CHC Season 8 Rules Changes

Vitamin T · CHC Season 8 Rules Changes

If there are any rules changes that you would like to see for season 8 of the Critical Hit Cup please post them here.

There are some changes that we are already considering for Season 8 these include:

Removing the "Lose a Skill" option for Big Guys

Eliminating the "Flee the Pitch Rule"

Eliminating the alternate apothacary and using the one from the rule book

A revision to the playoff tie breakers to the following:
1. Total Points (Win=5 Draw=3 Loss=1)
2. Head to Head
3. Division Record
4. Differential (TD Difference x3 + Casulty Difference x2)
5. Record vs Common Opponents
6. Coin Flip

A revision to the forfeit rules as follows:
Forfeiting team loses 1 Fan Factor, Receives a 0-2 loss and any players on the team with 51+ SPPs will leave the team on a d6 roll of 1-3
The team forfeited to receives a 2-0 win, 2d6 total winnings, 1 mvp determined using normal mvp rules and two TDs that can be given to any player(s)

Establishing an official alternate coach (Likely Jerod) who will fill in and coach a team for players that are unavailible for an extended period. Some examples of acceptible reasons for using the alternate coach would be unavalibility due to illness or injury for at least a large portion of the two week period or unavalibilty due to leaving town for a large portion of the two week period. The alternate coach would not be used in cases where a coach just didnt have the time to get the game played.

Eliminating the +1 fame for higher seeds in a playoff match. This would likely be replaced with some kind of bonus to the fame roll.

Changing the fourth trophy prize from the prize for winning the "not in the face bowl" to a prize for best team theme/painting. Only teams that have been painted would be eligible for this prize.

We are also looking to get feedback on some of the other alternate rules that we are using and may eliminate them based on this feedback. These additional alternate rules that we may or may not keep are:

Skill Cap of 4.
Minimum Fan Factor of 1
Bonus MVP and Bonus winnings inducements
Semi random mvp (would be replaced by either fully random mvp or pick mvp)

So, if there are any comments on the changes in this post or if anyone has new ideas to consider we would love to hear your feedback!

TL

kar2nr

i know i'm not playing this season, but maybe someone will like this idea, make first skill random. someone was talking about it and i thought it should be brought up.

Vitamin T

One additional item,

Would like to know what people think about eliminating overtime during the regular season. Match would be considered a draw if it is tied at the end of regulation.

TL

vegeta7913

Perhaps, instead of playing games, people can also just flip a coin to decide their matches.

Vitamin T

Thats stupid! Maybe rock paper scissors...

MeatLoafX

Rock is totally broken.

Blood Bowl Wizard

I want to be the official alternate coach in any game vs Peter, or Tim, or Drew, or Nate, or Paulie!

Knox

Pete

I didn't realize I was in next season?

If you guys want to make a random skill chart, I'd be happy to help with that. You'll definately want to use d66 since there are so many skills. The real debate is what skills should be easier/harder to roll.

I'd actually like to revert all the rules you have suggested Tim, I think making the league more like everywhere else is good.

I'd also love to have a random skill for the first skill, I think it adds so much variety to the game. I don't think it really hoses people much and I think that helps with the skill cap to a degree. Perhaps you could even make the first two skills random and then eliminate the cap entirely?

Since I'm not sure I'm even playing in the league next season (since you didn't have room earlier), my opinion probably counts for very little. :p

-Peter

Vitamin T

Pete,

At this point we have 19 firm players for next season before I start going down the alternates list. TJ is at the top of the list but I havent been able to talk to him about it yet.

I'd say at this point that an kind of random 1st skill will not be in for next season. It is certainly something I'd consider for future season, I like the concept for certain. However, with no chart and no testing of said chart with the new season a month away I wouldnt want to do it yet.

With skills at 6/16/31 my opinion would be that if first skill were random there would be no need for skill cap at all. Personally I dont think that a cap is absolutely neccisary it is more to promote vareity and a random skill would do that all the better.

vegeta7913

As to who's in and out next season, we are still compiling our lists. Except for Drop. I know exactly where he is on our lists.
Pete, if we want to make it more like everyone else, then a random skill chart is right out. Personally, I prefer many of the rules we have in place because it isn't like everywhere else. It adds an element that makes it the Crit Hit league. if you want to play straight 5.0, buy the game and play it on the computer (which, according to Kaufmann, you have already tasted the bitter fruits of the computer "random" generator". Technically, if we want to follow the book, we shouldn't be making a schedule...coaches should be challenging one another...according to the book. The schedule is an amendment, an after thought, if you will, when they decide to talk about the playoffs. Which, by the way, doesn't have the 5 or 6 deep set of tie-breakers we currently have. Just some simple math and you have your top 4 teams. Also, there is no toilet bowl offered for the lowest team value...by the book. the rewards we give for the crit hit cup, since it is not one of the 4 main cups is also too much...by the book. The trophy bonus for the league mvp and coach are not in the book...shall I continue?
My point is this, not just at you Pete, but anyone out there who wants to discuss a rules change in this league. Give me a reason...the doesn't include the saying "we want to get back to the book." The game play stuff, fine...its not in the book - like the flee rule or the apothecary rule...I'll buy that. But the stuff that is outside the game? Like, losing a skill, or skill cap, or what the hell ever...i need more of a reason...by MY book.

Vitamin T

I agree that for elements of league structure that the default position is going to be staying with what we have rather than changing things. To make it clear the above list is only a list of things that we are considering not a list of definite changes we will be making.

clu

I'm for all the changes. I'd like to stay away from random skills being enforced in the Crit Hit league. However, if a fourth league needs to form i'm ok with running a 4 game season to test it.

That being said Crit Hit League rules! & Drew's book is covered with rainbows and unicorns.

Vitamin T

I feel that any kind of random skill idea is going to require some testing as well.

kar2nr

if anyone would like to test it we will be doing it in the EIBBL. i used it back in ohio and it really gave you an interesting way to build your players.

SunDevil

100% against random skills here.

It makes no sense. Players should develop the skills that their coach thinks are most desirable - both in real sports and in our beloved Blood Bowl.

Player development is one of the things that I love most about BB. It's one of the things I love most about ANY game. Randomizing skills takes all that away. The dice are developing those players, not you.

"Hey, my Block Orc had three kills in that game!"
"Awesome. Here's your Pass Block."
Rolling Eyes

vegeta7913

I would have gone with:
"My block orc just killed 3 guys, here's your shadowing"

Pete

MeatLoafX

I'm for pick skills, but I understand the attraction of a random first skill. As it stands now, for example, SunDevil's black orcs will all look pretty much the same after 1 skill. Maybe 2 or even three. And you can't blame him for it. However, it leads to some pretty boring team building. (and yes, I was no better with my dwarves). Coaches choice is great and all, but how much choice do you really have when some skills are so incredibly powerful, you'd be at a disadvantage to *not* take them.

Trius

I would not like to see random skills. We already have a random skill league. I enjoy random skills quite a bit and my favorite piece of all time had two aweful random skills that I never would have chosen but that added to his flavor. I like that the leagues are not the same. I say if you want to play random skills, play NJCBBL, It's a lot of fun. I like that there is a 5.0 league as well and would like to keep it as close to the official recommended rules as possible.

Vitamin T

The other league officials and I met on Sunday to discuss the potential upcoming rules changes.

We have finalized several of the considered changes but will have some to discuss at the coaches meeting. The rules that we are changing for certain are:

Establishing an official alternate coach to fill in if a coach has an extended absence.

Removing the option to lose a skill for large monsters. Any players that have taken this option will need to select an alternate skill from either the normal or doubles skill category.

Revising the league tie breakers to the following:
1. Total Points (W=5, D=3, L=1)
2. Head to Head
3. Division Record
4.TD Differance x3 + Casualty Differance x2
5. Record vs Common Opponents
6. Coin Flip/Leg Wrestle

Revising the Forfeit Rules as follows:
Forfeiting team loses the match 2-0, loses 1 fan factor, an players with 51+ Star Player Points will leave the team on a d6 roll of 1-3

Team forfeited to receives:
a 2-0 Victory
2D6 total Winnings
1 Total MVP selected using normal MVP Rules
2 TDs to give to any player(s)

Removing the Flee the Pitch Rule

Removing the +1 Fame in playoff matches for the higher seed. The high seed will instead receive +1 to the Opening kick off roll and +1 to their match winnings in Quarter and Semi Final matches (Not in the Blood Bowl)

Changing the Not in the Face Bowl trophy to a trophy for best team theme to be voted on by the league coaches. Only teams that are painted (not pre painted minis) by the end of the season would be eligible.

Vitamin T

These are some items that we have decided to bring up for discusion at the coaches meeting (8/9/9):

Returning to the apothacary from the rule book (a reroll of the injury roll)

Eliminating or changing the skill cap of 4

Eliminating the overtime period for regular season matches

SunDevil

Talking about eliminating the skill cap seems counterintuitive when paired up with the Random Skill discussion. I thought the pro-random camp liked that it diversified team builds. But eliminating the skill cap will make more teams look similar.

Though I would love to have an all-Block/MiB Orc team... Very Happy

Vitamin T

There are many camps Sunny D!

I know there are people that like the skill cap how it is, people that want random skills and people that want it like the book. We thought we would open it up for discussion though it is like to remain as is for now, but we will see!

MeatLoafX

I'm open to the idea. I do think it sponsors varied team building, but I also think it effectively eliminates some teams from serious consideration in this league. Having your team capped at 4 block, the most obvious example, is rough when other teams have access to a full roster of it.

I know I consider the skill cap when determining whether I even want to play a particular team. So, in that instances, while the builds of a particular team may be varied, it could also mean there's less variety in the league as a whole.

Groomie

I more than likely WON'T be at this meeting because of a family function, and I'd like my position on this to be known.

Apothecary: Apothecaries should stay the same as they are right now.

Skill Caps: Block, Guard, Frenzy, Mighty Blow and Dodge are all skills that would become too abusive in a setting with no skill caps. The skill caps make the game more challenging to play and teams more interesting to build.

Random Skills: I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand, I really like the idea that rolling for the first skill makes it much more challenging to develop teams. On the other hand I think that Random Skills was a concept that was developed by the JCBBL, and it isn't something that has been widely embraced by Blood Bowl players elsewhere. I think we should definitely work up a small test league for this. I also would like to see some coaches deal with a Shadowing Black Ork or a Strongarm Dwarf Lineman.

Lose a Skill: My opinion on this is that the large monsters were designed with the idea that they would ALWAYS have drawbacks. You could let the skills on a large monster not count towards a skill cap instead of letting them drop Wild Animal or Loner or Bone Head.

Overtime: I don't like the idea of dropping regular season overtime. Stalling is too easy and too good already. Without the chance of overtime it will be worse. If you get rid of overtime, then bring back turn over cards/inducements.

Fleeing: Get rid of this rule.

Fame in the playoffs: Why have any rules for the higher seed? I don't see the reason for them in the first place. If anything, let the higher seed have all their misses back for their first playoff game and let the lower seed play with all their misses. I don't think that it is fair or accurate to give away things to a team that is a higher seed than their opponent. The higher seed already has a better playoff schedule. That should be good enough.

The 4th Trophy: I don't have a problem with changing this trophy. I do have a problem when it comes to judging a team for an award where the painting of the team is part of that criteria. I have painted several teams for the league, and I'd like to know if those count as "pre-painted". Does a coach who pays for his team to be painted still get the award? Or does the person who actually did the work get some kind of credit?

I am, in all ways, totally against awarding a trophy to a team of D+D minis (or any pre-painted plastic minis for that matter). I am not being a jerk here, just honest.

Alternate Coach: I think this might be good for regular season games, especially where we have a coach leave. I'd rather see a game be played than a forfeit given. In the playoffs, we have more flexibility in scheduling, and I think this would be unfair for the coach being replaced. Who wants to win (or lose) the Blood Bowl by proxy?

As to keeping this as close to LRB 5: The league has made changes to improve everyone's enjoyment of the game. To me, we either have our own rules (like the ones we have right now, which are small in number and everyone seems to like) or we just play it straight out of the book. I don't like the idea of changing one rule because "that's how it is in LRB 5" but changing another because "it's a dumb rule". We can't have it both ways. There are some rules in LRB 5 I am fundamentally against, such as no skill caps and the Apothecary. I think what we have is not just fine, it is great. Even the move reduced Wood Elf Catchers.

Steve

vegeta7913

NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
GROOM AND I AGREE ON STUFF!!!!!!!!!

THE END IS UPON US AND IT IS NOT EVEN 2012 YET!!!!!!!!!

vegeta7913

On the 4th Trophy, it will NOT be a painting contest - it would be the overall theme of the team - the requirement to qualify will be that the team must be painted - not a prepainted miniature. By theme, we mean Team Name, Naming scheme, painting/uniforms - Like pauly's carebear team - he painted the team in the flavor of his theme - His names were unique and funny, his team painting matched his naming theme - It wasn't the best paint job, but it made sense and was fun. That's what we would be looking at for the 4th trophy.

Groomie

On the 4th Trophy, it will NOT be a painting contest - it would be the overall theme of the team - the requirement to qualify will be that the team must be painted - not a prepainted miniature. By theme, we mean Team Name, Naming scheme, painting/uniforms - Like pauly's carebear team - he painted the team in the flavor of his theme - His names were unique and funny, his team painting matched his naming theme - It wasn't the best paint job, but it made sense and was fun. That's what we would be looking at for the 4th trophy.

Cool. I would still like there to be mention of who painted the team, either during the voting process or when the winner is announced. For Example: This season's winner is In Your Face, Lyons! coached by Steve Groom and painted by a really angry colorblind unemployed guy!

vegeta7913

nope, who painted it doesn't matter - only the coach matters.

Vitamin T

Painting for hire through the store is something that we are trying to promote in my mind. Anything that has people sending some cash back CHGs way to repay them for allowing us to run the league out of the store. I would likely mention the painter as well as the coach during the awards process. While it isnt a painting contest, like Drew said painting can play into the quality of the theme. We are certainly not forcing people to have painted minis, they are still a-ok for use in the CHC. We just wanted to nudge people that direction a little bit.

TL

vegeta7913

I'd prefer not to mention the painter til the awards, not during the ballot process, to avoid "tainting" the proceedings.

kar2nr

if you eliminate the OT, you have to stopp players from stalling. they should move their full movement with the option of GFI's. if they stall, you need to come up with a penalty to compinsate, like...." If the player can score, he must with the options of using GFI's to do so, but if he does not, then call 'Delay of Game' this would give the opposing team a TD and reset for kick-off as if the opposing team 'actually' scored"...just a thought.....

MeatLoafX

If you don't want a team to "stall", find a way to knock the ball free.

I know it's not the most popular tactic out there, but it is a tactic - and adding another house rule seems to defeat the purpose of stream-lining the rules.

Kaufmann

if you cant find a way to make someone score then thats too bad. stalling is and always has been a valid tactic. its not going away. period. stop crying about it.

Nipponb

I have to echo what has already been said. Stalling is part of the game, and I for one don't mind it. Even though I usually play teams that go splat. If I can't make them score or take it away, then I don't deserve a chance to win. Should they not stall, and leave me with a chance at scoring, I will try to make them regret ever making that mistake.

Noel

vegeta7913

the reason why OT is being considered to be removed is to save time. OT will still be there in the playoffs - but we're trying to keep the weekly games going. Stalling is a concern I have as well, that's why we're putting this out there to get feedback.

Groomie

It is all fine and good to say that stalling is a valid tactic, but it is ALSO an equally valid tactic to play for overtime for a win. My win against Spencer would have been robbed of a lot of tension, knowing that on the last play where Spencer played his last card, if I knew that the best he could have managed was a tie rather than overtime and possibly winning. The same can be said of my loss to Jason Burns, which was a HUGE game for him in terms of the playoffs. That game was decided by overtime.

And who can forget Chris' overtime victory against Pauly? That game was amazing to watch, and was one that I felt jealous not to be playing in.

We already have enough draws in this league as it is. Overtime should stay.

Groomie

I just saw the part about mvp assignment, and I thought I'd chime in on that.

I'd rather have the chance to pick who gets the mvp (as long as that piece was on the pitch). I don't mind the current way of doing things, but taking this step out would definitely speed up the post game process.

Making the MVP completely random seems silly, especially since a dead piece could end up with the MVP.

Titan

I like the current MVP system, but if it were to change I feel as though it should change to a pick your MVP because after a real football game the coach doesn't go into the lockerroom and randomly assing the football to a player on the team, he gives it to the people who led it, or individual. It just seems that it would make sense for an actual football stand point. my $.02 on that one.

MeatLoafX

I always see "stalling" - and I don't think that's a good term, but it's what we have - as a complaint of fast teams (because they want to score as much as possible) and it's considered a valid strategy by slow teams (who consider it suicide to score quickly against a fast team). A lot probably depends on your team choice and your particular style of play.

I played dwarves last season - I held off scoring many times because it would be a tactical mistake to score soon - especially against a team that can score in one or two turns and erase the score I just made.

Next season, I'm 90% sure I'm playing Skaven - so I'll probably get frustrated at the teams that do the same thing.

Titan

kar2nr

Vitamin T

MeatLoafX

Kaufmann

if it were to be an optional rule it would have to be agreed upon by both coaches prior to the start of the game. not when/if over time comes up as Ty suggested.

kar2nr

i guess the reason i dislike stalling is if you are going to score just frakin' do it, i know there are teams that it will hurt and vise-versa but you know what, too bad, figure your stategy thus. if you score too early, and it becomes a mistake you have noticed later, did you learn anything for that, or how can i keep them from scoring? this is part of the coach's job to figure out how to win. every game has a winner and a loser, do true sports athletes stand in front of the endzone when there is noone around and just stand there to kill time on the clock, NO, even dancing in the endzone causes a delay of game and unsportsmanlike conduct ruling. this unsportsmanlike conduct is exactly what stalling is.....

MeatLoafX

Kaufmann

Trius

"stalling" is not just a legitimate tactic, it is vital to slow team and any team that plays attrition ball. If you want some crazy you must move your full spaces rule, then I also submit that you must make blocks if able rule. They are equally bad ideas for opposite teams. If I feel that the best course of action is a game of attrition and grinding then that is what I'll play and I can not be convinced to feel bad about it. If you want to play woodelves, leap your dancer in and take the ball from me. If it's in my hand, I'll play the ball to win.

Groomie

Stalling is fine. That's what fouling is for. Overtime should stay in. Not having it is actually worse for a lot of teams, such as Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Ogres, Norse (maybe), and any other team that needs 3 to 4 turns to score when they are trying to score in a hurry.

I still feel that we have had some excellent non-playoff overtime wins that were awesome to play/watch. We also have a LOT of draws. Getting rid of overtime would create more draws which in turn can complicate playoff position.

Making it an optional rule is a bad idea as well. What happens if it gets passed over and neither coach realizes it until overtime? As an optional rule it would just add another complication.

I don't see a lot of players saying that overtime is bad. I see a lot saying that stalling is good and a lot saying that stalling is bad and a lot saying that overtime should stay. We haven't had a lot of problems with overtime as it stands. We already allow players to finish games over a series of days now.

SunDevil

My votes -

Keep OT.

Do not 'outlaw' or 'legislate' stalling. Unlike in Clix (when it was a d-bag move by a player to run out time), it's OK with me in BB. This is a turn-based game (you each get a set number of turns) instead of a timed game so no stalling BB team is going to cheat me out of my turn or turns. That is what the point of stalling in Clix was and it made me want to punch people in the face. Totally different in BB.

Keep the current Pick-3 lotto-style MVP. It's easy and randomizing MVPs cripples any sort of team development plan.

Vitamin T

Reguard the possible return to the actual apoth from the LRB.

I have compiled a list of the injuries from season 8. The change to the apoth would not affect the amount of deaths as that type of failure would be just as common. What it would do is increase the number of miss next games and permanent injuries. Here are the totals:

Deaths - 40
Miss Next Game - 37
-1 Move - 12
-1 Armor - 2
-1 Agility - 4
-1 Strength - 5
Nigs - 7

These are the totals from casualties that actual got through. These numbers do not account for injuries that apoths were used on successfully.

In my mind I'd like to see the total of MNG + the number of Permanent injuries be x2 the number of deaths and personally I think that the apothacary change will accomplish that.

TL

Groomie

Those numbers will fluctuate based on the types of teams played. We had a lot of high armor teams to begin the season with, and we had a LOT of restarts and new coaches coming in as replacements. If the league has more AV 7 teams (which appears to be the case this season) those numbers will go up because teams that have less access to strength chart skills will begin to deal more injuries.

Do you have any numbers from before we changed the apothecary that would support your target number of MNG+Permanent Injuries?

Vitamin T

The number of 7 vs 9 armor teams should increase all the casualty totals but should not change the SI to Death ratio which is what I'd like to see.

I only have the sheets for season 6 & 7 which both had the 3rd style Apothacary.

Vitamin T

I have complied the numbers for Season 6. There are a few sheets missing so these numbers are not 100% complete:

Deaths - 42
Miss Next Game - 45
-1 Move - 8
-1 Armor - 5
-1 Agility - 5
-1 Strength - 3
Nigs - 5

To me these numbers have a very similar ratio of SI to Death as these season did.

TL

vegeta7913

wow...thta's alotta failed apoths

Titan

Or multiple people dieing in a game

Groomie

With the availability of Journeymen, I think that a LOT of deaths go without being apothecaried. I personally have let at least two deaths go by and I have had a third death (one of my Wardancers) die after the apothecary has been used. I know for a fact that Mr. Doo from Chance's team died when he would have used an apothecary. In that case, Chance still had an apothecary and was prohibited from using him.

We also had at least on game (Malloy's humans vs. Chance's Orks) where there were MULTIPLE failed apothecaries that resulted in deaths.

I think that people are not using their apothecaries on death results as much as they are on stat reductions on their good pieces.
I think we should start compiling some stats on the apothecary so that we can make a better informed decision about it. Most people indicate on their sheets if an apothecary failed. Shouldn't be to hard for us to track.

vegeta7913

Make a better informed desc on what Steve? Tim gave you this and last season's data.
At this point, the coaches meeting is on 08/09/09, so about 3 weeks. Unfortunately, there isn't another set of data for us to review, so what Tim provided is the data. Go forward, sure we can look at tracking the injuries etc, but at this point we will have this issue open for discussion at the coaches meeting and the issue will be resolved there.

Vitamin T

Groomie

We have season 7 statistics, and part of season 6. We don't have any stats at all on seasons where the original apothecary rules were in effect. We have no way of knowing if this change will bring the number of injuries in line. We also don't currently have any way of knowing exactly how the apothecary factored into season 7's stats.

We changed this rule because, in Tim's words: "The apothecary shouldn't work the same number of times that Regeneration does. It should be better."

I know of 5 of the deaths in season 7 had absolutely nothing to do with the way the apothecary works right now. That is 1/8 of the total number. If we throw out those 5 deaths, then the number of deaths to MNG and Permanent Injuries becomes 35 Deaths to 67 MNG/PI. That puts the numbers where Tim wants them. Here is the list of those five deaths and the circumstances.

Gerald Malloy's Humans: The apothecary (and his induced apothecary) both failed (which is statistically identical to the old apothecary) on rolls to avoid death. Both those results are a 1 in 6 chance of happening.

My Wardancer: I had already used my apothecary when Tim killed my second Wardancer.

Quinton's Dwarf Lineman: Quinton let the death by thrown rock go without using his apothecary.

Chance's Goblin: The goblin was eaten by his own troll. He wanted to use an apothecary but the rules don't allow for it.

Vitamin T

The proposed change to the apoth would not effect how well it works to prevent a death at all. The change would only cause the frequency of SIs to increase.

Now Apoth fails on a 1 (17%) and works the rest of the time.

In the Rule Book you reroll the injury result with deaths occuring on a 6 (17%).

There are a few differances here. For one thing the apoth in the rulebook would never fail to recover a badly hurt player while our changed one will fail 17% of the time. The biggest difference is that there would be a sizable increase in the number of SIs with the rulebook apothacary.

vegeta7913

We also don't know that it won't bring the injuries in line Steve. We also don't know if the world is going to end in 2012 like the Mayan Calendar predicts. We also don't know whether my hair will go white or a nice grey when i'm 40...what we do know is that we don't have previous season data for the book apothecary. So, for us to get data on that, we need to use the book apothecary for a couple seasons, then, at that point, we can make a rational choice. Wow, in all your arguing Steve, you just managed to switch me from my keep the current apothecary stance to lets go with the book. Well played Sir.

drop?

vegeta7913

Well, Mr. Drop, it means that we have you on our list of alternative coaches. So, we know were you our on our list.

bludbowler

I am not currently in the CHC league, so I am making this suggestion as an unbiased observer.

I have two possible solutions to the Random Skill vs. Chosen Skill debate:

1. Roll 1D6 after a skill is chosen, and the player gets to keep it on a roll of 4-6. If the roll is 1-3, choose another skill (no repeats).

2. A coach may choose any skill for a player unless the new skill makes that player's new skill set identical to that of any other player currently on the team.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Discuss.

Groomie

I don't think we should go with random skills at all. Random charts would have to be developed, and that would lengthen the post-game process. It would also clearly add negative play experience to many of the coaches who view team building as almost equal to playing the game in terms of the fun they derive from Blood Bowl.

Your solution is interesting, but not random enough. It is still a win/win scenario for the piece getting the skill. Random skill should result in skill combinations that aren't always ideal. Teams would still be more or less the same as they are now, it would just take a little longer to develop them.

Groomie

vegeta7913

You CANNOT predicate an argument for or against something basing your decision solely on whether you feel you are rolling "poorly" or not.

So, a person is not allowed to make a choice based on their past experiences or feelings? Nor are they allowed to argue based on said experience or feelings? Isn't that the essence of an argument; what you believe? Let me ask Steve...have you actually played with the 5.0 apothecary? More than just the one-offs in the basement or online or w/e? For an actual season or two? No? How can you argue against something that you've never tried? Just because it is different doesn't make it wrong....(side note: I'm not hitting on you. Although this is starting to eerily remind me of a trip to summer camp). And I know changes can be scary Steve. But, sometimes, change can be exciting too! Just think, if the Hillshire family had never opened a farm and never started smoking tiny sausages and making tiny cheeses, we wouldn't have great holiday gift baskets. So, please, give Hillshire Farms a chance to earn your holiday business.

Claiming you are rolling "poorly" is a fallacy.

Awesome! No one can claim they're rolling poorly ever again! it was a sentence on the internet, it must be so................unless, the person is able to provide 3-4 seasons worth of dice rolling data which shows an average of less than 3.5. Once that documentation is verified by 2 different statistical analysts, can that person say they have been rolling "poorly". Of course, they must use the past tense, and after every roll, must provide a new set of data to continue to be able to use the adjective "poorly".

Vitamin T

Groomie

Regardless of how you feel your dice are rolling, or if that feeling is valid or not, saying that our current apothecary is bad because you may be having bad luck doesn't make the other option ANY BETTER.

Vitamin T

SunDevil

I think I will actually be able to make the coaches meeting this time but here are my continued votes -

NO to randomizing skils
YES to using the rulebook Apoth rule
YES to removing OT
NO to not being able to lose neg skills on doubles (though I know I'm losing that battle!)

Also, of course dice can save or screw you. They are living breathing things. What is all this 'you roll good and bad, there is no rolling poorly' business? Smile

Vitamin T

My Zen Attitude has served me pretty well so far...

wrekka

I have my opinions about the rule changes... but.. it's a "whatever" kind of thing..

But here's the deal:

I like blood bowl.
I like playing blood bowl in the CHG league.
The rules are what they are.. I can't change 'em.

Randomize Skills? No
Rulebook Apoth? Yes
Removing OT (on agreement between both players)? Yes
Big Guy "neg" skill rule? Yes

If any of these don't go the way I'd like them to... such is life. It's Blood Bowl... I'll still play regardless.

SunDevil

Groomie

Having given more thought to the matter, I think it would be best if we did adopt the standard LRB rules. This would include the apothecary and large monsters having bad skills. There is a great reason for this: New players and tournaments. If we use the LRB rules then players from other areas may be more inclined to visit our area and our store to play in tournaments. Plus, if we go by LRB 5 our dedicated staff has a LOT less stress to deal with.

On the topic of optional rules:
Inducements are optional. I like all the inducements currently available, and I would strongly suggest we retain the bonus MVP and Winnings.

Overtime should at the very least be the default setting, while allowing players to decline overtime if they like when Overtime happens. Since the game is supposed to be fun, if one player no longer wishes to go on then the game should end. Who wants to play someone that doesn't want to play?

The rulebook lists assignment of the MVP Award as an optional rule. If we do away with the bonus MVP inducement, then I think each coach should be allowed to assign the MVP Award. If we retain that inducement I think that we should stay with the current system.

There aren't, I believe (I could be mistaken) any rules in LRB 5 for Trophies. I like that trophies give a benefit, and I would like to add them to our list of optional rules as they stand currently.

I did have a question regarding LRB 5 and fouling. I know that fouls do not give the fouling piece any Star Player Points, but I thought that was a house rule of our league. I propose that if it is not a rule from LRB 5 that we allow injuries generated from fouling to count for Star Player Points and for team injuries.

Looking forward to a season of dead Wardancers and slow catchers,
Steve

Vitamin T

Steven,

Happy to see that you have come around to the planned system.

The only thing that you didnt mention is the skill cap. This is one rule we have not decide on one way or another. The skill cap debate got a little derailed by the random skill debate. We will not be having random skills the season. Skill cap yes or skill cap no, is still up in the air.

TL

SunDevil

Skill Cap: YES

The_drubber

I would like to weigh in on some of the motions up for discussion. Please take this as a vote if it comes to that.

Skill Cap: Yes, I like this. It allows for interesting team builds and strengthens some teams...hurts others. That is my official vote, but I wouldn't be overly sad if this was changed.

OT: Keep it...unless both coaches decide NOT to continue AFTER regulation.

Losing Negative Skills: I am FOR NOT being allowed to lose negative skills. Including retrofitting each player that has lost a negative skill with a double skill.

Apoth Rule: I am FOR the LR5 method. Better odds of a player not dying.

Randomizing Skills: Big Fat NO. I probably need to play with it to even see how this benifits anyone.

Inducements: No to star players. Yes to additional MVP and Winnings.

Groomie

I feel it is worth mentioning that the CHC league has played with no skill caps in the past and it was determined at the time that skill caps were necessary. That being said, here are my thoughts on skill caps.

Skill caps aren't in the main rules nor are they in the listed optional rules (if I recall). I honestly don't see the point anymore. I don't see the potential for abuse in CHC with LRB 5 that prompted the JCBBL and the NJCBBL to adopt skill caps for 3rd Edition. In keeping with my previous statement, I would therefore like to see them go, as it would support CHC staying as close to the LRB 5 rules as possible. However, this is an issue that I can definitely appreciate from both sides.

There is, in my opinion, a valid concern over teams not being different enough beyond their stat line (i.e. every piece getting Block as their first skill). However, the current edition of the rules has really made most skills useful (just look at Diving Catch!), and I think that most coaches will still seek a balance of skills to help them win games.

If we do away with the skill caps and then decide to reinstate them, we have to have a plan in place for what happens to teams with more than 4 of any skill. Personally, I think we should treat those teams just as we would treat large monsters that may (or may not) have their negative skills given back to them. I am NOT in favor of letting teams retain skills in excess of the cap if it were reinstated.

We might consider a partial skill cap for skills like Block, Dodge, and Guard. I would recommend that a cap of four be considered for those three skills, especially guard. This would help differentiate teams over time. Dwarves, Norse, and Amazons would still be interesting and largely unique teams under such an arrangement.

In conclusion, of the ideas put forth here, I think the partial skill cap is the best because it limits three of the most sought after skills in the game. If a partial cap isn't something the league wants, then my vote goes to no skill caps.

Groomie

MeatLoafX

SunDevil

I vote we use the rulebook Apoth rules just to minimize house rules. Everyone knows I LOVE most of the house rules, but there is a lot to be said for simplifying and following the rulebook as best you can. Plus, it sort of makes Decay stand out a little less - every charted player gets 2d6 rolled at them, but the Decayers have to suck up both.

Plus, I'm saving my energy to fight for another house rule. Wink

The_drubber

Look at Meatloaf's post below.

MeatLoafX

My thoughts on skill caps:

This is a very tough one for me. As a person who is new to the league and new to BB in general, I don't know the history of the leagues and what they were like before a skill cap. (Likewise, I know nothing of the other area leagues or their composition).

The biggest advantage to keeping the skill cap is to make the league more diverse and to promote creative team building. I do think it accomplishes that. Even on teams that fully intend to max out a particular skill, thought must be put in who gets the skill and when and a coach may be forced to take a "non-traditional" skill to preserve the spot for another player. If I only get 4 block pieces, for example, do I want to use one on a lineman?

My preference would be to encourage coaches to diversify, and trust them to do it. But we have a fairly competitive league and people likely want to play it safe when it comes to team building. History, apparently, showed that there was an issue here - and I'm willing to defer to that judgment.

There are some areas of concern, however, and I'm interested in hearing thoughts.

For example, each team may be diversified, but is there an issue with the overall makeup of the league? The rosters this year don't seem as concentrated on "high armor/ST/injury" or "bashy" teams - so this may not be a concern. However, one potential negative effect could be that people may want to take a team already loaded with the "best" skills in order to not suffer as much under the skill cap. The obvious choices are norse and dwarves with their block, but there are several teams with block pieces, like Orcs, that when they combine with the 4 additional blocks gives you a really, really solid build. Was some of the heavy load of Orc/Dwarf due to the skill cap? Did it push the league to bash instead of a balance?

Also, some people may be less inclined to take other teams because of the skill cap. When choosing a team, you have to take into account the rest of the league and your potential for development. Have people not chosen to go out on a limb and take a particular team because they are worried about the skill cap? Some teams, I believe, are designed around the fact that they can compensate for some drawbacks by skill choices. Chaos Pact is a great example. Having played them, you wouldn't take 10 block pieces (it would be generic and not that good as you'd ignore their terrific skill access - their biggest plus side), but would 5 block pieces be out of line? 5 dodge pieces? Are they a worse team because you can't compensate for their lack of starting skills?

Finally, I'd be interested in how much diversity it creates in the long run. Do most dwarf teams end up looking pretty much the same in the end, with some minor variations? Don't most take 4 Guards, 4 MiB, SF, etc? Do we trade one type of team for another?

Just some thoughts - I'd like to hear whether I'm way off or not, especially from those who have some history to share with the newbie.

MeatLoafX

The math regarding the houserule/rulebook chances of SI or greater (or the logic as you don't really need to do the match part):

While the odds of any particular dice roll are the same, the chances of an overall effect is what we are looking at.

Assuming a SI or greater is what we are talking about...

A serious injury or death happens on a 5 or a 6 on the first roll. Under the new rules, the injury stays on a 5 or 6 (i.e. an undesireable result - not a specific injury or death) of the apoth roll. Old rule, it sticks on only a 1 (1/6 chance)

1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9 or 11% (rulebook)
1/3 x 1/6 = 1/18 or 5.5% (houserule)

Right?

Chance of a death sticking is exactly the same, but I think the chance of a SI sticking is twice as great (makes sense because you have twice the chance of failure to get a better result compared to before)

There is another benefit, though, to the rulebook - if a BH results on either dice roll, the player goes to reserves.

The_drubber

Good point, Jason...that is why I asked for people to check my math! Smile

I forgot to take into account the inital roll for the house rule apoth.

Groomie

The likelihood of a Death result is exactly the same, regardless.

Injury Roll = D6 + D8

Badly Hurt = 1, 2 or 3 on the D6 component of the Injury Roll.
Serious Injury = 4 or 5 on the D6 component of the Injury Roll.
Death = 6 on the D6 component on the Injury Roll.

This does not change regardless of which Apothecary is used.
The likelihood of inflicting a Serious Injury is exactly the same.
What changes is the chance that the injury will be negated.

Current Apothecary has a much higher chance of curing ANY injury, LRB 5 Apothecary has a lower chance for Serious Injuries being cured, roughly the same for death, and better for Badly Hurt.

Kaufmann

Vitamin T

You are exactly correct about the apothacary Jason. Frequency of Dead results should be exactly the same, while the frequency of SIs when apothacaries are used would be doubled. This is what we are looking for. One thing to keep in mind here, while the rate of SIs when apoth is used would double, 1/2 of those results would be miss next game.

I think that you description of the skill cap situation is spot on. I dont believe that skill cap is "nessicary", meaning I dont think that not having a skill cap would cause any major problems. I do think that having the cap should lead to more interesting and diverse skill selection. However, I have the same fears about this that you do. It is quite possible that skill selection isnt more diverse at all and that people are just limited to 4 of each skill, selecting the same sets of 4 on every team.

I do not think that skill cap is what cause the league to be so bashy in recent seasons. My personal opinion about this is that generally newer coaches tend to play more bashy teams and that the league has had a large number of newer coaches recently. The league looks to be more AGI based than STR based this year.

havign a skill cap certainly makes some teams better and makes other teams worse. However, I dont think it makes any team terrible or too powerful either way. (My personal opinion)

Groomie

I believe that part of the rise of the "bashy" teams is the constant urging of new coaches to play high armor value pieces to help mitigate their initial lack of skill. Finesse teams, like Elves or Skaven, usually require more "Blood Bowl Math", and I believe that can be daunting to many players. Plus, those bashy teams get some pretty awesome skills to pick from.

MeatLoafX

Both you and Tim are quite likely correct. However, you can't ignore the fact that some teams - like Norse - greatly benefit from the skill cap. I think it's a testament to the league that there aren't more Norse teams, but it's very strong (imho) under the current house rule.

Other teams may be ignored entirely, however, because I truly believe they are designed to allow maximum flexibility in team building - even if it means taking "boring" skills until they can hold their own. Until I tried Chaos Pact, I had no idea how hard it was to have 0 block pieces. I'd never had no many pieces die on me. As much as I love that team - and I do - I could never really get it off the ground in the league I played in because I got out blocked - and even 4 block pieces wouldn't have helped.

(and I'm not blaming my poor showing all on that, but having to play Dwarves, Norse, Orcs, Chaos Dwarves, and even Humans and Lizards who didn't have so much block, but still out-blocked me, was BRUTAL)

But - as the league moves away from so much bash, it's moving into an overall more diverse league I think. As such, you will get your diversity by the sheer difference in races. The skill cap *may* no longer be so necessary. I don't know.

(and my team, Skaven, wouldn't likely be affected at all by the skill cap - I don't intend to take block on more than 4 pieces, if that. Wrestle, on the other hand...) Wink

Vitamin T

My skaven team online has 6 block I think. Personally I think that people overrate norse in skill cap leagues. They are probably the team that benifits the most from skill cap and definitely become a top 5 team under a skill cap, but in my opinion they are hardly the strongest team. There are plenty of examples of teams that are powerful using no cap and much weaker with a cap in affect, such as amazons. An Amazon team was one of the major reasons that we put the cap in place.

TL

vegeta7913

yes yes, we know you won two bloodbowls with the maidens. You're the Bloodbowl God...we get it, okay!

Vitamin T

Ok then, as long as you know... Very Happy

Kaufmann

MeatLoafX

Oh, I know - it can be done with good coaches and good skill selection. (and a few 4 AG beastmen doesn't hurt, either! Razz

) However, would you say that your skill cap of 4 block, for example, was ever a bit of a hinderance? i.e. if you could have given some beastmen block, for example, would you have done so?

I know it's impossible to know if you would have done better/worse without a cap - I'm just merely interested in knowing if you would have taken advantage of having more block.

Kaufmann

The_drubber

Ok...just so I am clear...and for the podcast...could someone briefly sum up what rules changes will be brought up on Sunday?