Talk Fantasy Football

Garrick wrote:

Loki wrote:

Garrick wrote:When you get this kind of response, you know you have already won your argument

To me it sounds less like you want to make a coherent argument that 11 before stars is restrictive and spoils variety with total disregard to the cash available and more like you want to pick and choose what gets pulled through from CRP to tournaments and your view is the only correct one.

As on other debated points, I agree all TO's should think about what they a setting up and blind adherence is a problem

David, you took the argument to a silly place not me, that is usually done when coherent argument is no longer available, after doing that you cannot back track and demand a coherent argument from me as you have already lost. Love and Kisses, Graham

PS I sincerely hope ALL rules are pulled through from CRP to tournaments and then modified by the tournament specific rules. I was just pointing out a rule in CRP that is "commonly misunderstood to exist" does not and that a tournament specific rule would not be required if it did. I specifically disagree with that tournament specific rule but it has never been a CRP rule.

PPS I totally agree with "all TO's should think about what they a setting up and blind adherence is a problem" and I was using this specific tournament rule as an example.

PPPS My favourite bugbear right now is that 2 tournaments in Scotland are going with 4 single and 2 double skills / no more that 2 of any skill which favours Undead and Wood Elves, and we all know that they need a leg up to compete!

Darkson wrote:

Garrick wrote:I was just pointing out a rule in CRP that is "commonly misunderstood to exist" does not and that a tournament specific rule would not be required if it did. I specifically disagree with that tournament specific rule but it has never been a CRP rule.

How has it never been a CRP rule?
P.16 of the CRP:
"In addition,
your team must have at least 11 players and may not have more than 16."

Stars are Inducements, and you don't get inducements until the pre-game of your first match, so Stars can't count towards the 11.

Graham I think we should probably debate the place of humour in rhetoric at some other point.

Suffice to say that it's not the point Darkson has raised that I disagree with. You feel compelled to address an issue you have seen, so do I. What I contend is that your equivalence of tournament and league set up rules is sophistry. You can't have it both ways, either you need stick to 1M GC and adherent rules for a 'league' style set-up or let the diversity of tournament set-ups run.

It's fine to challenge lazy behavior, but ultimately sticking with what you are suggesting creates it's own problem. If you are increasing the tournament buy-in above the standard League 1M, the 11 rostered players then stars 'buy in' actually models the original league rules more closely than giving +1M but still letting you have a star before purchasing 11 players. Giving 1.1M or 1.2M but keeping 10 players + star makes it easier to have the Stars. It's personal preference if you want to make Stars more or less accessible in your tournament, some don't want stars in their tournament hence the outright ban in some tournaments.

After sitting down with several Star player. It's was collective agreement that jordell Hubris morg and ripper all said why would they freeboot and play for a team in the biggest event on the calendar when they can't get get 11 of their own to play for them.

So there we have it.

11 players before stars

(Stars are inducements. You must have a legal team BEFOREHAND. Then you can purchase inducements)

paid for ceetee and deetee.

Will come. Need pipey to show me more good restaurants in Nottingham this year probably with the personal cheerleader

Let's go to the vegan restaurant! It's actually very good. Don't think they do bratwurst

BTW Hawca - this is lunches only again, correct? Perhaps we can put together a list of recommended restaurants / bars, as I believe was discussed in the feedback chat for 2016.

I'll be attending, always a highlight.

I am disappointed at the rules change, for all of the reasons that come up every time this discussion ('iconic events - how vanilla should their rules be?') appears on a forum. It is a shame that the biggest of the individual events has started down the slippery slope of 'diversity', when there are 50 other UK events this year that range from nodding to bear hugging in this direction and cater to the more hardened, frequent Blood Bowler that welcomes variety.

Having said all of that, I am glad that you've selected a tiered ruleset that isn't too whacky and has been proven to 'work'. There was a lot of scope at Belgium '14 for coaches / teams to seek value according to their own preferences within the rules, and they seemed to create a decent meta. I should think there is more in it for experienced coaches than those that rarely play without giving the coaches we see once a year enough rope to build themselves a really terrible team and regret it from turn five of game one. I hope that any future change is in the vanilla direction; let's save Greek style strawberry cheesecake (with real cheddar cheese) for Dobby Bowl '17.

Rules lawyering over what CRP has to say about 10 + star vs. 11 + star is beyond me. 11 + star tends to mean that coaches are encouraged to build better, more solid rosters rather than make mistakes or make the games they participate in boom (oh look, my star has gone bananas) or bust (oh look, (s)he is dead and has left a shell of a team). I think that can only improve the quality of the games of Blood Bowl, rather than encouraging crap shoots. Whether it's 'right' or not, I like the status quo.

See everyone in April if not before; I am already constructing my feedback post. Put a mango in the lunch bags, I dare you!

Hello all. I'd just like to say that ABC's 1982 release "The Lexicon of Love" is one of the greatest studio albums of the 1980s.

Claptrap. I'll see you outside, pal.

Have to say I'm with Phil on this one!

I like the addition of the tiers. Let's be honest, for the good/top players it's not going to make much difference, as even with the additional skills it's not going to boost the lesser teams up the rankings, and for the more average player (*waves*) who aren't going to be troublin the top tables if it increases the diversity of teams they face that can only be a good thing.

Darkson wrote:

Garrick wrote:I was just pointing out a rule in CRP that is "commonly misunderstood to exist" does not and that a tournament specific rule would not be required if it did. I specifically disagree with that tournament specific rule but it has never been a CRP rule.

How has it never been a CRP rule?
P.16 of the CRP:
"In addition,
your team must have at least 11 players and may not have more than 16."

Stars are Inducements, and you don't get inducements until the pre-game of your first match, so Stars can't count towards the 11.

As already stated earlier in this thread: "you must have 11 players when you create your team" and in tournaments the Star Players are included in your team creation so no requirement in CRP to have 11 players before including the Star.

If the rule about having 11 players before hiring stars was in the CRP then stating it in the specific tournament rules would be redundant. Tournament rules are changes to not clarifications of the CRP.

Anyway with words like Sophistry being bandied about I think now is the time to draw a veil over this.

Garrick wrote:Anyway with words like Sophistry being bandied about I think now is the time to draw a veil over this.

We crossed that bridge a while back mate... We are currently at encase it in concrete and chuck it in the Mariana Trench! Haha!

I agree with Goo on the tiering. I actually enjoy the NAF so much because it is so "pure" but am happy that the tiering isn't going to be exactly turning the tournament on its head.

I fully understand the thoughts on skills package. For what it's worth it's not my preferred. However. This was decided over a few months and many messages and calls.
I took on board thoughts from time serves vets like Phil (goo), Joe (Joemanji), geggster and Pipey, I took on thoughts of coaches who may not come with the how of winning it all, yet turn up year in year out and pay their dues and play alongside the mentioned.

The first thing I knew was not every one will be happy, just as not every one was before.

I've tried to strike a balance that will keep the competitive competitive and pure as can, yet the middle band to get the variety they want with out upsetting balance.

I would also ask that coaches consider the massive task it is keeping the many happy while trying not to upset the few. My predecessor tried and did a great job. With change of personnel we the team felt it time to mix it up a little to try freshen up the Worlds premiere single system event.

I thank you for your comments guys, and feel free to message me with a solution if you have one.



Andy

I was involved with the process as Hawca describes. There was discussion between Hawca and his team, together with Rotersternhochdahl and DocMaxx representing Dungeonbowl. This led to the agreed rules above.

The current landscape is one where Eurobowl, NAFWC and many other tournaments are using tiers. Like it or loathe it, this is a situation which is becoming the norm, almost the accepted standard. I understand that some have conservative tastes, but a significant number of people were asking for this. The kind of questions they were asking… “why do my stunties/slann/pact etc. get a leg-up at loads of other events but not here?” “why are the top tables dominated by Undead, Wood Elves, Lizards, Dark Elves etc.?”. Broadening the number of competitive races enhances the game, surely. And I do believe people enjoy the variety.

I’m sure Hawca is hoping people will mostly find this a positive change and will lead to a good turnout. Time will tell I guess.

There are still minor events that do not use tiers. Variety is good.