84 coaches online • Server time: 16:21
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Playerturns - this s...goto Post CPOMB - Nerfsgoto Post Khemri Premier Leagu...
 
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
VoodooMike



Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 04:07 Reply with quote Back to top

plasmoid wrote:
I thought it was important enough to try a long shot - I figure anything an a computer can be broken by someone in principle. Like Cyanide. And FUMBBL.

It depends on whether or not the important things, like dice rolls, are client or server side on FUMBBL. They're certainly purely client side on Cyanide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say PBEM games don't use a central server or they wouldn't need to be played by email.

plasmoid wrote:
By the way nobody came clean. Does that mean that everybody cheated or no-one?

It means you're silly to think that cheaters have any interest in revealing themselves. Cheaters who will actually cheat in multiplayer typically want people to think they're winning because of their incredible skill - admitting they're not is pretty unlikely. At best you'll hear people say "well I tried it just to see if it worked, and it did... but my actual wins are due to skill..."

plasmoid wrote:
But the pbem tool has built in cheat detection measures. Perhaps installed after your conversations? And the code for both the pbem tool and the cheat detecter is encrypted and only known by 2 people, so I don't think we're spectacularly cheat-prone.

I see a lot of the non-programmers touting the security of things like obfuscation, but you really need to understand that obfuscation tries to make reverse engineering more difficult, but more importantly, reverse engineering is neither the only way, nor the easiest way to reproduce a function.

The only time you need to reverse engineer compiled functionality is when you really want to know how its done. If you don't care how its done then you can take the existing function and without knowing how it takes A and gives you B, transport the compiled version into your own program. On a technical level its a bit trickier than that, but not a lot... certainly nowhere near as much work as tracing through and then writing something to do the same process.

If a function relies on client-side security, then it is not secure. End of story.

Synn wrote:
Imagine how well received you and crew would be if you either:

1.) Consulted us when writing rules
2.) Played here

I don't say this to cast stones. It does need to be pointed out.

Or, more likely, have been shouted down much, much earlier Wink
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 04:35 Reply with quote Back to top

yeah gotta admit, I tried playing BloodBowl in 4 other online communities (not including cyanide or pbem) before I found fumbbl, and I ended up leaving all of them (and any other games I was playing in those communities) due to cheating; and 3 of these communities DID have server side dice rolls that were open to the public in order to try to claim no one could cheat, and yet I still caught people cheating. So, to find a place where that never happens is quite magnificent.
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006
Location: Cambridge, England

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 08:02 Reply with quote Back to top

plasmoid wrote:
I wasn't trying to "find fault". I almost feel like I should apologize. Wow, you're good at this Very Happy

The MBBL is slowly bleeding out. The Cyanide game and FUMBBL switching to LRB6 are probably the main reasons.
Dying out sucks.
Bad press in that situation sucks extra hard.
Hence the sensitive response.


Well, I'm sad to hear that, even if it isn't my thing.

Big hugs all around!

Synn wrote:
Imagine how well received you and crew would be if you either:

1.) Consulted us when writing rules
__Synn


Putting aside the use of PBeM, I can't imagine if how, given the brief 'revise the rules for Table Top' I would have gone about 'consulting' FUMBBL for LRB's 5 and 6 in the BBRC's shoes.

I don't think there can be a bigger fan of this site or the coaches therein than me; but how many that play here have an interest in / play TT? At the stage the rules were written, how many of that number weren't already discussing LRB5 elsewhere where TT guys hang out (TFF is useless now, but was probably where all of this went on then)?

It seems 'consulting' us took the form of reviewing our data from 4 -> 5. A 100 page thread of 100 ideas wouldn't really have been productive, as recent rules chat has shown. Internet poll? Yuck. Representation? How would we / they choose?! Testing? With what? SkiJunkie was hardly prolific at that time. If we'd pushed for a client, no doubt we wouldn't have met deadline, Kalimar does sterling work, but we're 18 months in without big things.

In the future, it would be impossible to have that brief of TT only again. The number of games played per day on the official BB product online, whilst rubbish, is too high to revise rules only for TT. At that time, a new BBRC would have to have internet representation, even if TT remained (rightly) it's major concern.

If that time ever comes, I'm with you. Retrospectively, I think the criticism is harsh.

_________________
Waterbowl FTW.

British or British based? Check out the White Isle League!
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 09:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Pgoo, Mike and Synn,

Synn:
>Imagine how well received you and crew would be if you either:
>1.) Consulted us when writing rules
If you mean back in the vault days, anyone could join the discussion. A year in (or so) the discussion prerequisite became actual play (not just theorybowl - there had been lots of that by then Wink) and as FUMBBL hadn't switched, making actual experience scarce.

If you mean the NTBB rules, I kind of did. I posted a thread a 8 months ago. I got a 14 page storm for it. But I got a few lines of feedback, and some if it caused changes to the NTBB rules.

>2.) Played here
I play BB. Does that count? Wink
But seriously, I was just trying to think of places to find people that might like discussing BB. Even house rules. I meant no offence posting here.

Mike:
You're right. I have no knowledge of how stuff works. Which is why I, as I said, I figure pretty much anything on a computer can be wrecked by someone dedicated enough. I'm sure you could mess up pbem if you wanted. Probably FUMBBL too.

I suppose I trust 2 things:
1) MBBL is not a huge deal. Being big there doesn't ammount to a lot, so cheating there seems a bit weird to me. But apparantly, some people will. I know, because we've busted a few over the years.
2) The Cheat detection program is a separate program that only I have. Nobody else has access, and it hasn't been announced how it works. While it is surely breakable like anything else, it will catch the casual cheater and act as a general deterrent.

>It means you're silly to think that cheaters have any interest in revealing themselves.
IMO, long shots can be silly Smile
I was appealing not necessarily to the ethics of the cheaters, but to their self interest. The original announcement was that the MBBL stats would be used as a fraction of the data pool used for LRB5/6 - so cheaters were encouraged to remove their games from the data pool, rather than hurt development of the game they love (even if they cheat at it).

Purplegoo:
Hugs Smile

Cheers
Martin

Edited by Purplegoo; hugs, but watch the language! Wink
bennyprofane



Joined: Sep 10, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 10:52 Reply with quote Back to top

as someone who's pretty much given up fumbbl due to a combination of the dreary CPOMB bash-reign and the slowing in development of the client, I'm pleasantly surprised by some of these changes. I think they'd make the game more appealing.

That said, a few of them don't quite add up to me. I'll outline my objections to the only ones I object to below:

- Piling on should reroll armour, not injury. It makes logical sense to see you've taken someone down but failed to hurt them, and THEN to jump and try to do some damage. The other way round requires too much convolution to make plausible.
This is the big one: I'd suggest plasmodia + co change this before they put their testing lock into place.

Then lesser stuff:
- I think claw being modified by MB would still be fine if PO was weakened.
- the Wardancer change gets rid of a really interesting positional to deal with in early games.
- Tomb Guardians should keep AV9 and decay: the latter fits the fluff perfectly - they're ancient, and if you can actually do them harm it makes sense to think of them disintegrating.
- also, since I don't think the narrowing of rosters is that big a deal, I'd go without all the reroll discounts at the low tiers.

But other than that, this is all pretty convincing. Even the Bretonians seem quite a viable addition: the wall-of-fend is an interesting tactical prospect.

As far as the merits of debating unofficial rule-updates goes, I like this particular set of proposals since they do a decent job of minimising the bash-dullardry that has made blackbox under LRB6 a pretty boring prospect. I also think that fumbbl's independence from games workshop might be nicely stressed by adopting an unofficial ruleset that would actually encourage more people who don't just like one style of play to stick around... win/win.
Romanowski



Joined: Jan 12, 2006

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 10:54 Reply with quote Back to top

sounds good
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 11:26 Reply with quote Back to top

VoodooMike wrote:

It depends on whether or not the important things, like dice rolls, are client or server side on FUMBBL. They're certainly purely client side on Cyanide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say PBEM games don't use a central server or they wouldn't need to be played by email.


Just as an FYI, the client is apparently designed as a dumb terminal. Everything involving calculation (barring the route pathing), is carried out and validated server side, with the client just sending instructions to roll dice and get the result back of the action.

That's how I got told when I asked about it a while ago, and there used to be some bugs that confirmed that (when the server and client got out of sync, your players would hop across the map, as your "local" move hadn't been uploaded).
VoodooMike



Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 21:12 Reply with quote Back to top

plasmoid wrote:
MBBL is not a huge deal. Being big there doesn't ammount to a lot, so cheating there seems a bit weird to me. But apparantly, some people will. I know, because we've busted a few over the years.

I'd be more surprised if people didn't cheat, given half a chance. We all pay great lip service to fair play and skill, but it's human nature to maximize personal benefit while minimizing invested resources, and cheating is a great way to do that in any situation. The penalties for cheating are simply a way to try to adjust people's cost/benefit analysis in favour of fair play without mistakenly assuming they have a personal investment in actually being fair.

Plasmoid wrote:
The Cheat detection program is a separate program that only I have. Nobody else has access, and it hasn't been announced how it works. While it is surely breakable like anything else, it will catch the casual cheater and act as a general deterrent.

In order for an external program to determine if a game involved cheating, data (ie, hashes of individual rolls, an encoded version of the initial seed, whatever) needs to be written by the client itself. In either case, relevant security data is on the client side... if its hashes of rolls, say, then the routine to hash the roll is in the client and can be duplicated. If its an initial seed, then the seed is client side and can be used for future roll prediction, and so on. That's why modern games use server-side calculation for everything important, and server-side validation for anything done client-side.

Plasmoid wrote:
was appealing not necessarily to the ethics of the cheaters, but to their self interest. The original announcement was that the MBBL stats would be used as a fraction of the data pool used for LRB5/6 - so cheaters were encouraged to remove their games from the data pool, rather than hurt development of the game they love (even if they cheat at it).

That's not really self-interest.. that's "for the good of everyone", and really, if they were interested in the common good, they wouldn't be secretly cheating.

Hitonagashi wrote:
Just as an FYI, the client is apparently designed as a dumb terminal. Everything involving calculation (barring the route pathing), is carried out and validated server side, with the client just sending instructions to roll dice and get the result back of the action.

Which is how multiplayer internet games should be handled. It's server-heavy, but it's the only way to ensure, with any reliability, that people aren't taking unfair advantage of one another (outside the rules of the game, of course).
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 23:06 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Mike,
by "self-interest" I meant that if cheater X enjoys playing Khemri, and end up skewing the stats so bad that Khemri gets nerfed, then cheater X kind of rains on his own parade.
Long shot, I know. And I have no problem trying something silly.

Thanks for the info,
Martin
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2012 - 22:41 Reply with quote Back to top

i all,
thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to see some very positive feedback. But I'm not blind to the negative.I know these rules aren't for everyone, and I'm fine with that. I'm not here to 'drive the thread along', nor to fight for a FUMBBL subdivision as that clearly isn't going to happen. That said I will do a round or two of replies and clarifications. Just to explain my position.

Beerox said:
Quote:
NTBB has been changing constantly and sometimes drastically which (amongst other things) makes me question its merit. [snip] Publish it when its proven to work well.

I think I've been fairly up front about this being a work in progress up until this point - for example I've been collecting feedback from a playtest tournament. I announced a version 8 months ago, listened to feedback, kicked around a few ideas, then announced/published the 2012 version. I've made 1 change to the 2012 version since the announcement - and only because it was agreeing with Ian and Tom about the last thing on the CRP+ list.significant to miss.

The point of announcing/publishing anything short of the finished version was/is to gather feedback and potential playtesting. I'm proud to say that a NZ league has picked these up and will give them a whirl, so I have no regrets on that account. I also made a change to NTBB (ditched dryads from the halfling roster) based on the last round of feedback given here, so I think announcing before finalizing was the right move.

I know Purplegoo expects me keep changing things, but all I can say is that we're in a different stage of the process now. I'll be happy to take bets. Both the NZ league and Playtest tournament 2 will run into 2013. And come 2013 I'll be hoping to require no more changes. Indeed I'll only change stuff that absolutely positively doesn't work.

Purplegoo said:
Quote:
The only thing that gets under my skin is when he wheels out statistics from local TT leagues or PBEM.

I'll assume this isn't a compulsive dig at the vault process - but your vision of what the remaining NTBB process will be like. Well, I can assure you that the evaluation will not be statistics driven. I'm aware of concepts like significance, skill and luck, and I won't be reading anything into a sample size that small. What I'll be doing is listen to feedback.

Besides, I have no super specific goals in mind. I'll be happy to bring up the bottom and rein in the front runners. So there's no need to keep fiddling.

Purplegoo said:
Quote:
Nerf anything, the target only moves. This madness needs cutting at source.

Yes, there will always be a top team. I hope you agree that it makes a difference by how large a margin said team is better than the rest.

Garion has brought up some fluff/realism concerns.
I do maintain that when I made the changes I had the fluff in mind. And I also think that the realism complaints are a little contrived. We're playing a turn based sports game after all. Turns are unrealistic. So are a million other things in the game.
That being said, things shouldn't be too counter-intuitive, naturally.

Garion said:
Quote:
The sneaky git change - changing a worthless skill (sneaky git) in to a skill that may have worth is a good idea. But this change makes no sense what so ever from a fluff perspective? [snip] - why would you ever get sent to the Ko box???


"Sneaky Git (Agility): The player is a sneaky silver tongued git. He'll argue the call, get the referee drunk, don a disguise or just plain sneak back onto the pitch - anything to get back to the game after being sent off for an infringement. To represent this, whenever a Sneaky Git is sent off by the Referee (including for carrying a Secret Weapon) he is sent to the K.O. box of the dug-out, and may recover in the normal manner."

Garion said:
Quote:
Garion: Also the PO change makes no sense fluff wise, the opponent gets knocked over and your player can't bring him self to Pile On if they havent broken their armour?

I think this is more realistic than LRB4, where striking a guy on the chin stunning him would mysteriously prevent you from piling on. At least a guy who's armor is unbroken could fight back when you tried to pile onto him for an armor reroll.

"Pile On (Strength): The player adept at landing a second blow on a player who is already incapitated. The player may use this skill after he has made a block as part of one of his Block or Blitz Actions , but only if the Pile On player has just made an injury roll and is currently standing adjacent to the victim. You may re-roll Injury roll for the victim. The Pile On player is Placed Prone in his own square -- it is assumed that he rolls back there after flattening his opponent (do not make an Armour roll for him as he has been cushioned by the other player! ). Pile On does not cause a turnover unless the Pile On player is carrying the ball. Pile On cannot be used with the Stab or Chainsaw skills."

The change to Pile On and Claw shaves about one 5th off the power of the kill-stack.
IMO a very significant drop.

Purplegoo said:
Quote:
Making it, say, 5% better or worse is neither here nor there. If you don't want it to be a gore engine, you replace it with another mechanic.

As stated, the effect is quite substantial. But we did replace some of the lost gore with another, more democratic, source of gore: Buffed fouling.

The +1 across the board to fouling helps. But I think the return of dedicated foulers in the shape of the SG player will put fouling back on the map... Though nowhere near the level of the days of Must Hunt The DP - Game Within the Game.

I think new SG will appeal to Secret Weapons, teams with expensive linemen (who rarely foul), teams with A-access linemen, teams who often find themselves short on players (and therefore can't afford to foul)... and the dedicated fouler who is a TV investment that you don't really want to see sent off for the rest of the game.

Final general objection is that especially the roster changes are unfluffy, and will make the game bland.
As for un-fluffy, like I said, I tried to stay true to the feel of the teams. And I don't see how a 3rd troll, a slayer who is genuinely suicidal, or a wardancer who is a slippery sucker in a different way than before, are un-fluffy.
As for blandness, that's just nonsense. And might I add that replacing totally generic run-of-the-mill starting skills (Mighty Blow, Dodge, Block) with unique ones (Grab, Fend, Juggernaut) is not moving the game towards 'everybody is 6338'. Quite the opposite actually.

In closing, 3 teams were brought up in discussion:
Khemri first:
The_Cursed_one said:
Quote:
khemri still suck

While Garion said:
Quote:
giving tgs BT is just madness

With one coach saying 'sucks' and the other saying 'broken', I'm guessing the truth is somewhere in-between.

Garion, Beerox and The_Cursed_One all claimed that Mummies and Tomb Guardians are basically the same, after all "khemrians of high rank were MUMMIFIED"
But they're not the same. Different statlines. Different names. Tomb Kings are Mummies. Tomb Guardians are not. If anybody can be bothered to go to the fluff, then "The Tomb Guard are the partially mummified remains of the king's elite guard."

In the case of the Wood Elf Wardancer, Beerox said:
Quote:
Fend on Wardancer instead of Dodge..? Guy who though its "small nerf" clearly doesn't play WE.

And the guy who thinks starting wood elfs are just fine probably does Cool
I'm siding with Carnis on this. A strong wood elf coach has more than one way to rome. And with bash going down a notch, those Blodging Leaping buggers will be even harder to put in the ground.

Finally, JimmyFantastic and BooAhl both figured Amazon were now even more broken.
Now, I'm not an accomplished amazon coach, so I consulted others on this - and I find it interesting that you guys are the first to bring this up. I'm thinking lack of early blodge and ruined synergy with guard is a big blow.
Only thing I can imagine that you might be thinking of is the minmaxed all linechick team.
I think that's purely a TV-matching problem. One among many.

Cheers all, and thanks for reading,
Martin
Beerox



Joined: Feb 14, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 04:25 Reply with quote Back to top

plasmoid wrote:
...I think I've been fairly up front about this being a work in progress up until this point - for example I've been collecting feedback from a playtest tournament. I announced a version 8 months ago, listened to feedback, kicked around a few ideas, then announced/published the 2012 version. I've made 1 change to the 2012 version since the announcement - and only because it was agreeing with Ian and Tom about the last thing on the CRP+ list.significant to miss.



That is true, no question there. I have somewhat kept up with the evolution of changes, and they seem well-reasoned. I respect the testing of all this. The major nerf to clawpomb at a late stage (i.e. post-lock) just threw me for a loop. One would expect major stuff first, then tweaking. But hey who knows, guess that's what the testing is for.

Re: Khemri
I just don't see the need for change, other than perhaps removing decay. What's the problem with this team? (Well, other than the fact that I've been trying to process the fluff of Decay + Regen on the same player for some time now Confused )

Re: Wood Elves
I didn't say that Wink but I do support the WD as-is. Been dealing with that piece for a long time, it's engrained into the game as far as I'm concerned. Just used to it I suppose.

ps How did Chaos Dwarves escape the T0 wrath? Or perhaps I'm the only one to consider them a top team? Maybe I am...

Thanks for entertaining our thoughts.
PsyPhiGrad



Joined: Dec 22, 2007
Location: Winnipeg

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 05:55 Reply with quote Back to top

There's something fundamentally wrong with PO when you are safer to be lying on the ground then risk being Piled Upon. If people want to keep it as a bloody skill, there really ought to be a greater risk to using the skill. I would have thought the simplest change would be to make it "Illegal" like fouling. If you roll doubles for AV or Injury, your player gets ejected for engaging in an illegal tactic. Seems like a simple fix that's both fluffy and reasonably balanced. Have you considered this kind of change?
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 10:45 Reply with quote Back to top

My thoughts:

I like Plasmoid’s idea of narrowing the tiers, without trying to make them equal. I agree with his points for doing this. Back in the earlier editions, there were no team values as such. So it was away of handicapping. We don’t really need this crude method anymore.

Orc: blitzer pricing: Great, 10/10

Amazon changes: I’m not sure. All A access seems a bit too good, and is Wrestle a nerf? Maybe on S access players. I think I’d give them 4 A access players or 6 maybe (giving the throwers A access too) but not the hole team. Wrestle idea is worth trying. However diving catch on the catchers? I hate bolted on half worth skills like this. After rethinking, wouldn't Wrestle be an initial boost and a long term nerf? lowering my score to 2/10

Underworld: Hmmmm 10k discount on rrs means going into 5ks. This is a major rule change in itself. If using 5s, that’s a major change, and players could be priced better with it. Either use 5ks across the board or not at all. (unless you mean 10k from starting prices, in which case please be clearer) 3/10

Halflings: Dryads?! Not for me. Catchers and Linemen are a nod to 2nd edition and a good idea for an alternative roster. I like the idea of giving them the chef back and an allied position (elf lineman like pact seems a good idea) or a 3rd tree, this was the way to go in my opinion (if the aim is to narrow the tiers). 5/10

Ogres: Well it’s an improvement of course, but not so much. Difficult roster to balance though. (Also see my underworld comments). 6/10

Vamps: Yeah Thrall buff works. I think 6338 50k would still have been a buff though. The TS way troubles me fluff wise, why do 2 humans have 2 different stat lines? 8/10

Goblins: 3rd troll, great! RR pricing see underworld. I was disappointed to see the lrb 5 dps removed. I’d like to see them come back. 8/10

Humans: Yup this works for me. 9/10

Khemri: Seems a step in the right direction. I don’t have the experience to say whether it’s the perfect buff or not. 8/10

Dwarfs: Hmmmmm in some ways I like this and some I don’t. My first thoughts were slayers should start with block, then I thought why do they? What I think it would mean is that Dwarf coaches may only ever use 1, which is a shame. 4/10

Wood elves: Again I’m not sure. 5/10

Undead: Yeah I generally like this, but again I don’t see the need of ‘bolted’ on skills like grab. Yes to the G access, No to the Grab. 6/10

Rules.

Bashing.
1a. We all know PO needs a serious look at. So sure, why not try this idea. Maybe it isn’t nerfed enough, see below. 7/10
1b. The claw nerf is in association with PO, which it shouldn’t be. I don’t really see a problem with claw as a skill. 1/10

2/3. Yes I think fouling needs a buff. This is worth trying. I wouldn’t like to see fouling going back to the power it had in lrb 4 though. To me this looks more akin to 4 than CRP. Still without trying we won’t know. 6/10 for fouling 5/10 for sneaky git (sounds fun but I'm not sure)

4. Bank rule, yes I think we all know this is better than what we have now. 10/10

5. I really don’t see the point in Spiralling Expenses. Why do teams need to be capped at all? Higher starting point is good, but harsher SE is a terrible idea in my opinion. 2/10

6. I don’t have a strong opinion on the concession rule. If there is a problem with it, I wouldn’t look at it this way. I don’t really care either way though, or thing it’s an important point. 5/10

7. New wizard pricing seems a good idea. 8/10


So overall I rated the changes 118/200. This means generally I think the rules changes mentioned would be positive, but far from perfect (for me).

Summary for those that can’t be bothered to read the wall of text.

*Roster changes, generally good, with good reasoning.
*I dislike the bolted on skills and the 10k discounts need looking into.
*PO fix is needed, but why claw?
*Spiralling Expenses isn’t the way to go.


Last edited by harvestmouse on Mar 02, 2012 - 11:36; edited 1 time in total
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 11:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Carnis wrote:
Wreckage wrote:

6. like stated but maybe do sth like: roll a d6, on a 4-6 one player of the conceeding team leaves the team.

Already under the CRP system a player of the conceding team leaves on a 1-3 if he has 51+ spps, the roll is rolled separately for every player over 51+ spps. Were you unaware of this ?


Of course he is. His point I believe was that a player could leave anyway regardless of the SPP he has.

I like all Wreckages changes.

As for PBeM existing is a positive thing for BB, so I don't really understand some of the 'generic' anti comments. It appears there are problems though.

However, I think using experimental rosters there is a positive thing, and if they were to use these experimental rules, I would see that as positive and of interest as well.
plasmoid



Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2012 - 11:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Harvestmouse,
thanks for your thorough review. I'll reply to some of the points you've raised later today.
I just wanted to say straight away that the "10K off the rerolls" is meant to be 10K off the price printed on the rosters. So, I'm not introducing 5K costs.

Cheers
Martin
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits