Worst thrower in the game...

[sann0638]

I liked the title

[Stout Youngblood]

AG 2 is great...when compared to AG 1. Personally, I think the worst thrower in the game is the Goblin Troll. Don't know of other throwers that have to pass a Really Stupid and Always Hungry test just to throw a teammate with the ball.

[stashman]

The new Halfling Hefty

[harvestmouse]

I think what is confusing is that with an informative piece of writing you usually open with a 'topic sentence' (i.e. a sentence that tells the reader what the writing is about).

Would you like to see HMP on Slann

This is one of those things that gets lost down the years. The fluff behind the Slann (and why they don't have throwers) is that due to the shape of their hands; their throwing game is extremely poor. I'd argue that they shouldn't have P access even on doubles.

or Accurate on Amazon’s?

Now 'why' would a Zon get accurate? Because it describes their character? Because it's fitting for humans? Or because it adds an interesting skill that doesn't come with any other player?

This is the problem (for me) with the modern way of thinking when making rosters. The original rosters have a very distinct way of describing players. It's a Dwarf, how can we describe a Dwarf. Yes it does limit the variation of rosters as they start. For example the Lizardmen roster added no new skills. If GW released Lizardmen today, what barmy skills would they come with? Actually with what positionals too? (now that we see what they're doing to halflings).

So now what we are getting and what is expected is starting rosters to have exciting unused skills rather than trying to describe the team authentically to how they would play on the pitch compared to the original teams. For me this is wrong.

I really liked the changes made to the Dark Elf thrower to make him into a runner who has a clear place on the team and a fun trick that gives him and the team a unique feel and a different reason to reach for the range ruler.

No problem with the DE thrower changes (though why can't we keep both rosters? The old one is slightly inferior I guess, so did it need removing?) What bothers me is that we describe a runner positional (A player that has P access, is slightly faster due to having less armour than a thrower or lineman, but does not come with pass). However we then get the Norse runner that...........replaced the catcher and comes with A access. This confuses things and makes the already fairly useless Norse thrower...... totally useless. However the old Norse catcher was extremely useful in LRB4 at higher TR. I'm good with runners, as long as they're a definitive positional and on a team that tends not to throw, really makes sense.

which does suggest there is probably something that could be done better in the design of many of the throwers of some teams.

Or the throwing game maybe? I know Spubbbba once suggested combining pass and safe throw. Passing is certainly weaker than the running game in most cases. Or possibly bringing back pass/catch stats? I think throwers do need something.

The other thing I really hate the idea of is 'Leader carries' especially on progressive teams. It feels like cheating the TV system. I'd like to see a total change of the skill and make it a worthwhile skill instead of a way of getting a cheap reroll.

However if we look at that Halfling 'Hefty' I guess it's all out the window. An extra positional on stunty teams that were designed to not use positionals. A new positional name for name's sake. A positional and description that really doesn't fit the races description. Skills bolted on to make him more 'interesting' rather than to describe the positional. I guess this is the future of the game. So anything goes really....as long as you add something new. Can we call it the 'Plasmoid' effect?

[Mystic Force]

I liked your thoughtful post Harvestmouse. To me it strikes at what is at the heart of a game, and this game in particular. For me Bloodbowl is a sports simulation game with the rules inspired by a real world phenomena or abstractions there of as are most games . And if you trace back the history of Bloodbowl rules you actually see that evolution from sport inspired rules through a process which makes a tighter set of rules for the purpose of making a game that is better to play (NOT going to argue over what constitutes better but that was why the process existed)

Lets take one example, the skill Horns, originally (modern rules start at 3rd ed deal with it!) you needed to move at least one square to gain the additional ST bonus, that got eliminated. The rule was inspired by thinking of a real world mechanic, and eliminated to change the ingame effect. Overtime this way of game design from contemplate an archetype or situation has evolved to how does this play. i think both have advantages and disadvantages. I hear a lot of pushback against new skills, but without adding something here we have a more limited pallete to paint with. Not that I am advocating for a crazy proliferation. Skills generally break down to improve doing something(accurate, extra arms, block), ability to redo something (catch, surehands) , ignore tacklezones (stunty, Nerves of Steel), preform a unique action (leap, Chainsaw) or make something harder for someone else to do (foul appearance, wrestle, diving tackle). If you keep anything within that rough framework I dont think you can go too wrong, many skills have counters too.

I think that in general games have moved away from "fluff" based mechanics to "game" based mechanics simply because people will find certain ways to play that undermine some fluff based ideas ie barely anyone uses passing based stratergies as a primary method because statistacally its less reliable, even though the fluff talks about it a lot.

I will say from a making a team more varried to add intrest I like the new Halfling positionals, from a what is this meant to represent, I do not like the new positionals because Halflings should be a bunch of useless no hopers. However the existing in game mechanics detract from developing skilled halflings because of TV effeciency and inducements. You are penalised for wanting to make a better halfling, through grit and hard work. So in a way this option really just circumvents the inherantly flawed mechanic of TV which under no system will actually gaurunttee that two teams of the same TV are equally good, or restore parity between those two teams for a difference. Not that I am critizing TV, just to understand that its what we have, it has issues and it does not always do what we want but there is not anything else likely to do it right either. So in away we end up painted into a corner where we have to consider a series of choices each with a benefit and a downside. I think on the whole Bloodbowl does this well, because we start of aknowledging that its not fair.

I slightly fall on the side of variety over character but its a close call.

[plasmoid]

Hi Long_Bomb,
I don't think MA6 Orc Throwers would really achieve what you're trying to do.
It would just give the Orc team a runner. Much like the Thro-Ra.
But he wouldn't get taken for the passing. Unfortunately.

As I wrote on page 1, I think the problem with passing is far more fundamental than that. Just to reiterate:
1) Passing is risky.
2) BB is about time management (and stalling) over fancy/risky passing.
3) You may occasionally need a thrower, but passing requires so many skills that having the (often unused) option is too costly.
4) Most of the time, you want the ball on a blodger. Most throwers aren't blodgers - znd don't have A access.

I don't think this can be fixed by making (characterful) tweaks to individual throwers.
I think passing would basically have to be better, (and I've suggested how above).

Cheers
Martin

[Christy42]

I think people need to be clear on what they want. Aside from just pass more. Do we want Orc teams playing like elves (if they so wish)? Do we want to encourage shorter passes or longer passes? Do we want to affect Elven teams? What sort of drive do we see being planned?

Do we want Human/Amazon's sending a few targets forward and the thrower running to the half way line for the pass like elves do? Or is there a different type of throwing from them?

Do we want to encourage/discourage the handoff chain that Skaven and Elf teams do so well (from ag3 teams)?

Note I don't want to categorise any particular answers to the above questions as wrong. I just think they need to be answered one way or another before passing gets fixed.

I think Amazon's will be a great chance to try some things out as the roster needs redoing anyway.

[Heff]

About Zons. I feel that they are the perfect starting roster for a new player. This is a bit off topic but...
Absolutely average stat line
Can get all positionals in 1mil build (but the game will teach you you do not need the second thrower)
Universal dodge to let you re-position (but AG3 to teach you that this is not a safe bet by any means)
4 blodgers off the bat to teach you the beauty that is blodge (but AV7 to teach you the reality of losing players)
Cheap re rolls to give you stability
Players who can be developed differently, so you can go guard or killer with the blitzers, dedicated thrower or toolbox with the throwers, wrestle or block with the linos
but those players have definite roles and are not so good outside them Throwers throw, catchers catch, blitzers blitz, lino's die.
They can pass (but at AG3 you will learn not to)
And lastly, whatever you do they will die.

The other thing I know about zons is that they WILL be messed with. And we will then miss the uniqueness of a team that differentiates by skill use not stat line.

[plasmoid]

Yeah, I too hope that zons will not be changed.
When Norse and Zons were both cookie cutters, it was annoying.
But now it's just the the Zons - it's their thing. Don't mess with that