zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
 Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 13:50 |
 
|
i don't understand the sneaky git to KO option. Fluff-wise doesn't make any sense at all. |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 13:54 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | i don't understand the sneaky git to KO option. Fluff-wise doesn't make any sense at all. |
lol, exactly my feeling on the matter, though these are the changes that galak and double skulls gave there backing too. Its part of plasmoids ntbb stuff. prefer my version of sneaky git tbh, but then I would lol. |
|
|
Kalimar
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 13:55 |
|
It's part of Plasmoid's changes, that's why it's there. Options that are never used might well disappear at some point in the future or be replaced by others.
@Garion: the problem with your suggested changes is, that they are very interdependent. Your Sneaky Git option only makes sense if you bring the eye back, for instance. Which is no small change in itself (and not easily coded). |
Last edited by Kalimar on %b %06, %2012 - %14:%Jun; edited 1 time in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:03 |
|
| Kalimar wrote: | The option name might be a bit misleading as it is not only the MAXIMUM number of players but in fact the number of players per se that you need to place on the field. Just like the normal FFB setup rules, except the number can now be changed from the default 11. Is that really THAT confusing?
What in freak_in_a_frock suggests is something altogether different. And (in fact) something I don't think is a good idea. If I don't need to expose my players it changes the game a lot. The Secret Weapons problem can be minimized by taking the Penalty Roll option (like in LRB4) or Sneaky Git option (which send them to KO instead of ban them from the game altogether). |
If this is the case, I'm not sure how useful the bb 7 crew will find it. For me it's extremely useful, and the best implementation yet.
However bb7s main problem is the first game (getting around having 11 players). I think it will help them some (in that they won't have to do those horrible concessions and can play with just 7 on the pitch), but means more than 7 players will be used. Thoughts from the BB 7 crew would be good.
The freak optional rule, I don't think is too damaging (if used in the bb 7 sense), and wouldn't be implemented for many leagues. |
|
|
Kalimar
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:09 |
|
If BB7 really wants to have only 7 players IN THE TEAM instead of just having to put only 7 players on the field then this part needs to be handled by the site. Team building is not part of FFB. |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:09 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Kalimar wrote: | The option name might be a bit misleading as it is not only the MAXIMUM number of players but in fact the number of players per se that you need to place on the field. Just like the normal FFB setup rules, except the number can now be changed from the default 11. Is that really THAT confusing?
What in freak_in_a_frock suggests is something altogether different. And (in fact) something I don't think is a good idea. If I don't need to expose my players it changes the game a lot. The Secret Weapons problem can be minimized by taking the Penalty Roll option (like in LRB4) or Sneaky Git option (which send them to KO instead of ban them from the game altogether). |
If this is the case, I'm not sure how useful the bb 7 crew will find it. For me it's extremely useful, and the best implementation yet.
However bb7s main problem is the first game (getting around having 11 players). I think it will help them some (in that they won't have to do those horrible concessions and can play with just 7 on the pitch), but means more than 7 players will be used. Thoughts from the BB 7 crew would be good.
The freak optional rule, I don't think is too damaging (if used in the bb 7 sense), and wouldn't be implemented for many leagues. |
BB7 teams will be able to have reserves outside the playing area. That's the whole point of this modification. And I find it very interesting as a BB7 player. One of the most unbalancing issues in sevens is the lack of reserves, where a lucky first hit can destroy the game for good.
The freak rule is not intended for a bb7 kind of way. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:09 |
|
| Kalimar wrote: |
@Garion: the problem with your suggested changes is, that they are very interdependent. Your Sneaky Git option only makes sense if you bring the eye back, for instance. Which is no small change in itself (and not easily coded). |
Yup I totally get that, I'm just throwing it out there  . Though the second part shouldn't be too hard, the subtracting -1 from the secret weapon roll result. As the secret weapon rolls have been added already. Which i am soooooo happy about  |
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:10 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | zakatan wrote: | | i don't understand the sneaky git to KO option. Fluff-wise doesn't make any sense at all. |
lol, exactly my feeling on the matter, though these are the changes that galak and double skulls gave there backing too. Its part of plasmoids ntbb stuff. prefer my version of sneaky git tbh, but then I would lol. |
How is that not sneaky? Ref tells you to take a hike, but you hide away in the KO box instead, waiting until he loses track of you, and you sneak back onto the bench (4+ roll to sneak back instead of actually recover).
I love it. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:16 |
|
yup I love plasmoids sneaky git change. Very fluffy, very awesome. |
|
|
Kalimar
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:19 |
|
Do you hide behind the busty Bloodweiser Babes when sneaking back, then? 
One of my favourite changes is the Piling On player risking to hurt himself when jumping on his dropped opponent (roll a double on the re-rolled armor or injury and off to the KO box with you). Doesn't change the effect of the skill, but adds some risk. Thanks to BattleLore for this suggestion. |
Last edited by Kalimar on %b %06, %2012 - %14:%Jun; edited 2 times in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:20 |
|
I think she just distracts the ref with her assets lol. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:35 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | Kalimar wrote: | The option name might be a bit misleading as it is not only the MAXIMUM number of players but in fact the number of players per se that you need to place on the field. Just like the normal FFB setup rules, except the number can now be changed from the default 11. Is that really THAT confusing?
What in freak_in_a_frock suggests is something altogether different. And (in fact) something I don't think is a good idea. If I don't need to expose my players it changes the game a lot. The Secret Weapons problem can be minimized by taking the Penalty Roll option (like in LRB4) or Sneaky Git option (which send them to KO instead of ban them from the game altogether). |
If this is the case, I'm not sure how useful the bb 7 crew will find it. For me it's extremely useful, and the best implementation yet.
However bb7s main problem is the first game (getting around having 11 players). I think it will help them some (in that they won't have to do those horrible concessions and can play with just 7 on the pitch), but means more than 7 players will be used. Thoughts from the BB 7 crew would be good.
The freak optional rule, I don't think is too damaging (if used in the bb 7 sense), and wouldn't be implemented for many leagues. |
BB7 teams will be able to have reserves outside the playing area. That's the whole point of this modification. And I find it very interesting as a BB7 player. One of the most unbalancing issues in sevens is the lack of reserves, where a lucky first hit can destroy the game for good.
The freak rule is not intended for a bb7 kind of way. |
This is interesting. I thought that having only 7 players was part of the fluff of 7s. Having reserves totally changes how 7s plays. |
|
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:40 |
|
Nice to see L getting some lurv.
One of the things I wanted to be able to do in my old LOTR league when adding skills to players was allowed, was to add some of the Handicap skills/traits to players, such as Iron Man for the bearer of the One Ring.
I don't recall the others right now. |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 14:53 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | zakatan wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | Kalimar wrote: | The option name might be a bit misleading as it is not only the MAXIMUM number of players but in fact the number of players per se that you need to place on the field. Just like the normal FFB setup rules, except the number can now be changed from the default 11. Is that really THAT confusing?
What in freak_in_a_frock suggests is something altogether different. And (in fact) something I don't think is a good idea. If I don't need to expose my players it changes the game a lot. The Secret Weapons problem can be minimized by taking the Penalty Roll option (like in LRB4) or Sneaky Git option (which send them to KO instead of ban them from the game altogether). |
If this is the case, I'm not sure how useful the bb 7 crew will find it. For me it's extremely useful, and the best implementation yet.
However bb7s main problem is the first game (getting around having 11 players). I think it will help them some (in that they won't have to do those horrible concessions and can play with just 7 on the pitch), but means more than 7 players will be used. Thoughts from the BB 7 crew would be good.
The freak optional rule, I don't think is too damaging (if used in the bb 7 sense), and wouldn't be implemented for many leagues. |
BB7 teams will be able to have reserves outside the playing area. That's the whole point of this modification. And I find it very interesting as a BB7 player. One of the most unbalancing issues in sevens is the lack of reserves, where a lucky first hit can destroy the game for good.
The freak rule is not intended for a bb7 kind of way. |
This is interesting. I thought that having only 7 players was part of the fluff of 7s. Having reserves totally changes how 7s plays. |
Yes, it would change how 7s plays, as in, more people might actually play it again. |
_________________
 |
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2012 - 15:49 |
|
Sorry i made the point and then went to work.
I mean that it could be worth having the option to field less players than the maximum despite having a big enough bench to do so. For example:-
My opponent just scored in their turn 8 after receiving, leaving me with the obligatory turn 8 bash. I have 11 players, 2 of which have secret weapons. Obviously i would prefer to not let the weapons take to the field and be banned for the second half. By having a minimum level set at 9 this would be possible, 10 would mean i would have to field one of them or 11 would mean they all had to be fielded.
This used to be the case a LONG time ago in stunty. As long as the 3 men on the LoS were placed you didn't have to set up any more. It really helped with teams such as goblin cheaters and early snots. I wouldn't expect this rule to be used often, but it is probably still worth putting in. As I said though the minimum would always have to be at the same level of the LoS or above since otherwise you just wouldn't set up a LoS. |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
