€Bowl 2013 rules

[Beppe#2]

I agree with Buck's and Sputnik. In Italy too we trained for the last 6 months at TV1100 and with the previous rules. I agree also with the captains forum where to talk and discuss about changes

[Topper]

Yes I think it´s valid enough to alter the rules a tad - but should be discussed with (at least) the team captains

[Purplegoo]

Just to build on one of Sputnik's points a little (I think I might just be repeating both Sputnik and a little of what others have said, sorry if I am!), I wonder if it's time to cast at least basic Eurobowl rules in stone?

This is only my third time being involved in the tournament, but it seems to me that every year the rules are posted and there is some discussion, voting or disagreement. Perhaps if something were fixed (be it number of games, TV, skills or all of the above), it would take the pressure off of future hosts (one less thing to worry about) and we would all be aware of the rules long before time so we could practice / train without something changing. Of course, if a host felt strongly about a specific change or the CRP for some reason changed, we could have a look at it and vote.

Just seems to me it would take the perennial stress and the uncertainty out of it. Probably a discussion for another day after we have fixed on rules for this year, but I think worth thinking about?

[Turin]

There are quite some strong opinions on the matter. This is the ruleset, we developed (over a far too long period). It is, actually, the final result. However, if there is too strong a rejection of the changes, there should be a discussion on them (at least as a summary of opinions).
So I will work them through 1 by 1. However, as a start, we want to address the issue of change for the sake of change. We felt it would be good to have a change of pace in the format. Denmark started last year by introducing tiers to the €Bowl (more on that below), we felt it could go some further yards.
Finally, there is always a bit of a difference of opinion between those countries who approach the €Bowl as a tough competition (which it is) and those, like us, who approach it as the biggest BB-party in Europe (which it is too). We don't think, the changes will destroy either the competitive character or the get-together aspect of €Bowl. They just change the balance between the teams.

TV 105: We know that €Bowl usually has been played at 110.
Each year there is a discussion about team composition. Several ideas were born, most of them involved tiers and a restriction to n teams from tier 1 maximum and a minimum number of tier 3 teams. Other ideas were discussed as well but all were dismissed. That is until Denmark introduced the system we had last year to the €Bowl. It, however, had close to no impact on the race choices. TV 105 is a way to change the effectiveness of several teams, thus maybe giving the tournament a thrust to different team compositions.
As for people training for the €Bowl: as I understand it, training happens in countries whose €Bowlistas are among their top players. I'm confident that these coaches know how to deal with TV105.

Skills at the beginning: just like the different TV it shifts the balance between the teams a bit. So far we had €Bowls with skills before each match and skills before each day. Now, you come with a team and that's it. That means you can't adjust your skills to your next opponent, but some teams profit from it because they need these extra skills or at least have more benefit from them than others.
Moreover, it is also a point to have a chance of pace.

Tier skills: last year, the tiers had close to no impact in race choices. Those of us who actually wrote the rules really liked the idea of the tiers and a bonus for less competitive teams. Having the extremely small effect of their introduction last year in mind, it was decided to give them a bit more punch.

As for all those changes together: I think the top notch coaches will still dominate the pitch (provided Nuffle grants them appropriate dice).

As for the tiers and smaller countries not active on TFF: the homepage had the rules updated - if at any time there is a difference between the rules in the starting post which are just the translated summary from our internal thread or the homepage, then the homepage prevails. I will email the captains that the rules are on the HP.
Oh, and Topper got the tiers right of course. While posting I was thinking of tiers 0, 1 and 2.

As for Captain's discussion and decisions: my experience is (and we were not participating in France) that not so many things are decided by the captains. The decisions I remember were about 6/7 matches, about if Canada could participate and about the number of freebooters allowed plus always the discussion about the next host. There was some discussion about the tiers, but an actual decision was only made on game 7 (as far as I know).
Please correct me if I forgot anything. It may sound a bit rude (it's not meant that way), but a call for the "traditional captains' vote on the rules" is a bit like the questions in the other thread about the "traditional 7th game". Altogether, as already said, we do have the final word on the rules as hosts, but we won't enforce any changes if the overall opinion is strongly against them. Just give them a chance, there may be some changes but the may also be not so bad after all.
Anyway, our rules guys also read the thread (I'm just the lucky spokesman).

What's definitely up for discussion is the first round pick. To give you an example of other ideas, we came up with:
We also thought about a challenge-system bottom to top. The countries would be rated according to their last years' performance. Then from the bottom of the list, each country would be called upon to issue a challenge to another country listed above.

Is there anyone who thinks, the changes would prevent the €Bowl from functioning as a good BB-tourney?

[Purplegoo]

Hi Turin, thanks for posting on behalf of the hosts.

I don’t doubt we’ll have a brilliant weekend regardless of the rules. But I do think they're important.

I’ve not been involved for long enough to know if a captain’s vote is ‘standard’ or not, only that there was one for France when there were a few major-ish rules changes suggested (I think), and that we would have liked to have discussed a couple of bits last year that slipped into the ruleset (tiers, seeding the first round, points that still seem controversial now).

I think if there were fewer proposed changes or they were less major, there would be less discussion. But as it is, I think from an English point of view (whilst I take on board what you’re saying above), we’d still very much like some sort of vote. I won’t clutter the thread with going into each potential change here; but I’m not sure that any of them sit very comfortably at this point. It seems the other countries agree, so I think some sort of captain’s forum / vote would be a good idea such that we all get on the same page. Even if we end up convinced these rules are best, then at least we would have talked about it.

I don’t mean to sound harsh either; I appreciate that the EB is a massive task to organise, and I’m sure you’ll do a great job. I do think this (potentially) adds more weight to the idea that rules become a bit more concrete from 2014 onwards. What are the thoughts of others?

[Niebling]

First of Turin, thx for making this very nice response, that clearly shows that you have had some good thoughts about your changes, and that they are not just made at random.
You did however not adresse why you removed the trait skill (from the teams that matter )This has a big impact so I would like to know why.

Also

TV 105: We know that €Bowl usually has been played at 110.
That is until Denmark introduced the system we had last year to the €Bowl. It, however, had close to no impact on the race choices. TV 105 is a way to change the effectiveness of several teams, thus maybe giving the tournament a thrust to different team compositions.

I belive 105 vs 110 actully makes less teams viable, and that because its 105 we will see less team used not more.

[Darkson]

With my admin hat on, can I say there is already a Eurobowl Captains sub-forum on TFF, it's just not used (last post 2010!), mainly because that none of the countries have asked/informed the Admin staff on captains for each year. And if I'm honest, it wasn't used much in 2010 when it was set up either!

If you want to use that, please do so, but I'd need an up-to-date list of captains (with TFF names, if different from their NAF names). If they don't use TFF, then they'd have to open an account, or ask a team-mate to proxy for them.
Also, I could only amend it while at home, as I no longer have access to this forum at work( ).

[Joemanji]

It is, actually, the final result...Altogether, as already said, we do have the final word on the rules as hosts

I will let my Captain do the talking in the main ... but this sentiment is deeply worrying. Whilst the rules the Austrians have come up with are not a disaster, the principle of 'hosts can do whatever they want' has the potential to cause trouble in future years. We all pay a lot of money and travel a long way for what is held up as the highlight of the calendar. I don't think that Eurobowl is the place to experiement or introduce a bit of change for the sake of it.

I have every confidence the event will be fantastic though, looking forward to it!

[Niebling]

It is, actually, the final result...Altogether, as already said, we do have the final word on the rules as hosts

I will let my Captain do the talking in the main ... but this sentiment is deeply worrying. Whilst the rules the Austrians have come up with are not a disaster, the principle of 'hosts can do whatever they want' has the potential to cause trouble in future years. We all pay a lot of money and travel a long way for what is held up as the highlight of the calendar. I don't think that Eurobowl is the place to experiement or introduce a bit of change for the sake of it.

I have every confidence the event will be fantastic though, looking forward to it!

QFT

[Geggster]

As for Captain's discussion and decisions: my experience is (and we were not participating in France) that not so many things are decided by the captains. The decisions I remember were about 6/7 matches, about if Canada could participate and about the number of freebooters allowed plus always the discussion about the next host. There was some discussion about the tiers, but an actual decision was only made on game 7 (as far as I know).
Please correct me if I forgot anything.

There was also discussion about the seeded first round at the last captains' meeting in Copenhagen. The point was raised that with 7 rounds to play (which had been subject to a vote in the preceeding weeks), a seeded first round was unnecessary (and I think that was vindicated).

However at the very late stage of 10 minutes before the first round, the organisers went with their seeded first round plan. In retrospect, I can see why - a seeded first round seems fairly inconsequential when you have 100 BBers in the adjoining room waiting to get going - and a discussion about the merits of changes in a 15 man committtee, only half of which speak the same language, isn't really that sensible.

This leads me to think that all decisions should be made in advance in good time and that the captains' meeting shoud be reserved for organisational announcements and getting to know one another - not voting.

[Turin]

Well, we didn't participate in France, but in 3 years of captaincy and after consulting my predecessor's memory, I see that the tradition of captains' votes is not as strong as some may think.
I do, however, agree that quite obviously there seems to be the need to talk about these issues.
As part of that we should also think about the proposed core rules, probably as a framework within which's boundaries future organizers can decide freely, while everything else should be brought up before the "captains' assembly".

@Darkson: interesting, I didn't know of its existence, but we didn't participate in 2010 then. I think we should reactivate the forum. I'll send you a list of nicknames in the evening. They will contain the captains and our rules guys.

@Niebling, on the removed trait: I have to check with the others to answer that. I'll get back to you.
We used 105 at the Schnitzelbowl many times. I don't think it makes less teams viable. Especially not in combination with the rest of the proposed changesm

@Joemanji: we shouldn't reduce a posting to 2 simple sentences. I've also written that there is room for discussion (with which I don't just address the first round pick) and quite obviously the need for it.

@Geggster: I agree with you on the captains' meeting's purpose and that important decisions should be made before that.

[Lard]

I aint clear of what "one trait" even means in the rules. Is it a double skill? Is it that you can stack skills on a player? Is it +1 in MV, AG, ST or AV?

Please rewrite the

Tier three, 1 trait 1 extra start skill:

part off the rules on the homepage, even if you dont change them.

[Turin]

A trait is a skill you need to roll a double to get. (Just an older expression.)
We'll rewrite it.

[kithor2002]

I encourage Turin with these rules- they bring new perspectives into the current Team event.
And correct me if I am wrong but didn't we use TV 105 at Eurobowl 2005 in England?

Honestly all participants of each country knows how to play the game and with a decrease of 50k it would'nt change the whole game. ( and the Italians and French have 3 month to go to train with the new setup - that will be a lot of BB time )

The discussion of rules is always a point of divergence - I can remember of the rules discussion when the ruleset changed some month before the Eurobowls (e.g. LRB 4 to 5 or 5 to the current ruleset). Most of us were worried about the change and at least at one Eurobowl we sticked to the old rules for one more year. But as in real life a change results in improvement for some way - you have to go for it (and the Austrians do!)
Sure for some games it will be a challenge but the Austrians want to seduce you to think about some other races with some additional skills which haven't been used so often : Think of a Chaos Pact Team with 8 starting skills.....

[Topper]

Okay a few points from (one of) last years organizers.
I don´t mind changes of rules - really - it´s good - but I don´t like it when the debates are left out.
The ruleset as such isn´t bad - but I do feel there are a few things in the setup that works against each other.

When people say the rules weren´t up for discussion last year.. I´m sorry I have to correct you guys.
We made forums here on TFF - in January - where we posted our suggested rules (see here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=32746) and search for more. They were then discussed in length. I made a personal effort to PM every single captain to ensure they were following the discussion to ensure a ruleset all could accept (at least in a fashion of democracy). We changed the ruleset quite a bit as the discussions went on after what people agreed on - and listened intensely to what was said. No one can claim their voice weren´t heard.

Every single captain´s voice were personally asked for and heard and none objected to the majority of the ruleset (as such - or we changed or voted on the the bits they were objecting too).
The objects of controversy were then subjugated into specific topics that the captains then PM´d me their answers on/wrote in the fora.

On basis of those answers we came up with the final ruleset.
However some worked as planned and some didn´t.

Like Niebling I think that waiving the any table/trait/double skill really changes a lot - and unfortunately it hits many of the same teams that are struck by the 1050TW.
It removes at least two teams (IMO) that could have worked otherwise at 1050 (namely CD & Necro). Teams with expensive players & RRs are hard hit by this.
Since CD are now out of the option - Amazons are now even stronger than before (and they were strong) - and further boosted by the lower tw as they didn´t really need that extra money anyway, is just one example of a chain reaction that works (I think) against intentions.