NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - CanCon 2007 (Southern Wastes Scrimmage)

NAF World Headquarters

Rest of the World - CanCon 2007 (Southern Wastes Scrimmage)

Babs - Oct 12, 2006 - 08:11 PM
Post subject: CanCon 2007 (Southern Wastes Scrimmage)

Yay! It's all up and working - finally;

http://www.thesouthernwastesscrimmage.com/

Register and it automatically sends me an email with your registration. It all works well (finally!)

So no time to lose! Oh - and here is the official place to chat about the upcoming tournament!

Bevan - Oct 13, 2006 - 12:49 AM
Post subject:

Babs

Can you clarify that "Star players can NOT be purchased. At All." means that star players can not be freebooted either. Some of us rules lawyers would say freebooters are not purchased. Rolling Eyes

Is the reset rule definitely official despite the disatrous effect at MOAB? Evil or Very Mad

Did anyone else there think the rule was a good idea.

The home page says it runs from 26-28 January (Fri-Sun) but the rulebook says the final is on Monday and has a timetable for Sat & Sun. (Yes, I know its obvious but you should fix it rather than copy and paste every year.)

Are you going to be there despite your other committments?

I'll wait for clarification of the above before registering.

Babs - Oct 14, 2006 - 03:00 AM
Post subject:

No - not even be freebooted.

What disastrous effect at MOAB? Of restarting?

OK - so I do copy and paste. But time, my friend, is a premium. I only have one life to live like the rest of us. Apologies about the non-corrected typo. I thought I caught them all - but I already spent 4+ hours updating the website...

As to being there - it's looking likely. I am planning to be there - however house plans and building, if they get messy, may still prevent me from being there.

Bevan - Oct 14, 2006 - 02:19 PM
Post subject:

Babs wrote:

What disastrous effect at MOAB? Of restarting?

I was referring to GardenGnome winning, Laughing

but anyone who can beat you 4-0 must be a brilliant coach. Rolling Eyes

I had been going to suggest that the Australian Championship should use rules as close as possible to the rules for the World Championship, but since we don't know what those rules are Rolling Eyes

we might as well keep a system that works. Very Happy

Babs - Oct 16, 2006 - 01:11 AM
Post subject:

Yes he beat me 4-0.

However, I killed one wolf and seriously injured (niggle) the other. That was my aim, but it happened too late in the game for it to change the score.

He started the team again. But he was able to start as at the beginning of round 3, not at TR100. If he had been made to restart completely (or keep soldiering on) - his tournament would have been over.

And that's my concern. The new rule about restarting as at the beginning of the previous round is a FANTASTIC rule for necromantic teams.

Bevan - Oct 16, 2006 - 02:32 AM
Post subject:

Babs wrote:

And that's my concern. The new rule about restarting as at the beginning of the previous round is a FANTASTIC rule for necromantic teams.

That was I why I wanted to make sure the rule was definitely locked in before I get my necromantic team ready for Cancon. Twisted Evil

Actually it seems to be a fantastic rule for all elf teams, skaven, chaos dwarf, any team with big guys, any team with players worth more than 70k, any team with more than 1 Av7 player, teams that want to skip an apothecary, stunty teams, ..... Rolling Eyes

Since GardenGnome scored 4TDs he was presumably giving up some SPPs and extra skills, unless the dead werewolf did all the scoring. Laughing

The rule does mean that no-one will have their entire weekend destroyed by a single bad game. Since nearly everyone travels a considerable distance to be there, this is probably a good idea, although it might make some of us play more recklessly than usual. Cool

Chunky - Oct 16, 2006 - 05:04 PM
Post subject:

Perhaps a compromise could be reached?

How about the resetting team loses all treasury (that selective time travel costs a bit you know!) and:

a) lose 1 spp from each player to a minimum of 0 remaining

and/or (most probably or)

b) lose 5 spp from 2 (1?) randomly selected players

Personally, I'd go for option 1, which is likely to have some effect (how many of us love those cheap completions for skills) but not be an absolute disaster.

Or you could just go a reset tourney and save a whole bunch of hassles Smile

Bevan - Oct 16, 2006 - 08:08 PM
Post subject:

Chunky wrote:

How about the resetting team loses all treasury and:
a) lose 1 spp from each player to a minimum of 0 remaining
or
b) lose 5 spp from 2 (1?) randomly selected players
Or you could just go a reset tourney and save a whole bunch of hassles Smile

In return for getting back any players that were killed or seriously injured, a team that resets to the position before that game loses -
(a) any winnings from that game
(b) all SPPs and skills earned in that game

I'm not sure that any extra penalties are needed.

However, after playing Eucalyptus bowl I agree that reset tourneys save a lot of hassles and I would be quite happy with a full reset tournament. Very Happy

Bevan - Oct 17, 2006 - 02:49 PM
Post subject:

Chunky wrote:

How about the resetting team loses all treasury (that selective time travel costs a bit you know!) ...

Or you could just go a reset tourney and save a whole bunch of hassles Smile

There is one situation in which a resetting team should lose treasury, and that is when it has been spent on freebooting. That money should be considered as not recoverable by resetting.

Consider a Dark Elf team with two games to play and 110,000gps. They could
(a) Buy a Blitzer or Witch Elf and have one extra player for both the last two games. This is a reasonable choice if you will try to gain a skill for the new player.
or
(b) Freeboot a Witch Elf or Blitzer in one game and freeboot again in the last, giving them one extra player for both the last two games. This is probably better than (a) since the player might die and probably won't gain a skill.
or
(c) Freeboot both a Blitzer and Witch Elf in one game, then claim a need to reset and do exactly the same in the last game, giving TWO extra players in both games.

Clearly (c) is against the spirit of the rule allowing resetting and can be easily prevented by disallowing the reuse of freebooting funds.

This also prevents the neat idea that Doubleskulls explained to me once. You play Halflings and buy exactly 11 players, spending extra cash on the Chef, assistants, fan factor, cheerleaders, rerolls etc, but leaving exactly enough to freeboot another 5 players. This way you have a full strength team with maximum reroll advantage. Then you just reset to your starting lineup after every game. (Halflings who gain skills die anyway). Note that this would have been permitted under the old "reset to start" rule, assuming the Tournament Organiser didn't notice and disqualify the team. Rolling Eyes

The TO might need to allow for teams that attempt to play on with 10 players by not resetting but freebooting a lineman, but then lose more players in the next game and realise that they should have reset, but now are stuck with <10 players and no money. They could be allowed to go back to the start or possibly back two rounds at the TO's discretion.

Doubleskulls - Oct 17, 2006 - 08:36 PM
Post subject:

You know I think resurrection is superior for tournaments so no point having that discussion again.

Why not just ban freebooting? Without star players available all there is is freebooters (who you never see normally) and wizards. Wizards aren't available to everyone so are a little unfair on the unliving and the short ugly ones. That would neatly remove the artifical saving up to freeboot in the last rounds too. Maybe allow freebooting only in the final game?

Bevan - Oct 18, 2006 - 12:31 AM
Post subject:

Doubleskulls wrote:

There are situations where freebooting should be permitted. If a team has a serious injury they may not want to restart (due to loss of SPPs) but would be playing with only 10 players. Freebooting a lineman could get them through to the next game when they get their regular player back.

A system we use in league finals is that you can only freeboot direct replacements for dead or injured players. This prevents a mad scramble for high value position players, big guys etc that had never played for the team during the regular series.

I would like to see the same at Cancon where freebooting distorts the team rating effect that is used for handicaps. In my previous example, freebooting twice (rather than purchase) gives a lower TR in the last round for the same effect on player numbers. Despite the higher costs, freebooting for the last 3 games could make more sense than purchase (from a strategic position for handicap advantage).

Maybe this is all to complex and we should look at resurrection style. Rolling Eyes

Chunky - Oct 18, 2006 - 03:17 AM
Post subject:

I've always freebooted quite a bit in non-resurrection tourneys due to attrition on my Humans thats not reset worthy.

Babs - Oct 19, 2006 - 12:57 AM
Post subject:

Perhaps there can only be a reset of team allowed at the approval of the commish (to prevent cheesy abuse)?

I think that's the easiest way to solve that.

Bevan - Oct 19, 2006 - 03:58 AM
Post subject:

Babs wrote:

Perhaps there can only be a reset of team allowed at the approval of the commish (to prevent cheesy abuse)?

I'm happy with that. Very Happy

There seem to be various situations where freebooting is necessary, but without Star players it shouldn't get out of hand. We can confidently leave it to our experienced commish to check that any resets are fair. Cool

Babs - Oct 22, 2006 - 11:43 PM
Post subject:

Thanks. It was just an 'on the spot' decision - but happy to update the ruleset to state that.

However, the question remains - are Necro teams too powerful under the ruleset?

Bevan - Oct 23, 2006 - 02:22 AM
Post subject: Necro

Babs wrote:

However, the question remains - are Necro teams too powerful under the ruleset?

Hey. Don't change them now, I was going to take Necro because I thought they were grossly overpowered. Twisted Evil

I thought they were a fair team last year when Zombies were going to be 40k. I can't remember if that still applied by the time of the event.

So I seriously thought of taking them this time with 30k zombies and making a team that starts off totally over the top and doesn't need to worry if any of the four 120k players suffers an accident. Wink

If you want to set Zombies at 40k for CanCon07 I'd consider that fair. Whether the other necro and undead coaches will complain is another matter.

However, any rule change needs to be early enough for everyone to decide whether to change their whole team plan,
or even decide not to attend because -
(a) their favourite team is penalised, Crying or Very sad

or
(b) a team they don't intend to play has a huge advantage. Evil or Very Mad

Babs - Oct 23, 2006 - 07:05 PM
Post subject:

Fair Call.

That's why I should set up a poll about it. So a decision can be made early. But I'm not sure about what the decision would look like...

Chunky - Oct 24, 2006 - 05:31 AM
Post subject:

Just make a decision Babs. A poll really isn't the way to go IMO. No-one has come out kicking and screaming saying that Necro are way too powerful and they won't be coming under these rules.

If the rules aren't really set in concrete though, I'll put my hand up for ressurection style - it really does simplify things a great deal and drastically reduces the amount of supervision and paperwork required.

With normal progression, you run the risk of teams essentially being screwed by bad luck, potentially in their first game - not fun.

So in comes the reset rule to patch that problem up. However this rule still leaves plenty of teams vulnerable to being borked. So we get the MOAB reset rule. This then means that teams that can quickly produce superplayers - mainly Necro, Rats and Woodies will get an advantage, since those superstars can't be taken out.

All decisions will affect the balance in some way (including Resurrection). Pick one, and let people make their own decisions on how the consequences affect them.

Bevan - Oct 24, 2006 - 06:15 AM
Post subject:

Chunky wrote:

Just make a decision Babs. A poll really isn't the way to go IMO.
All decisions will affect the balance in some way (including Resurrection). Pick one, and let people make their own decisions on how the consequences affect them.

I agree that you need to make the decision. Trying to poll everyone will not allow you to cover all the possible choices and you would need to allow an extra week or two for replies, then probably further discussion.

The current rules are OK, although I did notice comments on TBB about the need to tone down necros, so a minor tweak can be justified.

It may be reasonable to keep CanCon as the major league style event and Eucalyptus as the major reset style, but the Australian Championship does need to avoid too much influence of random income and skill (stat) rolls, so there is a case for switching to reset.

Chunk'ys comments about not being able to permantly kill ST4 wardancers or whatever, are valid. However, a team that resets does lose some ground in new SPPs and cash, so they don't keep up with teams that accept an injury and keep the rest of the team improving.

I used to prefer league style but now I'm happy either way. I do think the usual reset style lacks reasonable player development, if it limits skills, and teams only get one per round. So if you switch to reset, allow a decent range of skills and doubles and let teams get them early (e.g. as at Eucalyptus).

You'll notice I'm not voting either way here, just saying that I'll accept your expert judgement after you consider all the issues. Very Happy

Elan - Oct 30, 2006 - 07:05 AM
Post subject:

Bunch of pussies - you all play elfball!

Where's that old "live or die" (or stay dead) by the sword thing? Blood Bowl is about pushing a team through a good hard slog with a lil help from some expensive friends (ask me about Thrud being hired sometime) ... you northern schmucks are perverting the game!

If you end up with an unplayable team, sack 'em all and hire in a new bunch of rookies ... none of this imaginary rolling back the clock!

Elan - Oct 30, 2006 - 07:07 AM
Post subject:

Ah, I love to be the voice of reason ...

Babs - Nov 02, 2006 - 11:01 PM
Post subject:

Nothing wrong with a bit of fun every now and then - but does it imply a serious undertone and you do sort of think that?

Chunky - Nov 03, 2006 - 03:01 AM
Post subject:

Course he does, he plays nothing but Dwarfs...

Babs - Nov 03, 2006 - 06:20 PM
Post subject:

Chunkster,

You have to realise that the rules _ARE_ locked in. However, minor tweaks such as the commish having to approve all Resets is a wise idea.

And I really don't want to be The Evil Dictator (Tm) I think Kim Jong Il holds that title anyway. If everyone thinks it sucks - then I won't run that way. Case in point is the fact that CanCon is LRB4. I was going to run it LRB 5 until lots of people voiced their disquiet over it. So you can't have it both way Chunks. You have to shut up and put up with decisions you don't like, or have the ability for people to sway the ruleset.

Personally, I'm happy for their to be some middle ground there. But to have that middle ground - there needs to be time for discussion. However, I am certainly not planning to have any major changes in December. (and as if the price of Zombies is a major change anyway.. grumble grumble grumble...)

Lol!

So chill. The ruleset is up and is not going to change. If you really want to go and beardy your way to glory - go right ahead - but that's not the real intent of CanCon. It's about seeing who is the best coach on the day. That is more about fortune on the rolls and good coaching skill. Less about Beardy team rosters if I have anything to do with it.

Chunky - Nov 05, 2006 - 03:00 PM
Post subject:

That was actually a poke at Elan Babs.

If you'd run LRB5 I'd have been perfectly happy, I just wouldn't have been there.

Commish having to approve is indeed a minor change - changing the way the reset works isn't IMO. If thats locked in (and it doesn't bother me too much which way it goes as long as there is a reset option), then I'm a happy chappy.

I don't even know what team I'm going to bring yet.

dan - Nov 07, 2006 - 03:55 AM
Post subject:

yeah, lock it in eddy....

OZjesting - Nov 07, 2006 - 07:09 AM
Post subject:

Should have been 5.0. That's how I voted the first time...and how I vote now. So make up whatever weird and untested ways you desire. If you want to ban a team because you don't like the coaches beard you go right ahead. I am going to roll dice and eat chinese food all weekend...while waiting for Aus to catch up to the world yet again.

And I haven't decided on a team yet either Wink

Doubleskulls - Nov 13, 2006 - 07:49 PM
Post subject:

Well looks like I'll manage to make this one at least Very Happy

I don't care what the rule set is...

Elan - Nov 16, 2006 - 03:34 AM
Post subject:

All,

(except Chunky, who I don't love any more) I agree with the "make a decision" version of this debate.

Whether it is resurrection, league or a mix, as long as it is clearly explained, someone will always try to rules lawyer and select an uber team (read Dorfs, you pussies) and someone else will (after playing 5 lousy games) complain that the poor tourney rules gave the other coaches advantages ... (read Dorfs, you pussies)

Frankly, if someone manages to find a loophole large enough to be unbeatable, you should take the Commissioner and the Coach outside for a lynching. Regardless of the fun with ropes, right or wrong, the Commissioner must decide and you choose to play or not.

Of course, there is nothing stopping you abusing him for buggering it up later - it's one of your rights as a coach and more than somewhat traditional!