New Idea (new thread)

[Acerak]

I'm coming back to this thread sooner rather than later. I think most of the kinks have been worked out. Attrition will not go down, the skills will finally be separate, and I think I've finally got a good handle on how to deal with the "place player prone" angles of Diving Tackle and Piling On. In fact, I think it's the best handle yet. But we'll see how well that opinion stands up, eh?

-Chet

[Pink Horror]

Voyagers_uk, what's the point of your numbers? Just about the only results we'd be able to predict for certain without playtesting are the numbers. I hope your 10-15 game update will have some more depth.



Pink Horror

[voyagers_uk]

predict/forecast/have a punt/guess it is all the same to me, - not game conditions.

whereas I thought someone might be interested to see actual... yes actual figures. As you feel that it is useless PH I will delete my former post and if anyone is ever interested they can pm me for the numbers so far, I can actually break it down further with casualties and AV breaks by race and versus which race, But I don't go in for incredibly long posts filled with numbers. Short and sweet like my Halflings is all.

If you would like to give me an idea what you would find useful I could try and assist.

[Pink Horror]

How did Chet's idea change the game for you? Was it any more fun? Did anyone feel mighty blow was too weak? What about fouling? People can figure out the numbers without having to play any games. Your take on the change in strategy or balance is much more valuable than whatever numbers your games generated.

I guess you're one of those people who has to see something to believe it, and while I don't respect that much, I'm sure most people here do. So, it's great that you have some data that you're comfortable using. But is it worth sharing? Do you expect the people who think like you to trust someone else's numbers? Do you think the people like me who rely on statistics will care about your numbers? That's why they're useless.

Here's my recomendation: play some more games and try to keep track of the events in non-numerical terms. Watch for trends, do some real observing instead of only counting. You'd be a real useful fellow if you manage to do that for me.



Pink Horror

[Ghost of Pariah]

I have to say that I agree with Pink Horror...well sort of.
Numbers of should happen mean very little to me. I've seen reality defy the numbers too often.
It's also important that a change in the rules makes the game more fun. Streamlining smply because you can doesn't always do this. Sometimes complex rules can be fun. I'm not any kind of fan of the abridged Blood Bowl that seems to coming.

[voyagers_uk]

Ok PH,

once I have played or sat in on a significant number of games I will give you my take on the changes that have come strategically.

Already there is more fouling (with less success) and about the same sending off ratio as with the eye - I put that down to crappy dice rolls though so it will be good to see that expand over time.

Mighty Blow is not viewed as being weaker, in fact two other coaches in the league are still as eager as ever to take it as future skill choices for some of the bash players, Piling On as the Av reroll has meant that no-one has taken it so far, using that skill choice to try something else and round out the team.

The game play has been fun all along and that hasn't changed just due to a couple of rules changes. I have found that to be more a factor of my friends than the rules. We don't tend to get to frustrated with things like this and just have a few more beers and a laugh.

I am saddened that you don't respect me for wanting to play my way to results than trust someone dishing our statistics, but I have never believed a politician yet either! As Pariah put real life throws up more curve balls than statistics accounts for and for this reason and also due to a lack of time and inclination I will never go down the pure statistics route. I hope that you could respect me just for playing BB in a non-beardy way and maybe if we ever meet at a tournament or I am ever over in Florida we could share a few beers. I won't offer to play you via Pbem for obvious reasons, but as you say I would have to see it to believe it. I guess it is all about Trust after all.

[Acerak]

I've seen reality defy the numbers too often.

It's usually indicative of a small sample size.

It's also important that a change in the rules makes the game more fun. Streamlining smply because you can doesn't always do this. Sometimes complex rules can be fun. I'm not any kind of fan of the abridged Blood Bowl that seems to coming.

I don't know. Seems "fun" is relative. Suppose a new set of rules allows you to throw more fouls, seamlessly mesh your skills, etc. That's going to be "fun" for some players, but not "fun" for others. The question here is whether a more seamless skill integration that has just about the same numbers across the board is going to be better for the game. I think the answer is obviously "yes," so what's at issue? Whether the suggested set accomplished this.

I've refined that rule set in the House Rules forum. I think the fouling game is too restrictive right now, so if you ask me, "abridged Blood Bowl" is here already in that sense.

But don't belabor the points of "fun" and "feel." I remember a few people shouting down John for his PGFI suggestion because he defended it in part on the "fun" it added to the game.

Speaking of "fun," I need to cobble together a few rules for Magic Items, Dirty Tricks, Secret Weapons, and some other dewdads. New league starting up next month, you know

-Chet

[Ghost of Pariah]

What I meant by "fun" was that alot of what I hear lately are rules that will "streamline, simplify, and/or create no exceptions" etc.
None of those things seem like a good thing to me. I mean I'm here to play a complex miniature game. I like Blood Bowl for it's complexity. It's also not a good idea to wrench on the rules right now. The core rules were in a state of flux for a long time. Now, it seems, you have a core that works and that the majority of coaches like. If you change the mechanics now, you're going to lose coaches, not gain them.
I say, wait a good 2 years before you change anything in the core mechanics. Let people adjust. After all, not all of us have been using these new rules as long as you have. I have only played 2 seasons with them. (1 in my home town league and 1 in PBeM.) I'm not ready to change it all again. I'm still slipping back into 3rd edition rules now and then! Give us "fun" rules...magic items, secret weapons, random events, new weather table, etc. Leave the core alone or she'll blow captain.

[Balrog]

Warning, the following will be in caps lock and is meant for emphasis, not insult:

STOP MESSING WITH THE RULES ALREADY!!!!

Thank you.

-Dave

[Toby]

Warning, the following will be in caps lock and is meant for emphasis, not insult:

STOP MESSING WITH THE RULES ALREADY!!!!

Thank you.

-Dave

THE RULES ARE INCOMPLETE, UNCLEAR AND HIGHLY IMPROVABLE.

Thx 2

[Balrog]

THE RULES ARE INCOMPLETE, UNCLEAR AND HIGHLY IMPROVABLE

Incomplete: where are they incomplete? And if they are, then just add the situation that needs to be included.

Unclear: again, examples help, but I find the rules quite clear.

Highly Improvable: I disagree, we have a set of rules which works, and although not perfect, is quite workable.

Now, tweaking certain small things, adding optional rules, and redoing the order in which the rules are written are all good things IMO. And that is what the BBRC should be doing. Changing fundamental skills when really they don't need changing is a waste of time, ruins the continuity of the game, and ultimately creates imbalances. I speak subjectively here, but I have been working in the gaming industry for 6 years now, and experience tells me that if you want a game to succeed, you do not change the rules every year, period. Clarifying is fine, but changing is not, unless that change is absolutely necessary, which in this case it clearly isn't.

-Balrog

[Toby]

Well i must say i completely agree.

I was misunderstanding "messing with the rules".

I run a small league since a few weeks - there are more questions than answers, especially the "but it used to be like this in 3rd edition" arguments...

[Acerak]

Now, tweaking certain small things, adding optional rules, and redoing the order in which the rules are written are all good things IMO. And that is what the BBRC should be doing. Changing fundamental skills when really they don't need changing is a waste of time, ruins the continuity of the game, and ultimately creates imbalances.

As you've noted, it's all subjective. I do agree with one objective point, however: major changes every year are not good. No one is proposing "major changes" this year. The biggest rules complaints I've heard throughout the forums:

1. Piling On allows you to choose after the roll and it always works when you do.
2. Diving Tackle allows you to choose after the roll and it always works when you do.
3. There's not enough attrition. (This is usually attributed to a severe drop in fouling.)
4. Niggling injuries don't do enough.
5. The Handicap table needs a review.
6. The game still has some very bad exceptions (e.g., Piling On and Multiple Block, stacking AV vs stacking anything else).

Aside from those major items and a vote on experimental rules, I don't foresee major changes this year. Any rules being bandied about now aren't aimed at this year. Heck, most of them aren't even aimed at the month of October. If they're aimed anywhere, it's at experimental articles first. That's how the process works.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled TalkBB.

-Chet

[Ghost of Pariah]

I agree with some of those points; namely...
#3. There's not enough attrition. (This is usually attributed to a severe drop in fouling.)
# 4. Niggling injuries don't do enough. )

I don't think that simplifying rules is going to cure anything. I also haven't heard much complaining about rules exceptions. I don't see why this anal rententive view of the rules is such a problem. If exceptions to the rules are a bad thing then we better get rid of skills altogether. After all, the pass skill is an exception to the rules. So is Strong Arm, Tackle and just about everything else.

[Mestari]

Acerak:

The question here is whether a more seamless skill integration that has just about the same numbers across the board is going to be better for the game. I think the answer is obviously "yes," so what's at issue?

Just for the record:
Looking at Chet's suggestions, both in this thread and the playtest set in the house rules-section, I feel that Chet fails to provide us with sufficient proof of how the answer would obviously be yes.

The suggested rules, as I see them, have no outstanding flaws, but no outstanding benefits either. It is, at best, an alternative to the current rules, an another way how the rules could be.

IMO the answer is: it's as good as the 2k01 version, but slightly different.
In which case I see no reason changing the rules.

----

Chets original standpoint was a sound one, I supported it, and it looked like this:


What if I told you I could wave a magic wand and accomplish the following?

* Eliminate IGMEOY. check
* Eliminate the AV/INJ re-roll exception. Except inj rolls...
* Eliminate the Casualty definition exceptions. -check
* Eliminate the "no plusses to the same die roll" exception that exists solely for AV and INJ rolls. Except that all damage skills are changed so that there are no plusses to be added to the same roll
* Eliminate the Casualty table. Check... btw. he did got rid of this one die, but added several others in form of 3d6 systems...

--- WITHOUT fundamentally altering any mechanics --- There were quite a few changes, I think

I added in some notes about what patches and compromises Chet had to introduce due to impossibilities in his original suggestion. We can see that the suggestion fails to reach the original aim.

Sorry, but the bottom line is:
Chets suggestion has diverged from the admirable goal it had, and turned into a simple alternative to the current system with no outstanding benefits.

It changes little details, such as makes experienced ST teams less competitive, but none of these are fatal. I could get used to playing with the suggested rules set, but I see no point in changing to it, because it has no outstanding benefits either.

Besides: Injury roll modifiers are a good feature. When there are no rerolls for injury and the Sigurds roll is used, there is no needless strain on the inj rolls. Casualty die is not a patch.