NAF World Headquarters
Rest of the World - CanCon 2006
Babs - Oct 18, 2005 - 08:34 PM
Post subject: CanCon 2006
This is the topic for Questions, advice about where to stay - organising lifts etc.
The organiser of CanCon (Tim Sleigh) has told me that our blurb in the booklet was the best designed entry once again!
the official website for CanCon is:
http://www.cgs.asn.au/cgs_framework.asp?type=cancon
And the house rules document will be similar (but NOT the same) as the 2005 one found on my website: http://www.geocities.com/blood-bowl
The 2006 document will be up there soon.
Is it possible someone is able to set up a cool website for me to host for it - similar to the excellent work done for Euc Bowl?
Chunky - Oct 19, 2005 - 12:24 AM
Post subject:
I'd suggest AusBowl Babs - I'm not entirely sure if its possible there as yet, but I know the goal is eventually to have hosting for tourney websites there.
I suggest emailing DM if you have his email, or PMing him on fumbbl - he's the man to find this stuff out. I'll start my own lines on enquiry though.
rochallor - Oct 19, 2005 - 07:39 AM
Post subject:
Ahhh... Its always a good feeling walking into logical choice around this time of year and seeing the little piles of cancon booklets sitting there...
Babs it says that entry fee is $44... I don't supppose there any chance of an NAF discount for the tourney? Not that I won't be going anyway...
Doubleskulls - Oct 20, 2005 - 05:49 AM
Post subject:
If you've got reliable php/MySQL hosting I can provide you with a copy of the Eucalyptus Bowl software to use. Its a bit clunky but very handy.
I can host things on my PC at home, but it suffers from lots of down time 
Anyway, I've already booked Friday off work! Were you thinking of running a 7s on Thursday? I'd probably be up for that.
GalakStarscraper - Oct 20, 2005 - 12:06 PM
Post subject:
Babs ... doesn't this count as a Major for NAF. If so we have a paid website and domain already for you for this event that can host the whole thing for you and is linked from the majors website ( http://www.bloodbowlmajors.com )
http://www.thesouthernwastesscrimmage.com/
Galak
Doubleskulls - Oct 22, 2005 - 04:44 AM
Post subject:
Tom - what hosting is available? php? MySQL? Just static HTML?
Babs - Oct 23, 2005 - 08:31 PM
Post subject:
I have my trusty volunteer who has a forum and so on all up and ready to roll.
He is willing - and has web expertise. So it's all going to roll.
However, love to use the domain name and webspace. Need access to it though! How do I get FTP access? (PM me please).
Rochallor - unfortunately of that $44 up until this year I get to see exactly $0 of that. And the price is non-negotiable. It's steep - but it has been $44 for three years now. Fortunately the prize support will be worth the entry fee - everyone will walk away with something.
OZjesting - Oct 29, 2005 - 08:01 AM
Post subject:
Why is CanCon NOT listed on the main "upcoming tournemants" page?
Doubleskulls - Oct 30, 2005 - 02:05 AM
Post subject:
NAF RTC in tournament submission scandal...
Babs - Nov 22, 2005 - 06:37 PM
Post subject:
I haven't put it in yet because I haven't had the time?
It _will_ be in there. But I want to make sure the website is up first.
Doubleskulls - Nov 25, 2005 - 02:15 AM
Post subject:
IMO the sooner you give you the information the better. You can always update it later on, and people who don't know about it may need time to sort out travel/holidays etc.
BeefyGoodness - Nov 28, 2005 - 06:54 PM
Post subject:
hey babs, can you just assume I'm coming?
Babs - Nov 29, 2005 - 06:40 PM
Post subject:
Sure Beefy. Already am. Make it work for us by bringing three paying friends (or more) 
Chunky - Dec 01, 2005 - 05:07 PM
Post subject:
Same here Babs, and don't worry, we'll do our usual diplomatic recruiting
wulfhure - Dec 08, 2005 - 07:23 AM
Post subject:
Wulf and Minx will be there for sure, and it looks like we might bring 1 or 2 others as well. Now it is just a matter of lining up accomadation.
Wulf
Brisbane Fanatic Gammers
Babs - Dec 11, 2005 - 10:04 PM
Post subject:
Don't forget that now www.thesouthernwastesscrimmage.com is up - kinda. (Needs some tweaking).
BeefyGoodness - Dec 29, 2005 - 07:34 PM
Post subject:
Hey all, been chatting with folks about cancon a fair bit and have to say a lot of people including myself are dubious about the the proposed changes to the living rulebook rules for the event. Perhaps this is a direct result of my use of count luthor von drakenburg in a tournament, during which time I was asked if I thought it was overpowered. At the time I agreed, because my point of view is that no star players should be allowed in tournies full stop (excepting maybe gobboes and halflings). Now with the increase of all undead teams zombie and skeleton to 40k each, its not only the undead team that feels the pinch but necro and khemri too. If this rules change is merely to prohibit the use of certain star players its definitely going about it the wrong way. I just feel its punishing the undead/necro/khemri teams unfairly....why would people take a team that will be effectively 60-70k down?
BeefyGoodness - Dec 29, 2005 - 07:39 PM
Post subject:
Anyway, for those interested. My mind has been made up. I like my count figure and the rules changes definitely don't hinder me taking him in my undead team. Here it is for those interested:
2 wights, 1 ghoul, 6 zombiez and 1 skeleton, 1 count luthor von drakenburg, 1 reroll and 1 fanfactor. 10k in the bank saving for Mummies.
Rabid_Bogscum - Dec 29, 2005 - 11:22 PM
Post subject:
I agree.. do away with such star players for tourneys rather than tweak certain teams to make them unaffordable
dan - Jan 01, 2006 - 03:38 AM
Post subject:
Good points Beefy. I totally agree.
And I should point out that I could (and may) take a human team with the count (or griff).
OZjesting - Jan 04, 2006 - 05:07 PM
Post subject:
*laughs at beefy* You believe star players should NOT be used in tournements...yet you persist in using one??? I like the ethics involved in the decision 
I shall be my usual High Elf self...and our Prince will once again price himself out of the games. Not that we would use him anyway...we too believe that Stars should not be involved in tournements...and practice what we preach!
See you boys (and your "stars" soon)
Rabid_Bogscum - Jan 04, 2006 - 08:28 PM
Post subject:
Not to mention the Prince has to be the crappest star player going around
Babs - Jan 05, 2006 - 12:19 AM
Post subject:
However, there might be a note that during MOAB, Beefy _started_ with two mummies. That's a significant change in the lineup.
As to changes to Khemri and Necro, well they've been hit slightly that's for sure, but they also have been rather 'topheavy' in the powergamer stakes looking at who's played them in tournaments gone by in Oz. I don't think though that the 10K hike for them is significant enough the rule them out form being a competitive side.
I'm interested in the way that other people would have ruled it. I think that the ability for teams to have stars permanently on the roster is a nice ability in such a short tournament. Is it just too 'broken' to achieve? We will see.
Babs - Jan 05, 2006 - 12:22 AM
Post subject: Please pay and register
Just a reminder that if you have not done so already (and you don't have a certificate for free entry) that you need to pay and register to the Canberra Games society at:
http://www.cgs.asn.au/cgs_framework.asp?type=cancon
Current registrations at this point are few. However that is normal. Which is shame - please get organised and register!
BeefyGoodness - Jan 05, 2006 - 01:12 AM
Post subject:
Well you're right OZ but I don't think that I could do it all over again at MOAB and still win, I think I was just lucky. The problem with using (and abusing) the star players in a tourney is balance, under the proposed rules certain teams have a distinct advantage in the star player stakes depending on where you use them...for the undead its definitely in buying the count first up.... either that or 3 extra rerolls over the course of the tourney, they've got nothing and no-one else to add. Take orcs for an example of the opposite... under the current rules they benefit the most from having a wide variety of cheaper stars to lay their hands on....
Anyway what I really wanted to do was either lose with the same starting team as MOAB or see someone else try it and measure their success. But I think the most responsible course of action is to just pick a team and play it (thanks oz).
Doubleskulls - Jan 05, 2006 - 05:44 AM
Post subject:
I must say I've got my reservations about the changes to the rules. I don't like Star Players but I have a nasty suspicion the rules (and Beefy's success at MOAB) will encourage people to start with them - meaning more games being dominated by Griff et al.
However I really don't like changing the cost of zombies and skeletons to basically patch a flawed rule. That sort of "fixing" is a piece of string that you just keep tugging at to try and achieve "perfect" balance - all the time moving further and further away from the game we all know.
OZjesting - Jan 05, 2006 - 03:35 PM
Post subject:
Aye...and since Babs asked how others might have dealt with it...I would have just let it stand. Once you make the decision to allow stars then I think we have to trust the system as it is currently. If indeed these tournys throw up winners thanks to stars then perhaps the issue should be presented to the BBRC for concern. But I gather that what all the PBBL stuff is about anyway.
And I was stirring you beefy Do what you want...I thnk a shot at MOAB re-run is a good idea...as that is what I have been trying for 2 years now
On another note...am I just not seeing it Babs? I have been all over the CanCon site and as far as I can tell there is no way to register online. You can pay direct debit I see...but you still have to snail mail the form. How last century is THAT!
/me is off to find a stamp.
trogdu - Jan 08, 2006 - 04:32 PM
Post subject:
Babs, Todd & I only mailed our entries in last week so there should be 2 more being added to your list sometime this week. Of course if cancon had any form of proper online entry available they'd already be there
Tommy, using a Star Player when you don't believe they should be allowed could be seen as a form of protest - you know along the lines of proving how wrong it is or some such. At any rate despite agreeing with the no stars allowed sentiment, if the ruleset allows them to be permanently purchased I'm certainly going to go with Prince Moron (as I call him ) for my Pro Elf team, For, no matter what Rabid might think of him, he fills a rather large hole in their capabillities.
freckles - Jan 08, 2006 - 06:41 PM
Post subject:
HIguys,
Just a quick one to let you know that Iwon't be attending Cancon this year. Hope you all have a great time, and I hope to see many of you at Leviathan in April!
Cheers!
Babs - Jan 10, 2006 - 01:06 AM
Post subject:
Is this true of Abigwood as well, or just you Freckles?
Babs - Jan 10, 2006 - 01:15 AM
Post subject:
I'm hearing lots of "I don't like it"s (and I'm nowhere near Pauline Hanson) about the permanent addition of Stars to lineups. That being the case, I'm interested what other people would rule. I have to say that I'm entirely unsatisfied with the way Stars play out under LRB 4.0 in a tournament.
Basuically you see no-one with them until the last two rounds and then suddenly a flurry of them hit the pitch.
Under 'resurrection/reset' style tournaments, players can start with stars for their high cost (as per the rules Cancon will be running, unless a last minute change is shouted for) - as a way to see them on the pitch.
Other than the potential abuse of the Count, I like the opportunity for some teams to afford, at a premium price sacrificing elsewhere, for teams to start with Stars. For sure, halfling and goblin teams need the boost they provide.
So what would other coaches do if they were in my boots? How would they rule it? I know of at least two coaches who were disappointed in the last two rounds of Cancon in 2003/04 because of the sudden appearance of freebooted stars.... but some coaches like the ability to have them...
Bevan - Jan 10, 2006 - 03:57 AM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
I'm hearing lots of "I don't like it"s (and I'm nowhere near Pauline Hanson) about the permanent addition of Stars to lineups. That being the case, I'm interested what other people would rule. I have to say that I'm entirely unsatisfied with the way Stars play out under LRB 4.0 in a tournament.
Basuically you see no-one with them until the last two rounds and then suddenly a flurry of them hit the pitch.
In previous years under the league rule allowing freebooted stars at a cheap price, most teams would have one for the last 1 or 2 games. This caused serious disparity between teams that could afford one in that round and those that could not, or did not have access to a reasonable star.
The CanCon06 rule allowing purchase of stars at high prices ensures that those who want a star for the full series will pay a high price. MOAB showed that the price is not excessively high and it may possibly have been too easy for teams with very cheap linemen. I can understand why the 30k linemen were boosted to 40k to reduce the value of this tactic. However, it may be preferable to forbid purchase of Stars to avoid unbalanced games.
If Stars can still be freebooted in the last round (at half the high price) there will still be some teams that can afford one. This will allow an interesting conflict between early team building and saving for that last round. So we may still see some differences between the lucky ones who rolled 6s for income and those that rolled 1s. At least the TR value of the freebooted Star will be closer to a fair value and the team will have played with unused cash in the bank for 2 or 3 rounds. A team with good income rolls could afford Morg for the last round, if they don't buy much else.
I would prefer to play with no Stars (except for Goblins and Halflings) but if they are allowed I may freeboot one just to stay in the arms race. However, this option restricts team building in the early rounds.
One way to avoid imbalance between teams in the last 2 rounds due to variation in income would be to have all coaches have the same D6 roll for winnings. Either the organiser does the roll for each round or everyone automatically rolls 4 (or 6 
) every round. I think Doubleskulls suggested this a while back, since it is not a roll during the game.
OZjesting - Jan 10, 2006 - 06:23 PM
Post subject:
Aye...of all the things I have heard so far, Bevans is the closest to how I see it. Stars at freeboot level are simply too "lucky" as far as money rolls go. And it seems well within the "fluff" of a tourny that prize cash is pretty even (maybe give +1 to a winner). But in general I still feel that outside the halfling/goblin dept a tournement is better suited to showcasing team builds. What good is it to get a great SPP spread, meticuliously coached only to have some rich team just suddenly appear with Morg? And what are these "stars" doing just lounging around the stadium anyay? It "cheapens" them to be reduced to mercernaries with nothing better to do but wait around the concession stand hoping to get a game!
I think as it is I am still fine with the permenant star...as the team has to make sacrifices to get him and thus "balance" is closer. But the add in star based on lucky cash doesn't thrill me.
But as a HE player I only argue for fun..we have no star to start and rarely see the cash to consider him anyway;-)
More topical I feel is how will sportsmanship be handled? That 35pt thing is still way too capricious for mine. Let's sort THAT out!
Bevan - Jan 10, 2006 - 07:24 PM
Post subject:
Freebooting (of any players, not just stars) is clearly intended for leagues that go on forever, not in a tournament with a clearly defined end.
We use a house rule in the final series of our leagues.
Freebooting is forbidden EXCEPT for the sole purpose of replacing a player who is missing due to death or injury.
So in the final round (or two) you can buy new players, at full price, or freeboot a player to replace one who died or was retired at any previous time in the series (not just the previous game).
My suggestion about fixed income assumed that the bonus for winners and the crowd still applies, only the roll after the match would be fixed.
Doubleskulls - Jan 11, 2006 - 04:10 AM
Post subject:
I was one of those whinging about stars last year and I'd rather see them with the official rules than all this tweaking and alteration. Changing the freebooting price and the price of skeletons & zombies annoys me more than the format giving some teams a small advantage.
Its a bit misleading to say resurrection tournies allow them. Practice is very variable. I think you'll find the general acceptance (outside of GW official tournies) is that only since the big hike in prices that they've been allowed at a significant number of tournies. It also probably works better in that environment since taking Luthor/Griff/Morg takes a huge chunk of your initial capital and there is no more income to let you buy the positional players and rerolls. I'm not sure how much that helped Beefy, but undead are good a low TRs too.
As for what the rules ought to be, I don't think you ought to change them for '06 regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. If '07 is PBBL this whole problem disappears to be replaced with a whole new set.
Bevan - Jan 11, 2006 - 02:46 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
I was one of those whinging about stars last year and I'd rather see them with the official rules than all this tweaking and alteration. Changing the freebooting price and the price of skeletons & zombies annoys me more than the format giving some teams a small advantage.
Nearly all tournaments have some house rules so the tweaking suggested is not a serious issue. Although I suggested some other changes I am happy with the current house rules and it may be better not to change them since they were announced some time ago.
My comments were in response to Babs question - What rules would others use? My first preference would be to ban stars and my second preference would be to ban freebooting (except to replace dead and retired players) but the Cancon rules as currently stated are fine. If we go back to freebooting stars at ridiculously low prices I may need to cancel my travel plans. 
biggy - Jan 12, 2006 - 10:01 PM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
Is this true of Abigwood as well, or just you Freckles?
I am still undecided Babs. I'm a bit dubious at the thought of the "I'll prove your rules suck by taking huge star players and amke everyone's games miserable" mindset that appears prevalent at the moment. 
Why do the rules for BB have to change very five minutes? Star players were allowed at MOAB. It proved unbalanced. Simply don't allow them in the future (perhaps with exceptions for stuntys).
I just want to have a good time when I play any wargame. Sometimes that becomes difficult when soapboxes become involved.
Andrew
My 2c
wulfhure - Jan 14, 2006 - 12:53 AM
Post subject:
Wulf will take every star player he can get his grubby little hands on, Oh wait a moment I am going to play dwarfs- I don't need star players, just a deathroller ( It is just pitch maintainance Ref, Really) to chug around.
So probably no star players for Wulf
Chunky - Jan 15, 2006 - 05:52 PM
Post subject:
I'd prefer them not to be allowed.
Babs - Jan 16, 2006 - 07:30 PM
Post subject:
I feel a little like the sandwich in the middle here. What I really want is:
1. the ability for those who really want stars to be able to have them in some capacity
2. play balance to be maintained somehow.
I'm in complete agreement with Abigwood when he states:
Quote:
I just want to have a good time when I play any wargame. Sometimes that becomes difficult when soapboxes become involved
My aim is for everyone to have a competitive but enjoyable time.
The trouble with simply banning all stars is that:
a) some people have spent significant money and time painting stars and want to use them
b) Some teams are almost dependant on their purchase - aka goblins with their manic fanatics, bombadiers etc.
Either you have some kind of clunky 'no stars unless a stunty team' ruling, or you realise that no stunty team will be represented.
So in some cases I feel like I lose no matter what I decide. So I reserve the right to have a showing of hands of those who will start with a star at the beginning of the tournament and look at their team rosters. If I believe that they are going to spoil everyone else's fun - I reserve the right to a last minute change of rules.
There's nothing worse than a cheesy team roster slaying all who play them to spoil everyone's fun.
I could change the rules right now. Whatever I do I need to make sure that hard copies are available of the official rules and the house rules at the tournament.
Do I change back? People are telling me that freebooting stars are too frequent - so returning to 2005 ruleset is not on.
Beefy has shared his starting lineup with us. Will it really be too killer?
biggy - Jan 16, 2006 - 09:17 PM
Post subject:
Well I've been sufficiently unmotivated at the thought of facing deliberately cheesed teams that I haven't even got my new team painted. I can't be bothered 'cheesing' anything and don't really understand the need or desire to do so. It's BB for F....'s sake!
I don't think the 'only stunties can have Stars' is too clunky. I very much doubt antone would claim it's 'unfair' for stunties to have some secret weapons when undead can't have Luthor. They are completely different issues.
Stunty stars are mainly fluff. You are unlikely to win a game because you have Fungus. You are very likely to be shaking Luthor's hand at the end of the match and thanking him for the win.
Just take starts out altogether if it makes it easier. Stunties are unlikely to win regardless.
Andrew
OZjesting - Jan 16, 2006 - 09:44 PM
Post subject:
I think it is quite possible to have fun AND involve soapboxes. In fact I haven't seen a proper box soaped up anyway...mostly clarifications and opinions. I had fun at MOAB and there were Stars involved. I had fun at Levaithon 2 years ago and Stars weren't involved. I have fun online and stars sometimes are and sometimes aren't involved. So the point??? Fun is what you make it. You could say that only 1d blocks are allowed and i could STILL have fun...so bring your stars, bring your sheets and lets have some fun!
But I think that the "I'll ban them on site" rule could be NO fun for those unfortunate to caught up in it. Just let them play as the rules sit now...and use the info for next season. If you CAN'T defend against a star you don't know how too play anyway
*ban stars*
dan - Jan 17, 2006 - 12:32 AM
Post subject:
Is it possible Beefy won because he's a good coach? Ask the people who he played if he won because of the count or because he played well......After all it was only one tourney.
And as for the star rule: No starplayers except on stunty teams.
I don't think that's clunky at all. Most people seem quite happy with it. But I don't think you should go changing the rules on the day.
biggy - Jan 17, 2006 - 01:58 AM
Post subject:
I've been around gaming for longer than I care to remember and it is very difficult to just relax and have a good time when you're opponent is out to prove a point or affixes an abnormal amount of 'life-force' into 'winning at all costs'.
Over the years I've watched grown men cry when their little painted men didn't perform as desired and have even had an oponent overturn a table of fully painted figures because a die roll went the wrong way.
I simply don't understand why people can't jusy PLAY. As commish of our current league I just had to bring down the house because of an e-mail flame war about 'cheesing' teams. I don't get it and quite frankly have no time for people who want to do it. I've walked away from games before because of it and will do so again I'm sure.
If it's not fun....don't play.
If you become really stressed about winning with your little painted men.....don't play.
If you set out to ensure your opponent has a miserable time....don't play.
It's just a game.
Andrew
Virral - Jan 17, 2006 - 05:10 PM
Post subject:
ABigwood wrote:
As commish of our current league I just had to bring down the house because of an e-mail flame war about 'cheesing' teams.
Hmmm, can't say I remember that. Either I missed out on an entire flame war, or I completely misunderstood the point of the one that landed in my in-box.
In terms of the rule, can I suggest an alternative? If the concern is that the Count is overpowered when combined with cheap linemen (and as I understand it, that IS the primary reason for this house rule) why jack up the price of the zombies/skellies and impact every team regardless of whether they take the star in question? The alternative is if you feel the count is overpowered, jack up HIS price and then the only teams which face the penalty are those that choose to hire him. Whack 70k or so onto his price, since that is essentially what is happening by raising the price of the zombies etc.
Although I am still in favour of either allowing freebooting, or banning all stars except for stunties. I would really like to take Necro's to CanCon, but I don't really want to pay a penalty for a star player that I had no intention of hiring.
Virral - Jan 17, 2006 - 05:16 PM
Post subject:
Oh as a follow up, I had a question about stars as permanent members of the team. Normally, when two teams freeboot the same star, the star pockets the cash and doesn't play, correct?
But how does this work with stars as a permanent member of the team? Even when the two (or more) teams fielding the same star aren't playing each other, how is it that these players can be in multiple games at the same time?
The only safe team would seem to be Vampires, who have a special rule written to allow them to keep the Count even if someone else is using him.
Babs - Jan 17, 2006 - 05:23 PM
Post subject:
In a similar way to the way the count on vampire teams overcomes the problem.
But getting back to the main issue. Should I change so that only stunty teams can have permanent stars? Are any teams unfairly done by through this change? Do Lizardmen teams count as stunty? (not a serious question) - what about Ogre teams?
Babs - Jan 17, 2006 - 05:24 PM
Post subject:
...and should Beefy be allowed to rerun his undead team to see if it was a fluke or not?
Virral - Jan 17, 2006 - 05:25 PM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
In a similar way to the way the count on vampire teams overcomes the problem.
Fine by me, but don't you think that is worth mentioning in the house rules? Does that mean that two teams who bring Ramtut (for example) will both be allowed to use him in a game against each other?
Babs - Jan 17, 2006 - 06:18 PM
Post subject: Sent out
Here's what I've sent to my Blood Bowl mailing group and registered entires at CanCon.
Quote:
There has been a lot of contention over these house rules for CanCon 2006:
"Star Players
Although the tournament is run like a league, Star Players can be purchased
at the beginning of the tournament or during it for the purchase price
listed (the higher one). If, during the tournament, players wish to
freeboot a Star Player this is possible for half the higher price, rounded
down to the nearest 10,000 Gold Crowns. This is instead of using the
normally used second price listed. For example, For a human team to have
Morg'th N Hthorg on their team, He would cost 430,000 Gold Crowns. If the
same human team wished instead to freeboot him for one match he would cost
210,000 Gold Crowns for the one game.
This rule is to prevent coaches relying on freebooting powerful star players
for critical matches.
Zombies and Skeletons on Undead, Khemri and Necromantic teams
Zombies and Skeletons will cost 40,000 gold crowns for Cancon 2006. This is
to close a loophole found with Star Players (see above) "
~~~~~
I am considering changing this section to read like this instead:
"Star Players
Although the tournament is run like a league, so long as you are playing a
Halfling or Goblin team, Star Players can be purchased at the beginning of
the tournament or during it for the purchase price listed (the higher one).
Otherwise (or even if you are a Halfling or Goblin coach), players may
freeboot a Star Player for half the higher price, rounded down to the
nearest 10,000 Gold Crowns. This is instead of using the normally used
second price listed. For example, For a halfling team to have Deeproot
Strongbranch on their team, He would cost 250,000 Gold Crowns. If a human
team wished instead to freeboot Morg'th N Hthrog for one match he would cost
210,000 Gold Crowns for the one game.
This rule is to prevent coaches relying on freebooting powerful star players
for critical matches."
~~~
I really do not want to see CanCon become a ground for cheesy roster
mongering. However, I understand that some coaches like to see their
favourtie star play for their side.
I will make a final decision on this rule change on Friday evening. Please
reply to this if you have any opinion on the matter. (How well will
Doubleskulls do with Goblins and Stars if no other team types can have
stars?)
OZjesting - Jan 17, 2006 - 06:49 PM
Post subject:
I think it should be the same as MOAB. Let the stars come...DON'T up the skele/zombie cost as it DOES impact other teams for no fair reason. DO allow the same star to play for multiple teams as THAT is one of the stupider rules going (why should both teams lose out on such a whack of cash?). DO allow freebooters of all kinds. And make EVERYONE have a neat and legible team sheet!
I know this may contridict some of my previous posts...but the more I think about it the more I want to BEAT the Count and any other reved up "Super". If I go the way of Syndrome so be it...but like him I believe you don't need special abilities to be Super
See you all there!
Bevan - Jan 18, 2006 - 02:13 PM
Post subject: Rule change
I am in favour of the proposed House Rule change, on the grounds that Stars should not be permanent team members.
However, I am only weakly in favour because it means removing a rule that was announced well before the event. For at least a month the 40k cost for Zombies/skeletons was the only special rule we knew, although we could assume that it would be otherwise similar to MOAB rules. Dropping the 40k cost rule makes a change that has nullified all the planning I've been doing for 2 months in preparing my team.
If the change is accepted I'll have less than a week to paint my Undead / Necromantic / Khemri team (delete as applicable).
Chunky - Jan 18, 2006 - 05:37 PM
Post subject:
A few points:
- I'll be turning up and playing whatever the rules are
- Beefy won MOAB through a combination of skill, luck and the Count. The Counts skillset provides a player that is very difficult to counter with starting skills. Blodge is a very powerful combination when tackle is available in limited quantity if at all. The player is difficult to knock over when he has the ball, and with AG4 and dodge is also difficult to restrict in his mobility. With ST5, your average player requires 2 assists in order to get a one dice block at the Count.
Beefy used his team, built around the count, to perfection. Using the running game, and the Mummies around the Count ensured the opposition would have a very difficult time getting the necessary assists on the Count.
He also had a fair amount of luck. I know when I played him first up, he won the toss. Had he not done so it probably would have been a completely different game, as by the time I got my hands on the ball I lacked the numbers to run an efficient offense. I also had my opportunity to turn him over on defence, but the dice weren't there and I blew it. This is part of Blood Bowl. I certainly had more than my fair share of luck at Leviathan.
I still believe Beefy is a better Wood Elf player than Undead, and had he been using his woodies at MOAB, would have achieved a similar result.
Ultimately, I'll show up, play the games to the best of my ability, lament the lack of beer, and hopefully enjoy myself socially during the evening with a bunch of like-minded souls.
Babs - Jan 18, 2006 - 06:34 PM
Post subject:
Absolutely Chunky:
Quote:
Beefy won MOAB through a combination of skill, luck and the Count.
I don't want to, in any way mean or form, belittle the ability of Beefy at playing Blood Bowl. He is a talented player in his own right. However, the question is what's the better ruleset for CanCon?
Chunky - Jan 19, 2006 - 03:44 PM
Post subject:
Ultimately Babs, I don't think it matters too much at this point. I agree with Bevan somewhat in that I reckon the time for debate has long since come and gone, and despite me personally not agreeing with them, I reckon you should probably stick with the rules that were released. A week before the event is not the time to be making changes.
I'll be honest, the release of the rules slipped under the radar for me as I've been pretty busy of late.
Something I think that needs to be kept in mind in general though, is that the ruleset for a tourney is probably not as big of a deal as we often make out with our discussions on places like this, it just tends to be the easiest thing to discuss.
BeefyGoodness - Jan 20, 2006 - 05:45 PM
Post subject:
Yep, sorry for causing this big a fuss... honestly when I took the count in my team at MOAB its because I bought the figure off a mate and painted him up to be my best painted mini so far... I really didn't think about the implications later. I honestly didn't expect to win only taking 1 reroll. My opinion is either allow stars and put up with people complaining about them, or remove them (excepting gobbo and fling teams), perhaps sticking to your original format of increased freeboot price.
BeefyGoodness - Feb 03, 2006 - 03:45 PM
Post subject:
Thanks for tourney dude, was awesome.
Doubleskulls - Feb 03, 2006 - 05:14 PM
Post subject:
I had a great time too. A really excellent game against Doug and being slaughtered by Clay have to be the highlights
However I think I'm over 'zons so now onto something else. I'm tempted to pick up my High Elves again and see if I can nick Tommy's crown.
Babs - Feb 07, 2006 - 12:14 AM
Post subject:
I have two people who I have no record of bening NAF members, so their games won't count unless I hear otherwise....
Mitchell Ortuondo and Anthony Pearson.
Elan - Feb 07, 2006 - 03:51 AM
Post subject:
Good tourney dude, thanks!
Without reopening debate, I still believe not allowing purchase of stars, but following the standard freeboot rules, is fine .... why fix it etc etc.
Let us know when the points go up for rankings eh?
OZjesting - Feb 07, 2006 - 07:33 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
However I think I'm over 'zons so now onto something else. I'm tempted to pick up my High Elves again and see if I can nick Tommy's crown.
That crown is now tarnished beyond recognition! I will give them one more chance based on how big a hit that debacle creates...then will think long and hard about giving one of my other boxed sets a look at the board
Babs - Feb 09, 2006 - 01:52 PM
Post subject:
My home internet is down at the moment, so I am restricted to entering results from work sometime I can find time, or waiting until the problem at home is solved. I hope to have the results up by Friday 17th. Apologies for the delay - but real life has been crazy.
OZjesting - Feb 11, 2006 - 04:41 AM
Post subject:
Take all the time you need Babs...no hurry at all. in fact, if you think that the results were too out of character why not just leave them out altogether?
Babs - Feb 16, 2006 - 03:06 PM
Post subject:
I have entered the results - they just need approving now from someone higher up than me in the NAF.
Apologies for the long delay.
Can I also say a huge thanks to everyone who came and played. I didn't get as much time to chat and watch as usual since I was playing myself - but I really enjoyed the time.
OZjesting - Feb 16, 2006 - 09:23 PM
Post subject:
From #1 to #43??? What sort of BS system is that?
Virral - Feb 16, 2006 - 09:25 PM
Post subject:
"The #43 high elf coach in the WORLD!" has a certain ring to it though...
Chunky - Feb 16, 2006 - 10:43 PM
Post subject:
I am up to #6 Human coach now though.
rochallor - Feb 17, 2006 - 01:39 AM
Post subject:
Thanks for entering the results Babs, (and thanks for a great tourney), just a liiiitle error... game 67, rochallor vs wulfhure, I actually won 2-0, rather than the 0-2 loss thats on the site... otherwise everything seems to be in order
Oh yeah, I should probably apologise to Ian for possibly one of the most boring games of BB he has ever played... I hadn't had a lot of sleep in the days beforehand, and I suspect it showed... hopefully next time you will have a slightly more engaging (and challenging) opponent...
Doubleskulls - Feb 17, 2006 - 04:26 PM
Post subject:
You were fine mate. And now I'm #1 Australian 'zon coach 
Doubleskulls - Feb 17, 2006 - 04:32 PM
Post subject:
but not #1 overall grats scott
ClayInfinity - Feb 18, 2006 - 05:52 AM
Post subject:
#1 Aussie Dwarf Coach!
w00t!
/me slaps all your hands!!
Chunky - Feb 18, 2006 - 02:56 PM
Post subject:
You still play the worst defense ever :p
Babs - Feb 19, 2006 - 05:55 PM
Post subject:
Ooops. I'll see what I can about reversing the game between Rochallor and Wulfhure. Must have been left unchecked by the system.
And thanks for keeping CanCon ticking with a pulse that's positive. Id' love to keep growing CanCon. I think in hindsight not playing is a better position to be in, although Bevan's program really helps.
Babs - Feb 20, 2006 - 11:05 PM
Post subject:
Rochallor - fixed.
(And not neutered although that's a discussion for another time
Just got in some LOVELY prizes for NAF tournaments over the year. Goblin Forge was particularly generous with their prize support. Also received goods from Mused Fable (think dice) and Heresy Miniatures. Snet a very nice looking minotaur to the Brisbane event.
Chunky - Feb 21, 2006 - 03:55 AM
Post subject:
Me likey Heresy