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

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat May 31, 2003 10:44 pm

My current wood elf team started it's first game against a lizardman team that had already played 6 games, had 6 sauri and a kroxigor. I didn't even have an apoth. I lost that game 2-1. Now, 8 games later, i'm 7-2 and one of the top teams in the league. If anything, elves should be more expensive. Maybe up their rerolls by 10k.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat May 31, 2003 10:48 pm

MistWraith wrote: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.

Actually, now that they have 4 catchers, high elves are a better team than wood elves. They're played more often than wood elves now (which wasn't at all the case before) and win more. AV8 is way better than having access to that useless crap called a treeman.

Post by **Thadrin** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:46 am

Zombie wrote: Actually, now that they have 4 catchers, high elves are a better team than wood elves. They're played more often than wood elves now (which wasn't at all the case before) and win more. AV8 is way better than having access to that useless crap called a treeman.

Having two Wardancers and a guy who you can sit on the line just to soak up damage takes a large steaming dump on anything the high elves have imo, but thats me. The high elves DO get four of the second best players in BB though (Lion Warriors, behind Wardancers). CF my argument elsewhere about different teams for different players...

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 9:28 am

I hardly ever see any elf teams, other than wood elves. In any of the local leagues or the bi-monthly tournament. Wood elves lots, Undead, lots, Orcs lots, Dwarfs a few, norse lots at tournaments few in leagues, lots of amazons, Hoards of skaven. Very few non-wood elves.

So your area might be different, but in the middle of the U.S., we have very few successful elf players.

Thus I do not see the proliferation of High Elf teams you do. The last team to get suddenly taken up by a lot of people was orcs after a very successful season by a brand new coach. Befor that the favored bashing team was undead.

Post by **Thadrin** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 11:09 am

MistWraith wrote:I hardly ever see any elf teams, other than wood elves. In any of the local leagues or the bi-monthly tournament. Wood elves lots, Undead, lots, Orcs lots, Dwarfs a few, norse lots at tournaments few in leagues, lots of amazons, Hoards of skaven. Very few non-wood elves.

So your area might be different, but in the middle of the U.S., we have very few successful elf players.

Thus I do not see the proliferation of High Elf teams you do. The last team to get suddenly taken up by a lot of people was orcs after a very successful season by a brand new coach. Befor that the favored bashing team was undead.

The Lincon Swedish Championship had three Undead teams, two skaven teams, two orc teams, two Halfling teams, three Human teams, one each of Dwarf (guess who

), Amazon, Norse, Dark Elf, Wood Elf - the eventual champion, and the other three are lost in the haze of my memory. Possibly additional Orc and Skaven. Read into the complete absence of High Elves what you will. No (surprisingly) CDs, Goblins, Lizards or Chaos either.

littlemute · Post by **littlemute** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 6:14 pm

Zombie wrote:
Actually, now that they have 4 catchers, high elves are a better team than wood elves. They're played more often than wood elves now (which wasn't at all the case before) and win more. AV8 is way better than having access to that useless crap called a treeman.

I think you're talking about online blood bowl, not real blood bowl right? Who in real life can stand those terrible miniatures????

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:35 pm

A lot of people in my league play them, but them a lot of people in my league play without proper figs too!

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 11:01 pm

i have no problem with the 3rd ed wood elf figs. yes seriously. i own 2 teams of them. i don't see what the big fuss about them is. the tights?

they're sure better than those punk-rocker 2nd ed elves, and the new ones that look just like em.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:17 pm

wesleytj wrote:
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!

Ah, so a game mechanic which makes all coaches hateing it indicates that is working and balanced. Interesting. Thus, the best games would be those games, who exclusively feature rules everybody hates.

I will probably retire from active LRB-BB (i.e. all leagues which sport ageing) soon, since this thing called "ageing" (which has nothing to do with ageing or attrition at all, it's simply punishment for SPPs) annoys me so much, that I will wait until it is replaced by something functional. I guess my antipathy towards "ageing" is another prove how good ageing works.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:24 pm

Maybe you should read the statements you quote.

If you get rid of ageing, there should be more casualties, more starplayer points, and more money.

So skills get reset to 0 while leaving the teams intact.
And you can "restore" the player faster even if he was only a lineman.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 6:51 pm

Toby wrote:Maybe you should read the statements you quote..

No, I never do that, you know? I've learnt that from a certain Toby.

If you get rid of ageing, there should be more casualties, more starplayer points, and more money.

Why should there be more money and more SPPs? I don't see the logic behind that.

I think that BB should get rid of that "random punishment for SPPs"-thing and introduce peaking instead. Take a simple 1D6.
1st skill: peaking on 1
2nd skill peaking on 2-
...
6th skill: peaking on 5-
7th skill; peaking on 5-
or something similar to that.
No more SPPs for that player (MVPs are wasted).
Simple, easy and you wouldn't be forced to play SPP-Bowl.
The problem with most other approaches is that they either are too complicated in RL (XP-system) or punish players for good performance. The new anti-uberplayer-solution must avoid both IMHO, unnecessary complexity and annoying punishment for SPPs as well.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 7:23 pm

If you don't think players will still be upset that they've peaked, you're mistaken.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 7:51 pm

Skummy wrote:If you don't think players will still be upset that they've peaked, you're mistaken.

I don't think so. It's a gigantic difference if a player stops accumulating skills or gets an annoying niggle for no other reason than being successful. And actually that's the way you have to play. Since I have fallen prey to so many early ageings I've already started to avoid getting SPPs with players who have got 2 skills. But someone has to score the touchdowns. That's absolutely ridiculous. I often wish my players would have peaked that I could use them accordingly without this artificial "must try to avoid any further SPPs at all costs"-thing.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 7:53 pm

I know several coaches that would be more irritated at the Peaked result than they would be at the Niggle.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:02 pm

Skummy wrote:I know several coaches that would be more irritated at the Peaked result than they would be at the Niggle.

You honestly mean they would prefer a niggling injury over a peak-result?