| Poll |
| What monetary system would you prefer in LRB6? |
| Petty Cash (according to rules) |
|
42% |
[ 54 ] |
| Banking System (vetoed by Jervis but liked by everyone else) |
|
25% |
[ 32 ] |
| Banking System but with 200k (less ristrictivy and still fulllfills the purpose) |
|
12% |
[ 16 ] |
| Banking System but with 300k {it's ensurance policy, coaches shouldn't be punished for planning ahead but there should be a limit at some point.) |
|
3% |
[ 4 ] |
| Banking System but with 50k (every sign of saving must be punished and just a few TV difference for so much isn't enough) |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Money should fully count to TV! |
|
1% |
[ 2 ] |
| Implement the whole LRB4 monetary system! It's obviously better then having this discussion! |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| Pie! |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| It's just so incredibly pie. No words, just pie. |
|
9% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 126 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Sep 20, 2010 - 21:48 |
 
|
Hi, I just thought since all the intel about banking and petty cash was gatherd in the other thread, we could maybe make a vote about it.
(Please note the the result of the vote will not necessarly have any consequences whatsoever.)
Also please keep in mind that fumbbl has a strict "stick to the rules policy" and it's a pretty big offstretch to ask Big C to do something else since there will be always some people disagreeing on a decision.
I'll just sum the two models up in short:
Petty Cash means that money doesn't count for TV at all.
Banking means it starts counting when more then 100k is in the treasury.
For details on what you are voting for read here: Bank rules
Edit: Please note that there is also a controversity going on about what the rules actually are ie. who makes them and so on. And that some of those points really need consideration. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %21, %2010 - %10:%Sep; edited 3 times in total |
|
Olesh
Joined: Jun 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 20, 2010 - 23:31 |
|
Given the strict "stick to the rules" policy, I don't see how this is anything but pointless. There have been far too many threads about this already. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 20, 2010 - 23:43 |
|
| Olesh wrote: | | Given the strict "stick to the rules" policy, I don't see how this is anything but pointless. There have been far too many threads about this already. |
This may be a good time to point out that the rules are very strict about moving miniatures and rolling dice.
There is no printed LRB5, nur LRB6, only something called CRP. Yet, the client was supposed to be close to LRB5/6 - which exists now officialy only as a temporary theory created by the BBRC. Which at some point also incorporated the bank rules. |
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 20, 2010 - 23:47 |
|
May be so, but the current rules that everyone uses say it's petty cash, and thus that is also the road the client should take.
Why houserule stuff when you can just follow the real rules? |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 20, 2010 - 23:49 |
|
I think the only conclusion we can make from the Bank Thread is that people don't read. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 20, 2010 - 23:59 |
|
| Cloggy wrote: | | Why houserule stuff when you can just follow the real rules? |
Define "real".
The BBRC supporting the bank rules is real enough for me. Just the same as their support for underworld, pact, and slann is more than real enough. Plus this could be an uncontroversial opportunity to distance ourselves from GWs CRP... which might be beneficial, although it might not. |
_________________
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." |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 00:01 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | I think the only conclusion we can make from the Bank Thread is that people don't read. |
I am BUSTED! 
*voted a massive slice of hot steak & kidney PIE* |
_________________
 |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 00:07 |
|
...and still, I like Bank much better but voted for Petty Cash
Pro Bank: I think it's better, there is a whole thread about it, including the distance from GW thing, enought.
Pro Petty Cash: it's in CRP, so new coaches can download it and there won't be complaints about house rules.
Still more, I supose it's up to Christer and in the case he decides Fumbbl runs with Bank, all the better. |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 00:09 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Cloggy wrote: | | Why houserule stuff when you can just follow the real rules? |
Define "real".
The BBRC supporting the bank rules is real enough for me. Just the same as their support for underworld, pact, and slann is more than real enough. Plus this could be an uncontroversial opportunity to distance ourselves from GWs CRP... which might be beneficial, although it might not. |
I do find it interesting that the folks who want to use the "official" rules overlook the fact that NONE of the new races were added to the Blood Bowl Competition Rules.
Pact, Underworlders and Slaan are, right now, house rules.
So having some house rules is ok? But others are not? Even though they have the exact same source? |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Sinnyil
Joined: Jul 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 01:54 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | SillySod wrote: | | Cloggy wrote: | | Why houserule stuff when you can just follow the real rules? |
Define "real".
The BBRC supporting the bank rules is real enough for me. Just the same as their support for underworld, pact, and slann is more than real enough. Plus this could be an uncontroversial opportunity to distance ourselves from GWs CRP... which might be beneficial, although it might not. |
I do find it interesting that the folks who want to use the "official" rules overlook the fact that NONE of the new races were added to the Blood Bowl Competition Rules.
Pact, Underworlders and Slaan are, right now, house rules.
So having some house rules is ok? But others are not? Even though they have the exact same source? |
Devil's advocate for that:
There are however out there, rules in print for these three teams, and the animosity skill is in the CRP rulebook. The only reason, and the well known reason, for these not being included in the official CRP is the lack of figurines. These three teams are apparently also accepted in at least some tournaments and such. They're also being considered for eventual addition to the Cyanide game with GW's ok, for what that's worth (very little!)
The bank, on the other hand, is not in any of the CRP documentation.
So it really depends on how strictly you define "house rule" in this situation, I guess. With the strictest interpretation, sticking to the CRP only, then no to both the bank and the additional teams. A less strict interpretation would be "anything in print for the CRP" which would include the additional teams (and having some use for the animosity skill defined in the CRP proper). The loosest interpretation would be "the rules as the BBRC intended them" which would include the bank as well. |
|
|
TheSpoonyBard
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 01:57 |
|
I, for one, would wholeheartedly approve of pact, underworld, and slann going away. That's just me though. |
_________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky
http://thespoonybard.mybrute.com/ |
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 02:24 |
|
| TheSpoonyBard wrote: | | I, for one, would wholeheartedly approve of pact, underworld, and slann going away. That's just me though. |
Accepted in pretty much every league I've seen across the entire world and every tournament across the entire world that I've seen as well (other than one (the BB)). They are a lot of fun and it was only because of JJ's bosses that they are not in the rulebook.
Half the games I play anymore are with one of the three new teams.
Galak |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 03:10 |
|
Just curious, what's wrong with hoarding cash? |
|
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 03:36 |
|
| RedDevilCG wrote: | | Just curious, what's wrong with hoarding cash? |
Now, Sinnyil is clearly not the devil's advocate here... he defends himshelf.
(Resuming the problem with goldfarming, it lets people bypass the spiraling expenses effects, wich can in turn lead to teambuilding excesses and monster teams in majors... you know, hundred of pages of threads discusing elfball and picking and birthdays and... now goldfarming will probably be the new cherry) |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 04:51 |
|
Allways remeber that sprialing expenses are not some golden bullet that will shoot down teams that get over TV2750....SE only come into effect if the team is losing players. So we will see a lot of AV9 teams top the TV3000+ range, with or with out bank/petty cash. Some teams will say damn the torpedoes and play with one beat up squad of players with perm damage all over the place. They only worry about the KIA on one of their players. Gold farming will just ensure a team a longer stay at the high end of the TV scale.
Majors have never been about who has the highest TV or TR...It is all about a well built team that keeps TR/TV in check to give up the least amount of inducements/hanidcaps. A good draw in the tourney, a lot of luck on the CAS dice against you, some luck falling your way when it comes to the critical play of the game and playing some "good" blood bowl will allways ensure you a deep run in any major. Having the highest TV in a tournament will mean you have the best team in terms of skills but the # of inducemetns you allways give up will eventually wear you down and get you beat.
Under our current LRB4 system...enter a major when you give up 5 handicaps a match. Your chances of winning the tourney is very slim to none.
The proponets of the Bank really want SE to have some serious bite to it. In reality the best "check" on teams getting really large in TV/TR was the ageing system. But we will not go down that path.
SE will never have that kind of effect on teams. Which is a good thing in my mind. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
