What if you couldn't buy team re-rolls?

stone · Post by **stone** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 6:50 am

Zombie wrote:One of the reasons i like Blood Bowl is that, even though it's a strategy game with an element of chance, even that chance can be managed strategically with the proper use of rerolls. This reduces the amount of chance, and increases the proportion of strategy.

I agree with you Zombie. I think BB would became more of a luck-game than a strategy-game. And at least for me, it is the strategy-part that I like the game. There is always chances that you take, but with TRRs you can control (to some degree) those chances.

Also, I think people would probably choose more of those skills that bring a personal reroll.

A

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 6:56 am

Zombie wrote:One of the reasons i like Blood Bowl is that, even though it's a strategy game with an element of chance, even that chance can be managed strategically with the proper use of rerolls. This reduces the amount of chance, and increases the proportion of strategy.

Well said that man. Rerolls act as a buffer between bad dice and coaching skill. Without rerolls the scope for skill in the game would be much, much lower.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:10 am

TRR's are an excellent concept. The idea isn't good. However, contrary to some people, I'd like to encourage creative thinking and ideas such as these (instead of saying "don't change anything"). You never know, some day someone might develop something that makes BB a lot better game. But this idea should be shot down... or shot on the ground, rather, as it really lacks wings to use for flying.

TRR's developing a bit like FF might be a good idea... but on the other hand, that development cannot be tied to the success of the team because TRR's have such a huge statistical impact and it would make good teams even better and bad teams even worse. On the other hand, should the odds of increasing TRR's be bought with money, why to change the current system, which eliminates the chance of wasting money when buying rerolls.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:35 am

Mestari wrote:TRR's are an excellent concept. The idea isn't good. However, contrary to some people, I'd like to encourage creative thinking and ideas such as these (instead of saying "don't change anything").

Erm, hang on a second. I believe the question was "what do you think the game would be like".

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:43 pm

I don't like the idea of not being able to purchase rerolls over the course of a season.

Its a even bigger advantage for teams with low TRR cost and/or cheap linemen. An undead team with 6 TRRs, 9FF and still have enough money left for a few positional players (with zombies filling the gaps)

It reduces choice and freedom. This is a bad thing as interesting choices e.g. buy a big guy or another TRR - make for interesting games and team development.

It increases the importance of initial team selection. I don't think this is a good thing because over the course of a season you can correct most perceived errors through purchases - this means players are more likely to want to throw teams away rather than developing them.

my tuppence anway

Ian

Furelli · Post by **Furelli** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:46 pm

The thing that is intriging me is the number of bizarre ides that Neo is coming up with in the middle of the rules review. Is he using this place as a sounding board for the more wacky changes the BBRC wants in the game? Probably not, but it is one conspiracy theory.

Furelli.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:54 pm

Marcus wrote: Erm, hang on a second. I believe the question was "what do you think the game would be like".

Yes it is, and I wasn't refering to any replies on this thread. On several other threads people have said that they don't like that certain people are trying to come up with "revolutionary" new concepts to the game. Even though admittedly neo was simply asking a question, it still seemed like the seed of a suggestion.

The impact of the question had already been well analysed (which I forgot to mention in that previous post) - I wanted to express my view that those impacts aren't something that I'd want into the game. Yet, I wanted to make clear that I'm not against big changes in general.

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:57 pm

Furelli wrote:The thing that is intriging me is the number of bizarre ides that Neo is coming up with in the middle of the rules review. Is he using this place as a sounding board for the more wacky changes the BBRC wants in the game? Probably not, but it is one conspiracy theory.

Furelli.

no, just you.... john has these ideas all the time... if he wasn't in the illuminatti... well, i guess he'd be me...

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:30 pm

Lucien Swift wrote:
Furelli wrote:The thing that is intriging me is the number of bizarre ides that Neo is coming up with in the middle of the rules review. Is he using this place as a sounding board for the more wacky changes the BBRC wants in the game? Probably not, but it is one conspiracy theory.

Furelli.
no, just you.... john has these ideas all the time... if he wasn't in the illuminatti... well, i guess he'd be me...

I'm always playing with ideas in my head. This one was actually a way to shorten the tournament game times... if you don't have RR's then the game is shorter. (shorter games have always been my goal.)

As for the Rules Review... read my sig.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:38 pm

Here's some of the things I think would happen if we removed TRR's from the game (or if we set everyone to 1 or 2 TRR's without cost.)

* Shorter games. Turnovers early in a turn would result in shorter games. How short? I don't know, but my guess would be 30 minutes shorter.

* At the lower levels, teams with skills would do marginally better. Note that I don't think they would do much better. Re-rolls only help once per turn. Most starting teams have less than 3 RR's. That's six uses a game.

* Slightly slower team growth. Any SPP's that would have come after a TRR are now lost (or atleast delayed a turn.)

* More reliance on skilled players for veteran teams. If you have a choice between a player with catch and one without, you might throw to the without player if you have a TRR handy. Otherwise you'd throw to the catcher.

* Larger starting rosters. With less money spent on RR's, you'd start the game with more players.

* Blocking becomes more dangerous. There's no skill to re-roll block dice.

John -

Longshot · Post by **Longshot** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:21 pm

well

-Why do you want shorter games? there are short or long enough as they stand.

-Skilled races are more powerfull !!!!! In T5, i ve done a some turnover like:
Hum, everyone is on a tackle zone...This one dodge...1...No TRR...well Turnover=>those turns are quick indeed but TRR keep the balance between skilled teams and the other ones.

-Well does that mean that if i succed a catch with a TRR, i will not get the SPP?, that sound horrible to me.

-I dont care having 11 elves as long as they play well. I prefered 2 More TRR for spiky than one bonus player. This was more powerfull.

-blocking is more dangerous, dodge is more dangerous, everything is more dangerous...

Sorry, but i dont like this idea at all. Even in the 2nd Ed there were TRR. And Zombi is right when he talked about strategic use of RR and balancing System.

This would be a very big change for BB game and i am not sure this is a good change IMHO.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:26 pm

Indeed it takes tactical decisions on when to use or not use a RR.

I mean take blocking, you go to blitz the ball carrier with one die and you get a pushback, you use a RR and get a skull. RR aren't always productive to your team. Would have been better to leave a tz on him and force a dodge roll.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 8:10 pm

If there were no TRR I don't think I'd ever score a TD

Joaquim · Post by **Joaquim** » Wed Oct 23, 2002 8:17 pm

I guess RRs could be replaced by more skills, stats and tables... but I doubt the game would became better....

lawquoter · Post by **lawquoter** » Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:08 am

I guess the concensus is "no way!". Without re-rolls, every thing you do is critical, and it could be your last shot. I don't know how comfortable I would be in giving up my security blanket that my re-rolls provide for me, but, I would be real interested in seeing the results if someone were to play test it. I suspect it would be as those have already said, but at the same time, I confess I am intrigued by a game in which every dice roll could go precipitously wrong and there is no safety net, increasing the pressure of every play. I would think that would enhance strategy (forcing one to prioritize even more). At the same time, I could see a game where a half is over in 10 to 15 minutes because both sides kept rolling skulls and 1s.