LRB favors AG teams (Rant)

[Smeborg]

My experience of casualty rates under the current LRB is as follows:

Every 2 matches produces approximately the following minimum CAS rates (apportioned to both teams):

1 Death

1 Permanent Injury (Niggling Injury or Stat Decrease)

1 Serious Injury

3 Badly Hurt

These stats are AFTER Apothecaries have been used, and mean that if you run a league side, you can expect one death and one permanent injury on your roster for every four matches that you play. Putting aside all the favourite arguments for more blood, the casualty rate looks well balanced to me.

It is also my experience that the "bashy" teams take casualties, as well as dishing them out.

And lastly, the better coaches always seem to have the better CAS rates. So perhaps some of the thirst for blood expressed on this thread might be quenched by improved play (?) .

Cheers

[Joshua Dyal]

Fact #1 the highest rankes naf coaches are bashy teams.

Fact#2 the main online leagues, all have a good mix of top teams, with bashing teams being currently slightly ahead. Do a search and look for your self.

Fact #3, in the 3 years we have been running a BB league here (adverage of 10 coaches w/2 teams each per season, currently 26 coaches each season is 3 months long) we have never had a high or dark elf team even make it into the final game. Woodies have won it twice, humans once, all the other times it was won by bashy teams. We have used 3rd ed, 4th ed and BB:tLRB ed rules. with resets every 3 seasons or so.

Now, do you have any facts to counter this? No, you have your randomly formed opinions. Just because your local enviroment favors agility teams, does not mean the comunity as a whole does.

My opinions are not randomly formed, they are based on my experience across several leagues in two states over the last five or more years. Your "facts" comprise a gut-feel look at a very small sample, of which mine is just as good and just as relevant.

Please. I don't want this to devolve into a discussion about what is a statisctically significant "fact" and what is not. All I asked was if such a data set existed somewhere. Quite obviously, it does not.

Thank you. Question answered.

[Joshua Dyal]

Joshua: New Orc teams are not very good at bashing. Orc teams that have devleoped a lot of Tackle, have a Piling On big guy and some Black Orcs with Mighty Blow/Piling On are excellent at clearing the pitch. Last night I cleared everything but one Saurus off the pitch by the end of the game. Newbie Orcs really aren't a power team because they lack some key skills.

No, I realize that. I can see how I could be quite good at clearing the pitch after 10-15 more games or so. However, assuming we're still running this little mini-league by then, my opponent's helf team will presumably have picked up a lot of skills himself -- when he's got a number of Block/Dodge/Sidestep characters, and guys with all kinds of other skills that'll make it rough even getting him down at all, much less taking him off the field.

I didn't throw that example up as the sum-total of my experience, it's just a single example from my very recent experience. Dwarf teams in leagues I've played in the past have also struggled to clear the pitch with elves -- mainly because it's hard to catch the key players with a dwarf team! And, of course, the fact that a helf team is much less hampered by being down a few guys than say orcs or dwarves, because with AG4 they can pass, catch, dodge, etc. a lot better than any of them, and thus are difficult to even catch in the first place. A good elf team, such as my opponent for example, doesn't give me the opportunity to even throw a block on most turns, so I get my one blitz action and that's it.

[Joshua Dyal]

Joshua Dyal, i play in a long running league, and i'm not part of the BBRC. I know that most people who post here do the same. My chaos dwarves this season average about 3 or 4 CAS a game, so there's a lot of blood, no doubt about that. Of course, low TR teams cause less CAS, but that's a good thing. You don't want to totally anihilate teams before they even get a chance to get going.

I also very much like that Blood Bowl is more strategic and less luck-oriented, and i know that many other people on this board who are not BBRC members think the same, and pretty much all of the 15 or so coaches in my league as well.

OK. I'm not trying to present that point as a fact, but I do believe that the TBB membership is a skewed sample. By default, we're the folks that are more interested in the game than most of it's actual players.

An interesting (although not necessarily relevent) piece of information is the market research conducted by Wizards of the Coast on Dungeons & Dragons campaign lengths. According to them, by far the vast majority of the campaigns for that game last six months or less.

I believe, although certainly I can't prove it, that most Blood Bowl leagues probably operate under a similar pattern, and for the same reasons. Certainly all the leagues I've ever played in in the past have only run that long without either disbanding or resetting. So, a similar hobby and my own experience produce at least the suggestion that most BB players don't do long running leagues. If that's so, then rules that are balanced to be better with long-term teams and potentially less interesting for shorter term leagues is a mistake in rules design. But, like I said, that's only an opinion not backed up by any evidence that is conclusive.

And as to strategic vs. luck-based -- the game has always featured both. And one of the strategic (or, to be more accurate, tactical) skillsets that BB coaches have always had to develop is the ability to roll with punches and keep a plan more or less on track in the face of luck. This is part of the fun of the game, and minimizing that impact my fun level, at least. But that's not a right/wrong dichotomy, that's a play-style difference in which both play styles are equally valid and will certainly have their proponents.

[Zombie]

If that's so, then rules that are balanced to be better with long-term teams and potentially less interesting for shorter term leagues is a mistake in rules design.

The thing is that the element that are present to allow for long term play, are absolutely essential for it to work, but don't do anything against short term play, except maybe annoy a couple of people. Because of that, it's necessary to keep them.

[Joshua Dyal]

Joshua,

For what it's worth, the BBRC realizes that less rules are better. Our first goal was to try to address what we considered were some problem spots in the rules. We realize that it's not perfect, though, and are looking for ways to improve on it (reduce some of the ruleage in favor of a simpler, cleaner system.)

One suggestion currently on the table is Chet's "No-INJ-Modifiers" ruleset, which removes a lot of the special casualty handling. Again, though, that's only a suggestion which is being discussed at the moment. I just wanted to point out that we are trying to address rules creep in this coming Rules Review.

Milo

Thanks for responding -- I realize that the BBRC does indeed keep an ongoing dialogue in the works about the ruleset as a whole. And I'm not trying to knock the ruleset, it certainly is the best by far, and a very fun ruleset to play under.

Of course, we all said exactly those same things about 3rd edition when it was first released, and for several years after, and now most folks are decrying that edition as horribly "broken."

And, the BBRC does seem to me to be extremely conservative both in terms of what it actually releases as official, and even in terms of what it releases as experimental. I would think the experimental rules, at least, should be presented as optional and be a little more "edgy" in terms of concept and application -- rules that you don't necessarily want to implement without lots of play to prove them out, but rules that on paper at least look interesting and perhaps cleaner so they can be tested out. Clarifications and tweaks seem to be the only thing that's happened to the LRB since it was first released.

BTW, what are Chet's no-INJ-mod rules, and where can I read them? I've seen a lot of suggestions from him in the past that I like in concept, but not much seems to happen with them. I'm certainly very interested in hearing what he's got there.

[GalakStarscraper]

The thing is that the element that are present to allow for long term play, are absolutely essential for it to work, but don't do anything against short term play, except maybe annoy a couple of people. Because of that, it's necessary to keep them.

Again my thoughts exactly. If constantly resetting leagues get minor issues to preserve the league concepts, thats okay. House rules for short term leagues are fine.

However, if it goes through the EXP system will only effect Long Term leagues really, so its a rule going counter to this short term screw effect you describe Joshua.

Galak

[Ghost of Pariah]

The thing is that the element that are present to allow for long term play, are absolutely essential for it to work, but don't do anything against short term play, except maybe annoy a couple of people. Because of that, it's necessary to keep them.

Again my thoughts exactly. If constantly resetting leagues get minor issues to preserve the league concepts, thats okay. House rules for short term leagues are fine.

However, if it goes through the EXP system will only effect Long Term leagues really, so its a rule going counter to this short term screw effect you describe Joshua.

Galak

Personally I think the EXP system will only encourage long term leagues to become short term. Why would I want to play long term when I'm only punished for doing so? Team management is more than just retiring players.

[wesleytj]

Of course, we all said exactly those same things about 3rd edition when it was first released, and for several years after, and now most folks are decrying that edition as horribly "broken."

Very good point. I think in all honesty it's too early to tell exactly how good LRB rules are. Fortunately, unlike past editions, there is a system in place to correct any flaws that DO become apparent.

And, the BBRC does seem to me to be extremely conservative both in terms of what it actually releases as official, and even in terms of what it releases as experimental.

YAY!! Thank god for small favors. I think that's what most coaches want to see...minor tweaks to the game without throwing in a bunch of garbage.

I would think the experimental rules, at least, should be presented as optional and be a little more "edgy" in terms of concept and application -- rules that you don't necessarily want to implement without lots of play to prove them out, but rules that on paper at least look interesting and perhaps cleaner so they can be tested out. Clarifications and tweaks seem to be the only thing that's happened to the LRB since it was first released.

Funky stuff like you're suggesting is great for house rules and little fanatic articles or whatever, but hopefully will never make its way into the 'proper' game.

BTW, what are Chet's no-INJ-mod rules, and where can I read them? I've seen a lot of suggestions from him in the past that I like in concept, but not much seems to happen with them. I'm certainly very interested in hearing what he's got there.

It was in a very long post on here a few months back. Pretty sure it was in the General Chat section, it had a LOT of posting done about it.

[Joshua Dyal]

Very good point. I think in all honesty it's too early to tell exactly how good LRB rules are. Fortunately, unlike past editions, there is a system in place to correct any flaws that DO become apparent.

Yes, and that's worth quite a bit by itself.

YAY!! Thank god for small favors. I think that's what most coaches want to see...minor tweaks to the game without throwing in a bunch of garbage.

Yeah, well, isn't that what the experimental rules are for? Instead, all we get are relatively poorly concieved new teams like Khemri and Vampires.

Funky stuff like you're suggesting is great for house rules and little fanatic articles or whatever, but hopefully will never make its way into the 'proper' game.

I didn't think the "experimental" rules were considered to be the "game proper." If they were, they wouldn't really be experimental, would they?

It was in a very long post on here a few months back. Pretty sure it was in the General Chat section, it had a LOT of posting done about it.

Ahh, I think I know what that is, then. It was primarily in terms of that proposal that I said I like the way Chet thinks in terms of fairly novel solutions to old problems. Of course, I also liked his Modest Proposal ruleset before the LRB came out, for many of the same reasons.

[Skummy]

Joshua: Just covering previous stuff here, but my league has 5 Orc teams and 2 Dwarf teams. The Orc teams have averaged 0.6, 0.6, 2.2, 3.4, and 1.6 casualties in their first 5 games. The Dwarf teams have averaged .5 and 1.6 in their first 5.

Our most experienced Orc team just reached 30 games played, and has averaged 3 CAS a game over the last 5.

Oh, and our league has been around for about 6 years now, and has played over 400 tabletop games in the last year.

[Joshua Dyal]

Speaking of Chet's proposal, what (if anything) has happened to that? It obviously didn't make it into LRB 2.0 -- did it just disappear, or is it being playtested somewhere?

[GalakStarscraper]

Speaking of Chet's proposal, what (if anything) has happened to that? It obviously didn't make it into LRB 2.0 -- did it just disappear, or is it being playtested somewhere?

The NFL league is testing it ... it might reappear someday after testing.

Galak

[Milo]

IMO, you are correct on all points. I too, would prefer a little more blood and mayhem (maybe at least ONE card apiece, or something!). The game has become much more strategic, and I suppose that's 'better' for some, but if I want high strategy I'd play Chess. The lure of this game is the chaos and violence on the pitch, both of which has been restricted. On the other hand WM is more strategic (if you must play a GW game). Maybe some folks should play that, and allow the blood to flow in this game again.

I respect your opinion, Bullbear, but I know that there are many Blood Bowl players who feel exactly the opposite. There are players in my league who couldn't be happier that the "random screwage" of the cards have been removed. If they had their way, weather, the kickoff table, and dice that rolled 1's would be removed, too. =)

There's a wide variety of people who play the game, and all do so for different reasons. For every person who wants to remove some of the random elements, there are people who want more added back in. I'm afraid there's just no way that everyone can be satisfied.

This is, IMO, a perfect possibility for house rules. If your league still likes the cards, then by all means still use them.

[wesleytj]

I respect your opinion, Bullbear, but I know that there are many Blood Bowl players who feel exactly the opposite. There are players in my league who couldn't be happier that the "random screwage" of the cards have been removed. If they had their way, weather, the kickoff table, and dice that rolled 1's would be removed, too. =)

I'm generally one of those people...I'd like to see more strategy and less randomness and lame rolls on endless tables. However, at the same time I do think there was some strategy to be had in the cards as well. I don't like them as a tool for handicapping, because they didn't work in that regard, but what about a shortened list of cards (say 30 or so), more or less balanced in usefulness, all in one deck, where each player drew 1 at the beginning of the game.

That would seem to be a nice compromise measure. Something for a (many) people who miss cards, but at the same time many fewer cases where they can single-handedly decide the outcome of the game.