| Author |
Message |
Babs |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 01:15 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
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... |
_________________
=-) 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 03:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 06:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 44
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 07:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 04:10 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 02:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 12, 2006 - 10:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
wulfhure |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 14, 2006 - 12:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
If you think BloodBowl is good, Try Jugging
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzahorst/jugging.html
It's the most fun you can have getting your butt kicked
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 15, 2006 - 05:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 16, 2006 - 07:30 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
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? |
_________________
=-) 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
biggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 16, 2006 - 09:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
OZjesting |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 16, 2006 - 09:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 44
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 17, 2006 - 12:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 04, 2005
Posts: 17
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 17, 2006 - 01:58 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 17, 2006 - 05:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
