| Poll |
| Should deaths and perms be limited to 1 of each per game (for each team) |
| Yes - this makes so much sense! |
|
7% |
[ 21 ] |
| I agree it should be done, but its not in the LRB so NO |
|
9% |
[ 26 ] |
| No way! its a stupid idea |
|
78% |
[ 217 ] |
| I like sitting on fence posts - i'm not sure |
|
4% |
[ 11 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 275 |
|
Molt
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 16:23 |
 
|
How about this for a solution:
RULE 1. Once 1 player on your team has been killed all later deaths to your team count as miss next game
RULE 2. Once 1 player on your team has been perminantly injured all later perminant injuries to your team count as miss next game.
This means the worst a team can suffer from a single game is 1 death and 1 perminant injury.
---
Plus points:
1. Dastardly teams that wish to foul will be able to do so with impunity.
2. Basher teams won't suffer the guilt of having completely destroyed an opponents favorite team, when all they were seeking was SPP for casualties.
3. You can still have the satisfation of filling your opponents dug out
4. Woodies will be see their teams survive higher than TR200!
5. There will still be players killed and injured, and teams can will still be destroyed over a number of games, it just won't all happen in the space of half an hour.
6. Apocatharys will still be valuable eg "do i reroll the niggle i recieved in turn 1, or keep the apoc it incase my blitzer gets killed later?"
---
Negative points:
1. 'Not realistic' - but its a fantasy board game!
2. There will be no more 'most deaths in a single game' statistic to display on the site.
3. Some players may like having brutal brawls with other bashing teams where both sides limp away leaving half their players in bloodly messes in the dugouts
---
Conclusion:
Let the people speak! Have I missed something important? I think the positives far outway the negatives, and would make the game more fun for all! |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 16:26 |
|
Something tells me "the people" will scream "No way! its a stupid idea" in droves. |
_________________
 |
|
Wossel
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 16:28 |
|
This could make elf teams play games vs dwarves or chaos in high tr...
But i still voted no |
|
|
Molt
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 16:34 |
|
Well that wasn't my most popular suggestion ever. What mystifies me is WHY? |
|
|
LordBhorak
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 16:38 |
|
It should be made as an optional choice. So if both coaches agree, then there could be only 1 kill & 1 SI, otherwise normal rules apply. This way the woodies could play against heavy bashing teams and the brawlers could still try to destroy the opposing team completely.
And do not come screaming to me that "That's unfair, if in some games ppl can get killed and in some they cant'!", because it's optional. You can choose which mode you prefer.
One thing though.... if that kind of rule would apply, then the games where players cannot be killed (you know what I mean) would only give 1SP for 1 cas, cause the cas in that game would be as hard as in the normal game.
Anyone with me on this one? |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 16:40 |
|
Because 1 RIP or niggle a game will retire any elf team eventually.
Plus it is stupid and makes no sense. |
|
|
Molt
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 17:00 |
|
Thats assuming they suffered 1 rip or niggle a game - the idea wasn't to guarantee injuries, just impose an upper limit on them. The elf team would get enough winnings to be able to replace lost players.
On the second point I have to admit I can't think of a reason/scenario that would make it make sense, other than some kind of off pitch intensive care unit. |
|
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 18:54 |
|
| LordBhorak wrote: | It should be made as an optional choice. So if both coaches agree, then there could be only 1 kill & 1 SI, otherwise normal rules apply. This way the woodies could play against heavy bashing teams and the brawlers could still try to destroy the opposing team completely.
And do not come screaming to me that "That's unfair, if in some games ppl can get killed and in some they cant'!", because it's optional. You can choose which mode you prefer.
One thing though.... if that kind of rule would apply, then the games where players cannot be killed (you know what I mean) would only give 1SP for 1 cas, cause the cas in that game would be as hard as in the normal game.
Anyone with me on this one? |
I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here? First of all there is a wee rule on Fumbbl about making pre-match agreements, and how that is massive cheating. I won't go any further into that point, search a thread about 'agreeing not to foul' for more info.
Are you talking about a new league or division or something? Because there would be no fair way to mix teams that choose to play like this (all both of them) with ones that do not.
Of course I'm suer many bashy teams would gladly give up 50% of their main source of SPP...in exchange for TD's only counting as 1 SPP as well, since (in theory) AG teams will be able to score much more often with more well developed players available every match.
Listen to Britnoth anyhow - 1 RIP a game will be worse for an elf team in the long run than 1 game with 3 RIPs at one go, followed by some softer matches to recover...and don't you think that casualties in general would be much more common if AV 7 teams are encouraged to play bashy teams more often? |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 19:09 |
|
Hmmm....
Well its an interesting idea but i'm afraid im going to have to be a fence sitter on this one.
Flavour, realism and considering the current efforts to restrich higher TR teams further its an immensly stupid suggestion.
On the other hand it means less turning games down based on casualty rates ( I think people have missed the point of this suggestion by assuming there WILL be one RIP per game). Also it makes the game a bit more fun since your favourite players are less likely to take a dirt nap.
It may also make it easyr for new players to learn the game as they are more likely to have a full team compliment to play with (and don't give up in disgust after playing that dwarf team).
I'm kind of leaning towards dismissing it but maybe with a few tweaks it could be a good idea. |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
Delta
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 19:24 |
|
Sorry but even that won't make me play any of my Elves against Dwarves.
I just don't like playing them. I find them tedious and boring.
And it's not down to a fear of bashing. I have on occasions happily played Khemri / Necro's / Chaos. (Although I will tend to avoid a team kitted out with multiple Claw/RSC/DP - my choice). |
_________________
Cain is for Charlie and Delta is for Cain |
|
Lamoron
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 22:31 |
|
In our tabletop group, we are currently considering a rule for "friendly" matches.
When soccer teams play friendly matches, they seldomly "go at it" as hard as in the finals of the world championship, so we are about to playtest a rule, allowing the coaches to "pull their punches".
The effect of this, is to treat any injury as "Badly Hurt" (1-5) or "Serious Injury" (6), because the purpouse of the game really isn't to maim the other team, but to have a friendly training match. (But accidents do happen).
This rule ofcourse can be seen as soft, wussy or whatever names you can find, and in the long run it will probably cause the AG teams to have a major superiority, but sometimes you just tire of the look on other peoples faces, when their star player eats it once again.
Excuse the spelling, I'm drunk as a skunk. |
|
|
Bruno
Joined: Sep 21, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 22:42 |
|
Well, the idea has some merit. Now, there isnt any good way to get it to make sense except the mages of the cabal network interfering, but i wont go into that one.
With such a rule i wouldnt hesitate to play skavens and such vs bashy teams, so in a way the rude turndowns of games in the chat would get lower, thus helping remove the fact of that bashy teams only gets to play bashy etc.
So, a good idea, but how to make it happen... well well.
And yes, I know, this is not the "proper" place to talk about it, go to talkbloodbowl etc...  |
|
|
Sinner
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 23:01 |
|
even if I said that often enough: I play Elves (as a coach) and I do not cherrypick my opponents (okay I deny a clawheavy chaos from time to time, but only because I don't want to play 3 of them in a row) and my dark elves went to 300 rating , back to 180 up to 300 and are currently at 140ish (always sad to loose 300 SPP in one game - three players though). No victory is sweeter as beating an opponent that tries to pulp your team. Even if I loose some players... so what? It's fun and it's only pixels. Of course it's sad to see an emerging star die, but you get the chance to rebuild. Build up new players that you would have never seen otherwise. I do not like evading bashers with elves, but I can understand ppl that do, but in the end it all boils down to dice. If the elves roll 10+ all the time for armour and the claw/ rsc guild rolls snakes for armour... well not much of a game there
Cheers
PS: Stupid idea btw  |
_________________
Sinner
Darkie's Dreams - successfully cherrypicking any race, any coach, any rating, any number of DP since 20/09/2003 ... and still winning! |
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 23:30 |
|
I also think it's a silly idea. AS has been said, the injuries you suggest still cause plenty of pain, and would in no way encourage most of the elf teams to play the bashier teams. There is also the perception among them that only elf bowl is fun, and therefore playing against Dwarfs is boring. You can't escape these things, you just have to accept them as part of an open league. Most dodgy teams will choose not to play a more dangerous team CAS wise. This is one of the many reasons why open blood bowl is different to normal blood bowl. If you really wish to get back to normal, try playing in one of the many leagues people have setup on here. |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs |
|
Tymless
Joined: Jul 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2004 - 23:54 |
|
I have an idea, lets make the agility teams cheaper and take away some move and agility and give them some more armor the maybe they can live more.
Or u could just play a bashier team if u dont like dying. Its your choice to play agility teams not my choice to have u play agility teams. I play elves and its expected to runaway or die in a game. They have less armor and more deaths to balance their teams not just to give them the chance to score more. I mean jez' whats next, the lets stop blocking thread. Oh wait I've seen that one.
I mean come on here. Lets change it to elf bowl and not play bashy teams anymore. I guess playing elves vs bashers is not good. Hmmm I seem to have left my balls somewhere else. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
