Discussion in 'General Blood Bowl News and Discussion' started by Coach, Aug 12, 2020.
I stand corrected and I hope they do give us all the options but ‘proper’ admin tools were added last into BB2 so I am cautious. It will be one thing to have a check box for limiting redrafting and another for admin set gradations of redrafting limits.
Redrafting after 9 matches under those rule will have low starting TV's.
Also if you get relegated you will have less cash than the team from 2 divisions lower who got promoted as they will have 150K extra from winnings while you could only have 50K.
Prize money for everyone in a Tier would be a good way to fix that and enable teams in higher tiers to be slightly more developed.
So extra 200K for everyone in Tier 1 , 150K for Tier 2 etc would be good if possible with the admin tools.
In my small league we are discussing right now about some form of redrafting as having a single division the difference between developed teams and rookie teams is already high after one season.
It would be good to have some form of control in leagues to avoid this high tv difference, though I concur that in leagues which already manage this it may not be needed.
Problem I see with a redrafting system which keeps track of how many seasons a player has played it would require a big bookkeeping effort from the commissioner.
In PC games this may be automatic but in tabletop (or in BB2 house rules as in our case) it's not optimal.
You need simple things ...
Well this thread sure veered away from team tiers into a redrafting thread. It could do with splitting but I'm not sure where to split it from...
You could argue redrafting affects tiers as locking teams into lower TVs would mean different tiers than letting them grow into higher TVs. Season length paired with the redrafting mechanic could also shift team tiering as well.
I can fix this. Ogres a tier 1 and all other teams are rubbish.
They are definitely the ultimate bash team...when they want to bash and not bonehead.
One thing I think should be said, you shouldn't allow random skills if redrafting is not used in a league. Otherwise it will be purely powergaming where you cycle players to get a cheaper skill or 2 from random ones.
With redrafting and cost increase per season you redraft same player it is less abuseable in a redraft format since you don't really save value on them in the long run.
But this subject is off topic, though I wonder what impact random skills do have on some tier teams vs other tiers.
I certainly think the TV caused my redrafting will affect tiers, with slower builds like Chaos & Nurgle being affected, whilst high starting skill rosters will be in better shape.
I do suspect they'll have taken this into account with some of the player cost changes.
So back to the tier discussion.
Do we mean tiers as in forgiving to mistakes or potential power.
If forgiveness then dwarfs should not be in tier 1. They will be just as slow as ever hard to come back from over extending.
Dwarfs do get a big buff on the break tackle skill. Blitzers and runners dodging on 2+. Blitzers even have ST access so its cheap.
Over all i agree that the changes benefit teams with expensive skilled star positionals and cheap linemen. The more a player costs, less proportional cost of redrafting. Shame Brets got changed to imps and their blitzers lost passing access.
Big guys got a slight buff but it will still be hard to get spp on them. Buff for teams who have access to one. Deathroller is still very much a meme pick.
All the alliance teams will suffer because they only get single positionals and have to start with rookies when the time comes to let the old ones go. Others teams with multiple positionals get to develop replacements.
The thing that I've been mulling over is how GW has workes out their tiers. At first I thought that maybe Tier 1 teams were all ones with cheap re-rolls but Lizardman shot that down (still not sure how that teams fails to work together well enough to get cheap rerolla considering the whole Lizardman class structure but it's probably for game balance and not fluff).
My best guess on the GW tiers are:
Tier 1 teams are built to do what you want them to do most of the time (excluding bad plays or Nuffle of course).
Tier 2 teams are built to do what you want them to do some of the time (by having lopsided team designs, expensive re-rolls, a lack of skills or skills that aren't as strong as stuff like block, dodge and sure hands which are more common on tier 1 teams).
Tier 3 teams are built to do what you want them to do a lot more rarely. These are the stunty teams with their whole design being built around making you roll as many dice as possible to do almost everything in a game where not rolling dice is key.
Now obviously we can argue the finer details, but this is how I think GW defined their tiers and I can agree with most of the team placement that way, but I feel that some teams nearly exceed their tiers due to skill and stat combinations, while others struggle to stay in them due to poor stat and rule combinations (like giving OWA loner -and- animosity. If anything they should have just made the re-rolls more expensive over loner and dropped animosity all together since they're a team that's supposed to be working well together unlike a team.like Orcs who squabble now that the Black Orcs aren't keep in them in line).
I was assuming that they were just keeping the same tiers that NAF uses so it is based on win percentage.
Hopefully this will clarify.
From the leaked rules a few weeks back.
I don't feel their description of the tiers really fits since OWA and Orcs both would fit more under Tier 2 than Tier 1 by their own description. You know, unless they get a day one erratta to change it.
Regardless I think most people agree that a 5 layer tier system would have let given the teams the sort of seperstion they need to accomidate which teams that fit into more of half step between the current tiers.
Let's be honest, the tier system is somewhat meaningless anyway. I'd like to see GW keep releasing seasons perhaps once a year and tweak rosters based on win rates and popularity to keep things fresh. It's something I'd have liked the NAF to do but there wasn't ever enough appetite for it despite the fact it was becoming more and more common for tournaments to attempt it anyway.
It would be nice since so many tournaments seem to revolve around tiering up teams and giving them skill access based on their tier level.
Plus they can tweak teams over time, like how they changed the Orcs. Blood Bowl has an actively developing setting (I want to say plot, but is there really a plot?) having teams change slightly over time (say changing skills for example) makes a loy of sense.
I know I've seen a lot of grief avout the Orc change, and while I agree it bumps them out of being one of the top teams it's the sort of change that keeps the game from being "solved" where every team always takes the same skills on the same players everytime no matter what.
On reflection I think the Orc changes will be needed to balance how powerful they could become with the reduction of the power for both claw and piling on, where the risk of attrition was the only major downside for Orcs at higher TVs.
I’m coming round to the 2020 orcs. Biguns being MV5 could really help them all round the pitch. You don’t need plan B as often if plan A works more often.
I think talk about claw nerf is a bit exaggerated. I mean you break av9 6/36 times on normal rolls, 10/36 with MB and 15/36 with claw and you then have MB for removals.
Against av9 thats 150% more armor breaks and then MB takes KO´s from 15/36 to 21/36 a 40% increase. Sure its not as op for causing injuries but still extremely good.
I never got the "clawbomb keeps orcs at bay" thing, imo. it hurts all teams equally. Nothing about claw is specific against orcs.
I don´t ever fear playing against orcs with any team as i fear playing against chaos/nurgle claw killers so i´d say the nerf was aimed correctly.
Separate names with a comma.