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

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:33 pm

1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
8) Negative winnings rules

1) No almost all coaches like to build teams up, not only is it far ott with a iirc 57spp zombie only having 2 skills for example, it also stops at 5 skills rather than 7, these 7 skilled players have 176+spp so are a large chunk of tr, so will be affecting handicaps and winnings

2) Undecided about this, with av stacking instead and piling on changing, i do kinda like it but would obviously need testing to see how it pans out. Though would this apply to the chainsaw?

3) With no Inj mods, I don't see the need to make any further changes to the fouling rules as they stand, I think they are great, specially if you can use mighty blow on foul av rolls. So thats a no to this one.

4) I have always liked aging, or long time players picking up training injuries, though thinking about it negative winnings should keep tr in cap

5) Not sure about the handicaps as havn't had much experience with them in FUMBBL cause i can just play people the same rating, though I think they should be there in some form. Having read the desperate measures table that deffo needs some changes as some results are practically the same, 12 and 14 for example

6) Piling on change I can happily live with, its useful for norse blitzers, while balencing out for big guys

7) Hate the new winnings table, its too drastic at high levels. Keeping the current one with maybe one extra band at 326-250 added on will keep tr in check.

8) Negative winnings. This is fantastic dunno why it wasn't left in if a tr cap was wanted. High tr teams (read tr 300ish) combined with the current ff roll mods, will be losing money with each game they play and eventually have to start losing rerolls then dropping some players. I think teams will soon start off loading those high tr hogging great players and thus dropping their tr.

(I have left a message with christer to get the average crowd for tr 250+ teams if he can. Then we can see what kind of rate teams will be dropping money using either winnings table)

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:34 pm

1) Absolutely no, team building and "Memory effect" (you keep your playing pieces from game to game and watch them getting better) is what makes BB outstand from other games.
3) Well, no, stick to the current rules, they are ok and balanced.
5) No, take Milos desperate measures instead. My main objection is that I don't like the random on-pitch handicap/event results. It moves BB away from strategy+dice only (as said somewhere above) to something different. (I hated the cards and thats why I don't like any mechanism that brings them back regardless of severity. I stopped playing 3rd ed and had a BB pause of 8 years bc of the cards.)
6) Yes, obviously.
2, 4, 7, 8 ) undecided, so far I don't see the neccessity to change them. I would say yes to 8 if you had the choice to drop a player instead of burning a RR.

And by the way, if they want a more streamlined and no-patchwork, simple game, start with editing the rulebook, write clear cut sentences, put basic and advanced rules together and add an index. Voila! The biggest patchwork IMHO are not the rules but how they turned the rulesbook into Frankensteins skin.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:09 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
8 ) Negative winnings rules

No. This is a really daft idea that badly hurts players who naturally progress slowly.
Not all. It effects game balance far too much. This just takes the blood out of Blood Bowl
Fair enough however I liked the tactical decisions behind IGMEOY - but IGMEOY is too tough at the moment -
Good
I don't like the fact that lower TR can only get 1 benefit, and then have to be at least 50 points behind. This wont balance games out enough.
Good
& 8 ) Negative rules with 25k bands is okay and worth trying, 15k bands without the negative rules are worth trying too. Together its overkill

BTW, I thought the rule about stacking modifiers on the Av roll still applied - so no +5 for Claw, RSF & MB. Also would you be allowed to combine PO with another modifier?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:14 pm

ianwilliams wrote:BTW, I thought the rule about stacking modifiers on the Av roll still applied - so no +5 for Claw, RSF & MB. Also would you be allowed to combine PO with another modifier?

No part of the rule change for no injury mods is that now the mods stack on the AV rolls. That's I'm sure off ... Chet and I went over this many times when I was thinking of programming the rules into the PBeM program. As for PoN ... not sure ... I've heard Chet talk about it both ways ... allowing all AV mods and just being a straight AV reroll.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:16 pm

ianwilliams wrote: 7 & 8 ) Negative rules with 25k bands is okay and worth trying, 15k bands without the negative rules are worth trying too. Together its overkill

This type of thing makes it very difficult to record in a poll .. Ian ...

For now I'll but Yes on both ... but I will remember your caveot.

Galak

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:22 pm

The no Injury Modifier thing is quite cool.

Actually it's fun to hit, but it isn't fun to kill.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:53 pm

1) Definately No!

2) Don't see the need for it, inj rules fine as they are.

3) Not sure about this one, will make it more like 3ed fouling, don't know if it is needed if #2 isn't implimented.

4) All for this.

5) I'm fine with getting rid of the Handicap table, not sure if the proposed tables are a good replacement, I guess need to be tested, but I would prefer something along the lines of Milo's idea. Anyway, still undecided on this one. Need to see how this will work or not in actual games.

6) It's a simple effective fix, why not.

7) No, keep as is.

Kinda reminds me of the 4ed appearance fees a bit, seems to be a way to force people to retire players, when they should have more of a choice. Just don't like the fact that once you reach a certain level, you will be forced to retire a player (after RRs are gone) everytime you play a game. Doesn't make sense that a team would get worse at playing (ie losing RRs ) as they get more experienced. Anyway, vote no.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:59 pm

Torg wrote:7)

Torg ... you missed a # ... there were 8 items ... did you skip #6 meaning your #6 is really #7 and your #7 is really #8??????

Galak

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Sorry about that, will edit.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:02 pm

1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
Negative winnings rules

1 no
2 unsure
3 hmmmm
4 no, I like it
5 I prefer a balanced handicap table...
6 YESSS
7 No
8 okay

Goblingrin · Post by **Goblingrin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:05 pm

OK, this will be an interesting take, as most of my experience is under 3rd edition rules, and ALL of it as a stunty coach (Goblins, of course):

1 ) (SPP table) NO! This is FAR too restrictive on player development. The LRB SPP table makes far more sense.

2 ) (No injury mods) No. The current system works, it doesn't need fixing.

3 ) (fouling mods) Neutral. The change fits the background better, but if they wanted fewer fouls, why didn't they think of this back when they put in IGMEOY? Besides, by DEFINITION, there should be an unfair advantage to foul, i.e. +1.

4 ) (Aging) Neutral. I actually like what aging does to player development, and would be willing to keep it. On the other hand, with the rest of the rules changes you have to give us SOMETHING back...

5 ) (Handicaps) Handicaps are designed to help a low TR team survive against a high TR team, right? The current system does that, and does not need fixing (maybe some individual effects do, but not the whole thing).

6 ) (Piling On) Yes, please. It's the one skill I don't understand without a three page clarification, therefore it DOES need fixing.

7 ) (Winnings table) No, this would kill team development faster, which is what BloodBowl should be about.

8 ) (Negative winnings) Yes, GIVEN THE REST OF MY ANSWERS ARE ADOPTED. Also, modify it so that you may CHOOSE between selling off a player or a reroll. In most cases, I'd probably sell off the reroll anyway, but the choice should be available.

I'll add one more thing. If all of these rules are in, I'M OUT. These rules seem to be designed toward one-off games. I would NEVER join a league using these rules.

Goblingrin

PS pm me if there's a petition along these lines, and I'll sign my legal name to it.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:27 pm

Right Christer kindly pulled those crowd stats for me and here they are:

average gate in games where either team is rating 200 or higher is 75403
if you restrict it to both teams needing to be 200+, it's 81817

right then as you can see (using the winnings table) an average game with a 200 tr team against a team that isn't will mean they will get no +mods even if they win (takes them to +0) to the money roll and will start losing money and still be gaining some if they roll high, that seems ok to me

if both are 200+ then the gate bracket gives stats with +0 so winning will grant them +1, so there is some more benefit for teams to play other higher rated teams (on average)

Now moving on to teams that are tr 250+ you have 88478 and 100059 respectively

at tr 250 against anything else you will be starting the mods on -2 (or -1 if you win) so they will find cash getting short

if both are 250 its the next bracket up so starting on -1 or 0 if they win

then when you get to 300tr its 103k and 130k, which is going at -3 assuming most your matches are going to be against lower rated teams (-2 if you win)

so that looks like you will be losing money every few matches and still gaining some no more than 40k gain or -20k loss (taking tr 300) so maybe the table isn't quite harsh enough

that could be simply resolved by adding another gate range in there say 110,001 - 120,000 or even one from 91 to 100

if that was used teams at high tr wouldn't get the money in to keep climbing without the risk of getting their tr too high that they will start losing rr, i also think an extra tr band on the end would emphaise it assing tr 301-325 and adding 326-350 and then 350+

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:39 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
Negative winnings rules

1) No way. May as well put a kick me sign on Saurus.
2) Im willing to test it. Tentative.
3) Fine.
4) I doubt it will be enough.
5) Ok, why do this i dont know.
6) Sounds good to me.
7) &

One or the other, both is excessive.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:50 pm

sean newboy wrote: 4) I doubt it will be enough.
5) Ok, why do this i dont know.

Is this No, keep aging ... and No, keep handicap .. sorry I'm confused by the comments, Sean. I understand you want to say more ... in fact I'll add the 7/8 caveat from you and Sean to the bottom along with the #8 retire player or reroll. But I really need Yes/Undecided/No ... thanks.

Galak

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:53 pm

Put me as undecided and yes respectively.