Talk Fantasy Football

Da_Great_MC wrote:I am a big boy (experience, tournament victories, NAF rankings...).
I have played with all the big toys... and I am growing tired of doing so.
I'd like to play with a smaller toy. But not if this means I am letting my team down. I think a lot of people feel this way.

I think they don't. Impasse.

If you want to use Halflings/Slann whatever, more power to you. There are hundreds of tournaments around the world where you can do so and nobody is stopping you. If there are 20 tournaments you could go to, use Underworld at the other 19. If you want the challenge, why do you need to force other people into using a weaker race too? Doesn't that defeat the object? "I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back ... but only if you have the same limitation." But regardless, the Eurobowl is the one tournament where it is most (indeed utterly) inappropriate to force people to use a weaker race. I don't mind a minor leg up, in fact I developed a skill system for my own tournament that is designed to balance the races out a little.

But that is not Eurobowl.

Eurobowl is the best coaches playing their best race and facing off on behalf of their country. Maybe it didn't start that way. But that is what it is now.

Joemanji wrote:

Da_Great_MC wrote:I am a big boy (experience, tournament victories, NAF rankings...).
I have played with all the big toys... and I am growing tired of doing so.
I'd like to play with a smaller toy. But not if this means I am letting my team down. I think a lot of people feel this way.

I think they don't. Impasse.

If you want to use Halflings/Slann whatever, more power to you. There are hundreds of tournaments around the world where you can do so and nobody is stopping you. If there are 20 tournaments you could go to, use Underworld at the other 19. If you want the challenge, why do you need to force other people into using a weaker race too? Doesn't that defeat the object? "I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back ... but only if you have the same limitation." But regardless, the Eurobowl is the one tournament where it is most (indeed utterly) inappropriate to force people to use a weaker race. I don't mind a minor leg up, in fact I developed a skill system for my own tournament that is designed to balance the races out a little.

But that is not Eurobowl.

Eurobowl is the best coaches playing their best race and facing off on behalf of their country. Maybe it didn't start that way. But that is what it is now.

I nearly agree 100% with that statement.
a) it is the wrong tourney to force anyone to use a weaker race.
b) it is the best coaches (more or less) with strong teams.

However, and I might have misunderstood you here?, I do agree with those that have a claim for a wider spread of races at the EB. (where I think you feel it don´t belong there)

Joemanji wrote:But regardless, the Eurobowl is the one tournament where it is most (indeed utterly) inappropriate to force people to use a weaker race.

You can easily turn this one around: "Eurobowl "forces" people to use a tier 1 team, because they'll be letting their team down if they don't.

I like the extra starting skills for lower tier teams, I believe it's a step in the right direction. And I will obviously accept the rules as they are. But I support the idea where countries can't bring 8 top tier teams.

As this is a team tournament then as long as all sides have the same options/restrictions then it is still competitive. A tournament that featured teams of 4 each of which had Zons, Undead, Wood Elves and Orcs would be just as competitive as one that had all teams consisting of Flings, gobbos, vamps and Ogres.

I think there is a real danger that Bloodbowl could go down the hardcore tourney scene such as we have with 40K and Fantasy, where you have a massive choice of armies and units but only a certain few armies and specific builds are able to compete. Whilst this may seem fine as long as everyone knows what they are getting into the trouble is that this attitude tends to seep into local gaming and can really suck the fun out of the game.
Some tournaments try to counter this by including varied scenarios or comp scores that penalise the dull builds or even make players swap armies!

That’s why I like the idea of rewarding people for taking tier 2 or 3 races so it makes it an actual tactical decision. You have a much harder time winning games but if you do then you are given extra points.

Otherwise there is little point in even including some races and you may as well give each team a list of the 12 top races and tell them to pick 8 from it.

We’re lucky in the UK scene that we have (what feels like) an event every weekend. We’re perhaps luckier still that they (almost) all have weird and / or wonderful rulesets, and if you look back across the calendar, perhaps every race has been competitive at one stage (be that by clever rules narrowing the tiers or awarding extra points for winning with lower tier teams). The Flame Bowl last year, for example, was a good one for lesser teams gathering points in a team environment, so Sillysod took Underworld and won the tournament (well – it was a team event, he won the individual prize) with 3/3/0 whereas Leon was third with CDs on 5/0/1? Or 5/1/0, can’t remember. At Cam Dub a fortnight ago, Ogres lost out on the individual prize by mere bonus tiebreakers. Anything can happen. 

That’s all fine and dandy. Such events are great fun. With the exception of the NAF Championship, I can’t think of a single event on domestic soil that was a straight ‘skill per game’ kind of affair. Therefore, I think the fear of BB turning into Warhammer or 40k with only a few races ever played is presently entirely unfounded. At least in this country, I’m not up enough on my Euro events to tell you if that is a fear others may have. I actually miss traditional style events a bit, the status quo has shifted so far it would be nice to be ‘comfortable’ at least a couple more weekends in the year that I’d not been presented with some bonkers ruleset and I knew what was best! 

And that is kind of my main issue with the EB getting too freaky on us. It’s not a normal tournament, we shouldn’t be pouring over the rules and deciding whether Khemri get enough of a leg up to cope with Amazons. I don’t like the idea of Halflings getting 20% more TV to make them ‘competitive’ and getting bummed by a Wizard or some other gimmick inducement. EB is supposed to be (well ‘supposed’ is in the eye of the beholder, I guess) a peak of competitiveness – so farting around with what is competitive to the point where picking the right combination of teams before time is as important as playing well when you actually get there is going to dilute the experience. I thought last time's rules were perfect in their simplicity, and we still had, what, 15 races come (iirc?), even though through that simplicity we all instinctively 'knew' what was right.

If you are lucky enough to have attended multiple Eurobowls such that the ‘traditional’ 10-12 teams lessen the experience by being ‘same old, same old’, I’d suggest to you that race variety isn’t the point of your attendance. You’ve 51 other weeks of the year to be a bit fruity and not ‘let anybody down’. If I had my way (slight exaggeration to prove a point, perhaps), we’d all rock up with 13 Human Linemen and slug it out with exactly the same, megaboring tools. Whilst that is a bit silly, I’d rather that than go for some ruleset that’s really been only tested a limited number of times and only the players that tested it really understand it’s nooks and crannies and get a slight legup that way. I understand the points of those that like a bit of variety, but on this specific (important) weekend, it’s not for me.  

for me as a new coach to the Eurobowl thing with Team Wales, were hoping to have our first outing this coming event. I cant wait to lock horns with some of the best coaches out there. I want to try and pick a side thats not only going to be competative but also bring the best out in my play. Personally im not a fan of bash and rather the flair play. I would rather take a Dark Elf team to undead. Others can use both equally and will pick Undead as the stronger side.

Im fortunate enough to get to play some real good coaches at each event I attend, be it Lycos, Purplegoo or Podfrey and want nothing more that to play these guys when they have a competative team. If i can get a result out of Podfrey when he plays his Dwarfs or Lycos with Skaven it means more to me than if they are using Halflings. For me the Eurobowl brings just this. I am testing myself against those who are wanting to do the same.

Like PGoo said if I want to play a quirkey side or try a new side out I can look at the rule sets floating about and think that one is a good place to try out xxx side.

Topper wrote:I nearly agree 100% with that statement.
a) it is the wrong tourney to force anyone to use a weaker race.
b) it is the best coaches (more or less) with strong teams.

However, and I might have misunderstood you here?, I do agree with those that have a claim for a wider spread of races at the EB. (where I think you feel it don´t belong there)

I don't mind what people bring at all. I am absolutely opposed to there being quotas or restrictions on what races nations can bring. I'm also not that keen on extra incentives for weaker races, even to the extent of one extra skill. Mostly because it hasn't been tested how much of an affect this will have in a Eurobowl environment. But if people still want to bring Halflings, that's cool. But it is on the understanding that allowances will not be made for them.

The fact that I personally would prefer everyone to use the 'best' races is just that, a preference. I absolutely do not want to impose or even slightly influence the decision of any other coach as to what race they use. And I accept that different nations will pick a different 'best' 8 races. England didn't take Orcs in 2010 for example. But my wish not to influence what race a coach pick extends to not encouraging them to take something bonkers too.

I suppose I agree with Purplegoo here. If I turned up to Eurobowl and faced something bonkers (for example Pro Elves with a Wizard because they had 100K extra to spend) I would be very unhappy indeed. That isn't what Eurobowl is for IMO. We are indeed spoiled in England having so many tournaments with so many different rules, and at Eurobowl I just want 'normal' Blood Bowl.

Da_Great_MC wrote:

Joemanji wrote:But regardless, the Eurobowl is the one tournament where it is most (indeed utterly) inappropriate to force people to use a weaker race.

You can easily turn this one around: "Eurobowl "forces" people to use a tier 1 team, because they'll be letting their team down if they don't.

Straw man argument that. There is a vast difference between a quota literally forcing someone to use a weaker race, and minor peer pressure not to take a weaker race because you'll let your mates down.

Joemanji wrote:

Topper wrote: We are indeed spoiled in England having so many tournaments with so many different rules, and at Eurobowl I just want 'normal' Blood Bowl.

But Joe, it isn't normal bloodbowl anyhow... hmmm i'm repeating myself. It seems to me that you and purple are interested in min-maxing under the ruleset proposed last year. The tournament rules aren't cut in stone as it is anyways, getting batches of skills instead of 1 each game does favor some teams also, as does starting with 1.1k...

A better way would be to make teams cost a certain number of points and then give each team a budget. e.g. Tier 0 costs 3 points, Tier 1 costs 2 points, tier 2 costs 1 point, tier 4 costs 0, each team can spend up to 16 points on their eight teams. Or some sort of system like that.

+1

jj wrote:

A better way would be to make teams cost a certain number of points and then give each team a budget. e.g. Tier 0 costs 3 points, Tier 1 costs 2 points, tier 2 costs 1 point, tier 4 costs 0, each team can spend up to 16 points on their eight teams. Or some sort of system like that.

+1

-1, does not make the actual games any fairer.

Minmaxing?! *Spits*

Now we really are off topic.

@ Joe

I don't mind what people bring at all. I am absolutely opposed to there being quotas or restrictions on what races nations can bring. I'm also not that keen on extra incentives for weaker races, even to the extent of one extra skill. Mostly because it hasn't been tested how much of an affect this will have in a Eurobowl environment. But if people still want to bring Halflings, that's cool. But it is on the understanding that allowances will not be made for them.

Well let me stress that these rules have been used many, many times in DK - so they are tested indeed.
We also published our idea of these rules to let you guys (and everyone else) to test them and they have been out here for a long time now. I think you should do so. That would show a) actual interest in finding the best ruleset b) arguments for and against based on experience rather than personal feelings.
It is likely that yo will end up feeling that the present is the best but then I believe you´re real life experience will give you some examples of what works and what doesn´t..

But Joe, it isn't normal bloodbowl anyhow... hmmm i'm repeating myself. It seems to me that you and purple are interested in min-maxing under the ruleset proposed last year. The tournament rules aren't cut in stone as it is anyways, getting batches of skills instead of 1 each game does favor some teams also, as does starting with 1.1k...

As Tourach states here, the rules aren´t cut in stones. Whether you get 1 skill per game or in batches of 2 or 3 makes some teams more competitive than others.
The same goes for the TW allowed. Is it 1.000, 1.050, 1.100 or even 1.200? All are viable and calls for different races with different strenghts.
Also just remember last time where the captain were to move 2 teams forward and the other choosing who to play, then returns with 2 and vice verce.

I accept that this goes a bit further as it moves away from all teams getting exactly the same from the start.
However over the previous years the discussion has moved towards a way to include more races in the EB.
Maybe mostly amongst the captains probably (as we discuss the final ruleset every year) but still it has come up every time.

So I feel that at some time one change will come - and when it does it should be a good one. I understand that not everyone will like it for whatever reasons.
To me the best thing to do is to make more teams competitive - that way there will be more variety in the teams we start with.
Another road could be to induce a certain point cost for teams and giving each nation x points to spend.
This gives the captaincy a more influential position on the team as he decides who plays what - the weakness is that some coaches simply have better chances of doing well than others - not based on skill of building teams or tactical overview or even luck but simply on getting a worse team to start with.

Personally I am biased to our own suggestion... Shock...

Finally relating back to Tourach we are min/maxing at the EB/WC etc. and God bless on that.
We are taking the strongest teams and the strongest coaches squaring off for a truly magnificent tourney - but the aim is to make the best and most "fair" possible set up for everyone under these circumstances.

And enjoying a good productive debate as this one.

[Unity makes strong, but also blind - Sigmund Graff]

something im surprised no one has touched on,

should teams take different tiered teams it could potentially change nothing for tier 1 players.

example being if one team takes Undead, wood elfs as the 2 Tier 1 teams it is highly probable these 2 teams will hold Rank 1 and 2 in the team.

should the other side take Dwarf and skaven and other lower tier teams, again the probability is they will top the teams ranking.

this means the undead player will still be facing Tier 1 teams as does the Wood elf or Dwarf.

nothing much changes, not throw in to the mix a Tier 2 side like Pro Elfs, the get a good win or two under their belt and find them selves facing a Tier 1 side like Undead or Wood Elfs, they are considered down a Tier to start. this is an uphill game.

on the other side of the coin those Dwarfs lose first game and end up playing a Tier 3 side that also lost on the same score line... Halflings...

we all know how that will end.

I hope i make sence.

Andy

My personal experience of Eurobowl:

I've attended 4 Eurobowls. Every time the rules have been TR110, vanilla skills, no bonuses for weaker teams. I’ve always found Eurobowl an amazing experience and never found the games in the slightest boring – win, draw or lose. Also I’ve never heard any opponents or other players complain that the competition is boring. It’s been quite the opposite. The issue of tiering races at Eurobowl seems to crop up on forum discussions now and then, but I’ve never heard it debated at the tournament by the people who have attended.

Those who have been part of Eurobowl (from the beginning onward) tend to be very passionate about what they believe Eurobowl ‘is’ or ‘should be’. Whether it’s points scoring, the draw, national makeup of the teams etc., people always have strong opinions.

I think you might find resistance to radical change amongst lots of the regular Eurobowlers. Certainly this is where I would place myself. Change in moderation is nice, but throwing out a good thing unnecessarily would be unwise IMO. Flagship (if I can use the word flagship, too late I did!) tournaments like Eurobowl shouldn’t be tinkered with too much IMO. For me the same applies to NAFWC, the majors etc. Keep them more-or-less as they are; simplicity and consistency is what’s required.


My personal thoughts on the rules set the Danes have proposed:

So we’re talking about an extra skill for tier 2, and an extra couple of skills for tier 3? Just to make sure I’ve not missed something? Sounds like a subtle enough bonus that won’t change the flavour of the event dramatically and will encourage a touch of gentle variation. Like it! Provided the captain’s vote to accept the new change – assuming the same process is used as last time. Anything more and personally I’d not be so sure…


NAF Tournament Director hat on:

Slight topic shift… I’ll be publishing a new document for NAF Tournament Approval. Should Eurobowl wish to be NAF supported and NAF ranked (and we would very much like to support it!), then there are a few common sense principles which affect ‘selection-based’ or ‘nation vs. nation’ events. It’ll be up on the NAF site very soon for the perusal of the tournament organisers.

My personal thoughts on the rules set the Danes have proposed:

So we’re talking about an extra skill for tier 2, and an extra couple of skills for tier 3? Just to make sure I’ve not missed something? Sounds like a subtle enough bonus that won’t change the flavour of the event dramatically and will encourage a touch of gentle variation. Like it! Provided the captain’s vote to accept the new change – assuming the same process is used as last time. Anything more and personally I’d not be so sure…

Exactly as you have understood it yes Pippy - and obviously the captains need to accept the final ruleset as it is when put forward as always.
This is a discussion fora for pros and cons of this suggestion.