Why do you consider this a specific problem of MB/PO? Aren't all players in BB always identical? Isn't this a more general and complex problem of the skill system? Besides Guard is competing with MB/PO. And if PO is gone, or nerfed, will it not only result in the players spamming MB/Guard instead?
(The only case of diversity I ever seen was my brother who insisted on giving Break Tackle to all his Black Orcs and was then determined to move all of them every turn. Which was amazing to watch, but who does that outside of a fun league?)
I think you are touching here on a problem that is not MB/PO but a general problem of BB since 1993. There simply is no diversity, and there basically never was.

(2) A counter is not getting knocked down (Blodge). And a successful Clomb player would need not only the combo but also a good block chance, and would have to pick: Block, Frenzy, Claw, Piling On, Mighty Blow which is an almost fully maxed player (5 of 6 skills). And what you need in counter is Wrestle, Dodge, Fend. That's 100k in TV vs 60k in TV. How do conclude the „can't afford Fend“ argument?
And if the player has only Claw, Mighty Blow, Piling On, I don't see that player having much success. Besides, it would still equal the cost of a Wrestle, Dodge & Fend player. (60k vs 60k). And the Wrodge, Fend player is arguably a lot more versatile.
And the rest is just positioning and clever marking. Those Clomb players are not going to dodge a lot.
Why does this counter not work? I always use Blodge, Dauntless players to annoy Big Guys. Why can't you do the same with Clomb or MB/PO? Fend should beat Frenzy/PO on all fronts really.

I thought I made my position pretty clear............but hey ho easier for the author to read the intention.

Spamming POMB isn't really a problem. Not enough of a problem to warrant doing something about it anyway. The problem is Claw + POMB as a spammed combo, and the fact that the damage tends to come up with end of the move i.e. the Pile Oning and the lack of counter for that. Therefore if you are going to approach the problem by affecting one of those skills, PO is the right skill to address. It doesn't matter if MB as an individual skill is more damaging, none of the individual skills are the problem.

It would be nice to have Fend of course. However it adds to your TV. The more TV you have, the more likely you are to face a better team in match made arenas and the less money you will earn to replace injured and dead players. In this environment Fend hasn't proven to be cost effective for most rosters. It is also a skill you are taking to counter a combo, what if you don't face that combo? I don't think you'll find many good coaches who understand team management who will advocate using much fend. So should fend be cheaper in TV in certain environments?

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.