Author |
Message |
Notorious_jtb |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 07:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 02, 2005
Canada
Posts: 1456
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
To add. The world cup is a big deal. The rules only matter in that they do not get in the way of the celebration of blood bowl and its community. I almost feel discussing changing them is detracting from the event itself. Although that is perhaps a little bit of an extreme view
So at risk of detracting my self I will share that I personally would change only one thing about the rule set. That would be just to have all the skills on the roster at the beginning (rather than gradually become available over the course of the tournament) and not have any concerns about the changes that occur to rosters during the three days. I don't mean cheating or anything, but three days of blood bowl and socialising is tiring, it is easier if nothing changes. I like easier.
Thanks for enjoying my contradictory post |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 08:30 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
The existing system worked really well last year - each skill just had the day beside it for when it became "active". If it ain't broke... |
_________________
NAF #60
|
|
|
|
|
Notorious_jtb |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 08:50 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 02, 2005
Canada
Posts: 1456
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Indigo wrote: The existing system worked really well last year - each skill just had the day beside it for when it became "active". If it ain't broke...
oh no, i wasn't advocating change for sure but there is a symmetry and simplicity to the same roster being used for all 9 games. Plus it also means you played all your opponents with the same roster so each match is more comparable.
I felt the order of skill acquisition was something i didn't have as much fun preparing for as building the core roster either. I was just sqeaking about my experience/opinion not what should be done. I may just be getting old, day two of tournaments is hard these days so day three is extra hard!
However, as with my lead in statement, i don't want to detract |
|
|
|
|
|
Gaixo |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 09:54 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: May 08, 2009
United States of America
Posts: 811
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
Joemanji wrote:
In the very first post of this Q&A thread our President Lycos said :
Lycos wrote: Q; How much control over the rule set will the hosts have?
A; Effectively, none. The rules will be the same as previous WC's with the 9 games, 3 x 3 days. The hosts will be exactly that but they will "run the event", the NAF will work with you and provide help and guidance but the hosts will provide refs and admin teams.
More to follow as we go.
Is this not cut and dried? All five bids to host the event did so with full knowledge of this stipulation. I was lucky enough to be involved in the voting process and none of the bids made any mention of wanting to challenge it.
I don't think we were ever discussing the prospect of the hosts taking it upon themselves to change the rules.
The quote from Lycos is a bit ambiguous, as it says that the rules will be the same as in previous World Cups, and then clarifies that statement with a clause about the length of the tournament. I suppose you would have more information with which to interpret it, though. Regardless, if the rules are to be the same, I'm interested in how that decision was made. By the outgoing President? By the committee?
According to Pippy's post above, the Tournament Director seems to think that there is room for the ruleset to be modified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 11:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Joemanji wrote: Lycos wrote: The rules will be the same as previous WC's with the 9 games, 3 x 3 days.
Is this not cut and dried?
Well, given that WC1 was 3 single games + 6 team games, whereas WCII was 9 team games, it's a little ambiguous.
Personally, the rules for me aren't a big thing. Maybe a little tweak to make the lower tier teams (and I don't specifically mean stuntys here) a little more attractive, and therefore make the distribution a little wider, would be nice, but I didn't play in the last one to worry about the rules, I just played to be part of the biggest (to date) BB tournament ever. |
_________________ _____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
|
|
|
|
Pipey |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 12:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 02, 2004
England
Posts: 326
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Rules, structure - yes we'd largely like to keep things consistent with previous years. Lycos's post reflects that.
Let's leave it all for the NAF to discuss with the organisers when the time comes. When everything is finalised you'll hear about it |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 12:52 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: Is this not cut and dried? All five bids to host the event did so with full knowledge of this stipulation. I was lucky enough to be involved in the voting process and none of the bids made any mention of wanting to challenge it.
Is this not a self fulfilling prophecy? Given the stipulation that the ruleset is what it is, it was important that the bids played to the selection criteria!
I for one considered changing the ruleset to a progression tournament, ala CanCon (the Australian Blood Bowl Nationals) rules. It's one thing Oz does uniquely so thought it might add some extra interest.
However, the bid stated that the ruleset was non negotiable - and in chatting with local players, they liked the NAF ruleset for the world cup (They can easily play at CanCon) so for those two reasons it stayed as it was for the Oz Bid. |
_________________ =-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
|
|
|
|
Grumbledook |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 05, 2013 - 02:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 922
Status: Offline
|
|
Pippy wrote: Rules, structure - yes we'd largely like to keep things consistent with previous years. Lycos's post reflects that.
Let's leave it all for the NAF to discuss with the organisers when the time comes. When everything is finalised you'll hear about it
We know what you few guys want, I'm interested in seeing what everyone wants and making a decision based on that. I just don't see why the NAF can't do this and is seemingly unwilling to do so!
The members are the NAF as well, they should get their say with the organisers. |
_________________ 'Boomshanker an Interception'
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Oventa |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 19, 2013 - 10:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 20, 2007
Undisclosed
Posts: 107
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi,
Just wanted to check again if there is already a target date when the voters and the bids will be made public?
Before or after the president election is over?
(More precise dates also accepted )
Cheers
Oventa |
|
|
|
|
|
Pipey |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 19, 2013 - 11:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 02, 2004
England
Posts: 326
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Lycos taking care of this. Hopefully very soon though this is a busy time of the year. News soon on this for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
beaso |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 30, 2013 - 04:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
|
|
Can someone please explain to me why the submission report is still not out yet? Secondly the break down on votes.
Surely this is already in document form, from which the voting panel received. Which is exactly the same submission we should be viewing.
Once again the inability to follow through on simple objectives/statements is less than inspiring!!! Luckily we're having a vote at the moment.
Going onto the tournament format, who gets the final say? NAF TO or newly designated winners? As most of have noted so far two WC's, two different formats equals not consistent!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Gaixo |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 30, 2013 - 05:13 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: May 08, 2009
United States of America
Posts: 811
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
It was previously indicated that the next TO would be in charge of the rules. Not sure if that was a fact or an educated guess, though. |
_________________ National Tournament Organizer, USA
(NAF Tournament Director, 2014-2018; NAF President, 2018-2024)
|
|
|
|
|
Driesfield |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 02, 2014 - 11:19 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Belgium
Posts: 59
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
|
|
When will the decision be made about how many teams from each country can attend? |
|
|
|
|
|
Gaixo |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 02, 2014 - 11:52 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: May 08, 2009
United States of America
Posts: 811
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
My understanding is that there are no longer any limits on the number of teams attending. |
_________________ National Tournament Organizer, USA
(NAF Tournament Director, 2014-2018; NAF President, 2018-2024)
|
|
|
|
|
daloonieshaman |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 28, 2014 - 07:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 883
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
What is the address of the convention hall? |
_________________ Why restrict yourselves by only playing local tournaments, take your team on the road.
Best Painted: Rocky Mountain Rampage 2012, 2013, Avatar Blood Bowl Championship 2011
Stunty Cup: West Coast Quake 2012, Zlurpeebowl IV 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|