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

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:22 pm

neoliminal wrote:1. The BBRC is here to represent you. Contrary to what Lucien Swift has suggested, we really are not some seperate entity that is isolated from the community. Many ideas for changes have come directly from this board and I, for one, am always willing to hear opinions regarding rules and debate my viewpoints.

not actually what i said.... i said that the bbb rules were jervis's rules, and as such were a precursor to ideas that were likely to be given consideration for future releases because of his position.... sure, you guys could shoot them down, but from what i hear, he has veto power anyway, so they could show up despite you... my point was that these apparently very upopular suggestions aren't just someone's house rules... they're as close to a statement of intent as we'll see because of the source... we've seen in the past that the studio leagues got rules that wound up getting into circulation, even when they sucked and were unpopular... and honestly, if the man thinks this is the way to go and all you bbrc guys disagree, we could still get them... if i am attacking the bbrc at all, it's an attack upon the very notion of an annual rules change. which i'm alaready sick of after only two years...

viva la static rulebook!

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:27 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. No. Yuck! Can see new coaches dropping out of leagues as their teams do not develop. Will hit some teams, eg. Chaos, harder than others.

2. Hmm..Undecided on this one. Will the pitches be littered with stunned players if stackable +AV modifiers are allowed?

3. No. Why? Make it easier for teams that foul all the time. Hmm...

4. No. I can see why they have removed it with these rules - there's little chance of making any skill rolls with the revised SPP table.

5. No. Back to the cards again? Sneaky. Never liked them. Add just TOO much randomness to the game, and this is an awful way of handicapping teams.

6. Yes. Like it on it's own. With these rules don't see the point, or is it just that too many rolls now affect AV?

7. Undecided. A little to bias towards teams with cheaper players?

8. Yes. I like, but with little modification. Always knew I'd find a use for the Accounting qualification I got from college, and now I can use it to run my new team...Enron Orcs

Overall, it seems that they're trying to simplify the game. Less rolls, less modifiers, oh, and we don't like experienced teams. A ruleset for children?
Very bad. Somebody should be Borak-ed for suggesting 1 and 5.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:31 pm

I think what the BBB rules are aiming it is a different view of what blood bowl should be compared to what the community think. Neo i believe you said that teams should level out just below 200. Persaonlly I think it should be at 300 and the general consensus of feeling is that teams shouldn't be capped too low, or at all by some people.

As those rules didn't actually say what they are aiming to achieve, we don't know, the backlash could be against just the rules or maybe the principle behind the rules in the first place.

biso · Post by **biso** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:32 pm

1- No
2 - No
3 - Yes
4 - Yes
5 - Undecided
6 - Yes
7 - No
8 - Yes

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:43 pm

neoliminal wrote:2. The BBB is playtesting

I believe someone else pointed out that GW hasn't run an internal league with the vanilla rules LRB. Doesn't this make playtesting more difficult to analyse if the participants haven't played LRB?

Tukakamin_IV · Post by **Tukakamin_IV** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:48 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, unless skill stacking for AV rolls is allowed
2. Yes, I can live with it
3. Yes, +1 was better than the dagger
4. Yes, never liked ageing. NFL players always get run down by injuries, not always by age (look at Jerry Rice) or a total revamp of how ageing works
5. Yes, sure I don't really care for either

6. Yes, the best rule change ever !!!
7. Yes, woopdy doo .....

8. Yes, as long as INJ rolls stay unmodified.

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:12 pm

Neo - I'm not saying don't test. I'm saying don't test rules that are CLEARLY bad.

I've written what I thought of changes 1 and 2. They both go in completely the opposite direction to the way I would like to see BB and would even - I believe - severely damage the game.

If you really want to represent the views of the community then you will remember that some of us feel that way, and not push these changes through unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that it will not harm the balance of teams, and that a majority of a significant sample of players are in favour of the change.

Boss · Post by **Boss** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:40 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

Gotta go on record with this ...

1. No way, no thanks, nope
2. No thanks. This isn't chess you know ... injuries is a part of the game.
3. This will mean more fouling. But alright with me.
4. I dont mind too much. Undecided.
5. Yes
6. An interesting change - I say, yes
7. Undecided
8. No thanks

And a question for Galak or whoever can answer this ... the BBRC ... how is this put together ? how much power do they have with regards to the hotlist Galak has put together and these suggestions here.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:15 pm

not actually what i said.... i said that the bbb rules were jervis's rules, and as such were a precursor to ideas that were likely to be given consideration for future releases because of his position.... sure, you guys could shoot them down, but from what i hear, he has veto power anyway, so they could show up despite you... my point was that these apparently very upopular suggestions aren't just someone's house rules... they're as close to a statement of intent as we'll see because of the source... we've seen in the past that the studio leagues got rules that wound up getting into circulation, even when they sucked and were unpopular... and honestly, if the man thinks this is the way to go and all you bbrc guys disagree, we could still get them... if i am attacking the bbrc at all, it's an attack upon the very notion of an annual rules change. which i'm alaready sick of after only two years...

viva la static rulebook!

Well first of all these rules in the BBB are not Jervis' rules. They're Andy Hall's. Jervis is not running the league. Secondly, Jervis has never used his veto power, even when he didn't like the results of voting. The veto power is only there as a safeguard against the possible tyranny of democracy... which I think all Englishmen fear.

If you really want a static rulebook, I hear you can buy copies of the old 3rd edition.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:21 pm

i want a pop up rulebook where you turn the page and people stand up in cool action poses!

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:21 pm

if i am attacking the bbrc at all, it's an attack upon the very notion of an annual rules change. which i'm alaready sick of after only two years...
viva la static rulebook!
>>>>>>>>>>>

Have you considered playing DBM?

Neo i believe you said that teams should level out just below 200. Persaonlly I think it should be at 300 and the general consensus of feeling is that teams shouldn't be capped too low, or at all by some people.
>>>>>>>>>

I personally agree that teams should level out after 200. Any higher than tht and I can't remener the skills!

Asperon Thorn · Post by **Asperon Thorn** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:29 pm

Must. . .Resist. . . .

EEERG.

Gramatical error.

neo wrote:Their Andy Halls

Thier should be: They are, or They're.

Sorry.

Asperon Thorn

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:30 pm

neoliminal wrote:Well first of all these rules in the BBB are not Jervis' rules. Their Andy Halls.

oh, well, in that case, everything i've said on this thread is completely incorrect and i ask everyone to just disregard my opinion altogether...

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:31 pm

Grumbledook wrote:i want a pop up rulebook where you turn the page and people stand up in cool action poses!

With those push-pull card slidey bits, so you can make pop-up Varag punch pop-up Griff in the chops.

darthnoir · Post by **darthnoir** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:53 pm

As far as the Halfing + Piling On being as effective as an Ogre + Piling On issue goes...

Perhaps making the skill only available to players with ST 4 or greater would solve this problem (similar to the Mighty Blow restriction).

Then again, it would take away the fun of my Goblin with Piling On