How'd we do?

Post by **Dave** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:27 pm

Yes. A six on a PITCH - invasion only injuring players in the dug out

wardancer434 · Post by **wardancer434** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 4:49 am

Overall I think it was pretty good

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:41 pm

Most of the things that were changed were fine, tho I don't like the range ruler change...part of the strategy was supposed to be trying to figure out how far the pass was without measuring, kinda like guessing cannon ranges in whfb...

BTW thank you so much for not making kicking rules "official". They are just as they should be: good rules for people that want them, but not required in leagues that don't want them.

There are still plenty of things I don't like however.

1: DT. I still think it should be put back to the way it was and made an AG trait. The current version is worthless to me. And yes I really did try it. Making it a trait would fix all the old complaints about the skill, and still make it useful to the players that have it.
2: CAS for fouling and crowds
3: Ageing (I like the concept but I don't think it should start until after 3rd skill)
4: ff -'s (I like the concept there too, but I don't think it should start until after 20ff), and the rule of 1 and 6 has GOT to go there. All that rule does is reward losers and punish winning, and IMO there is already precious little reward for winning games.
5: now that special play cards are officially back (according to gw, and in pdf form on the website) can't we get rid of the handicap table and put the cards back? The handicap table wasn't (isn't) very good anyway.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:45 pm

The range ruler thingy wasn't changed its always been like that since 3rd edition came out in 1994.

The new diving tackle is far better than the old imho.
The changes to the fouling rules are for the better as well.
I agree rolling a 1 when you win is annoying but then rolling a 6 when you lose is just as good the other way. It will always benefit the winner as it stands, I tihnk thats fine.

As for the special play cards, don't like them and this is the first i heard about them coming back?!?

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:50 pm

Grumbledook wrote:Just hammering star players till they die doesn't work, just look at the olbbl for teams with tr of 600+.

Well they also had extended winnings tables, and they play a lot of "no-foul" games there. Lots of things that tend to overinflate TRs. OLBBL should in no way be confused with 3rd ed BB rules, they had a LOT of extra stuff...allies, free agents, "B-teams". LOTS of those rules help to inflate team ratings. (It's easy to keep a team real big when you can replace dead players with already-trained free agents, which you can afford with a bigger winnings table)

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I prefer the LRB stuff to 3rd ed AND olbbl rules, but don't make the mistake of thinking that olbbl is a good example of a league to use for making points about 3rd ed. If nothing else, how many leagues do you know with THAT many teams, and THAT many coaches? Just that changes the dynamic of how teams work.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:57 pm

Norse wrote:2) Make Trolls & Treeman a little more reliable, as they are more of a handicap to a stunty team than an asset at the moment (e.g. how would it be if 'Take Root' meant you had to roll before moving a Treeman, on a 1 he cannot move. He plays the whole game - no more missing first half- but he might stand around a bit more waiting for stuff to happen or remembering the good old days.. )

Problem with this is you have to be careful, if you make trees too good then you're helping wood elves more than halflings, and they don't really need that much help.

Besides, Take Root is already a LOT better than it's original version. Now no matter what the tree will always be there for the 2nd half.

As for trolls, they aren't that bad at all, they just take a little planning. Just keep a gobbo around to prod him into action and no worries.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:07 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:Actually Zombie there is no way you can say which way this one was. The wording of the rulebook never said you had to field 11 players if you could. Trust me, we went through the book with a fine tooth on this one and couldn't say one way or the other.

He's right, until we house ruled it a LONG time ago, there was a skaven team that would very rarely play defense. He'd just score, then not set up players for defense, and let you score, then score again, and so on. He'd only set up ppl for defense when he needed to slow his opponent down for a turn or two to secure the win. REALLY cheesy, so we made sure you had to set players up after that.

So, in summary, we looked too, there isn't anything in the BB or DZ book stating definitively one way or the other that you have to set up players. The LRB change is a welcome and useful one.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:15 pm

I'd like to have seen WA toned down a bit (I play Norse and Skaven

), and I would of like the ruling for whether or not a player could intercept based on board squares rather than bases, and maybe passing ranges measured from the cente of squares but other than that, good job

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:22 pm

They DID specify that darkson, it's board square, not base of mini. It's in the newest lrb, p22.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:29 pm

Must of missed that one.

Still, Huzzah, one less thing for me to have to rule on.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:22 pm

wesleytj wrote:we looked too, there isn't anything in the BB or DZ book stating definitively one way or the other that you have to set up players. The LRB change is a welcome and useful one.

It wasn't in any of the the books, it was in a set of FAQ answered by Jervis and released in 95. It said something about 11 being the sacred number of Nuffle and that you can't break it unless unpreventable by circumstances, and even then you had to field as many as you could.

manusate · Post by **manusate** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:38 pm

Yeah, I remember that.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:55 pm

Zombie wrote:It wasn't in any of the the books, it was in a set of FAQ answered by Jervis and released in 95. It said something about 11 being the sacred number of Nuffle and that you can't break it unless unpreventable by circumstances, and even then you had to field as many as you could.

Well everybody knows those are unofficial and worth little more than the paper they're printed on.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:08 am

They were pretty official on the contrary. Without them, players could combine mighty blow, dirty player, claw and razor sharp claw for a wooping +6/+5 when fouling. And without them, regeneration was at 2+. They were as mainstream as you can get.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:32 am

I'm pretty sure he's saying that they are are bunk now. THey did, at one time serve a purpose. Now, many of the Q&A stuff has been incorporated into the LRB and only that and the Annual are the official rules. All other Q&As and FAQs have been superceeded.

Talk Fantasy Football

How'd we do?

How did the BBRC do on the rules review?

Back from a long break