FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Force

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 15:49

Where is your problem Grumbledook?

1 Division "Official Rules" (open)
1 Division "Official Experimental Rules" (divx)
1 Division "FUMBBL House Rules" (house)

I know there is Tournament, Ladder and Stunty as well. I think stunty as a fun leage is fine, as long as enough people want to play it. Ladder is kind of strange to be, but whoever likes it, fine. Tournament is special if I understand correctly.

In short giving people a choice would not prefent you from playing the core official ruleset as far as it is implemented in JBB.

Bretter

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 17:22

I like the idea of a house-rule league, but none of us are in the position to say that it should or shouldn't happen. Christer and Mr-Klipp have done a great job with this league and the website. None of us should ever 'expect' that they create a whole new system for our individual tastes.

Of course, if anyone wants to put together and maintain a site for a non-aging league, I'll join in a heartbeat, but would most certainly stay here as well. It would be easy to do, as long as someone had access to a die rolling bot for skill checks. All you need to do is maintain your own website for your roster, which is fairly simple.

Zy-Nox

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 20:38

No.

_________________
"Who made that girly Zy-kNox Mod?"
Anarchy Online

m0nty

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 21:16

Force, I charge you with the solemn responsibility of learning Java, coding your own BB program from scratch, building your own community Web site from scratch, and then allowing some random guy from the Internet to change it to suit his personal foul-heavy playstyle.

Mr-Klipp

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 21:54

Grumbledook wrote:

If I had my way the stunty division would get deleted as well, I was against it from the start but there we go.

That's because you are a grumpy drunk bastard. Wink

_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.

The Finishing Touch

sceadeau

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 22:23

I'm a grumpy bastard too, but Grum takes all the glory for that.

Force, I realize this has been explained to you many times over the course of this thread, but I feel it's my personal duty to tell you what you are proposing is absolutely disastrous for long term FUMBBL health.

Let's pretend for a second that we live in Bizarro world. In Bizarro world, when you ask for a new division to play with slightly different rule sets, you instantly get a new division.

Now, you make a no-aging league. Billybob makes a no fouling league. I make a league where you start with 3 skill rolls and only roll doubles on each skill roll. Grum makes a league where he is only allowed to play every other tuesday.

Now...random guy joins the site and wants to get a game. However, he doens't know what division to get in to, and when he does pick one, it's going to be wrong, as there will be many divisions, and only a few coaches for each.

Therefore, you are proposing to fracture the Fumbbl community by adding your own style of house rules as a division. That seems counterproductive to the purpose of the Fumbbl site, which is to bring the bloodbowl community together.

psikobunny

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 22:38

Force, you are yet again making the same mistake that you have made before. You think that FUMBBL is a democracy where we have a chance to change things if we are loud enough.

It doesn't matter if you don't like aging (or any other rule)
It doesn't matter if you think things should change

FUMBBL is Christer and Klipp's league, run they way they see fit. Accept it, play this way or move on. In the recent past, I asked Christer about allowing 7man teams in a private DivT group. I was politely told no, and you haven't heard a thing from me since (until now).

It's getting annoying that every few weeks we have to get in one of these arguments with you. I'm gonna chalk this thread up as "Force's Dumb Idea of the Month" and ignore it from now on.

Force

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 22:53

sceadeau wrote:

I'm a grumpy bastard too, but Grum takes all the glory for that.

Force, I realize this has been explained to you many times over the course of this thread, but I feel it's my personal duty to tell you what you are proposing is absolutely disastrous for long term FUMBBL health.

Let's pretend for a second that we live in Bizarro world. In Bizarro world, when you ask for a new division to play with slightly different rule sets, you instantly get a new division.

Now, you make a no-aging league. Billybob makes a no fouling league. I make a league where you start with 3 skill rolls and only roll doubles on each skill roll. Grum makes a league where he is only allowed to play every other tuesday.

Now...random guy joins the site and wants to get a game. However, he doens't know what division to get in to, and when he does pick one, it's going to be wrong, as there will be many divisions, and only a few coaches for each.

Therefore, you are proposing to fracture the Fumbbl community by adding your own style of house rules as a division. That seems counterproductive to the purpose of the Fumbbl site, which is to bring the bloodbowl community together.

Again, this is a valid, good, fair point.

BUT as I pointed out earlier (as usual) "ageing yes or no" is perhaps THE most discussed issue among blood bowl coaches, and hence it would be worth to try out. Especially because it does not require any CHANGES, but only NOT USING a paragraph of the rules. MBBL2 run by Galak Starscraper whom a lot of you know dropped ageing for example.

As to your concern that there would be divisions for everybody's taste, you are right, that is crap. BUT, there could be ONE division where a set of fumbbl House rules applies. I can give you an example. IF the original Undead Team is REMOVED from the OFFICIAL rules, it could still be used in the fumbbl "House" Division i suggest.

Whatever most of you folks want to make me sound like I was critizising the Work done by Christer and his Team, I am not, and in this topic I did not even ask for your Guys oppinion on ANYTHING.

I asked WHO WAS INTERSTED IN A NO AGEING DIVISION.

Mr-Klipp

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 23:05

Force wrote:

MBBL2 run by Galak Starscraper whom a lot of you know dropped ageing for example.

Then if you want to see how it plays, maybe you should play in the league that already does that rather than trying to convince another league to use those rules.

Force wrote:

BUT, there could be ONE division where a set of fumbbl House rules applies.

As we have already made quite clear, we have no interest in developing a set of house rules, and instead prefer to play using the official rules.

Force wrote:

I asked WHO WAS INTERSTED IN A NO AGEING DIVISION.

And has as been made clear before, you can ask who is interested all day long, but it's not going to result in any changes to the site.

_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.

The Finishing Touch

Grumbledook

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 23:14

well you asked

you know it will make no difference

and so far the poll shows that people arne't interested anyway

EvolveToAnarchism

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 23:34

What a rarirty! I agree with the Duke of Grumble. They key issue at stake here is FUMBBL's mandate. Namely, to play LRB compliant games of Bloodbowl (and officially experimental rules). When you have joined FUMBBL, you should be aware of this. To propose implementation of alterations of the core rules is to go headfirst against the mandate of FUMBBL.

Personally, what drew me to the early FUMBBL was it's insistance at playing according to the LRB. I had seen the cringeworthy modifications to bloodbowl that seem to flourish on the web and wanted no part of them. When I found FUMBBL, I was delighted that they seemed dedicated to sticking to the principle of LRB compliance. Sceadeau posted a rather clear-headed critique of why allowing rules modifications on FUMBBL is not a good idea, so I won't post my critique.

Now to the wisdom of the Duke Of Grumble! I agree if, FUMBBL was truly dedicated to its principles it wouldn't have implemented Stunty Leeg. It doesn't belong on a site with FUMBBL's mandate. But now that it is here (barring a sudden removal), it should be made clear that Stunty is an exception to FUMBBL's mandate and why it is an exception. Make it clear, so that people don't waste their time proposing new divisions when the admin has no desire to even consider them.

As Always,
Evolve To Stuntydom

_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism

Force

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2003 - 23:53

Mr-Klipp wrote:

And has as been made clear before, you can ask who is interested all day long, but it's not going to result in any changes to the site.

Since Interest is so low I would not have bothered you. And I if I had bothered someone, the Christer, not you.

Grumbledook

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 22, 2003 - 02:02

any changes to the site are discussed by all the admin before things happen

Mully

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 23, 2003 - 05:40

Klipp/Christer and other admins - far be it to side with Force but I do have a question regarding following the LRB. You guys constantly state that your primary objective is to follow LRB rules. If that is the case, then how come overtime is not played in open games ? It is cleary included in the LRB rules AND the site has the capability since it IS included in tourney games.

This seems to me an clear decsion to depart from the LRB rulebook for whatever reason. And if that is the case then you lose one main arguement for exluding ageing and other non LRB house rule implementations.

_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League

Mr-Klipp

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 23, 2003 - 06:39

Mully wrote:

Klipp/Christer and other admins - far be it to side with Force but I do have a question regarding following the LRB. You guys constantly state that your primary objective is to follow LRB rules. If that is the case, then how come overtime is not played in open games ? It is cleary included in the LRB rules AND the site has the capability since it IS included in tourney games.

This seems to me an clear decsion to depart from the LRB rulebook for whatever reason. And if that is the case then you lose one main arguement for exluding ageing and other non LRB house rule implementations.

That rule actually predates me, though I think I remember why it is there. For one thing, the client does not properly support overtime per the LRB, as it is not sudden death.

_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.

The Finishing Touch