The Spiky club Open 2010, 9th/10th Ocober 2010 Reading, Uk

[ace2k00]

perhaps upping the price of the skills is the way to go then, or taking the starting team value back to 110m.

what I was trying the achieve was to let players start with the team that they would have had by the end of game 5 in the original pack.

or maybe i should limit the amount of experienced players to 6. like the original..mmmm

[Joemanji]

Those are options, but they don't change the balance of power. Dwarfs/Amazons/etc. still do markedly better than most other races because they don't need any skills to operate, and so can just buy gravy. It's what some of the other tournaments use quite complicated points systems to avoid.

To be honest, I don't think there is anything wrong with the 6 skills format you have always used, but maybe you could give out all 6 skills before game one. Other tournaments have systems that are probably more balanced or bring more races into competition. But I like that every tournament is different, and simplicity has its own rewards.

[Grumbledook]

I think the key to giving more races a more even playing field is letting the more expensive teams afford a bit more TV1150 or TV1200 (though 110 is fine its been a bit done to death for my liking)

The teams without the "core" skills (block dodge sure hands etc) in their starting amount suffer compared to those teams that have them. Giving all the skills for all the games helps them out as the first few games they are suffering more without them, than Dwarfs, Amazons and woodies etc.

I do like the tiers that other tournaments have done as well. Perhaps we could have all skills up front and give diff amounts of skills to diff groups of races.

4 Skills:
Dwarf, Undead, Amazon, Wood Elf,
5 Skills:
Skaven, Lizards, Orc, Norse, Dark Elf, Chaos Dwarf, Necro
6 Skills:
Human, Slaan, High Elf, Pro Elf, Underworld, Chaos Pact, Khemri
7 Skills:
Chaos, Nurgle, Halfling, Goblins, Vampries, Ogre

Wasn't sure where to put a couple of the races but something like that might be better and avoid the silly cheese races like Joe describes while giving others more of a chance.

Or just use the Ironmanj system, that worked really well imo.

[Joemanji]

Also good.

[Darkson]

What's wrong with the current system?

Is it perfect? No.
Is it different? No.
Does it need to be? No.

Why make things more complicated, especially for those that aren't BB tourney regulars?

Personally, I vote for keeping skills + team TV the same as it is, though I'd be happy for a tweak of the scoring system.

[Grumbledook]

Doesn't need changing but its getting pretty dull.

We aren't 3 year olds, it isn't complicated, anyone capable of understanding the blood bowl rules can comprehend them imo.

With more and more competing tournaments the ones that offer the most appealing rules are going to stand out and attract more players. That is why I chose to go all the way up to York to play in the Ironmanj compared to going to nearer ones that use the same old rules.

The fact the date being changed was entertained was indicative of the fact there are so many alternatives to go too. So why not try and improve rules that you admit aren't perfect in order to "stay ahead of the competition". Other are using things like painted teams as prizes, spiky was traditionally one of the larger tournaments and attendance has been dropping off with nothing to set it apart. Coaches don't really care that it was the first ever NAF tourny, I do and would like it to keep going rather than dwindle each year.

[Darkson]

It's wasn't dwindling because of the rules, it was dwindling because of the poor organisation by those running it after Dave stopped.

The rules as they are are fine - the best players win/graduate to the top table, the bad players go to the bottom, and the average players stick to the middle. The rules as they currently stand are easy to understand, and perfect for those that rarely attend tournaments. Adding in layers of "meta-gaming" doesn't make a tourney "better", it just makes it favourable for those that spend most time only playing the one system, more "exclusive".

letting the more expensive teams afford a bit more TV1150 or TV1200 (though 110 is fine its been a bit done to death for my liking)

And in a few years time you'll be saying 115 or 120 "have been done to death". If more tourneys are moving to 115, 120 or 125 (etc.) then surely staying at 110 makes it "different".

[Pipey]

Just a few thoughts:

I (a self-confessed 'regular' and BB-junkie) liked the Ironmanj rules very much indeed. It's the best and most balanced rules set I've seen yet.

This doesn't mean IMO that every tourney should follow it. Or even that every tourney should be 'perfect'. Some tourneys favour particular races or types of race and that's no bad thing.

My experience of the points scoring system at Spiky is that it hasn't been great - I agree with what Grum, Joe and probably others have said.

TV110 + standard skills doesn't need to change and maybe if you only go to one or two tourneys a year then the issue of things becoming boring doesn't come into it. It's important for we regulars to be aware of that.

On high TR i.e. TR120 or TR125... As I'm sure has been pointed out, this is a great leveller provided certain things are restricted a little e.g. wizard/stars. However surplus cash being available for skills, despite being interesting, completely plays into the hands of the traditional power teams such as dwarf/amazon and still leaves chaos, high elves etc. languishing behind. So, in my personal opinion, I don't think that would improve the tourney.

Dave, if you do want to 'modernise' the skill/team selection rules at Spiky then it may be worth running it by myself and/or rodder as UK RTOs before making it official. Just an idea?

I do think it's great the Spiky is getting a kind of a review. It's part of the history of BB and the resurrection period so it ought to be a top tourney. Seems like Dave has all the right intentions and some good ideas so I'm sure Spiky will be a success this year!

[Darkson]

Oh, and I wouldn't disagree with getting rid of the "semi's" if put forward, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see them stay either.

[Purplegoo]

I might pop along this year. I'd like to come to Spiky at some point to try it out.

That is, if we can seperate these handbags long enough to get a ruleset agreed.

It's all Bloodbowl and drinking, it'll be fun any which way.

[Grumbledook]

Those rarely attending tournaments are far more likely to turn up with the less "desirable" teams and benefit from not being at a disadvantage. It doesn't make it more exclusive. With so many alternative tournaments to go to, just being run well isn't enough to set one apart as tbh they are all generally well run. The highest attendance one is the worst run one in the world ;]

Understandably the locals will go cause its cheap for them to get too, though to attract more players to come to it over going to their local ones it should offer more imo. Being run well doesn't offer more when everyone is doing that. We all know how you don't like change, but you are going regardless anyway as will I. Have you even been to a tournament that offers a more even playing field to a move diverse number of races to be able to compare?

I agree not every tournament should offer it, but it would be nice for there be a bit more choice. There are currently none down south that really differ from the normal and offer race tiers afaik.

[Darkson]

We all know how you don't like change, but you are going regardless anyway as will I.

Not necessarily - I can only get a certain number of weekends off a year, and if the ruleset makes it undesirable for the rest of the Andover lads to attend, and they decide to attend a different one (say the Exiles), then I'll do that instead. I don't mind attending tourneys on my own, but they're more fun when I can get my local mates to go as well.

[Darkson]

I agree not every tournament should offer it, but it would be nice for there be a bit more choice. There are currently none down south that really differ from the normal and offer race tiers afaik.

So why haven't you said anything on the ARBBL thread? Every year I ask if there's improvements we can make (the whole "all skills listed before game 1" came about from a discussion at Spiky with someone [Besters?]), and yet no-one's ever suggested any changes (other than you trying to get free carbonated drinks out of me! ).

I was actually considering allowing (official) Tier 3 teams an extra skill for next years, so it's not as if I'm not open to suggestions (had been Tier 2& 3 teams, but you ruined that with your Vamps performance ).

[Grumbledook]

Cause that already is different with TV115 and all skills before the games, it also isn't as high profile as spiky (no offence). People have been saying there are more issues with the Spiky rules so it made more sense to push for it here.

I took Undead, blame Pete for the Vamps ;]

Glad to hear you are open to giving more skills to more teams (you've given flings a boost before at your own tournament iirc??). Hopefully we can all find some middle ground to make the most people happy which is why we are having these talks in the first place ;]

[Grumbledook]

Just remembered the 10th of the 10th is going to my mate's 30th so not sure I will be able go anyway. Rules change is still a good idea though imo!