NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - Just tell me why!
GColeman76 - Nov 28, 2003 - 02:36 PM
Post subject: Just tell me why!
This is not personal but,
1.) This year new Ogre models were released, so everyone went out and bought them obviously because (A) nice models and (B) the big guy least likely to get things wrong, now Dwarf, Goblin, Halfling and Orc teams are told you can't use them. Also in the case of Orcs, Goblins and Halflings who have the option of another big guy everyone will of course go out and buy the big guys they need, well done BBRC you've made GW/Citadel a load of money.
2.) JJ is always going on about charater in his games, but depriving Goblins, and Orcs to a lesser extent, of Ogres is not in charater with the background.
3.) Finally if Goblin teams can't have Ogres how can Ogre teams have Goblins, SORT IT OUT BBRC!
Sorry Chet not having a go. Thanks in advance for any replies guys. Tell me what you think of my rant.
Apedog - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:42 PM
Post subject:
Personally I think it's great that Ogre access is restricted cos I'm sick of seeing them.
Perhaps if bonehead was made worse the problem would have been less apparent but there was plenty of people wanting access to ogres restricted. No way the BBRC can please everyone but I do think it's better for the game in the long run.
For the record I havn't bought any of the new Ogre figures yet, but I do have at least three older ones that won't get used now.
Zombie - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:44 PM
Post subject:
It was the community that asked the BBRC to remove the ogres from those teams. It was a bit boring seeing ogres used for every race. Now those 4 teams have to use players that are more in character with the teams (treemen, trolls and nothing big for a race that loves to slay anything bigger than a human).
Also, we already knew by the time the ogres were released that there would be a good chance of them being removed from many teams. If you went out and bought one anyway, you only have yourself to blame!
Apedog - Nov 28, 2003 - 03:57 PM
Post subject:
Agree with Zombie except for one thing. Those of us who are forum regulars may have known this, but there are other (maybe less obsessive 
) players who might not.
Not casting any blame as I can see no good way round this and I think the decision was right but I can understand players feeling a bit miffed if they had no idea this was coming.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 28, 2003 - 04:33 PM
Post subject:
Actually yah ... you cannot blame the BBRC at all. I was one of the people at the front of the line asking that they be removed from the 4 teams that they were taken from. Definitely a move supported by the online folks ... (okay the Dwarf one is a fight but the other 3 were pretty uniamious)
Galak
GColeman76 - Nov 28, 2003 - 06:37 PM
Post subject: But....
what about points 2 & 3 that I made ?
Any opinions about that?
Zombie - Nov 28, 2003 - 08:04 PM
Post subject:
I've already answered point 2. Trolls and treemen are more in character with those teams, and the whole point of removing ogres was to force them to hire those. And character wise, dwarves hate all big guys.
Point 3, well, nobody likes the ogre team anyway, and since it's still not official, it can still change a lot. There may not even be any goblins in the final version for all we know at this point.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 28, 2003 - 09:21 PM
Post subject: Re: But....
gavrad76 wrote:
what about points 2 & 3 that I made ?
I'll field this one. See I'm a massive fan of the fluff and history of this game ... soooo I took points 2 and 3 and decided to research them tonight.
Actually ... there is no mention in any pictures or fluff about Ogres playing for Goblin or Orc teams. The only picture I could find was Morg playing for an Orc team and he's a mercenary star. His normal team he played for was usually the Chaos All-Stars.
The only specific mention I could find of Ogres interacting with another race outside of Morg in the fluff was that the Oldheim Ogre roster was composed of 6 Ogres and 4 Goblins.
IE the only support that I can find in the fluff and pictures IS for Goblins on Ogre teams ... not Ogres on Orc teams or Goblin teams. Thus, if you are viewing the fluff ... the fix just made in this rules review makes it right. That's my comment to points 2 and 3.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Nov 28, 2003 - 09:22 PM
Post subject:
Zombie69 wrote:
Point 3, well, nobody likes the ogre team anyway
I love it when you talk in generals Zombie. I like the Ogre team very much thank you. 
I play one in the MBBL currently and plan on continuing to play a new one with the new roster in Season 3 of that league as well.
Galak
GColeman76 - Nov 29, 2003 - 02:24 AM
Post subject: Well balanced replies chaps however...
We still can not escape the fact that anyone who is not a regular on this or one of the other major BB sites will not have realised these pending changes to All these teams. In fact a fellow NAF member actually bought a Ogre for his Dwarf Team, (Although we did warn him at the time).
Also if Goblins are possibly going to taken away from the Ogre team the Ogre thrower model (with Goblin) will be obsolete,which is a great model. 
I know about the Ogre team fluff ever since the original cardboard pitch blood bowl, however the fluff does say that the stupid ogres can only really perform when they have some cunning Goblins in their team, well obviously these Gobbos are cunning enough to have an Ogre in their employ but will still welcome with open arms a Troll who may eat them!!!
This aside I really like Trolls 
. But the principal I believe is still sound.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 29, 2003 - 07:27 AM
Post subject:
There are really only 2 Ogres teams at this point even being considered to become official. They both have Goblins on them, so ignore Zombie's comment about the final Ogre team not having Goblins. He was correct in that statement in only the most hypothecital of ways.
Galak
Zombie - Nov 29, 2003 - 03:09 PM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Zombie69 wrote:
Point 3, well, nobody likes the ogre team anyway
I love it when you talk in generals Zombie. I like the Ogre team very much thank you.
I play one in the MBBL currently and plan on continuing to play a new one with the new roster in Season 3 of that league as well.
Galak
Yeah, but you don't like the current experimental ogre team! That's the team i'm talking about! 
GalakStarscraper - Nov 29, 2003 - 03:58 PM
Post subject:
Zombie69 wrote:
Yeah, but you don't like the current experimental ogre team! That's the team i'm talking about!
Okay ... you got me there. Its not my favorite, but I am willing to give it a try before declaring it wrong. Two things have changes. With Pro now a trait and Piling On not being a great skill for Ogres my thoughts on the 12/6 have changed dramatically in the last week ... these two changes really change the sheer punching power of the team.
Also JJ may have changed his mind. BB is divided mentally speaking into three sets of teams: Competitive, Challenging, and Joke. Halflings and Goblins are Joke. The Vampire and Khemri teams were meant to be Challenging. NOW, when the Ogre team first came out JJ said it should fall in the Joke category (still have the email) ... however time may have him shifting and wanting the team in the Challenging category. When the teams goes in the playtest vault if he reveals that he shooting for the Challenging then I like the 12/6 roster more with the other RR changes as being what perhaps the end product needs to be. However, if he still says Joke ... I have severe doubts that the 12/6 roster is Joke category. The Ogre #2 roster definitely is Joke Category and I still enjoyed playing it this last season of the MBBL. So I'll wait and see JJ's verdict on which of the 3 categories it is supposed to be before I can draw my initial thoughts.
Galak
Xtreme - Nov 29, 2003 - 07:25 PM
Post subject:
I still wish Goblins were 0-4. What kind of Ogre coach wants those lil things running around?
Seriously though I just wish there was an offical roster so I could start playing it.
Tutenkharnage - Nov 29, 2003 - 08:29 PM
Post subject:
Regarding some of the original post and Xtreme's last request: If you want to house rule them, just do so!
Regarding the Goblin-throwing Ogre: It's a near certainty that an official Ogre team will have Goblins on it. If you coach a Goblin team and you have a "thing" for that model, I suggest either that you take the arm and mold it onto a Troll or that you use the model anyway as a Troll.
Regarding the rest of it: I mostly agree with Tom.
-Chet
Mestari - Nov 30, 2003 - 04:04 PM
Post subject:
The dwarves really should've been allowed to keep them, but it's too late for that.
GColeman76 - Dec 01, 2003 - 11:41 AM
Post subject:
Of all of them I think Dwarves were the least of those deserving them!!
And the cunning greenskins the most deserving!
zeuzism - Dec 02, 2003 - 12:45 PM
Post subject:
I play Dwarves, and although I bought the Ogre, I think he does not belong there, with hindsight I wouldn't buy him again, Dwarves kill ogres, they dont field them. And sure, they don't need ogres, they need "Get the Ref"!
Elan - Dec 02, 2003 - 01:56 PM
Post subject:
Not being as "obsessive" (someone else used the word) and not being on the inside of rules debates, I was hesitant about commenting but ... here is a bleat from a newb!
I LIKED having an Ogre big guy in my Orc Team! While I agree that bonehead needs a bit of work - perhaps failing to place another team member (a goblin?) beside the Ogre would increase the chance of inaction - I really think removal from the Orc and Goblin allies is an overreaction by players who just don't like facing a reasonably effective big guy.
While I agree that the "fluff" is important, I have not seen anything that said that one of the oldest combinations around was unbalancing the game. I am a relative newb to the game and loved my first and favourite team as it was - why tinker? If it aint broke ....
One other point that may be worth considering - what will GW think about designing and producing new figures in future if BBRC makes them unusable in competitions? From a purely $$$ perspective this will reduce sales and they may become hesitant in producing new models. We now have new vamps and new ogres that comp players may not buy ...
Despite having real issues with GW over pricing and availability (BB is not supported by GW Australia and I usually buy through E-Bay and US Mail Order) I think that commerical reality may need to be considered if you want GW to continue to produce new figures - and a lot of the old ones could do with replacement!
Obviously, I will just get on with the game at this point, and I even like most of the changes, but I wanted to register another dissenting voice in the wilderness. That was my two cents worth - all responses welcomed. Interesting abuse noted and retained for later use. 
Zombie - Dec 02, 2003 - 02:34 PM
Post subject:
Elan wrote:
I have not seen anything that said that one of the oldest combinations around was unbalancing the game.
The reason you haven't seen it here is because i've posted about it 1000 times before and i think people are just as tired of hearing it as i am of saying it. It was unbalancing, no need to say more here.
coachblacknife - Dec 03, 2003 - 04:10 AM
Post subject:
Hmm, odd that a minority of coaches can contact the BBRC and the decision affects the majority...
Ogres on the Orc team are only a problem when the one-turn TD comes up. As the Troll is still there, that particular problem remains. Solution? Remove the Goblins (cheap assists, easy fouls, one-turn possibilities) in some way - either from the roster, or through a characterful rule.
In the latter case, something like "But I was 'ungry" - roll a D5 for each Troll/Black Orc on the team before setting up. For every '1', a Goblin is eaten and removed from the team.
That's character for you 
-Andy-
Elan - Dec 03, 2003 - 04:37 AM
Post subject:
I vote for:
"But I was 'ungry"
I have seen me ladz at work!
Doubleskulls - Dec 03, 2003 - 04:59 AM
Post subject:
coachblacknife wrote:
Hmm, odd that a minority of coaches can contact the BBRC and the decision affects the majority...
There is nothing to stop you or anyone else emailing Fanatic with your views. Andy Hall is generally quite good at responding.
If you want to contact Chet or Neo they both post here so you can always PM them.
coachblacknife wrote:
Ogres on the Orc team are only a problem when the one-turn TD comes up. As the Troll is still there, that particular problem remains.
But is significantly weaker. The extra roll for the Big Guy (which results in a turnover too) means your TTM success rate drops.
noodle1978uk - Dec 03, 2003 - 07:43 AM
Post subject:
We've had ogres in orc teams for years. Thousands of games, and never noticed a problem...
I don't think its "unbalancing" - obviously - because there is no evidence the way our league is run!!
It seems a bit odd that Ogres wouldn't play for orcs - that the change has been made in the name of "balance"
Next we'll have elves with AG3 because AG4 is "unbalanced" or maybe all play with 6 3 3 8 linemen
Mordredd - Dec 03, 2003 - 07:46 AM
Post subject:
I too had no idea that removing Ogres from Orcs was even being considered. (My fellow NAFer in my league say's he had heard a vague rumour, but he's also a TBBer too.) I new Dwarfs were losing them (rightly so IMO) and Halflings and Gobbos. I thought it was unnecessary, if not unfair, to remove them from the stunties but was under the impression when I heard about it that it was a done deal. So I was rather annoyed to find that my Orc team had lost the right, so to speak, to field their comically inept Ogre. (I listed this guy as my contribution to the BB world's worst player thread in the General section.)
I have two comments to make about some of the above responses on this thread.
First, it is all very well saying that anyone can write to Fanatic about BB.
But what are we going to say?
"Dear Andy Hall
I really like the team I'm playing with right now, and I think it's fair and balanced just as it is. Just in case you are thinking of making any changes, please don't.
Yours sincerely.
Overly paranoid BB coach."
Secondly, just because one person says it a thousand times (literally or figuratively) doesn't make it true. Or mean that people don't have the right to be upset, or question the legitimacy of the change, when the first they hear of it is in the RR after it's happened.
coachblacknife - Dec 03, 2003 - 10:54 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
There is nothing to stop you or anyone else emailing Fanatic with your views. Andy Hall is generally quite good at responding.
Fair point. Have done so today, before posting here actually.
Doubleskulls wrote:
If you want to contact Chet or Neo they both post here so you can always PM them.
That's nice, but as i've yet to see a point to the NAF I don't think I will resubscribe when my year is up. If i'm not subscribed, I can't contact them. Clique? If they're contactable elsewhere then top marks (bbowl-l, tbbf, etc.).
coachblacknife - Dec 03, 2003 - 11:10 AM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
Actually ... there is no mention in any pictures or fluff about Ogres playing for Goblin or Orc teams. The only picture I could find was Morg playing for an Orc team and he's a mercenary star. His normal team he played for was usually the Chaos All-Stars.
The only specific mention I could find of Ogres interacting with another race outside of Morg in the fluff was that the Oldheim Ogre roster was composed of 6 Ogres and 4 Goblins.
Page 63 of the Handbook. Second paragraph:
"Orcs have always respected brawn over intelligence, and so they frequently make use of black orcs and ogre players in their teams..."
Doubleskulls - Dec 03, 2003 - 02:16 PM
Post subject:
coachblacknife wrote:
Doubleskulls wrote:
If you want to contact Chet or Neo they both post here so you can always PM them.
That's nice, but as i've yet to see a point to the NAF I don't think I will resubscribe when my year is up. If i'm not subscribed, I can't contact them. Clique? If they're contactable elsewhere then top marks (bbowl-l, tbbf, etc.).
Both are on TBB. Milo & Babs occassionally post there too.
coachblacknife - Dec 04, 2003 - 04:01 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Both are on TBB. Milo & Babs occassionally post there too.
In which case... top marks
Tutenkharnage - Dec 04, 2003 - 06:55 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
But [the Troll is] is significantly weaker. The extra roll for the Big Guy (which results in a turnover too) means your TTM success rate drops.
Don't forget:
* Really Stupid
* MA 4
* AG 1
Don't forget: your league is your league. You don't like the loss of Ogres? Let 'em play for the Orcs! The world won't stop spinning. The BBRC won't be knocking on your door with a cease-and-desist order
-Chet
coachblacknife - Dec 04, 2003 - 03:04 PM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
Don't forget:
* Really Stupid
* MA 4
* AG 1
I'll dig out the stat analysis a couple of our guys ran. Yo be honest over 100 throws there isn't much of a difference.
Tutenkharnage wrote:
Don't forget: your league is
your league. You don't like the loss of Ogres? Let 'em play for the Orcs! The world won't stop spinning. The BBRC won't be knocking on your door with a cease-and-desist order
Quite. However it'd be nice to know why the BBRC decided to make such a team-changing update to the rules. Thinking behind it, reasons for (and against!). Gives a more 'complete' answer for us BBowl geeks Besides our league sent a fair few players to the BBowl GT and intend to do so again - so we're tied into using the BBRC rulings...
Mordredd - Dec 05, 2003 - 05:22 AM
Post subject:
It is also worth noting that when a league is split on an issue it is usually those people wanting the official, i.e. LRB, rules who win out. As it stands now those who want Ogres in Orc (or stunty or Dwarf) teams need a substantial majority within the league to keep them. It is not always that easy to just house rule these things back to the way they were.
So I agree with coachblacknife, the why is important to know. For example if the Ogre was removed for character rather than balance it takes much of the heat out of the argument, if there is one.
Tutenkharnage - Dec 05, 2003 - 06:20 AM
Post subject:
Character and balance, then
(Seriously.)
-Chet
Mestari - Dec 05, 2003 - 07:11 AM
Post subject:
Thanks for the answer Chet! I have to agree with the assesments made above - even though you are entirely correct that we can houserule things any way we want, everyone realises that there must've been a reason for you guys doing something. And as the idea goes that you've been selected into the RC for your merits, those reasons should, by definition, be pretty good. I wouldn't blame us for wanting to know what they were! We just want to be convinced.
coachblacknife - Dec 06, 2003 - 03:31 AM
Post subject:
coachblacknife wrote:
Page 63 of the Handbook. Second paragraph:
"Orcs have always respected brawn over intelligence, and so they frequently make use of black orcs and ogre players in their teams..."
There's the character
Tutenkharnage wrote:
Don't forget:
* Really Stupid
And if I have a player next to him, he's on a 2+, same as the Ogre, so where's the balance? (Still looking for those stats, mind). If i'm throwin a Goblin, then the little guy will be next to the Big Guy...
Zombie - Dec 06, 2003 - 04:02 AM
Post subject:
coachblacknife wrote:
And if I have a player next to him, he's on a 2+, same as the Ogre, so where's the balance? (Still looking for those stats, mind). If i'm throwin a Goblin, then the little guy will be next to the Big Guy...
That's not always true. Remember that a TTM is treated as a normal pass, and as such, the player (in this case the big guy) can move before the throw. An ogre could run up to a goblin and throw him, but a troll would need someone to help him figure out how that's done.
coachblacknife - Dec 08, 2003 - 03:55 AM
Post subject:
Okay, assuming that i'm always going to have at least one player next to a RS player who is about to throw (because it'd be rude not to)...
If a Troll Longbombs, he fails 80.7% of the time to the Ogre's 76.8%
If a Troll Longpasses, he fails 74.9% of the time to the Ogre's 69.9%
If a Troll Shortpasses, he fails 69.1% of the time to the Ogre's 60.6%
The differences are all much amaller than one pip on the dice (16.7%) and as such don't really matter. It assumes that the RS is a 1/6 due to ANY player standing next to the RS player, because doing otherwise is a futile exercise in both stats and BBowl
Stats worked out as follows:
For Troll:
'BH' + AH + Fumble + Inaccurate + Accurate
Where 'BH' = 1/6
AH = 5/6 x 1/6
Fumble = 5/6 x 5/6 x 1/2
Inaccurate = 5/6 x 5/6 x 1/3 x 1/2 (Longbomb)
5/6 x 5/6 x 1/2 x 1/2 (Longpass)
5/6 x 5/6 x 2/3 x 1/2 (Shortpass)
Accurate = 5/6 x 5/6 x 1/6 x 1/3 (All ranges)
The chances of the Goblin landing on his feet are in there somewhere.
Ogre similar, but without Always Hungry.
Cheers,
Doubleskulls - Dec 08, 2003 - 05:08 AM
Post subject:
Just because of the Always Hungry Ogres are 20% better at TTM than Trolls (because 5/6 of the time Trolls fail that roll).
The extra point of AG only makes a difference to quick passes - and you are almost always going to make short or long passes for the 1 turn score. Everything else is the same for them both.
coachblacknife - Dec 08, 2003 - 04:18 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Just because of the Always Hungry Ogres are 20% better at TTM than Trolls (because 5/6 of the time Trolls fail that roll).
The extra point of AG only makes a difference to quick passes - and you are almost always going to make short or long passes for the 1 turn score. Everything else is the same for them both.
Can't say that I agree with the "20% better" quote, not least because 1/6 is only 16.7% Because AH is only one step in the throw, the effect it has on the final result is reduced. I'll go ask the guy that did this and we'll run over his A-Level stats again; he may be rusty after all!
Zombie - Dec 08, 2003 - 04:28 PM
Post subject:
coachblacknife wrote:
Can't say that I agree with the "20% better" quote, not least because 1/6 is only 16.7%
Because AH is only one step in the throw, the effect it has on the final result is reduced. I'll go ask the guy that did this and we'll run over his A-Level stats again; he may be rusty after all!
5 is 16.7% lower than 6, but 6 is 20% higher than 5.
The stats are wrong. The 20% should prevail all the way. That is, if you use % like it's meant to be used. So whatever % you get for the ogre, it should be 20% higher than that for the troll.
coachblacknife - Dec 11, 2003 - 02:37 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
5 is 16.7% lower than 6, but 6 is 20% higher than 5.
Lol! Quite literal I suppose. I'll stick my hands up and admit that I was just talking percentage chances on the dice and not relativity.
Still, the point remains that differences are tiny, even at 20%.
Tutenkharnage - Dec 11, 2003 - 03:01 PM
Post subject:
The problem with the "small differences" argument is that it's self-defeating. If the differences are really that small, Andy, then you (as an Orc coach) have no real gripe with the balance; you're left with the character issue. That can be argued both ways, but Orcs are definitely closer to Trolls than they are to Ogres.
-Chet
westonwyse - Dec 11, 2003 - 10:48 PM
Post subject:
I have to admit, I'm a little upset about the lack of Ogres on all of the teams I play now. Of course, IML, there are two gobbo teams with Ogres (one with two), a dwarf team, and... another team I can't remember right now that always freeboots one. Convincing them to keep the Ogres probably won't be very hard. 
Now if only I can get them to use the Chaos Halfling rules... 
LordCruSel - Dec 14, 2003 - 05:26 PM
Post subject:
Ok I can understand that orcs and dwarfs can both get along with minimal problems with out ogres but what about gobbo teams and halfling teams? I mean halflings just have treemen left which to be honest are a bit shit (due to the fact they only turn up for the whole game 50% of the time). I personaly liked having one treeman and one ogre on my team to make sure I always had one big guy on the pitch. I cant believe that they changed the ogre rules and did not alter the take root rules.
Zombie - Dec 14, 2003 - 05:52 PM
Post subject:
Three things.
One, the goblin and halfling teams are supposed to suck. That's the whole idea behind those two teams.
Two, we never saw any trolls or treemen in any team the way it was before. Now we'll see them. This added variety (and added flavor that comes with it) is why they removed the ogres. That's always been very clear.
Three, we (the coaches) are the ones who asked for this change!
LordCruSel - Dec 14, 2003 - 06:08 PM
Post subject:
Ok I can understand that it was a group of coachs who asked for this change but from the sites ive visited it seems that alot of coachs dont like the change, Also I know that halflings are supposed to be a bit naff but why does that make it right to make them even worse?
I agree halflings and gobbos are fun teams first and winning teams almost never but surely removing one of the few players they have will just make all halfling and gobbo teams ideantical and thus boring (and remove variaty). If your playing players who keep playing cheese teams you penalise them not everyone that plays that team.
I
coachblacknife - Dec 15, 2003 - 04:13 AM
Post subject:
Caveat: This is not personal, far from it. I'd just like to see an end to this interminable thread with one straight, official answer.
______
Right guys, i'm going to pursue this one last time and see if anyone can give a straight answer:
I'd like to know the thinking behind the removal of Ogres from the Orc team.
Pretty straight forward question as i'm assuming the removal was proposed to the BBRC by one of it's members, discussed, and then executed. The initial proposal would certainly make interesting reading, as would the finished statement of intention. So, the BBRC's statement of intention would make a good answer, rather than anything else
Why am I still confused, well there's not been a straight answer posted yet. Chet said that it was:
"Character and balance"
Which is fine standpoint, but at what point is it unbalanced?
"If the differences are really that small, Andy, then you (as an Orc coach) have no real gripe with the balance; you're left with the character issue."
I'll assume that was 'Orc Coaches' as I don't play Orcs. I don't have much of a problem playing against them and have always seen them and the Humans as the premier, tough, starting teams. No gripe with the balance, well that's true too, so where then does the 'removal for balance sakes' reason come in? Enquiring minds need to know...
Character then?
"That can be argued both ways, but Orcs are definitely closer to Trolls than they are to Ogres."
Er, where? Why? In the Handbook it states that they have an affinity to strength and brute force (see my quote earlier this thread). This is stated before the Trolls & Goblins. Character? Remove the Goblins...
Moving on to Zombie's post now...
"One, the goblin and halfling teams are supposed to suck"
Amen to that. Comedy over competitiveness.
"... we never saw any trolls or treemen in any team the way it was before. Now we'll see them. This added variety (and added flavor that comes with it) is why they removed the ogres. That's always been very clear."
(1) Reduce the Big Guys to ONE on the Goblin/Halfling teams, but keep the TWO option for Trolls/Treemen. This gives coaches the option to play in character and get the advantage To be honest though I agree with the total removal of Ogres from these two teams as they weren't there in the first place!
(2) We'll see variety by REMOVING players? Oh dear. And - as can be seen by this thread (and Mestari's reply above), this have never been 'very clear'; particularly for those coaches (i.e. the majority) who aren't online, or don't subscribe to this list!
"Three, we (the coaches) are the ones who asked for this change!"
I'll refer back to my point above. I'm online now and then and I haven't seen a general poll on this topic. Ever.
GalakStarscraper - Dec 15, 2003 - 05:01 AM
Post subject:
coachblacknife wrote:
"Three, we (the coaches) are the ones who asked for this change!"
I'll refer back to my point above. I'm online now and then and I haven't seen a general poll on this topic. Ever.
When TBB comes back up Andy ... I'll link in the poll and/or discussion threads. I know there was a larger thread on TBB on this topic for a while.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Dec 15, 2003 - 05:23 AM
Post subject:
LordCruSel wrote:
Also I know that halflings are supposed to be a bit naff but why does that make it right to make them even worse?
Experimental rules for moving Take Root onpitch ... Andy has suggested that we might see an onpitch Take Root varient when the playtest vault goes live. Which would make the Halflings reasonablely playable again.
Quote:
Before taking any action with a player with this characteristic, roll a D6. On a 2+, he is fine and may continue his action as normal. On a 1, he loses track of the game and takes root. For the rest of the drive, he is considered to have an MA of 0 and cannot Go For It. He will still be able to block adjacent opponents without follow-up.
If it version goes in the playtest vault, something along these lines is being considered.
Combine onpitch Take Root with the new Master Chef and Fling become playable again. My Halfling team is currently retired because I agree that Flings are unplayable even for fun with the current ruleset (which is the worst Flings have ever had it since 3rd). I look forward to onpitch Take Root so I can break them out again.
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Dec 15, 2003 - 10:26 AM
Post subject:
GalakStarscraper wrote:
coachblacknife wrote:
"Three, we (the coaches) are the ones who asked for this change!"
I'll refer back to my point above. I'm online now and then and I haven't seen a general poll on this topic. Ever.
When TBB comes back up Andy ... I'll link in the poll and/or discussion threads. I know there was a larger thread on TBB on this topic for a while.
Galak
Found it ... poll was late April 2003:
http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5910
But besides the poll ... there was a lot of other discussion on this topic in order from newest to oldest:
http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9191
http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8191
http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8176
http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8182
1st post by Thrads tells you it was common knowledge on TBB: http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6061
Good thread: http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6000
Mordredd - Dec 16, 2003 - 09:24 AM
Post subject:
The poll was hopeless. All it achieved was some vague consensus that Ogres should be removed from some teams, but not specifically which ones. I don't have the time to read through all the posts to find out if the possibility of limiting Ogres to 1 per stunty team was discussed. In any case none of this discussion made it over here.
coachblacknife - Dec 16, 2003 - 01:15 PM
Post subject:
Thanks for that Galak. I totally appreciate the effort.
LordCruSel - Dec 16, 2003 - 06:03 PM
Post subject:
Ok having seen the poll I have to agree that alot of coachs wanted the change cheers for putting the link up. I personaly dont like the changes but I see that it was a majority vote. Lets just hope that changes to the take root skill come in next time.
Xtreme - Dec 16, 2003 - 09:31 PM
Post subject:
While all of these discusions were going on on TBB very few Orc coaches spoke up. There were far more Dwarf coaches trying to save the Ogres for them. But even they were grossly outnumbered. But then once the change happens every Orc coach acts like they were blindsided by it. 
Mordredd - Dec 17, 2003 - 09:27 AM
Post subject:
I was damnit 
. However I don't even read TBB yet alone post on it so I guess there's no real surprises there then .
westonwyse - Dec 17, 2003 - 11:17 AM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Three, we (the coaches) are the ones who asked for this change!
None of the coaches I play with asked for it. They are mostly pretty upset about it, actually. I know I certainly never asked for it. So just because some coaches -- far, far from all coaches -- asked for something doesn't mean that the idea doesn't have opposition (as this thread obviously demonstrates). I mean, seriously, what were we going to to do? Complain to the BBRC that we like a rule? That's kind of silly, isn't it?
And if you want to get treemen on halfling teams (which, BTW, should not be designed to suck, especially if you plan on actually selling the minis) and trolls on gobbo teams, then it's a lot easier to make a limit of one ogre on those teams than it is to cut them completely and piss off a great many players who absolutely did not want them removed.
That's what's called a compromise. They work wonders sometimes.
Zombie - Dec 17, 2003 - 12:17 PM
Post subject:
westonwyse wrote:
I mean, seriously, what were we going to to do? Complain to the BBRC that we like a rule? That's kind of silly, isn't it?
The rule change was announced almost a year ago. That's when you should have complained if you didn't like it. Now it's too late and complaining now won't achieve anything.
Tutenkharnage - Dec 17, 2003 - 03:37 PM
Post subject:
Random thoughts:
1. The Halfling team shouldn't be designed to totally suck, assuming we define "totally suck" as "have zero chance of being fun, challenging, and remotely competitive." The Halfling team shouldn't be designed on a level with the "real" teams, however.
2. Many coaches like the Orc teams losing Ogres; many don't. That's all well and good. The BBRC didn't poll anyone on this issue; it was raised to us, we discussed it, and we took a vote. If you don't like the decision...house-rule it!
3. That said, Zombie's assertion that "complaining now won't achieve anything" isn't true. That statement assumes that the BBRC would never overturn a previously published rule. That's not the case.
-Chet
Deathwing - Dec 17, 2003 - 05:25 PM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
That statement assumes that the BBRC would never overturn a previously published rule. That's not the case.
-Chet
Bring Back OSPA!!!
Zombie - Dec 17, 2003 - 05:36 PM
Post subject:
OSPA wasn't made by the BBRC.
Mordredd - Dec 18, 2003 - 05:23 AM
Post subject:
I would just like to say that I support the comments of westonwyse here. I asked pretty much the same questions earlier and was roundly ignored. (I suppose these changes may have been announced but I guess I missed that one.)
Might it not be a good idea to keep a list of the issues to be discussed, say in the announcements section, that only the BBRC can add to? Give us lowly plebs who aren't in any 'inner circles' the chance to see it coming.
As for the random thoughts:
1. I totally agree, but I don't think having an Ogre was incompatible with that.
2. I suppose you are right, but as I've said before if you want to house rule them in you need a firm consensus from your league. Not always easy to do, certainly not as easy as pointing at the LRB and saying, "look, it's allowed".
3. I applaud any person and any organisation that is prepared to say "this idea/policy we had isn't working, lets change it". I am not saying that it will necessarily be the case on this issue but I am greatly encouraged by the fact that at least one BBRC member is open to the idea.
And what is OSPA?
Deathwing - Dec 18, 2003 - 06:53 AM
Post subject:
One Skill Per Action..a feature of the 4th ed ruleset.
And Z, although it wasn't a BBRC rule, technically you could argue that they were the guys that did away with it! Pedantry aside, it was only a throwaway post meant in humour!
Mordredd - Dec 18, 2003 - 07:30 AM
Post subject:
D'oh! 
Should have been able to guess that one. Who could forget the infamous 4th Ed.? Apart from me of course 
.