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

Post by **Thadrin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:26 pm

*Bearing in mind I haven't read pages 4 and 5 of this thread before replying*

1) Advanced SPP table

An insane, stupid and generally horrible idea.

2) No injury mods

I am very very much AGAINST the proposed change. Pointless.

3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.

I dunno...as a rule I rarely foul. I don't have any problem with the way it is at the moment. Lose the auto +1 by all means, but I like IGMEOY and the ref for flavour in the game.

4) No more aging

My league ditched it last season. I could care less here. Seeing as its very unpopular and we've no better alternative maybe getting rid of it is ok.

5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR

I like Milo's tables. Not keen on the one BBB want to use.

6) Piling On changed

Always been my favoured method.

7) New winnings table 15k bands

Nah. Its fine as is

Negative winnings rules

Sure...why not? seems like a way to hit the big teams.

Gorbad · Post by **Gorbad** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:27 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 ) Very much no, skills are what makes the game fun.
2 ) Don't like it, but I guess I could live with it. A small no nonetheless.
2 ) Whatever, I'd probably like it more when DP gave an AV RR like PO but for fouling.
4 ) No! I love aging, stat decreases give my players more flavour, and the NI are a great tactical opportunity (To ditch or not to ditch)
5 ) An overhaul is needed, not sure if this is the way to go though.
6 ) Absolutely great. Leaves the choice in to PO or not.
7 ) Ugh. No thanks.
8 ) I like this, but reading the stats Grumbledook posted, an extra bracket should indeed be added at the 90k+ gates to keep big FF teams on their toes.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:42 pm

In other words we basically agree on 1,5,6,7,8. 2,3, and 4 are still up in the air.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:44 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 -> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Completely the wrong way. more skills, not less.
2 -> No, could work but i don't like it.
3 -> No, same as 2.
4 -> OK
5 -> undecided, would need to do some test games to see the effects.
6 -> Good. This rule change would also work nicely with the current rules.
7 -> No, don't like it, too harsh and too random imo. The winnings roll will become one of the most important rolls of the game and thats wrong. Could work if you do 2d6/2 rounded up for winnings or get more +1 modifiers for game achievements.
8 -> OK, with the current table.

Addition: i wonder why "dropped niggling injuries" is not on the list. Or did i read the replacement of the injury table wrong?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:50 pm

Tim wrote:Addition: i wonder why "dropped niggling injuries" is not on the list. Or did i read the replacement of the injury table wrong?

The Bugman's rules still uses the Serious Injury roll chart, so its not been dropped. Just the basic Injury table was changed ... the SI table is still used as I understand it. Given that the new tables in Bugman's give Niggles for events, I'm sure this is true.

Galak

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:51 pm

1. No way! I don't see any need to explain this further.

2. No. I'd be willing to test these in an experimental form but it's too big a change to just lump into the LRB without real testing from multiple leagues. I'd want to see more work on the skills as well like in Chets original suggestion.

3. No. As far as i'm concerned we've just got the fouling rules where we want them, there's no need to be mucking around with them. Having said that, if the no injury suggestion went ahead then fouling would need to be considered, so in conjunction with testing of 2, i'd be willing to test this.

4. Abstain. I quite like aging actually, but there's obviously plenty of opposition to it. At the end of the day I would keep it but I could live with it going as TR seems to be kept in check by winnings at the moment.

5. No. But I would like to see some sort of revision to the Handicap table. Personally, like Narkotic I would like to see less random effects and keep the game strategic, so steer away from the extreme effects of the old cards a bit.

6. Undecided. I would quite like to change Piling On but I think a change that caps the modifier at +3 somehow would be better. I'll leave that to another discussion.

Looking at the numbers (against AV 8):

Code: Select all

Prone  52%  58%
Stun    28%  20%
KO      12%  12%
Cas      8%  10%

Is a 6% increase in AV breaks worth going prone 72% of the time for, especially without no injury mods where the cas rate actually drops? I guess it's a matter of personal taste.

7. No. The current winnings table seems harsh enough, if we need to lower the TR cap it can be tweaked but this version seems over the top.

8. Yes. Not a bad idea providing the balance is kept right. I would like to see the option to lose a player instead of a RR, although I see most teams cutting back before they get to this point from a lack of cash and not wanting to have to cut players.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:11 pm

What seems odd is how Andy can come up with some rule changes most of us (and I don't see the trend changing in the poll, and I wouldn't wonder if a non-TBBer poll would have a similar outcome) clearly reject. Is it that we as customers/fans have a biased or limited vision on the things or is that the game designer is just loosing grip of reality resp. what the average customer wants???

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:20 pm

narkotic wrote:or is that the game designer is just loosing grip of reality resp. what the average customer wants???

No ... one man's vision is sometimes difficult to alter.

With these rules you see JJ returning to some of the 4th edition rules from a different angle. JJ's really wanted OSPA to be OSPT(urn) (see more on this at bottom of page 3 of this thread). So if you cannot have OSPA then obviously the answer is to make the skills impossible to get. Same result as 4th, different slant to get there.

Guys in all seriousness despite the bashing the BBRC gets so often, this is exactly why its good they are there. I'm 99% confident that JJ will not be able to sell the 5 player coach members of the BBRC that the new SPP table is a "good thing". I know one member likes the 15k winning bands, but I'm sure they could be brought around as well with enough public outcry, especially since the community seems okay SO FAR with the negative penalties for reducing and running out of cash.

The BBRC is there to protect us from this kind of "oh my god" rule change. Of the 8, it appears 4 have very strong feelings, the other 4 are greyer areas that testing/input will be of value. However, the nice thing is that feedback is now wanted and listened to (despite whatever certain members what to believe) ... so put it here and those that have not voted ... vote so I have some decent numbers to send to Andy/JJ/and the rest of the BBRC.

Galak

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:21 pm

well the thing is we just (on the whole) play blood bowl while andy is in charge of blood bowl and inquisitor and gw hq in general hasn't had a league running in years so tbh they are a bit out of touch

Goblingrin · Post by **Goblingrin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:22 pm

It's interesting that as of 12 votes, and assuming undecided=don't change (which is fair, undecided is usually because either we want more testing or just don't care which rule is in play), ONLY the Piling On and negative winnings changes pass by a clear majority. The new SPP table and no injury mods changes failed to get a single yes vote. And removing aging tied 6-6 (although since the undecideds cause this, maybe it should go through).

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the total package, I'd say.

Goblingrin

EDIT: And then four votes come in against or neutral on removing aging. Go figure.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:02 pm

1) Advanced SPP table

No. Too limiting to strength teams.

2) No injury mods change

Undecided. I'd like to see it playtested extensively.

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. Personal preference, but I just like the current IGMEOY.

4) No more aging

A big no, especially if there are reduced injury effects, we need aging more than ever.

5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR

Sounds like change for change's sake. No.

6) Piling On changed to AV reroll

Yes

7) New winnings table 15k bands

Yes

Negative winnings rules

Yes, but capped at losing 20k.

Chaos Dwarf · Post by **Chaos Dwarf** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:22 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote: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
Galak

1).

(no)
2). No. While it may make for a streamlined game I think it takes flavor out of the game. Plus giving all stunty's a +1 on their armor rolls makes playing halflings a bad idea.
3). No. While perhaps a bit complex fouling works as it is right now.
4). No. I like ageing and would rather see it retiring players than having to fire a player because I'm out of cash
5). No. I like the current handicap table because very few of the results break the rules and can't be considered game-breakers
6). Yes. This would be a good substitute to the current way that Piling on works. Either make it an armor reroll or declare to use it before armor is rolled
7). No. Could work out if playtested. From looking at it now just saying no.
8. No. Possibly just as bad as the first suggestion. Do people have something against coaching experienced teams. I mean I would hate to spend a long time playing a team to watch it crumble because of cash. If I loose the reroll do I get the cash equivalent? If I'm playing a Chaos team I'd hate to have to throw away 140K that I spent a few weeks earlier for a reroll. Honestly how could this be fun.

And just for the record I'm not anti change, I just don't seem the reason for the overhaul.

Evolve To Anarchism · Post by **Evolve To Anarchism** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:30 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) I hate it.
2) Undecided. I prefer the status quo but could live with this change.
3) Undecided. I prefer the strategy of IGMEOY but could live with this change.
4) No. I like the present ageing system.
5) I hate it.
6) Love it.
7) No.

Yes.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:47 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. Hooray for only players with AG4 having skills! Nix this advancement chart.

2. This isn't "soft puffy bowl". It's BLOOD Bowl. I like my Cas. Keep injury mods.

3. I like actually having the Ref play a part in the game. I like progressive fouling being more risky. Keep the Ref and IGMEOY.

4. I can live with Ageing. Sure, it randomly hits young'uns, but it does ding those uber-players more and more as they get older. Sure if you're lucky, you can escape it...but that's how players like Wayne Gretzky play hockey for a million years too. Keep Ageing.

5. Handicap is bad. This is worse. Keep the current table or come up with something BETTER. Not this crap.

6. PO I can take or leave no matter what form it's in. If it becomes an armour reroll, I seriously doubt you'll see it more than you see, say, Two Heads or Extra Arms. Undecided.

7. I dunno about this one. I'm undecided.

8. This is just stupid. They try to reduce on-pitch Cas, they try to take away retirement by Ageing, then they just FORCE us to retire people. This is (excuse my language, but this is firing me up) GOD-DAMN stupid. I would MUCH rather see a player bite it on the pitch than for me to have to go "Oh gee, sorry Bob. You're fired." I HATE artificial TR caps. I hate them with a passion. They're bloody terrible. Limiting my advancement artificially like that is frustrating beyond belief and it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time building up my team AT ALL. Definite, unbelievably loud NO.

Even if these changes went through, I'd still have my LRB 2 at my side, and I wouldn't even think about this garbage...

My votes: ZERO Yes. 2 Undecided. 6 No.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 7:13 pm

The thing is, if nobody at GWHQ's played for years, and then all of a sudden this is the version they're handed, of course they're going to think it's great.

If they'd started on LRB2 and then been told "Okay, and these are the changes we're making" I'm sure it wouldn't have been so well-received.