| Author |
Message |
Babs |
|
Post subject: Is the 'reset' rule for MOAB 06 and CanCon 07 broken?
 Posted: Oct 25, 2006 - 11:09 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
What do people think about the ruleset for CanCon 2007.
There's a big change in there about how a team can 'reset'.
The rules are here: http://www.thesouthernwastesscrimmage.com/rules.htm
The text in question states:
Quote: Destroyed Teams Everyone realises that it's no fun if the team is smashed in the first round and has to struggle the entire rest of the tournament down players. To prevent this less than enjoy able experience from happening - players can continue their teams from the position they were in at the beginning of the previous round. For example, if a team plays fine for the first three rounds, buying new players and earning experience, then in roun d 4 has four players killed, that team may play round five with the team roster that team began round 4 with. To help facilitate this, players must keep track of all SPP's, money and injuries and only write it permanently onto their team sheet at the end of the game. I recommend both a pencil and a pen be used on the team roster sheet, writing all information in pen after each game (using 'marks' in bunches of 5 to record SPP's including total SPP's)
Given that players would need to get the commish's approval to reset, what do people think about the rule? |
_________________
=-) 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: Re: Is the 'reset' rule for MOAB 06 and CanCon 07 broken?
Posted: Oct 27, 2006 - 03:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: Given that players would need to get the commish's approval to reset, what do people think about the rule?
Since approval is needed, we may need some guidance on what is a fair thing for resetting to the previous round, rather than resetting back to the start (presumably always allowed).
It might be reasonable to require that a team has not suffered unexpected exceptional loss unless they have used (or attempted to use) their apothecary on a death or serious injury before the injury for which they are resetting.
So a team that suffers a SI on a line elf but decide to keep the apothecary for later worse losses, that don't occur, could not then claim that they suffered irreparable damage due to the lost line elf and needed to reset.
Similarly a team that saved the cost of an apothecary by buying extra position players would be getting what they deserve if they lost a player. Obviously teams might decide not to buy an apothecary in their starting lineup but they just reset to start if they have losses in their first game so that would not affect this rule as long as they buy one at the first opportunity.
This rule has the obvious advantage that the undead teams can't use the reset rule. The non-regenerating players on these teams are supposed to stay dead when they die. It is one of the recognized rules of playing Undead that ghouls are high risk players because they don't come back.  So an undead team that uses non-regenerating players should not expect special treatment. However, if they were to lose more than one regenerating player then a reset could be considered.
Other situations where a team might be considered not to have been totally unlucky in suffering unexpected losses are when they deliberately play recklessy with a valuable player. This might include
(a) leaping a strip ball Wardancer into the middle of a group of opposing players, then being disappointed when he gets knocked over and fouled,
(b) a player frenzying into the middle of a pack and suffering 2 or 3 dice against,
(c) any Piling on player getting fouled.
etc. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2006 - 05:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
This doesn't even make sense to me. If you think your team is so badly demolished that it deserves a reset, then I think you should be resetting to the beginning TR 100. If you gain an advantage from resetting to TR100 then sure, you've been seriously squished and fair enough. But if you just want to reset to avoid losing some star werewolf or wardancer or whatever then no way should you be able to reset to your standing prior to the previous game.
Especially in the example Babs used in the other thread, where a Necro team beat him 4 nil but lost a werewolf and niggled the other, and then got to reset! How can you possibly justify needing a reset when you win four nil? How can you give him back 240k of SKILLED PLAYERS back in exchange for whatever SPP and winnings he earned during the game but letting him keep the victory those lost players helped him win? The return of those wolves easily counteracts any losses he might have made from resetting his team.
If the player was so cut up by his lost wolves that he wished to reset the team completely, thats fine. But no way should you be able to trade SPP and winnings to reset the clock by one match and resurrect dead or injured players which are worth far more than you are giving away.
In my opinion, teams should only be permitted a reset if they have been so decimated that they cannot be expected to compete. And if that is the case, they should reset to TR100 because TR100 is BETTER than the state they are in now. Anything else just encourages abuse. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2006 - 11:48 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
The main aim of the reset rule is to avoid the problem of coaches travelling long distances to the event, only to be unlucky in a single game that totally prevents any chance of recovery for further games. Since nearly all coaches travel from other cities to this event, it seems to be a good idea.
Resetting back to TR100 after game 3 or 4 would probably ruin the whole weekend for most coaches, so I'm not sure that is necessary.
However, a problem does arise where a coach gets an unusually good player (e.g. the Blodge werewolf mentioned above) and can use that player knowing there is no way he can ever be removed from the roster.
It may be reasonable to require that if a partial reset occurs, that the players actually killed (or SI) in that game, come back without any SPPs or extra skills. This would not destroy the whole team, would keep all the player positions that it had before, with most of their skills, but discourage the team abusing the rule to overuse a skilled player (e.g. 1 turn scorer, wardancer with strip ball, Big guy with Block, etc.). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2006 - 03:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
This is blood bowl, sometimes players get killed and luck rules all with an iron fist. If you honestly can't accept that, why play?
Resetting to TR100 isn't the end of the world, it may not mean you have a great shot at winning (lets not forget we get 40ish people at CanCon, and only one of them actually wins!) but it also isn't crippling. Resetting to the previous status of the team is ripe for abuse, and trying to alter it even further with a load of untested extra conditions is even worse.
I maintain that while a team is still considered better than a TR100 starting team, they don't NEED a reset. Losing one or two players, no matter how good they might be, does not CRIPPLE a team, and only when a team is CRIPPLED should a reset even be considered. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2006 - 02:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Let skilled players come back, but give them an ageing roll.
"It's just a flesh wound." |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2006 - 10:19 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
Losing one or two players, no matter how good they might be, does not CRIPPLE a team, and only when a team is CRIPPLED should a reset even be considered.
I agree. Hence the rule change. Commish's decision is final and if I say no - play on - then that's that. |
_________________
=-) 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2006 - 10:26 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| By that I mean I want to see at least 4 players out for the next game if this situation occurs on Day 2. And I'll probably me harsher on the leading contenders for the title than I will be if they're on the lower side of halfway. |
_________________
=-) 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Rabid_Bogscum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2006 - 10:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
Australia
Posts: 255
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
| as impartial as you are babs.. its still a rule rife for abuse.. and complaints |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2006 - 03:15 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Rabid_Bogscum wrote: as impartial as you are babs.. its still a rule rife for abuse.. and complaints
Even more rife for abuse when Babs has to rush back to his house to lie in front of the bulldozers, and leaves a playing coach in charge.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2006 - 03:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: By that I mean I want to see at least 4 players out for the next game if this situation occurs on Day 2. And I'll probably me harsher on the leading contenders for the title than I will be if they're on the lower side of halfway.
Now this is the sort of thing that really gets my goat.
Everyone should be playing the exact same rules. Provided some sort of reset is in place, I really don't care which version is used. Just make it the same for everyone, and make it clear.
People are starting to organise accomodation, can we get a decision on this one way or another? |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2006 - 04:34 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: By that I mean I want to see at least 4 players out for the next game if this situation occurs on Day 2. And I'll probably me harsher on the leading contenders for the title than I will be if they're on the lower side of halfway.
We really need to avoid the situation where a coach has lost 3 players and his team is looking pretty hopelss and he desperately tries to get another of his players killed so he can qualify for a reset.
We also want to avoid having a coach who has reset playing against one who wanted to but wasn't quite badly hurt enough. So no team should be worse off by not being permitted a reset.
Chunky advised you not to put it to a vote, but we have a majority wanting the reset rule in. Now we need a consistent method of allowing any coach to choose a reset without leaving too much arbitrary judgement to the commish.
We need a method where any coach can decide whether he should reset and accept whatever losses (if any) apply without others being worse off by being prevented from resetting.
I'm reasonably happy with the original rule, that you just lose the SPPs and cash from that game.
You should allow only one partial reset for any team. (They could reset to TR100 several times). Most teams with minor losses would keep going in case they had greater losses in a later game, so the rule is unlikely to be deliberately abused.
I agree with Chunky that this should be settled quickly so that I can decide whether to cancel my travel plans. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2006 - 05:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Putting set boundaries on it is a bad idea no matter what, if something like this is going to be implemented then you can't set some arbitrary rule on it and expect it not to go pear shaped. A wood elf team could suffer both wardancers and a treeman death and be refused, while a halfling team could lose four unskilled haffas and be approved. I like to think that noone would argue with me about which team is hit harder, but if you have some set number of players necessary to get killed I guarentee something like this is going to happen.
Another thought is this, what about the chances of the coach who has managed to damage your team so effectively? Sure, a few dead players hurts the coach, but it HELPS the coach who did the damage. If you play in a swiss system, it means you are playing the other people in the same sort of score as yourself. If you are doing well, you are therefore playing other teams who are also doing well. If you crush their team, even if you lose you have increased your own odds of winning by decreasing THEIR chances of winning. If you crush their team and lose, and they get a free ticket back to full health, not ONLY have you just been bent over a barrel but they haven't suffered ONE BIT, and are going on to the next round with a fully healed team and another win under their belt.
So sure, if someone has a bad game it can hurt their chances of winning (which lets face it are not fantastic anyway, thanks to the sheer randomness of the game) but it does mean that their competition get a better chance at winning as a result. This throws out the balance, especially in favour of teams who are good at both winning and getting hurt such as necro, scaven, elves etc, and does it in a way that threatens to cause some serious ill will between players during the comp. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2006 - 05:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
I think it causing ill will between players is going a bit far mate. Anyone who feels that strongly about it likely won't show up, and anyone who has misgivings but does attend will likely be going just as much for the festivities as anything else (I know thats one of the big reasons I'm going - btw, have I mentioned the advantage of reset tourneys being you have less time to spend on adminning your team and more for drinking  ) |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
OZjesting |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2006 - 06:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 44
Status: Offline
|
|
I am pretty sure that had we been Men about it and played under 5.0 then none of this would be a concern. So I say since you voted for 4.0 then PLAY 4.0. I am travelling, hauling my whole damn family down...and I couldn't give a rats if every player is killed in rd 1. Now had we not been swayed by the uninformed...I could pick up my journeymen and play on...but as it is...silly rule. I look forward to the arguments. Not that I will be involved...I will be playing nice and waiting for us to catch up with the rest of the tournement world....oh...and watching chunky drink 
See you all there! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
