GW's Triple B League --- TBB WE NEED YOUR VOTES!!!

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:05 pm

Well my thoughts.

Overall I believe the changes make the game worse. In addition, I am not sure that polling a split on 8 individual pieces and taking the net necessarily creates the right answer. Each change impacts the whole and taking 1 or more changes without balancing them is not right.

Anyway....

1 Absolutely no.

2 No way - I really don't see why we can't retain injury mods. Personally I believe that rolling sigurds is a good thing. Look is he BH, SI or worse. The roll adds to the game.

3 No - IGMEOY is the right way of keeping fouling down. Not fussed about the +1 mod - but it makes sense to keep it.

4 Aging - don't like it. But to avoid 3E repeats we need something. Getting rid of injury mods and removing aging is not the way to go.

5 Handicap Table needs to be modified not removed. If we want some surprise at H/T, why not have some H/C rolls be "roll on H/T handicap table" then develop a mini H/T table and this will give some new twists at H/T.

6 Don't like it.... a piling on fling has the same effect as a piling on Black Orc.... don't think so. The only change to make to Piling On is to make it before the a/v roll. I am really a lost for words why we keep needing to go down another route.

7 Happy with the current table - except perhaps 8

8 Could have -ve winnings but I believe that this should have 2 columns before becoming more negative once we get to say -3 (or some variation on this)

So that's a big fat NO from me. I really feel that BB development needs to:

1 Iron out the current "what happens when" type issues (Galak's BBRC hot-list); and

2 Adding fun and interesting rules. These can all be optional rather than compulsory. But developing things such as:-

Home and away

Stadia

Weather

Kick off table

on-pitch spell casters (we never use off-pitch wizards)

post match event table (this could be optional with both minor positive and negative effects)

new skills

other good stuff in-game

etc

Dave

l_dauguet · Post by **l_dauguet** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:04 am

Oki, it's one of the few occasion to be constructive.

1 ) Advanced SPP table
2 ) No injury mods change
3 ) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
4 ) No more aging
5 ) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6 ) Piling On changed to AV reroll
7 ) New winnings table 15k bands
8 ) Negative winnings rules

1)No way!
2)No, il like it the way it is
3) No
4)Certainly not! We did that last season and it was a disaster. Beside, after the first or second SPP rolls you can more or less choose to continue to earn XP. Coachs will try to give SPP to everybody rather than to always the same player.
5)I'd say yes but no!

Although they'd need to be tested, i'm not convinced and find somme effects really hard. The table for +150 tr doesn't that into account the opponent rating. Must the effects be so important when 1 team has a tr 147 and the other is 159? Won't it affect too much the game or have i understood nothing?

Or maybe 150 is too low? I'm for a system like desesperate measures but adapted to different TR differences. Like, first roll (small difference) on small effects, second roll on important effects and after the 3rd on the desesperate measures....
6)Sounds perfect to me.
7)No need for that, especially with the new table effect, FF are given away.
8)Yes. It sounds interesting and gives more management to do in high tr teams. But starting FF becomes REALLY important now.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:33 am

Hm its amazing but it become's more and more clear that the Designers at GW/Fanatic are actually the worst rule creators on the whole planet... 4th Edition, remember?

What about a Blood Bowl rules construction kit?

"Make your own fantasy Football game with 467.000 optional rules to pick!"

Equos · Post by **Equos** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:25 am

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1 ) Advanced SPP table
2 ) No injury mods change
3 ) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
4 ) No more aging
5 ) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6 ) Piling On changed to AV reroll
7 ) New winnings table 15k bands
8 ) Negative winnings rules

Ahem... here goes:

1 ) No thanx... I thought these new rules were to keep "veteran" teams in check... this will actually limit rookie teams more!

2) I like this, and could probably go with it.

3 ) Same as 2, these two could work for me.

4 ) NO WAY! We need aging to keep powerful players - as opposed to well developed teams - in check.

5 ) I always hated the handicap table... but mostly because I loved the cards and bonus MVPs so much! They really favoured rookie teams over veteran teams.

6 ) Undecided here... would probably be best to change PO and DP to AV rerolls if number 2 & 3 were implemented (which i'm in favor of).

7 ) Undecided.

8 ) No thanx. We have aging and cards (okay, so we >>don't<< really have the cards back...yet) to limit über-teams and players.

Puckohue · Post by **Puckohue** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:48 am

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1 ) Advanced SPP table
2 ) No injury mods change
3 ) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
4 ) No more aging
5 ) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6 ) Piling On changed to AV reroll
7 ) New winnings table 15k bands
8 ) Negative winnings rules

1: No!
2: Fine the way it's at the moment, but I don't find this that important.
3: I agree with Thadrin, keep the ref in the game. Keep it as is.
4: I like the ageing rules. Keeps everyone on edge.
5: I don't know.
6: OK. Might have been better with another change, but this is ok.
7: Nope, can't see the point.
8: OK. Good way to hit the big teams.

Odium Khan · Post by **Odium Khan** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 9:35 am

1) Er... No?
2) Sigurd's is good as is, see #6.
3) Fouling also work out fine with current rules.
4) Lowering the odds at low SPP levels would have sufficed.
5) Bring back the cards! (winged drastically of course)
6) Nooooo! Before the AV roll, before...
7) This is also fine as is.
8) Losing income is enough, losing RR is a little unneccesary. Make the handicap make a difference instead!

Yavatol · Post by **Yavatol** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 10:42 am

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1 ) Advanced SPP table
2 ) No injury mods change
3 ) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
4 ) No more aging
5 ) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6 ) Piling On changed to AV reroll
7 ) New winnings table 15k bands
8 ) Negative winnings rules

1) No
2) I think its okay. It means less cas from blocks but more from fouls. And it takes out one roll without changing the statistics (for rookie players)
3) I could live with it, especially considering 2 and 6.
4) Could be justified if 8 now also limits developed teams
5) No I don't realy like the tables and think the desperate measures should have been left out
6) Not sure. PO before AV would do the trick. Especially with easier fouling
7 &

Not sure how it will effect the game. But I can see some merrits. Although I think this means they should drop the rule of 1 for FF rolls. It might work well in larger leagues. Maybe players that are fired because of this rule could be bought by other teams, setting up a nice chance for a transfer system.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:13 pm

Toby wrote:Hm its amazing but it become's more and more clear that the Designers at GW/Fanatic are actually the worst rule creators on the whole planet... 4th Edition, remember?

I think that title is reserved for someone else.

Galak

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:21 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
Toby wrote:Hm its amazing but it become's more and more clear that the Designers at GW/Fanatic are actually the worst rule creators on the whole planet... 4th Edition, remember?
I think that title is reserved for someone else.

Methusalah · Post by **Methusalah** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:40 pm

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1) Advanced SPP table
A clear and decisive no, possibly the worst suggestion in this list

2) No injury mods change
No, not with #4 as well

3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
No, as other posters have already said, I prefer the flavour of the ref.

4) No more aging
Undecided, a contentious issue. Something new is needed but I don't think it's amongst these suggestions

5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
No, needs changing but I think Milos revised table is a much better option

6) Piling On changed to AV reroll
Oh look, a yes

Change it now ..

7) New winnings table 15k bands
Undecided

Negative winnings rules
Don't like the idea of being forced to retire players at all. Surely there's a better way to cap high TR teams, I don't think this is it though. No

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:05 pm

I think the people who think the forced retirement are missing the point here, if you keep control of your team rating then it will never happen and as a method of controlling tr i think its a very good idea

if you look at the numbers i provided in a previous post as well you will see that its not really going to happen very often anyway there is a tr 600 team in fumbbl atm with 550k in cash in the treasury

the only way you are going to be losing players is if you let your tr rapidly spiral upwards, which is also bad for giving away handicaps

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:10 pm

Grumbledook wrote:the only way you are going to be losing players is if you let your tr rapidly spiral upwards, which is also bad for giving away handicaps

Agreed Grumble ... also keep in mind the rule says you have to lose ALL your rerolls first to this negative modifer. Okay most high TR teams that I know of run 3 to 4 rerolls. That alone is going to have knocked 15 to 24 points of TR off your team.

The negative rules of winnings is more about team management than forced retirements. The only way you'd ever be FORCED to retire a player is if you let your team spiral without management. And management could be something as simple as saving some cash for the rainy day you pull up short on the gate and winnings so you don't have to lose a reroll.

Galak

Melifaxis · Post by **Melifaxis** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:57 pm

1) Advanced SPP table - I don't like this one at all. No.
2) No injury mods - Not needed. No.
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll. I don't like this one either...someone is down on the pitch you should get a bonus to hurt them...it makes sense to me. No.
4) No more aging Huzzah!! Ageing sucks - get rid of it. Yes.
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR The handicap table does need an overhaul... Yes.
6) Piling On changed Yes!
7) New winnings table 15k bands No!
Negative winnings rules Yes...

Post by **Dave** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 4:32 pm

link to their league standings and stuff http://www.specialist-games.com/bloodbowl/league.asp

darthnoir · Post by **darthnoir** » Sun Aug 17, 2003 4:37 pm

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods change
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed to AV reroll
7) New winnings table 15k bands
8) Negative winnings rules

1) No
2) Undecided
3) No
4) No (I guess aging is not as unpopular as I thought. I know I've always liked it)
5) Undecided (I like the idea of tables based on TR, but I think the BBB tables need some tuning)
6) Yes, a good compromise to a rather heated debate
7) No, the current tables are fine
8) Undecided, have to try it first