I think Blood Bowl is broken in a number of aspects...

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri May 30, 2003 9:15 pm

dakkakhan wrote:I personally feel the aging system does work, in that by targeting SPP's you are meeting the first requirement, limiting a team's development, but Aging is less than desireable because of the penalty to, what up until now was the total object of the game, to successfully do things and gain SPP's.

I think that summarizes, better than anything I've seen on here thus far, why most coaches hate ageing. The fact that it works and is balanced and so on kinda gets lost in that.

Well said!

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri May 30, 2003 11:21 pm

funny i thought the aim of the game was to try and win and have fun

dakkakhan · Post by **dakkakhan** » Fri May 30, 2003 11:50 pm

Win without getting SPP's Grumbledook, and I'll play you anytime.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:06 am

come to a tournament then :p

Zy-Nox · Post by **Zy-Nox** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:11 am

Dark Lord (retired) · Sat May 31, 2003 12:44 am

I'll say it again...

Blood Bowl is dividing into league play and tourney play. The sooner JJ and Fanatic realize that the better off we all will be.

Post by **Dave** » Sat May 31, 2003 6:52 am

both games are quite different indeed. I find myself blocking a Black Orc with my Norse blitzer in league play just because 'it fits and is fun' Obviously double skullz but I'd never, ever do that in a tournament, except when I got a RR AND it is really, really importand to move the BO

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat May 31, 2003 1:28 pm

its still the same rules for both, its just the team developement stuff that you don't tend to use for tournaments, I don't really think its an issue

Post by **Thadrin** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:45 pm

I read through 80% of this thread. At the end I realised I simply couldn't be bothered reiterating that I disagree with 80% of the stuff Toby says, about 20% of which makes him sound like a moron (elves? cheaper?

)

Just some quick points brought to mind from what I read:
1) a simple way of adding a touch more money that I am REALLY not seeing as broken, and our league has had it as a house rule for three seasons now: Winnings become +2 for a win, +1 for a tie (if you use OT tie pre OT), 0 for a loss.
2) We ditched aging too. Our league simply didn't like it.
3) Handicap table? needs redoing as has been said a million times. Weird events - cards and stuff? I'd rather have a "weird event " table that is activated by snake eyes on an armour roll, but I've said that a million times.
4) Zombie and Toby's little debate on about page 2 made me

a lot.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Sat May 31, 2003 4:52 pm

Players, especially Elves MUST be a lot cheaper to REPLACE than to EXPAND. Buy a new at 100%, replace a seriously Injured at 50% replace a Dead at 100%.

Play a scheduled league 1st Undead, Second Ork, Third Lizardmen. Now you have a "Undead Woodelf" Team.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:02 pm

not if you play elves right...they don't have to take that many cas. sure you don't all have block and dodge yet, but at the same time they don't all have tackle and mightyblow either.

elves don't need to be cheaper. they are perfectly balanced and competitive as is, and yes, that includes the league setting.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:44 pm

wesleytj wrote:elves don't need to be cheaper. they are perfectly balanced and competitive as is, and yes, that includes the league setting.

Actually I think Elves (well DE & HE) are more balanced in a league than a tourney. Looking at the NAF stats Elves haven't done that well.

Post by **Thadrin** » Sat May 31, 2003 6:38 pm

Our league's top team is Wood elves, and they have a very able coach.
In one game against that team I killed two players, and SI'd another which gave a second niggling, so he retired. I was still happy to walk away with a 1-1 draw.
Two games later our teams met again. The players had been to all intents and purposes replaced, and I lost 2-1 (last turn elf heroics....

).
details:
http://w1.185.telia.com/~u18502847/ , click on Eliteserien. Its the games involving the Treesons and Lightning you want.

Elves are FINE if played right.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Sat May 31, 2003 9:58 pm

Please do not say all elves are balanced by comparing them to a wood elf team. Anyone who plays elves regularly will tell you they are two (High and Dark vs Wood) totally different teams. Wood Elves are consistently in the top ranking of teams. Not so for the other two. Wood elves have 8 positional players and a big guy, not so for the other two.

Any debate on elves needs to be defined by which variety you are speaking of. Personally, I see no reason to decrease the cost of elf teams.

I did a long time ago when I thought that 70k was 10k to much for +1 agility over a human. But, after playing them in three editions, I can say that the extra cost prevents them from being to powerful early on. It is a significant weakness for the teams, and needs to be keep.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat May 31, 2003 10:41 pm

Thadrin wrote:4) Zombie and Toby's little debate on about page 2 made me a lot.

That was the point; finally someone who understands. People, don't take it seriously when Toby and i bash one another like that. It's all in good fun.