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

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:59 pm

they are french, just leave it at that ;]

i do believe they don't play by the LRB anyway they have funny house rules. IIRC thats why neverdodge came over to fumbbl from there, though i could be wrong don't want to put words in his mouth

l_dauguet · Post by **l_dauguet** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:04 pm

Maybe i should just sum up the talks about the rules. And leave the poll for what it is.

For once it's not the english who vote against everybody

Louis

PS: I'll sum up the talks when my job leaves me a few minutes.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:48 pm

response deleted by neoliminal

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:01 pm

Neo/DL ... drop it ... seriously. I don't care if Neo is a mod ... one more post from either of you directly to the other and I'm bagging both of your comments from this thread that don't pertain directly to the topic.

This thread is important to BB right now ... its not a place for you two to renew a mutual dislike that goes back more years than I can count. Leave that in PM ... its what its there for.

Now I think Neo has made it clear that he's not a big fan of the Bugman's rules. If we look at his original YES votes that go against the wave of the TBB thoughts.

The no-injury mods he's said he's now seriously looking at the %s changes it causes to CAS and Stuns and says he may reconsider. He liked the elegance of removing a roll from the game, but doesn't consider it worth significant change to the injury percentages ... he's looking it over.

The other was tightening the cash table even more. This is because Neo has made it clear that he feels that TR 250 should be the wall and TR 200 the start of the steep hill. This differs from what a lot of you have said about 200 being the start of the hill, 250 the steep hill, and 300 the wall.

Neo at least reads and responds to the posts here, and while I may take issue with him using the French poll as a way to discredit the FUMBBL and TBB polls ... I know he's intelligent and he actually absorbs the comments made here. I don't expect the BBRC to do anything wild.

Do JJ, Andy, and Chet all like the no injury mods rule ... yup, and they've been pretty public with such comments. However, at the end of the day, I still have not seen the BBRC do anything which was really disapproved of by the internet public. So I'll say again ... criticism for thinking about a rule change is not by itself wrong, and they have so far put together in most people's mind the best rule set to date. So we wait and see.

I'm personally betting that the no injury mods rules never even makes it to experimental status. You all don't need to worry about a rule becoming official without being experimental first ... the BBRC has an experimental before official internal rule for a reason. So its not like any rule in the BBB league will become official before being made officially experimental first. Like I said ... I'm betting it doesn't even make it that far.

Galak

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:37 pm

Although these changes are concerning and do need to be discussed I think we may be getting a little overly concerned.

We should remember that these rules are not even the BBRCs but Andy Hall's for an internal league, and who knows what sort of whacky rules they used to playtest before they published things like this on the internet.

These rules are not even experimental yet and the BBRC have our opinions on them and a lot of discussions as to the ideas involved so they can make a more informed decision.

If nothing else it would have to be said that this topic has generated a lot of good discussion and ideas and led to one new rule with popular support at the moment (Galaks negative treasury rule).

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:48 pm

As to the community effect, I see what your argument is Neo, and i'm sure you're far more informed about the theory than I am but I don't quite see how being well informed and discussing issues is a bad thing.

Discussing things on this site has shown me tactics and playing styles that are entirely new to me and would not have been developed in the insular league that I play on the tabletop.

Surely when we do come to a mutual agreement it is more valid because often the point has been discussed by many more people with many different perspectives and any things that might have not been noticed in a few smaller leagues will have been ironed out for everyone.

It is for these sort of reasons that open discussion of ideas is encouraged in acadmenic circles.

CyberHare · Post by **CyberHare** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:51 am

None of this is official or even expirimantal yet so I havn't been saying anything because I don't want to get excited about anything that hasn't yet happned.

I would like to trow out there though, the reaction I received from my local guys when I mentioned this was floating around. Basically it amounted to "Why the F..k are they still messing with the rules". And that's putting it very politely. I have to say that I agree with them.

What is so broken with the rules right now that it must be changed? Does pilling on suck? Yes fix it to make sense and move one. Doesn't anyone think that the average BB player is going to get tired of the core rules changing every other year? I'm not talking about us here who spend 5 hours a day chatting about this. I'm talking about the other 80% of the players out there who just want to play the game. Right now BB is seeing the biggest revival it's seen, well I'd say ever. I can't think of a better way to kill it then to keep changing the rules.

I saw a 60 second TV ad today for Battle Ball on YTV. Ladies and gentlemen the days when BB was the only game in town is gone forever . Let's just remember that before we kiss this revival goodbye.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:11 am

I believe that Fanatic has thought this over, Cyberhare. They think that team additions and rules corrections will maintain interest in the game, and not decrease it.

I just want to see them put out a rookie bull centaur miniature.

CyberHare · Post by **CyberHare** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:44 am

Skummy wrote:I believe that Fanatic has thought this over, Cyberhare. They think that team additions and rules corrections will maintain interest in the game, and not decrease it.

I would agree that rules corrections will maintain interest. Tough I think we've seen the last new official team for a while. But the changes that are being discussed here are not simple maintenance, they are core rule changes that dramatically change the way the game plays.

Anyway I'm not trying to be a doom and gloom guy I just wanted to make people stop and think for a sec. Maybe take a step back, take a look at the big picture and ask if anything big really needs to be done.

Dark Lord (retired) · Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:25 pm

CyberHare wrote:Anyway I'm not trying to be a doom and gloom guy I just wanted to make people stop and think for a sec. Maybe take a step back, take a look at the big picture and ask if anything big really needs to be done.

Exactly! I'm not trying piss on the BBRC or attack them in any way. I'm asking "Do we even need to test these rules at this time?" Why even consider them for experimental status? Nobody likes them and nobody is really gonna want to test them.
Maybe time would be better spent working on something more people like?

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 1:11 am

One very good proposal, made by several coaches some time ago on this board (Zombie among them iirc), suggested to freeboot apoths at 10k a game instead of acquiring them once and forever.
Especially new teams would benefit from that rule, whereas teams with higher TRs might get troubles here.
I think it's one of the major problems of the game that brand new teams can be thrashed way too severely before they can afford an apoth. It's not unlikely that a significant number of coaches out there have abandoned BB since their team(s) have suffered too many casualities too early.

DesTroy · Post by **DesTroy** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 1:49 am

CyberHare wrote:I would like to trow out there though, the reaction I received from my local guys when I mentioned this was floating around. Basically it amounted to "Why the F..k are they still messing with the rules". And that's putting it very politely. I have to say that I agree with them.

What is so broken with the rules right now that it must be changed? Does pilling on suck? Yes fix it to make sense and move one. Doesn't anyone think that the average BB player is going to get tired of the core rules changing every other year? I'm not talking about us here who spend 5 hours a day chatting about this. I'm talking about the other 80% of the players out there who just want to play the game. Right now BB is seeing the biggest revival it's seen, well I'd say ever. I can't think of a better way to kill it then to keep changing the rules.

That's about the most intelligent thing I have read regarding the Triple B Rules. Sure, certain aspects of BB do need to be tweaked from time to time, but total overhauls of established rules sets have disillusioned a lot of former players I know, not to mention players of other games where the same thing happens (for example, can anyone tell me what edition is WH40K on now?)

As far as my league members are concerned, we probably wouldn't be adopting the 3B even if they were made official. I've looked for responses from senior HFFL members, and it's not looking good for Andy's overhaul around here. The game does not need change for change's sake! Any change should be playtested thoroughly (as, admittedly, the 3B Rules are being at present) and well thought out. Remember Jervis' abortive 4th Edition rules? He himself admitted they were not well thought through. I wonder if Triple B isn't an (unnecessary) response by GW to the monolithic Hasbro and its new Battleball game?

Players as young as 12 play in my league, and if they can keep the rules for multiple collectible card games in their heads, then they can do that with BB as well, without the need to alter or "dumb down" the Blood Bowl rules to make it more an "entry level" game.

OK, that's my rant. As a great Native American chief of the Nez Perce tribe said when his people laid down their arms, "we will fight no more, forever."

---troy
"If a synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest of them have to drown too?"

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 2:11 am

Mirascael wrote:One very good proposal, made by several coaches some time ago on this board (Zombie among them iirc), suggested to freeboot apoths at 10k a game instead of acquiring them once and forever.
Especially new teams would benefit from that rule, whereas teams with higher TRs might get troubles here.
I think it's one of the major problems of the game that brand new teams can be thrashed way too severely before they can afford an apoth. It's not unlikely that a significant number of coaches out there have abandoned BB since their team(s) have suffered too many casualities too early.

That's a very interesting idea.

Post by **Thadrin** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 4:20 am

One that could help rookie teams too. Isn't it the most annoying thing ever to fall short of that 50k on winnings needed to buy him after the first game?

Sounds like an idea of interest at least...and you could maintain the 50k thing for tournaments (as has been done with wizards).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 12:34 pm

that another interesting idea i wouldn't mind seeing tested