Talk Fantasy Football

straume wrote: My personal opinion is that MB+PileOn makes less interesting games.

Block, Dodge, Leap + Strip ball makes for completely uninteresting games. It breaks the tacklezone system in blood bowl, its just a broken combo.

MB+pile on is not a problem - skill stack ofcourse can make for more bash meta like "chaos cup rules".


Mostly it seems problematic that NAF have its own house rules. Pile on have officially been removed as a skill. If one does not like that, then maybe one should lobby Andy & Co. for a better nerf for pile on or clawpomb.

harvestmouse wrote:2 threads discussing the same problem by the same author? That's a little confusing particularly as both threads are bound to spiral way out of the original idea.

Yep, I agree. I know Plasmoid was trying to have one thread for NAF tournaments and one as a house rule, but that wasn't going to happen (I did leave it on the hope it wouldn't spiral together, but...).

If you want to talk about PO in regards to NAF Tournaments ONLY, do so here.

If you're going to start on house-ruling stuff, go to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=44751
(Will move posts that are out of place).

I guess I missed that. When it comes to NAF tournaments where is the issue? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Outside of the Yheti would it even be possible to have a CPOMB player? And even if you did face one, I would see it as a challenge rather than a problem in resurrection.

Changing PO in resurrection or short format is just removing options and variance. Reacting to another environment's problem. Leave it as it was envisioned, there isn't a need for a compromise.

Hi all, sorry for the delay. I found these replies rather perplexing.

Preface: Yes, friends of mine have attended tournaments with stacking, and yes, they felt POMB players were a big deal (especially given the short bench of tournament teams).

Argument 1 - "It's too complicated": I don't see it. The NAF tournament document already has to explain that the NAF is not following BB2016 rules. I see no marked difference between saying "contrary to the official rules, players do not have to spend a team reroll to use the Piling On skill" and saying "contrary to the official rules, ST5+ players do not have to spend a team reroll to use the Piling On skill".

Argument 2 - "It's not pseudo-official": Uhm? Neither is using the rules from a previous ruleset. Like using the old +2/+2 DP. The people with the remit to change the rules did so. And with every passing day, CRP is a Little less relevant. Currently, the NAF applies a house rule to 100% of the players. I'm suggesting that they'd only apply it to 5% of the players.

Cheers
Martin

plasmoid wrote:Argument 2 - "It's not pseudo-official": Uhm? Neither is using the rules from a previous ruleset.

True, and nobody claimed previous rulesets were pseudo-official. But at least previous rulesets have been official, have been generally accepted, and have been played a lot.

Having thought a bit about it, this would achieve the goal of making box-set-rules sactionable, while letting the Ogre team use old school piling on (which AFAIK was the only explicitly stated reason for not using the official rules):

"While the NAF does not normally allow changes to individual skills, the NAF will sanction (and even encourages) this addition to the Piling On skill: A player with ST5+ does not need to spend a reroll in order to use Piling On."

Cheers
Martin

plasmoid wrote:Having thought a bit about it, this would achieve the goal of making box-set-rules sactionable, while letting the Ogre team use old school piling on (which AFAIK was the only explicitly stated reason for not using the official rules):

"While the NAF does not normally allow changes to individual skills, the NAF will sanction (and even encourages) this addition to the Piling On skill: A player with ST5+ does not need to spend a reroll in order to use Piling On."

Cheers
Martin

If someone just read that post, it looks like you are quoting NAF not proposing an idea.

CyberedElf wrote:If someone just read that post, it looks like you are quoting NAF not proposing an idea.

Agreed.

Phrasing, Martin. We've spoken about this sort of thing before. You'll be calling it a NAF+ proposal before we can blink

dode74 wrote:You'll be calling it a NAF+ proposal before we can blink

Thanks, made my day!

Hi CyberedElf,

If someone just read that post, it looks like you are quoting NAF not proposing an idea.

I take it that the subtext here is that you're worried that me suggesting what a wording could sound like is dangerously misleading.
So, we're assuming that:
People would find this particular post, without being aware of the rest of the thread or trying to understand the context.
That they'd only read half of it, or at least misunderstand the first half.
That they'd be unaware that this is not how the NAF communicates.
That they'd not really understand the concept of a discussion forum.
That they'd not be aware that I'm not a NAF spokesperson (or NAF anything else for that matter).
That they'd be assuming that I was, for no reason.
That they'd assume that this was an official ruling, in spite of it not being repeated anywhere or being printed in any NAF document.

I think that is very far from a feasible scenario.
But if several people start asking about it on the NAF forum, I'll have been proven wrong.
As for Dode's "agreed" comment, I hope people will make up their own minds about that.

Kind regards
Martin

People would find this particular post, without being aware of the rest of the thread or trying to understand the context.

I said, "If someone just read that post." You are right, that it was unlikely, but I stated it as a presupposition of what followed.

That they'd only read half of it, or at least misunderstand the first half.

My statement stands true for that entire post. Without the context of the thread, my point was that it could be misunderstood.

That they'd be unaware that this is not how the NAF communicates.
That they'd not really understand the concept of a discussion forum.
That they'd not be aware that I'm not a NAF spokesperson (or NAF anything else for that matter).
That they'd be assuming that I was, for no reason.

I said "quoting" NAF, not speaking for NAF. Anyone can quote official NAF communiques in a discussion forum.

That they'd assume that this was an official ruling, in spite of it not being repeated anywhere or being printed in any NAF document.

Official NAF statements are sometimes hard to find and not all statements on the website are always current. This thread is easier to find than assuming every reader knows everything on the NAF site.
One of your requirements I included in my original statement, one was the conclusion of my original statement, four do not actually apply, and the last is a feasible scenario.
I don't even need to resort to "some people are just dumb."

I take it that the subtext here is that you're worried that me suggesting what a wording could sound like is dangerously misleading.

No subtext, just being snarky.

CyberedElf wrote:Official NAF statements are sometimes hard to find and not all statements on the website are always current.

Off topic (to cross the streams, this thread is perfect sitting on hands fodder!), but if you have any examples at the forefront of your mind, I'd be happy to hear about them. Improvement of NAF comms is a subject close to my heart.