| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 16, 2006 - 04:06 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
bampf wrote: Quote:
Mummies and the kickoff table constitute a "laundry list of house rules"?
Yes.
bampf wrote: Plus with LRB 5 some one may actually bring DEs to a tourney, skill selections may not be the same old boring ones always taken.
No it'll be new boring ones. It'll now be like Clan Skaven layed out. If a bunch of teams have X then eveyone else will take Y because it cancels out X.
bampf wrote: If a jostling of the rules sends things into chaos please explain why tournies like the Challenge of Qermit and (gasp) Death Bowl use their own unique rules and seem to do just fine.
Well firstly both those events use mostly additional rules and a few house rule changes. The core rules such as rosters, skills, etc don't change. When I went to Qermit last year I hadn't read a single rule before showing up. A lot of people hadn't. There were no rule problems at all because we all knew the core rules. Same thing happens at Death Bowl. People show up and just know the core rules. 5.0 isn't a jostling of the rules. It's a tear down and rebuild.
bampf wrote: You can t have it both ways... saying the rules are secondary to the event and then stamping your feet about LRB 5 is a contradictory argument!
I didn't say they were secondary. I said..
Quote: The rules of the event should almost be background noise. A beat to the rythm of the event...
A beat is not secondary to the music. It's the core yet unnoticed unless you want to hear it. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2006 - 03:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Ok, I know I'm not the target audience, but... 
LRB 4 for me, though I'm going to have to bite the bullet and try to keep on top of LRB 5 rules for tourney play. I'm hoping there'll be plenty of UK tourneys (and hopefully some overseas ones for me in the future) will keep 4.0 rules, but I doubt enough will for me to be able to ignore the 5.0 rules completely.
But as others have said, for me the games are secondary to having a good time with mates I might not see for months on end. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2006 - 03:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
You can be part of the target audience and plan a trip to Death Bowl  |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
longfang |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2006 - 08:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 189
Status: Offline
|
|
| Why would you not want to attend a tourny simply because it's LRB5. It's not going to make much difference to tourny play anyway, teams only get to earn a few skills over the course of 5 or 6 games. Apart from the odd few I think most touney's will be LRB5 and we can't knock it until we've given it a go. If it's enough to put you off going then it's your loss perhaps to everybody elses relief at you not attending. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 04:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Longfang wrote: If it's enough to put you off going then it's your loss perhaps to everybody elses relief at you not attending.
In Europe those 14 people might not seem like much. Here in Canada, those 14 people are 50% or more of your attendance. Nahh I guess no one will miss half their attendance |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Zinak |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 06:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 06, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 153
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
If it's enough to put you off going then it's your loss perhaps to everybody elses relief at you not attending.
I agree.. but thats just my 10 points worth
Zinak |
_________________
"It's just 10 points"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
KarlLagerbottom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 08:48 AM
|
|
Joined: May 25, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 1148
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 09:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
KarlLagerbottom wrote: Well if you can't please everyone, you might as well please the majority.
I would normally 100% agree with you and if the poll were like 20 to 5 I'd probably grudgingly agree. But 20 to 16? Seems the majority is pretty thin. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Zinak |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 09:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 06, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 153
Status: Offline
|
|
hmm 20 +16 = hmmm 36... now if my math does not fail me here I believe that the 20 would be the majority in this case. Thin or not it is still the majority. In the majority wins system there is no grey area for majority wins UNLESS it is only winning by a few votes then we can change the rules.
Zinak |
_________________
"It's just 10 points"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny_P |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 10:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 899
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
| Just play, who cares? This isn't the first time new rules have been introduced. It's called LRB5, as in the 5th version. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nyarlathotep |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 11:20 AM
|
|
Mekboy
Joined: Mar 15, 2006
Posts: 298
Status: Offline
|
|
| I'll attend any tournament I can get to. It's time and money that are the limiting factors, not the ruleset. |
_________________
Crawling Chaos since 1842...B.C.
My Tournament Record
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Zinak |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 12:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 06, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 153
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
I'll attend any tournament I can get to. It's time and money that are the limiting factors, not the ruleset.
Great way to put it....
Zinak |
_________________
"It's just 10 points"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 12:36 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Canada
Posts: 422
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
| yea I'm not a huge fan of LRB 5, but for 17 people to outright say that they won't attend a LRB 5 tournament seems kind silly. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2006 - 12:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Paul wrote: yea I'm not a huge fan of LRB 5, but for 17 people to outright say that they won't attend a LRB 5 tournament seems kind silly.
Agreed. I wonder if we will see these people slinking in inconspicuously to some of the LRB 5 tourneys when all the smoke has cleared and the dust has settled. 
Spazz |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2006 - 03:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zinak wrote: hmm 20 +16 = hmmm 36... now if my math does not fail me here I believe that the 20 would be the majority in this case. Thin or not it is still the majority. In the majority wins system there is no grey area for majority wins UNLESS it is only winning by a few votes then we can change the rules.
But looking at it the other way, how many of the 20 will still happily play in a LRB 4 tourney?
What's better? A 36-man LRB 4 tourney, or a 20-man LRB 5 tourney?
Losing (approx) 50% of your attendees just so you can play the newest rules doesn't sound like a sensible plan to me, especially if (unlike here in Europe) tourney numbers aren't huge anyway. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
