SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
 Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 00:29 |
 
|
| pac wrote: | | As I suggested before, if this is really acceptable in your TT circles, then I find that regrettable. |
... and all the people who houserule against any serious cas are lamers, and those who rule against stalling are lamers, and... etc, all of which is "regrettable"  
I can see the problem with leagues which allow people to dodge others with no consequence but if they are enforcing the concession rule then all is good. Probably they have the moral highground over you since they are actually using the rulebook. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
nexusvalhees
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 00:54 |
|
| pac wrote: |
As I suggested before, if this is really acceptable in your TT circles, then I find that regrettable. |
That is silly why do you care how me and my league or him and his play obviously the people in those leagues are happy.
There's a rule for concessions we use that rule just like any other. I've never seen a concession used TT at the beginning of the game to dodge someone but if it happens fine one team gets a free win 10 spp and a fat load of cash the other loses some FF and possibly players. It's not like it's without it's drawbacks already. Of course we've always used the LRB as is including the open league environment so no one is drawn anyway people chose their match ups outside of tournaments. |
_________________
At the end of the day it's not about who won or lost its about who's got the most Blood on their Boot
Remember folks if you don't go out of your way to kill good players AGING IS YOUR FAULT!! |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 04:04 |
|
| nexusvalhees wrote: | That is silly why do you care how me and my league or him and his play obviously the people in those leagues are happy.
There's a rule for concessions we use that rule just like any other. |
I do not mind how you play in TT, but on fumbbl there are rules to cover concessions. You may think they are unnecessary, but they are still the rules.
Dodging games via concession in B is especially lame. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Plorg
Joined: May 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 04:38 |
|
The mighty Plorgac awakens!
(In this case, it means that Plorg sees pac's point, but Plorg also see the point of the opposition and Plorg feels impelled to speak of behalf of some resolution)
| pac wrote: | | What about the opponent who made the effort to come down that day to play you? |
This is in the context of physical IRL TT interactions, not online.
Someone has to get up off their butt and travel their meatbody to a location, as opposed to staying home and invoking their virtual presence online.
If an objective observer is just looking at the rulebook, and NOT looking at the physicality of it
(which those who have never been a GameMaster/DungeonMaster/whatever-your-IRL-game-calls-it would have any IRL experience)
then "the rules" say that a concession is freely given, even when the opponent actually made the effort to show up at a certain place at a certain time.
Note that this is objectively a waste of the opponent's time IRL..
Thus, *IRL*, this concession can be objectively viewed as "lame". |
|
|
nexusvalhees
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 05:58 |
|
| westerner wrote: |
I do not mind how you play in TT, but on fumbbl there are rules to cover concessions. You may think they are unnecessary, but they are still the rules.
Dodging games via concession in B is especially lame. |
Hey that's great let's take something completely out of context and make it as if I'm trying to force fumbbl to conform to my groups rules Ya that's what I was going for.
Pac Made a comment about it being regrettable to play in a way on TT I merely pointed out that what is good for one group may not be the same as another. My group plays without any house rules on concessions his does not. there should be no reason for him to find this regrettable as he doesn't play in my group just like if your league has taken fouling out of the game there's no reason for me to care as I don't play with your league. There is in fact blood bowl outside of fumbbl.
As for Fumbbls house ruling of concessions that's Christers choice to make I may find it to be a stupid rule but if I chose to play here I chose to play by it. I'll continue to state my opinion on it but that doesn't mean it will change.
Concessions used to dodge games in B are in fact pretty weak but I don't really care what anyone else does. and it already comes at a hefty price as FF spiral will destroy a team just as fast as killer Khemri
@Plorg
There is no objective I do feel it's lame to concede to dodge a game but that's just my opinion and also one of the Manny reasons I prefer an open environment IRL but I can't speak for everyone I am sure there are a few people out there that don't care and in fact some that are happy to get the concession 10 free spps and a fat wad of cash with no risk involved is somewhat appealing. |
_________________
At the end of the day it's not about who won or lost its about who's got the most Blood on their Boot
Remember folks if you don't go out of your way to kill good players AGING IS YOUR FAULT!! |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 06:32 |
|
Also notice that IRL you could concede and then offer them a friendly of some sort. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 11:57 |
|
| Plorg wrote: | | pac wrote: | | What about the opponent who made the effort to come down that day to play you? |
This is in the context of physical IRL TT interactions, not online. |
Yes, this was the only context I was talking about. 
@nexus - As you said, you've never had people conceding at the start of the game in the first place in your league. That suggests you've got a good group of committed coaches so (even if it did happen once) it still wouldn't be a major problem. (And although you don't have a rule against it, I think you would mock that conceder mercilessly.) If a significant number of people started making a habit of it things might look different.
@SillySod - I don't see anyone stepping forward and saying, 'We have people conceding on Turn 1 nearly every week in our league. It's practically a tradition. And it's never caused any serious problems or fallings-out - the rules work great.' Even Porkus has only said that he doesn't see the problem with it, not that it actually happened a lot. I don't believe that Turn 1 conceding would actually be tolerated in any decent TT league for the reasons I have explained (of course, this only applies if the issue actually comes up - see my comment to nexus).
'Moral highground'? As so often, what are you talking about? I'm not talking about 'morals', I'm talking about what makes leagues work and what makes them fail. Coaches who don't care about their opponent's (and the rest of the league's) experience make them fail. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 13:21 |
|
Coaches conceding does not equal coaches not caring about the experience of others. You know better than to sell opinion as fact, what works for your league might work differently for other people... but while you try to tell them otherwise or keep suggesting that "concessions = bad coach" I will keep accusing you of trying to hold some non-existant moral highground. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 13:34 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Coaches conceding does not equal coaches not caring about the experience of others. |
I didn't say the two were the same thing. However, there are close correlations between the two:
You know the person sitting opposite you and you know that he doesn't concede. In fact, you've played against him and got lucky, taking out so many players that he had no chance left to win. He took it as a challenge and played on, trying to keep the score down and the number of CAS taken down as much as possible. Now you're in the opposite situation - and you're just going to drop out?
| Quote: | | You know better than to sell opinion as fact, what works for your league might work differently for other people... |
It might - but as I pointed out we've yet to see anyone claim that it has.
| Quote: | | but while you try to tell them otherwise or keep suggesting that "concessions = bad coach" |
I didn't suggest that. I didn't think I needed to. I thought it was obvious.
| Quote: | | I will keep accusing you of trying to hold some non-existant moral highground. |
Oh noes!  |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 13:38 |
|
| pac wrote: | | I'm not talking about 'morals', I'm talking about what makes leagues work and what makes them fail. Coaches who don't care about their opponent's (and the rest of the league's) experience make them fail. |
Sorry to jump in without having followed the rest of the discussion, but i happened to read this bit... Doesn't it contradict your usual stance on, for example, teams that play uniquely to maim and destroy? I don't want to start the debate, i just wanted to point out that, personally, i think that conceding on turn 1 or playing a team aimed at killing and not scoring are about equal in terms of interest. The difference is conceding gives me money and SPPs, while being destroyed ruins a team i may like. So, if i had to chose between Scylla and Charybdis, i'd pick the concession.
And, good thing about playing IRL, we could then have a beer and talk about something unrelated to the game. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 13:45 |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 13:49 |
|
| koadah wrote: | The more concessions you have the more playing to kill or for a concession looks like a good and profitable strategy.
If I have to go over to your house to play a league game I really wouldn't be happy if you concede on turn 1. |
If i have to go to your house to play Blood Bowl and you played WHFB on a BB pitch, i really wouldn't be happy either =) |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 14:47 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | pac wrote: | | I'm not talking about 'morals', I'm talking about what makes leagues work and what makes them fail. Coaches who don't care about their opponent's (and the rest of the league's) experience make them fail. |
Sorry to jump in without having followed the rest of the discussion, but i happened to read this bit... Doesn't it contradict your usual stance on, for example, teams that play uniquely to maim and destroy? I don't want to start the debate, i just wanted to point out that, personally, i think that conceding on turn 1 or playing a team aimed at killing and not scoring are about equal in terms of interest. |
Actually, team destroyers generally do care about their opponent's experience - the fact that their opponent cares about their team is part of what makes destroying it fun! This is true whether the team-destroyer is playing in good spirit or bad spirit. The opponent does get a game, and a challenge - just perhaps not the sort they'd prefer.
But, as I've said before, the key point is that it's very difficult to distinguish between someone who really is just trying to wreck opponents and someone who is just playing a bashy team badly. People who aren't very good at the game often tend to compensate by playing a team which, at the very least, won't get badly beaten up as well as losing. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:11 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | koadah wrote: | The more concessions you have the more playing to kill or for a concession looks like a good and profitable strategy.
If I have to go over to your house to play a league game I really wouldn't be happy if you concede on turn 1. |
If i have to go to your house to play Blood Bowl and you played WHFB on a BB pitch, i really wouldn't be happy either =) |
If the league has no rules on how much damage you can cause but does have rules on no concessions then you should play or forfeit. Unless there are rules on forfeits too. Then you should just play. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:13 |
|
Yeah, i agree with you it's hard to distinguish. I'm just saying that in both cases, as i see it, people forget it's a game you play together, and don't really care that they might be ruining the other guy's fun by not playing the game.
| koadah wrote: |
If the league has no rules on how much damage you can cause but does have rules on no concessions then you should play or forfeit. Unless there are rules on forfeits too. Then you should just play. |
All the rules are in the LRB. shadow would say the LRB never says the goal of the game is to win by scoring more TDs, but then, the LRB also states the rules for conceding.
So, again, i fail to see why "conceding" would be any different than other matters =) |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
|
|
| |
Exempt teams
Search
