Talk Fantasy Football

Was thinking and I thought:

why do we give a skill per game played at tourneys?

why not just tell the teams they can have X skills before they come to the tourney?

Reason:
1. doesn't let teams customize to possible opponents---everyone does this--you know you're winning and all the teams on tables above you are elves....you're more likely to take tackle.

2. teams really shouldn't get better at tournaments....you show up with your team and play. I see Tournaments as games being played in relatively quick succesion, while league games are played once a week with training in between to get better.

just some silly thoughts.

Aramil wrote:You have 4 skills plus one of those 4 options:
1. one ST+1
2. one AG+1 and a skill
3. one MO+1 and a trait
4. two traits

I like this, I may even steal this for this years Newquay Bowl

As long as im reading the rules pack proplery the Waterbowl will be running like that too...

i would say that doing all tournemets this way would give some teams that need skills to be usable a better chance, tho may cause some teams that excel as tr100 no skills, a slight disadvantage

Valen wrote:

Aramil wrote:You have 4 skills plus one of those 4 options:
1. one ST+1
2. one AG+1 and a skill
3. one MO+1 and a trait
4. two traits

I like this, I may even steal this for this years Newquay Bowl

We have already been 'inspired' by it for this year's Waterbowl...

Cheers

Leip

Well I am going to see how it goes in Manchester and then probably use it in Newquay

I really like this idea. I've been thinking about more complicated ways to manage "zero progression" tournaments - but I think this might be better.

I really like this idea, and probably prefer it to the "one skill per game" method.

well, i'm pretty sure my tourney will be like this year.

I like the fact that it prevents cheating and I can ask for the roster right in the beginning instead of trying to keep track of all the skills people are taking.

also it prevents customization against possible future opponents.

I forgot to say that the Italian Open 2005 was a TR110 tourney.

Definately Tr110 is the best solution to have balance between races... so I think that if you like to use the "Farina System", it's better to use it with this TR.

I'm glad to know you like it...

gken1 wrote: Reason:
1. doesn't let teams customize to possible opponents---everyone does this--you know you're winning and all the teams on tables above you are elves....you're more likely to take tackle.

I don't see this as a problem at all. In fact, I like the aspect that you have some options (however small) to change your strategy during the tournament.

gken1 wrote: 2. teams really shouldn't get better at tournaments....you show up with your team and play. I see Tournaments as games being played in relatively quick succesion, while league games are played once a week with training in between to get better.

Well, a BB tournament is not a RL tournmament. I don't have any problems with blatant abstractions of the fictional reality BB is suposed to simulate.
Your argument is more valid for league tournaments, but at the tournaments your talking about not the team but the coach is being tested, and progressive skill choice is one of skills of the coach.

For that reason I also enjoy tournaments that give you two random skills (with the possibility of stacking). It requires some improvisation. True, there is a considerable luck factor, but I like to think how well you react the random selections is also a factor.

I have issues with skill progression like "1 skill after each game" in tourneys for 3 reasons: one general , and two personnals

My opinion in general is that
*Playing an excellent game is not rewarded ...Though i have to admit that it doesn't reward luck , or disadvantages unlucky players...

In particular
*I like playing Chaos, ... I don't mind stuggeling the 2 first games because of the lack of skills in the team (no sure hands or block to rely on in difficult/crucial times).
Giving skills at the start of the tournament may indeed be a solution to that...but would still be tempted to take other teams (with a Block werewolf, a blodger/leap/stripball wardancer, a blodger ghoul, a blodger GR, even a blodger human catcher...guard blitzers...)
Aramils post even suggest there were none, or almost no Chaos coaches around =/

*I like the tension that skill rolls bring along,...heck I even find ageing an improvement to the game (maybe not on first skill, but that's another debate)...

Aino

Ps: Plus in these options ....
You have 4 skills plus one of those 4 options:
1. one ST+1
2. one AG+1 and a skill
3. one MO+1 and a trait
4. two traits

Where are the mutations ?? =P

There has been a tournament that awarded 2 skills for a win and 1 skill otherwise, hasn't there?
That should reward you seek (at least for winning). And probably doesn't even add to unfair advantage in a swiss tournament.
Awarding players for 'excellent play' is something of a problem as there probably can be no consensus on what 'excellent play' is.
Incidentely, not sure if you are suggesting it, I would never use SPPs in a tournament as it is too prone to cheating...

i think the Pearlies tourny rewarded a win with two skills and the loser (or a drawer) got one. It was on a random player as well