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

[Grumbledook]

well piling on is a great skill for norse blitzers so i wouldn't do anything to take it away from them

[neoliminal]

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!

That is my personal opinion. I think games played between TR 100 and TR 200+ teams is pretty silly and boring. That's not to say that I don't want players with skills. I love'em as much as the next guy. It's just that personally I think the difference in power between rookie teams and veteran teams is unbalanced and "not fun."

If there was some way to allow you to personalize your players without things getting out of hand around the 20th game played for the team, then I'd be all for that.

[Grumbledook]

indeed those kind of matches are silly but changing the rules so that open leagues (like FUMBBL) can't progress to 200-300 range that a lot of people like seems silly

would be far more constructive to have a proper "desperate measures" table that a far lower coach can pick and they actually make a difference

for example:

the lower team can't get worse than badly hurt against them
the lower team gets both teams winnings
the higher team can only field 10 players per drive
the higher team can only field the 11 worst players

I am sure if we put our heads together we can come with with some selections where the lower team would actually pick them, so they can either survive the match or get some extra money/progression to their team

[Ithilkir]

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) Nope... Sorry, I just don't like this at all, I like to balance out my SPP's, but for a team like my Goblins it's another handicap against them, heck, even with my 210 Darkies with 16 players would have 11 or 10 skills in total (forgot what I added up there). I can see one advantage in that it promotes the limited Star Players that 2nd edition had, so you can focus an apothecary on the two or three high SPP players and just continually retire the other players to keep the TR below 151. I do like the idea of a team with a couple of star players rather than a whole team of them, I don't like the idea of 5 rolls maximum and the first skill at 10, keep it at 6 please
Can't decide

2) Doesn't bother me, the maths show the same number of casualties roughly and it eliminates more tables so that's good I do however, wonder what the difference in claw and RSF is now though...
Yes

3) Yeah, no problem with it, never had a thing against fouling so no difference to me, it's part of the game to get that blodging WarDancer out for the count by any means neccesary.
Yes

4) Yup, I like no aging. Take it into consideration with the low winnings table and the VT Random Events and it will help to keep player turn over up and established players will eventually take an effect (aging, too many hits, peaked or head hunted)
Yes

5) Yeah, I like them... Never been a handicap fan, it's only really relevant in a scheduled league format now which is the minority afaik. As for the other two event tables, it looks like the Up and Coming table will rack up the TR mainly through cash (it is possible to get 190k from your very first match). Veteran RE table seems a bit haphazardly put together, it doesn't know whether it wants to punish teams during the game or after it and it does come down to a 50/50 roll whether it's something good or bad, a bad run of those rolls and you could get very pissed off with the game quickly.
Yes... But slight modifications

6) Looks fine to me
Yes

7 and 8 ) Nah, teams with a low Fan factor will never be played against and will be retired if FF drops to six or below, it's just not worth having less than 7 FF now. And please drop the losing cash roll, above 151 it's hard enough to keep a team going with the random events, let alone making them lose cash, again, a bad string of results could make players lose faith in the game.
No, change it

What do I think overall?

It has promise, and I think people are looking at each rule individually too much rather than as a whole set of rules, they work better all combine rather than individuals.

I would like to see the TR 'cap' raised to 250-300 so we can see some legendary teams form (perhaps a new RE table at 251?) and the Star Player roll table adjusted to the last version of it.

But going with what we have, I can honestly see teams such as Skaven and Woodies dominate up until 151 when teams with have players a bit mroe able to cope with the high movement (keep in mind that the income generated at those levels will be rocketing to keep players healthy and they can easily focus on Wardancers, catchers or gutters for SPP's and retire linemen to keep the TR down below 151.) Above 151 I see Humans, Orcs and Pro Elves dominate due to the cheap cost and general good all round skills of the teams.

[Asperon Thorn]

I really like the "battle of Titans" games, in which teams of 300+ play each other. By making the earnings table tougher you almost completely eliminate that.

I like the idea of Negative winnings, But I think you should have the option of adjusting your roster to account for it. Maybe your adjusted TR after the match is used for the earnings table. So if you go in with a High TR team but suffer a bunch of deaths (or even a low TR team with a tiny gate) you don't get punished further. Also allow for Retirements, dropped Rerolls, and fired coaches to be calculated.

I think it should be done after the earnings roll, but before the negative result is applied. So you roll, see how much money you would lose, and allow for you to take preventative measures.

"Sorry Bill, you played a great game, but we have decided to allow you to seek better opportunities elsewere. We just can't afford a player of your caliber any longer."

or

"This team had excellent cohesion, but a lack of pay has really lowered morale at thier practices. (minus a Reroll)"

or (in the case of many deaths)

"Well they didn't make a ton of money, but with so few players surviving that match, they certainly will have money to burn on new one's"

Asperon Thorn

[Thadrin]

2) Doesn't bother me, the maths show the same number of casualties roughly and it eliminates more tables so that's good I do however, wonder what the difference in claw and RSF is now though...
Yes

What on earth am I missing?
No difference?
Let me just check I have this straight:
if I have Mighty Blow I can no longer get a bonus on the injury roll on a natural armour break. Ergo, less casualties.

DON'T tell me "but if you combine it with new Piling on its the same". I'm not interested in piling on. I have enough trouble getting my Longbeards up to two skills (mighty Blow, Guard, Dauntless, Frenzy, Stand Firm, Strip Ball...all skills I'd rather have...and thats not mentioning Black Orcs, Chaos Warriors, Beastmen etc.) who might want Block and so on first), and I have no wish to put them on the ground.

Fouling casualties are irrelevant, because they don't get me SPPs and I'm not asking for them to either.

All I see is Mighty Blow being nerfed for no fathomable reason beyond some notion of increased simplicity.

[Torpor]

Re: Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1. Advanced SPP table
No Current one is fine. I would like to see players actually get skills before the other suggestions cause the team to implode from too high a TR.

2. No injury mods change
No... But if that happens, am glad Khemri mummies look like they have gone back to the 2nd Ed version with Foul Appearance and given up Mighty Blow

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.
Yes Looks like they are trying to encourage more fouling, regarding which I am ambivalent. As a result, I will give Andy the benefit of the doubt.

4. No more aging
Undecided There does need to be something like aging in the game. If it does get replaced, find another mechanism to limit specific players. (e.g. if they roll a '2' on their skill roll they can pick any skill as per doubles, but have 'peaked' and cannot gain any additional skills)

5. No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
No These tables seem a bit more random than the 3rd edition cards were IMO. At least the cards had 'cancel the other guys card' cards to even things out. Too great a disparity between the tables and their effects.

6. Piling On changed to AV reroll
Yes Will clear up confusion about that skill.

7. New winnings table 15k bands
Undecided Don't really see how that simplifies things. Would have to play test it.

8. Negative winnings rules
Undecided Can see the reasoning behind it, but it takes the fun out of having built up a team. You do so for what reason? To see it crash horribly? Don't think so. Then again, building up a team doesn't sound like it will be much fun if suggestions 1 & 2 go through.

Couple of Questions (which might be hard to answer) -

How many players have gained multiple skills in the BBB league?

What have the Fan Factor changes done overall?

-Torpor

[Andy Hall]

Hi Guys!

Thanks for talking about the BBB League. It's been a very interesting discussion. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

1) Don't forget these are purely playtest rules. At this stage the rules are meant for gathering data, they are in no way going to suddenly appear as the next batch of official rules this year or in the next few years - the LRB is here to for the foreseeable future. The purpose of showing the league page was to give a snapshot of early playtest rules and even to say “Hey, look at us, we’ve got a league!” On reflection I should have made this much clearer when the webpage went up. Change the often-quoted sentence taken from the PDF that reads... "and if they prove successful will become official in future rules releases." change the 'will' to 'maybe'.

My own thoughts on the rules so far, and based on feedback from the coaches, is that the 15pt SPP increments are not working, leaving teams with an inflated TR but with no benefits that go with it.

I've always like the No Inj stuff as I feel it does remove a redundant dice roll in Sigurd's. Admittedly it’s not all there yet the Stunty rule is definitely a fudge. However, you guys have bought up some goos points so I can be easily swayed to keep Sigurd's. The Coaches in the League all liked this bit of 'housekeeping'.

With the other bits it's simply to early to tell yet, the exception being Pilling On which will be the only thing from here that will make it to the Rule Review in some form this year (thanks for that Neo).

The aim of these rules, and it’s possibly worth focusing on the objective as this more important than the actual method at this stage, is that we are trying to get teams to bell-curve when they hit a certain point. That is to say we want teams to steadily progress but when they hit a certain point (currently it’s around TR150 but this could well change) they begin to fluctuate, some going up before going down whilst others take a dip before recovering but all averaging around a TR band. In earlier editions of Blood Bowl we had the problem that teams would constantly increase until (as has already been mentioned) you get TR800 teams and so on.

2) It was said earlier in the thread that everybody in the BBB hasn't played in a league for years. This isn't the case at all, in fact a few were at the Blood Bowl. The BBB League is the first Head Office-wide league in a couple of years. There has always been Blood Bowl at head office - it’s just that leagues have been on a more departmental level.

3) If any of you guys have written to me about this (or anything else) I'm not ignoring you but I'm on holiday, at home doing a bit of DIY (don't ask!), but will reply when I get back into the office.

Right, I'm going to get back to Zelda: the Wind Waker now (anyone know how to increase your treasury beyond 200 Rupees)

Oh, and Neo, I'm pretty sure they're more Jervis' and Chet's rules more than mine

Cheers
[/code][/quote]

[BullBear]

My thought on all of this is....why?

I mean this is the fourth rule set in the past 3 years!!! I'm curious as to how many GW leagues were played under the LRB, to even warrant this kind of change. I'd like to see some stability in the game, so I'd vote 'no' on everything. The only rule change I'd go to would be PO before the die roll (this reroll for everyone is kinda ridiculous - c'mon a human blitzer and a Treeman landing on you for the same damage?!), but I'm fine w/ the way it is currently.

But, back to my first question. Why? Is it due to inflated teams, poor game balance, or as DL once said 'someone just wants to put their name on the game'? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a team cap level. Stop all this bell curve crap and continuos tinkering. Once you hit a certain level, the whole team peaks. Done. End of the problem. Play other peaked teams, or start a new one.

I really don't see the point in any of this.

[Grumbledook]

Thanks for taking the time out of your holiday to read and post on here andy, its much appreciated.

Its good to clear up what the aim was with the rules, as you said the bell curve idea and to level at around tr150.

I agree with the bell curve idea though I personally just feel 150 is too low and would rather see it at about 225. Of course the testing and feedback will show this.

Is it worth gettng a general feeling from the community what an accepted/wanted level of tr people want teams?

[mort legosi]

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

well then
1) no
2) Undecided. It does gimp mighty blow, and makes the feel of stuntys radically different, but it does make things just a little easier.
3) No. Absolutely not. Whiners who hate fouling hate it because people foul for no reason. Folks who do foul do so for game advantage. As it stands, fouling is risky, but occasionally helpfull. The proposed changes make it so fouling is less worthwhile, but has less concequences. That turns fouling into something you do if you need to or not, instead of a *Tactical* part of the game.
4) Yes. I just failed 2 ageing rolls on both of my witchelves last game, and it stings. Truth be told, it was about time for my blodgin st4 to be taken down a peg though, and an av6 makes for a more interesting player.
5) On the right track. The handicap table is worthless. Scrap it. I'm not sure I like the new one, but you'd be hard pressed to make one worse than the old.
6) I like it. Your gonna be seein piling on a lot more. Especially on wardancers and witchelves.
7) Undecided
Well, if you're gonna get rid of aging, this makes sense now doesn't it. If aging is kept in one way or another, this may not be nessisary.

Since we're talkin about rules, I've been kickin around an idea for an aging varient.

At the end of each match, roll a d6 for each player. On a roll above current SSP (or alternately, above SSPs gained in this method) or a 6, the player gets 1 SSP. After the player has 6 SSPs (or again, 6 SSP by this method) every time the player rolls a 1, he must roll on the aging table.

My hope is that this varient would both speed up initial skill advancement, (if I didn't like skill advancement, i would play exhibition) and increase player turn over. This would, lamentably, come at the cost of increased post match die rolling.

thanks for listening,
Mort Legosi

[Grumbledook]

hey mort welcome to the board

that aging you suggest was in a similar vein with the EXP system that was knocking about, though it has the flaw in that it picks on slow developing players, long beards for example can go many games without getting many spp and therefore skills, as they play more games they are going to age, without having got anywhere in the first place

[Bevan]

The aim of these rules, and it’s possibly worth focusing on the objective as this more important than the actual method at this stage, is that we are trying to get teams to bell-curve when they hit a certain point. That is to say we want teams to steadily progress but when they hit a certain point (currently it’s around TR150 but this could well change) they begin to fluctuate, some going up before going down whilst others take a dip before recovering but all averaging around a TR band. In earlier editions of Blood Bowl we had the problem that teams would constantly increase until (as has already been mentioned) you get TR800 teams and so on.

The optimum TR is an important issue that came up before when we discussed aging (at great length) and appearance fees before that. Obviously different leagues have different points at which they like teams to reach a plateau and we need a system that allows a league to alter the plateau, and probably have different levels (beginners, veterans, pros or whatever) that will plateau at different TRs without major rule changes.

The negative winnings system has the potential to do that, provided teams can either borrow money (at high interest) or sell RR or players at a reasonable price to raise funds, or preferably both. We definitely don't want anything that will destroy teams beyond hope of recovery after a couple of bad rolls for winnings.

The tricky bit is setting the winnings table so that a single change can allow leagues to choose the plateau level they want.

A simple option would be to use a standard table for regular leagues, with a -1 or -2 bonus on the winnings role for leagues wanting a low plateau (<200TR) and +1 or +2 bonus for leagues that want to get to higher levels. This would probably still need 25TR blocks, not 15TR, to get a reasonable range of plateau levels.

[Dave]

Thanks for taking the time out of your holiday to read and post on here andy, its much appreciated.

amen that...

at home doing a bit of DIY (don't ask!),

what then ?? expecting another little Hall ??

I think the problem we hit here is that the changes seem quite steep, and we are, generally that is, quite very happy with the LRB. obviously there are things that could be fixed and stuff (see Galak's list) but despite that it is long, the changes are not huge. I even think that it indicates the place that BB takes for many of the TBB - ers.

[DoubleSkulls]

Hi Guys!

Thanks for talking about the BBB League. It's been a very interesting discussion.

Glad to see that someone is listening