| Author |
Message |
Babs |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 23, 2006 - 09:32 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| ..and no reset rule means some poor sod gets screwed out of enjoying the tournament.... |
_________________
=-) 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: Reset
Posted: Nov 24, 2006 - 01:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
I note that only 25% of the voters say the rule is broken, with 50% saying its not broken. Since the rule has been on the official website for about a month I hope its not going to be scrapped at this stage.
I suggest the following to limit its misuse. After the blurb in the rules saying its no fun when teams are destroyed add -
"At the end of any game a team may reset to the TR100 team they had at the start of the first game. Coaches may do this as often as necessary. Once only during the tournament, at the end of a game, the team may be reset to the team as it was at the start of that game. Although the players are reset, any cash used for freebooters in that game is lost and cannot be used a second time."
This gives everyone the same rule and doesn't depend on the whim of the TO. Early in the series coaches may prefer to reset to start, since they only get one chance to reset to previous game.
A coach of a team with no casualties could use this rule to reset after game 6 if the team had gained SPPs but no new skills and little or no cash. This would avoid a useless TR increase in the final game. I don't have problem with coaches that use their otherwise unused Reset in this way. 
I hope there are not going to be any significant rule changes in the last 2 months before the event .  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2006 - 01:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Bevan, I can't believe that you are actually suggesting that this rule should be used for tactical purposes. That goes beyond absurd, please Babs if you aren't going to listen to all the perfectly good reasons given not to use the rule at least don't allow everyone to do it at their own discretion so they can reset to avoid a MNG in the final round or something equally shallow.
We have had a bunch of people give a bunch of reasons not to use this rule, and we have evidence that it has had an unbalancing effect on the last tournament which used it. The only counter argument I have seen is that people might have less fun if their team gets smashed (like Blood Bowlers don't know damn well what they are getting in for when they sign up). Well boo hoo for them, if they really can't handle an occasional dice-rape then they are playing the wrong game, and I really don't think we should potentially screw up the entire competition just for a few sore losers.
If you wanted rules to avoid anyone having a bad time after a rough game, you should have used LRB5. It's that simple.
I'm done, I'll see you all in January if not before. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2006 - 03:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Virral wrote: Bevan, I can't believe that you are actually suggesting that this rule should be used for tactical purposes. That goes beyond absurd,...
This is in the same category as the tactical use of an apothecary in the last couple of turns in a game when you use him on a stunned player who is the only one who can score on your last turn. If you haven't needed your apothecary previously then this is a perfectly legitimate use for one.
I'm suggesting that if we have the reset rule, then those coaches who don't get their teams smashed up and don't need to reset earlier can still get some minor benefit from the rule. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2006 - 07:08 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
The rule _IS_ staying guys. I'm done on this issue. If you want to be constructive about it - help me reword it slightly so it won't get abused by beardy players.
Because that's what all the fuss is about anyway. Potential Abuse. Frankly, at this stage I'm coming, I'm playing Dark Elves as well and if anyone needs to use the rule they need to come through me first. That should sort out the needy from the beardy.
Anyone else have a better suggestion? |
_________________
=-) 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2006 - 08:40 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm with Virral. If anyone wants to use the rule for tactical purposes then it isn't worth having. The rule is there to help the poor sod who gets ripped to pieces in round 3 - not to get a minor edge in round 6 or 7.
The only way is commissioners discretion - not players. If you don't want to say no to people then don't have the rule and we'll just have to suck it up. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2006 - 03:40 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| After all my thinking I completely agree with Doubleskulls on this. So for all your whingeing I'll need to be there to tell some beardy Blood Bowlers 'NO!' eh? |
_________________
=-) 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2006 - 04:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lord_shambles |
|
|
Post subject: reset rule
Posted: Dec 04, 2006 - 10:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 10, 2003
Posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
|
| I have a simple fix. If you need a player back it costs you a tournement point for each player The ones you get for winning or playing a round. This means if the person wants 2 players back they lost . This will cost 2 points out of a possible 6 for the tournment round. Heck even give them to the opponent who caused them. In Babs case he would of got 2 points from his oppoent for the 2 werewolves. Meaning he would of walked away with at least 3 points while his opponent would of gotten 4 max. Which means he can still play the tournament with his team but may not win the tournamant. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: Re: reset rule
Posted: Dec 05, 2006 - 12:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
lord_shambles wrote: I have a simple fix. If you need a player back it costs you a tournement point for each player The ones you get for winning or playing a round. This means if the person wants 2 players back they lost . This will cost 2 points out of a possible 6 for the tournment round. Heck even give them to the opponent who caused them. In Babs case he would of got 2 points from his oppoent for the 2 werewolves. Meaning he would of walked away with at least 3 points while his opponent would of gotten 4 max. Which means he can still play the tournament with his team but may not win the tournamant.
This could encourage some coaches to try to destroy their opponent's teams without regard to the score and might end with a situation where the top team had lost every game 0:5. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ClayInfinity |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: reset rule
Posted: Dec 07, 2006 - 03:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 03, 2006
Australia
Posts: 44
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi, terribly late in the debate and all, but I am with Oz & Virral on this one...
I play simply for the fun days and catching up with people and the laughs... if my team gets trashed, I may consider a TR100 reset, but I'd have to be REALLY trashed to do it...
If I go home to Sydney with an 0-7 record and the wooden spoon, I dont mind as long as my hand doesnt get slapped 
My vote: Let the dice fall and let the dead stay dead. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 07, 2006 - 05:32 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Virral wrote: If you wanted rules to avoid anyone having a bad time after a rough game, you should have used LRB5. It's that simple. I've been following this whole thread with interest and will chime in only one comment as an outsider. While I realize this change would have meant that Chunky would have not attended ... I cannot help but think that Virral had the real right answer to this problem as this whole thread has been about an issue LRB 5.0 was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle.
With the DeathBowl moving to LRB 5.0 in 2007 ... it looks like CanCon may be one of the only non-LRB 5.0 tournaments in 2007.
Hope the event goes well Babs.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2006 - 03:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
| Well, that barrier is removed now anyways. With LRB5 looming like the Sword of Damocles I'm losing all interest in Blood Bowl in general, and really don't feel like driving for a ridiculous amount of time for a game I no longer have the enthusiasm to play. I can easily have just as much fun around here playing other games. |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2006 - 08:24 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
So ignoring MOAB '06 ... Babs ... if Chunky is already out .. why not just use LRB 5.0 for CanCon '07? Sure really solves your issue with this reset mess as that was what inducements and journeymen were designed for. And now I'll bow out ... I assumed the only reason you were doing all of this was for Chunky (which I completely understood as he is a key OZ player) ... but if he is gone ... now I'm not sure why all the extra hassle.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2006 - 08:55 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
GalakStarscraper wrote: With the DeathBowl moving to LRB 5.0 in 2007 ... it looks like CanCon may be one of the only non-LRB 5.0 tournaments in 2007.
This sounds worse than it really is, since CanCon is in January and Babs wanted to anounce the rules well before the event, to allow coaches to decide whether to arrange travel. LRB5 had not been official for long when the rules for CanCon were announced.
Many Australian leagues would end their current series at the end of the year, so few leagues would change to LRB5 until the New Year. So it was not unreasonable for Babs to stick to the rules that everyone was familiar with. Chunky was not the only one who said (at previous events) that they would not come if we used LRB5.
I'm a bit concerned that it may be too late for yet another rule change, and a major one at that. We need time for a few practice games using LRB5 and many leagues will close down during Dec/Jan due to holidays.
However, I would accept a change to LRB5 provided it is done right away - within the next week. anyway. But if we start another poll and go through voting again then I'll just cancel. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
