Maximum Team Ratings.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:14 pm

Maybe this should come under House rules, but I am coming more and more under the opinion that Max TR's should be set. I've seen teams of over 400 and whereas under 3rd Ed this could be offset slightly by the cards and bonus SPP's, this is not so under LRB. By setting an upper limit this would even things out quite a lot. I would go for 300-350, but i'd guess that some of you would think this too high. I'm surprised that this is not built in to the rules as no limit is open to serious abuse.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:27 pm

You serious?

Once a team reaches 300+ SPP's, unless they are really lucky, 1/2 of the team will have niggles and stat decreases, thanks to the new aging rules.

I think that the current rules are perfectly fine.

lawquoter · Post by **lawquoter** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:31 pm

I don't believe that this really is needed. The LRB inherently has caps on team rating built into it. Take for example the adjusted winnings table. The higher the team rating, the harder it is to get large sums. It seems once my team goes past 180 or so, I tend to make little, and have even lost money. Perhaps if the league or group have clubs develop in a different way that allows for growth of team rating (as the earlier editions did), this might be a practical solution. But from what I've seen and heard, the LRB implicitly provides for a cap without having to have a whole badly written and ambiguous section in the book.

Post by **Dave** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 12:52 pm

we have a TR 260 team, but I don't expect it to grow far over 300

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:40 pm

If you see a team with a TR over 300 in an LRB settings, it is because the league is not playing with all the LRB rules. Most notably they either ditched aging or the handicap table .... I pretty much guarantee it. The full LRB ruleset really does regulate upper end TR pretty well.

Galak

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:44 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:If you see a team with a TR over 300 in an LRB settings, it is because the league is not playing with all the LRB rules. Most notably they either ditched aging or the handicap table .... I pretty much guarantee it. The full LRB ruleset really does regulate upper end TR pretty well.

Galak

I'd agree with that. If you've got the handicap table there is an incentive to keep your TR low and once you reach TR200+ money becomes really tight.

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:46 pm

Unless you still play the tournaments with the money prizes. One of our teams once jumped to 310 when receiving the BB money. He's now back at 270. Still with 4 NI players and several statt decrease players.

Lucy

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:55 pm

Princelucianus: I was goint to bring up the same point. The Blood Bowl is likely to give you an upswing of nearly 50 points of Team Rating, assuming you don't spend part of the money on buying rerolls.

zeroalpha · Post by **zeroalpha** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:39 pm

rather than cap team rating i think they (GW) need to revisit the old card system. Many people have made this point time and time again and yet even though this forum claims to have the majority of the BBRC visiting it never seems to crop in a serious way, just dismissed with a can't do it, costs too much.
The cards made the game fun in a way not achieved with the table or in any other game GW produce

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:41 pm

you will find many a post saying the cards were cack and unbalencing, took loads of the strategy out, they were fun and a novelty for a while but I am glad they are gone

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:46 pm

I wouldn't mind seeing them back in a limited role. I think the game lost something when you KNEW you could score instead of pushing your player over the line and then asking your opponent...that moment of "uhoh" as he pulled out "is it a TD" was always tense.

however I don't think they served well in their role as handicapper, so I wouldn't want them back in that way. maybe allow a shortened list of cards, all in 1 deck, that you could take 1 card every game each, regardless of tr. something like that i'd be ok with.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:15 pm

I agree Grumble, I am GLAD they are gone. They were essentially "cheat codes" for a video game, depending on what you rolled.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:22 pm

VERY glad the cards are gone. We added back the cards tied to rolls based on the number of cheerleaders and/or assistant coaches for the MBBL2 which added value to them and also allowed a bit of flavor as Wes said. However the rules we use make sure that cards only show up rarely (ie not a staple) and only with experienced teams.

Its the only way, I could see having them back in the game now really as I'm just too much more happy playing without them normally.

Galak

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 9:48 pm

lawquoter wrote:It seems once my team goes past 180 or so, I tend to make little, and have even lost money.

Look again. If you roll negative winnings, you don't lose any money; you just don't earn any, that's all.

lawquoter · Post by **lawquoter** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:59 pm

Zombie wrote:Look again. If you roll negative winnings, you don't lose any money; you just don't earn any, that's all.

Right, that's how it normally works. I've been hit with a house rule before where If you lose money, you better cough up the difference. Stadium managers don't like to put on bb events and lose money! But, using strict LRB, you're quite correct. Was thinking in the house rule mindset.