BB2k1 Topics for October

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 12:32 pm

My thoughts on Jump Up

I'm not sure that allowing jump up to be used with passblock is a particularly neat way to beef up jump up. It's a bit of a kludge, and really you're saying "if you want to get jump up and make it worthwhile, you need to get passblock as well." Plus it introduces silliness whereby you can knock a player down, then pass over his head with your next player and watch him stand up, from where he continues to exert tacklezones etc. You get all the advantages of jump up, but ONLY because he's passblocking.

I would suggest you amend Jump Up to allow a player to stand up, for free, at the end of the either player's turn.

This would mean that if you were knocked down during an opponent's turn, you would not be able to intercept a pass that turn but would be up and ready for your turn without having to stand up.

If you fell down during your own turn - apart from the fact you'll turn over - you'll be back on your feet and exerting tackle zones for the next turn.

This could make a jump up player particularly dangerous as a pass rusher as you'd be able to charge them downfield, go for it, and even if they fell over (and assuming they survived the armour roll) they'd be up and ready to passblock, shadow or whatever. It also makes them a little more resilient in resisting fouls.

I think it would lead to some exciting plays, and would encourage some innovative tactics befitting the only Agility trait choice available.

Post by **Thadrin** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 12:48 pm

I'd buy that for a dollar...
(and if of course you stun the git, the words "and STAY down!" are so much sweeter!)

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 12:53 pm

Web page updated ... thanks for all the responses so far.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 12:58 pm

Also just as a footnote, the list is not my list of changes that I want. I am honestly trying to find those topics of discussions which have more than a single voice calling for them so that the BBRC doesn't miss a topic in October. The page is a tool that they plan on using as one of many.

As such don't believe that I'd desire everything on the page. I'm trying to be as objective as possible.

Galak

Oh and Norse your Snotlings are in there near the bottom .... they've always been there. I've been campaigning to have the Snotlings brought back since the BB2k1 test league of September 2001.

bj0rn · Post by **bj0rn** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:09 pm

The rulebook is vague on when the passing bands move to the next one higher. Is it: A) If the line between ranges lands on the base or B) if the line between ranges is on or beyond the midpoint of the target square (either empty or with intended catcher).
Keep in mind two VERY important details before casually clarifing this one:
if you say crossing the base, then what if I use a Big Guy with the new super round base that GW is providing (would big guys have an advantage on ranges ... if they do .. can I put all my normal players on Big Guy rounds)
if I throw to an empty square then where is the measurement to? if you say the middle point of the square then why is this measurement farther than to a based player.
For sake of consistency, clarifying the rule to moving to the next highest range band if the line is on or past the midpoint of the receiving square is recommended.

nonononono!!!

if the band touches the square a player is in, that player can intercept...

if the range line enters any part of the catchers square it is the longer range that must be completed...

no half way cover or reach!!!

bj0rn - ...simple

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:13 pm

Thanks for the support Galak, nice to hear a friendly Snotty voice in the wilderness....

It's this horrible catch 22 of no models = no rules..

Well, I now have the models, I want official rules too!

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:21 pm

bj0rn ...

Yeh don't have to yell man .... your point is understood ... the bigger point of the discussion is moving from base measurement to pitch square measurement which is a major change.

Personally as long as the whole base wording is removed from anything related to passing and intercepting I'll be happy.

However, middle of the square will make my life easier as the PBeM tool won't need reprogrammed ...

... but really don't care either way.

Galak

bj0rn · Post by **bj0rn** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:53 pm

base measurement to pitch square measurement

i have played pitch square measurement almost from the day i started playing bloodbowl...it really simplifies things like:
- its more than half! no, it isnt.
- it touches the base. yes, but that is because you moved the player so it would touch the base...
- etc...

squares are the only thing on the field that do not move...so use them.

another issue - fan factor.

i generally like the "-1 for every 10 fan factor" addition.

and it does put a roof on team rating, because it limits the number of fans that show up for the game...

as soon as you reach tr300 you cant have more than +1 on your winnings roll (assuming you won the game) and assuming you can get 160.001 fans from both teams to show up for the game.

that requires 80.000 from each team...you have to roll a = 80 on your fan factor dices!!!

that would mean you would have to have fan factor of 23 (average) which is constantly giving you -2 to your fan factor roll every game.

the math works if you are always winning your games...but how often do you see 2 300+ teams with fan factor of 23 or more (specially using the new rules)?

sure, its difficult for a team to have alot of fans all the time...but on the other hand famous teams do attract a huge horde of fans just by reputation (look at those man und or ferrari geeks

)

so why dont teams with high team rating get a + to their fan factor rolls (especially after the "1 lowers fan factor" change)?

+1 to fan factor rolls if team has more than tr200
+2 to fan factor rolls if team has more than tr300
...

extra niggling and aging rules are supposed to keep the players in check...right?

anyway, how about it...

bj0rn - ...

bj0rn · Post by **bj0rn** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:09 pm

more...

at some time a team might enter problems due to low fan factor and high team rating...

a team in that situation might never afford to replace dead players, and more importantly could not even afford to retire players...

sure, the "replace dead players" is just supposed to be your own bad luck...

but penalizing the teams that NEED to lower their team rating by retiring players because of income problems is strange.

why not offer a rookie player at the same position instead of the player who is being retired?

so, if you have to retire you old 100 spp witch elf because of fan factor/team rating problems you would get another witch elf insted (for free) of the old witch. in this case resulting in a 20 point reduction in team rating...something that should get you back on track.

that added with my suggestion above should remove the team rating roof somewhat. something i feel is needed...really needed if you are considering adding that "+1 to injury for every niggle" and increasing the number needed to roll to avoid aging.

bj0rn - my 2 kr.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:23 pm

But bj0rn the direction of BB was to cap BB teams at around 250, and its was the intention to force BB coach to have to retire players in order to get gold to replace players.

The TR 300 teams are not supposed to exist anymore.

The 2001 Rules Review was a package deal:
Aging
41-46 SI = Niggle
-1 FF for each whole 10
20k bands on the winnings table with negative modifiers
and removal of cash from Random Events

This package as a whole is there to put a ceiling on team growth and as your team matures force you to start managing the team instead of just playing it. IE if you play the team long enough you start acting like a real manager instead of a sideline coach.

I can tell from your posts that this is not your cup of tea. You like your players to not age and get lots of skills and your team to break 300 on its TR. If your league agrees with you, that is great and you should house rule to allow this type of growth and team development to occur (no sarcasm here at all ... Blood Bowl is a game that should be house ruled to your league's taste).

However Jervis gave one mission to the BBRC for the 2001 Rules Review (this is fact not storytelling) ... Create a ruleset that will allow a team to theoritically run forever in a Blood Bowl league that is assumed to have rookie teams entering at regular intervals.

That's the new direction for the game by the man who has the ultimate power to make all the rules and that's what the 2001 Rules Review was trying to accomplish. It did 90% of the job. The recommend changes are topics which coaches who desire these caps and team management challenges that Jervis wants think are needed to finish the job.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:26 pm

but penalizing the teams that NEED to lower their team rating by retiring players because of income problems is strange.

Forgot to address this point ... actually that happens quit often in the states, so it doesn't seem strange to me at all. Certain sports here have salary caps so as the money runs out you have to trim players in order to keep the team running. The new system mirrors that fairly well.

Galak

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:07 pm

I did not see it on the list, Galak, so:

Am I the only one who would like unstun to occur automaticly during your turn?

bj0rn · Post by **bj0rn** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:14 pm

Certain sports here have salary caps so as the money runs out you have to trim players in order to keep the team running

sure, nothing wrong with that...

perhaps i didnt make myself clear enough...

ageing is supposed to keep players in check...that coupled with the possibility to increase the chance of ageing by +1 and the +1 to injury for every niggle should keep players in check. you are going to run into all sorts of trouble if you insist on keeping theese players on the pitch game after game.

so, if this is the way to keep teams in check...why would you want to put a roof on team rating?

even if you are lucky and manage to avoid injuries and niggles, you suddenly hit a roof which is impossible to breach. all of the sudden you have to start dropping players even though your team is doing great.

hell, i would rather see my players die away from me than retire a perfectly good blood bowl player just because of a fan factor cap(no matter how good a coach you are...sideline or management, you can still get unlucky with you fan factor rolls).

allow unlucky coaches to buy a pr + to fan factor rolls...for 10k a piece or something like that...

that way a high rating team would have to pay public relations in order to keep their fans loyal...

bj0rn - ...all in all, there is a flaw in the current system. not a big one but its there.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:27 pm

DA ... no I might add that to the list as others have mentioned it before ...its just a move out of sequence and remember now in the current rules that Bonehead and RS players do NOT automatically unstun so that would be a change to their rules.

This argument would have merit if the Jump Up improvement had merit. Then at the start of the turn two things would happen.

1) Prone Players would Jump Up.
2) Stunned players become prone ... even if Bonehead or RS.

(gotta do that in the right order or Stunned Jump Up players will stand up.)

Personally I don't have a problem with this as its only a rookie coach that forgets to unstun as there are no tactics involved in the decision at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

bj0rn ...okay that argument makes more sense. The winning table and FF rules are there as the backups ... you can develop a team to TR 300 with the new rules (I have a coach getting close to doing so in my league), but at a price ... you will reach the point where your team continues to develop with skills but you cannot grow anymore. The BBRC did not want to put a true ceiling on team growth. The package of rules is there to say ... yes you can grow to 300 and beyond but its going to cost you in wear and tear on the players and the inability to replace people.

Think of it as the backup channels when the damn doesn't work.

Also I'm not sure how many BB2k1 games you've played yet, but I'm not seeing the impact of the aging rules very much at all and I have several teams in my league getting ready to play their 10th game (ie TR 200+). That's why the discussion of niggle injury mods and bumping the table by one. The cash is slowing down, but the players aren't being effected by the wear and tear ... ie TR 300+ might be very possible if you are lucky and those teams are kicking the snot out of the rookie teams that end up playing them near the end of the season with only 4 games under their belt.

Galak

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 6:52 pm

Another thing - I think the bit about Ogres costing double for Gobbos and Halflings is missing from the LRB.