38 coaches online • Server time: 09:46
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Blood bowl 2016 rott...goto Post SWL Season LXXIIIgoto Post NA Blackbox go go go...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Should a larger TV team be able to choose to buy lots of inducements, unopposed by a smaller, poorer team?
Yes always - it's in the new rules
53%
 53%  [ 36 ]
No never - it's unsporting and unfair, a poorly written aspect of the new rules
31%
 31%  [ 21 ]
Yes but only in tournaments, or some other condition (please explain)
14%
 14%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 67


JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 12:24 Reply with quote Back to top

I think the problem with expecting people to follow some sort of unwritten 'honor' code is the same as expecting coaches not to pick in Ranked, or to play a balanced variety of races in Box. It doesn't work because of the 10% who won't do it, and who will prioritize their own win record over other people's enjoyment or concept of 'fair play'.

It's human nature and there's no point expecting it to change. Imo, either we need to have an actual rule, coded into the site, or people will have to accept that's just how the game is.

Of course, if GW's version of the printed rules is ambiguous or doesn't come across as they intended, well then that's their fault and the book needs to be fixed.

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 12:50 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
I think the problem with expecting people to follow some sort of unwritten 'honor' code is the same as expecting coaches not to pick in Ranked, or to play a balanced variety of races in Box. It doesn't work because of the 10% who won't do it, and who will prioritize their own win record over other people's enjoyment or concept of 'fair play'.

It's human nature and there's no point expecting it to change. Imo, either we need to have an actual rule, coded into the site, or people will have to accept that's just how the game is.

Of course, if GW's version of the printed rules is ambiguous or doesn't come across as they intended, well then that's their fault and the book needs to be fixed.


LOL. Where do you get that 10% figure? Twisted Evil

Also, it is a terrible analogy. Playing a single team is not in any way cheating. Neither is avoiding certain matchups in Ranked.

If I don't want to play against you I don't have to. In fact, next logical step is to not play in Ranked or Box at all. Which I now don't.

_________________
Image
Secret League - SLUMBBL Cup - September
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 15:21 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
next logical step is to not play in Ranked or Box at all. Which I now don't.


That indicates a problem with reducing fair play to "anything goes."

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Guardikai



Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 15:36 Reply with quote Back to top

almic85 wrote:
Guardikai wrote:
Wasn’t there official confirmation that fumbbl was following the wrong interpretation (which was also my own because of how badly worded the new rules were) of inducements and that overdog spend should give that amount to underdog?


Nope. There is nothing official in any FAQ that changes the rules from those written in death zone season 1.

I believe there was a comment on facebook from either the community team or one of the current games designers, but anyone that plays games should know that answers on facebook don't actually count.

EDIT: I say nope as I am assuming that FUMBBL doesn't give the extra cash to the underdog as I have never actalaly spent cash as the overdog.


It was on FB, but it came from the horse's mouth apparently (the rules team) and will feature in an upcoming FAQ.

Link:
http://www.sann0638.co.uk/ruling-on-inducements/

So, for those wondering, this is how GW have clarified it should work:

Quote:
Well, Alexander, we went straight to the horse's mouth on this one. This is directly from the Specialist Games Team and will feature in an upcoming FAQ:

Q. Can you explain the steps for calculating Inducements in a bit more detail please?
A. Yes, there does appear to be some confusion over this, so here’s the sequence broken down into more easily followed steps:
1. Each coach looks at their Treasury and decides if they will spend any of the gold on Inducements. This gold is transferred out of the Treasury and immediately increases Team Value accordingly. For example, if Jim had a Team Value of 1,250,000 gp and decided to spend 100,000 gp from his Treasury, his Team Value would increase to 1,350,000 gp even before he announces to his opponent what he plans to spend that gold on.

2. The coach with the lower Team Value is granted an additional amount of ‘petty cash’ equal to the difference in Team Values as they are now. To continue the above example, if Jim’s opponent, Bob, had a Team Value of 1,100,000 gp he would be awarded petty cash of 250,000 gp. That is 150,000 gp for the initial difference in TeamValue, and an additional 100,000 gp for the gold Bob has removed from his Treasury to spend on Inducements.
Note here that if Bob took any gold from his Treasury, that amount would also be added to his Team Value, therefore the amount of petty cash awarded would be decreased accordingly.

3. Next, the coach with the higher Team Value decides what they will spend the Gold they transferred from their Treasury on, so in our example, Jim now declares that he will spend his 100,000 gp on a single Bribe Inducement.

4. Finally, the coach with the lower Team Value spends their gold on Inducements, so to complete our example Bob would decide what he is spending his 250,000 gp on, purchasing a Bribe, some Extra Team Training, and a Bloodweiser Keg for the upcoming match.

Hope that helps!


It should therefore go back to CRP according to this. Of course, waiting for the actual FAQ may be best, but hard to argue with the above.
Guardikai



Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 15:38 Reply with quote Back to top

Oh, the above also seems to be how NAF clarify it too it seems? Smile

Any ideas on when official FAQ will come out from GW?
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 15:39 Reply with quote Back to top

That sucks. The rules as written aren't broken. Sad Now we'll just go back to the days when money sits there, useless, in your treasury. I guess it's necessary if they're reintroducing the Wizard. But if you ask me, that's another mistake.

I had such high hopes for BB2016. At first, it was like they just got rid of all the stupid stuff from LRB6. But now they're feeding it all back in.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
Guardikai



Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 15:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Agreed JR.

It's also on TFF.

It'll make the extra money rather useless really... at least you can induce a wizard if you're worried opponent has the cash to do so as well.
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
That sucks. The rules as written aren't broken. :( Now we'll just go back to the days when money sits there, useless, in your treasury.


Seasons are supposed to take care of your spending needs.

There's supposed to be new cards too.

Agreeing about rules not being borken may explain the conflation between fairness and legality.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 17:43 Reply with quote Back to top

I think it largely depends on the sort of BB you play as to whether you prefer the CRP / ‘correct’ version of the inducement sequencing rule or the version that FUMBBL currently uses. Personally, my BB is enhanced by the underdog having a better chance against an overdog. When I play online, I largely want to keep inducements out of it. When I arrive to play a TT league match, I don’t really want to start 200 k down and then have my opponent spend an extra 100 k widening the gap on me. Not my idea of a fun couple of hours. Latest word is that GW understands there are some that like each version of the ruling and they are considering how best to rewrite it later such that both options are possible. BB has always been about the commissioner deciding what is fun and doing that, but as someone who likes the way FUMBBL historically handles things (all core rules are in, no optional rules and no house rules – keeps things nice and official and means everyone knows where they stand), this particular edition seems very keen to give endless options rather than solid ground, making Christer’s life trickier than it was under LRB4 or CRP.

No-one should be surprised that Wizards are coming back; this was promised from more or less day one. They aren’t exactly the same as they were apparently, so no knickers need yet be twisted.

Thoralf is correct that FUMBBL aren’t currently using the ruleset as a whole, so it is a little unfair to pick at bits of it when they’re not being used in the full, correct context. Another example of the lack of solid ground from a FUMBBL point of view is cards (as he brings them up). Looking at the rules, they’re inarguably core, so far as I’m concerned. On the internet, GW call them optional. In almost any other context than FUMBBL official divisions, this isn’t a problem. What Christer decides to do if and when cards can ever be coded is likely to a chunk of the user-base that disagrees, and since there’s no concrete official position, it’s hard for FUMBBL to occupy it’s usual, unequivocal space.

Still. We’re FUMBBL, not Blood Bowl as a whole. Generally speaking, this edition appears to be flipping smashing it. What a time to be a Blood Bowler.

_________________
NAF TD.
pythrr



Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 18:06 Reply with quote Back to top

There is a brick on the pitch, left there the day before by a careless mason.

Shall I pick up the brick, and use it to bash that wardancer in the head, or shall I leave it there in the grass, taunting me with its seductive dreams of extreme violence and x-rated blood spatter?

The brick.

The moral choice.

What shall I d....

[zooom, leap, zoom]

Oh crap, the Wardancer just ran past me and scored.

Bad troll, bad.

(A Moral Tale, by Pythrr)

_________________
Image
Image
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 18:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Yeah, I'll reserve judgment on the Wiz, but the old one was OP as heck, and the teams that benefitted from it most still get good mileage from the other inducements to be had (cough, Skaven, cough). So I'm not optimistic.

Abandoning the 2016 pre-clarification inducement rules and bringing back the Wizard (or hell, just bringing back the OP Wizard) in a no-PO environment is gonna make elves and rats all-powerful.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 19:52 Reply with quote Back to top

3+ single target (based on st3 carrier) or 4+ AOE spell is not as strong as 2+/4+, and having a stronger carrier makes Zzzap less likely to nail you. The 3+ bolt from the chaos sorcerer may be an indication that individual team wizards end up a bit spicier than the actual sports wiz (which is the name given to the frog/fireball gent), but we don't know their costing, nor the spells every team will get - it may be that chaos are the only ones who get a bolt and they're less able to take full advantage of that.

Members of the design team have stated that the 2+ bolt was absolutely OP and the team was unanimous that that had to go.



Anyway, my position is largely similar to what 'Goo posted above - I don't really want large tv gaps in my games and I don't want to be sitting wondering if my opponent is going to make that gap larger. People can sit and call it another level of intricacy, and i can understand why some like it, but it's not for me. Especially since it is, in some ways, grossly over-enabled by a lack of other rules being in place, as well as the fact we have no set number of games on fumbbl. You can blow all your cash every game and just retire your team if you wish.

Anyways, i don't really want to ramble, as I agree with people who say that if you take the direct word of the rules as they are, and not the supposed FAQ answer (which may be edited as 'Goo stated above), then that is how they play.

But I don't like those rules, and I won't be playing by them. And no, I don't mean "i'll be playing by my own rules", I mean I won't be playing.

_________________
Image
Verminardo



Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 20:25 Reply with quote Back to top

If it's a tourney match, and the money was acquired after expensive mistakes was implemented, I don't really see it as bad sportsmanship to spend it, it's part of the nature of Fumbbl tournaments that team prep is essential. So even if you want to be a good sportsman, which I do, I think it's fine.

If the money was acquired pre expensive mistakes it's a bit more murky.

If it's a pick-up game and I already have the advantage, I'd say the sportsmanlike thing to do would be not to spend it, but I wouldn't be mad at anyone for doing it anyway because (a) they're perfectly within their rights and (b) it's a pretty high level of sportsmanship.
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 23, 2018 - 23:29 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
JellyBelly wrote:
I think the problem with expecting people to follow some sort of unwritten 'honor' code is the same as expecting coaches not to pick in Ranked, or to play a balanced variety of races in Box. It doesn't work because of the 10% who won't do it, and who will prioritize their own win record over other people's enjoyment or concept of 'fair play'.

It's human nature and there's no point expecting it to change. Imo, either we need to have an actual rule, coded into the site, or people will have to accept that's just how the game is.

Of course, if GW's version of the printed rules is ambiguous or doesn't come across as they intended, well then that's their fault and the book needs to be fixed.


LOL. Where do you get that 10% figure? Twisted Evil

Also, it is a terrible analogy. Playing a single team is not in any way cheating. Neither is avoiding certain matchups in Ranked.


You seem to have completely missed my point here, Koadah. I didn't say either of those things are 'cheating'. They're not - they're perfectly within the site rules, as defined. However, based on numerous previous forum discussions, there seems to be a contingent of FUMBBL coaches that view such behaviors as 'unsporting'.

I was using those as examples to show that a solution that expects other coaches to follow an informal 'honor' code (as some were suggesting earlier in the thread) ins't going to work.

Koadah wrote:
If I don't want to play against you I don't have to. In fact, next logical step is to not play in Ranked or Box at all. Which I now don't.


That makes two of us then ... Wink

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
Irgy



Joined: Feb 21, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 24, 2018 - 03:20 Reply with quote Back to top

I know the currently-implemented system has its fans, but there's no better sign of bad rules design than people coming up with their own systems of "fair play" surrounding it. I think between that and it being apparently a mistake in the rules in the first place, R and B should just move back to the old (and now also new) system.

I actually think it at least makes some degree of sense when combined with seasons and expensive mistakes, because it fits in with a combination of being difficult to save up a lot of cash, having better things to do with it at end of season anyway, but also occasionally desperately needing to spend some of it. Though I'll hold my judgement on its impact on overall balance until we have some data and experience with it.

In the meantime though I'm 100% against having some kind of unofficial, unenforced, partially-followed etiquette around it. Maybe it would be nice if everyone followed it but since that's never going to happen just move on. Argue for the rules to change but until they do just play by them.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic