Talk Fantasy Football

I agree with both Yohann and Bren that simplicity is the key and like Bren says on the application form the player states his/her country and the games they wish to play.

I still don't see why (if for example using Pippys schedule) while some people are playing Streetbrawl etc a team event can be going on. I don't mean national teams (although teams could be based around them) I mean either league buddies etc. I think it would add the the competition as most people will not represent their country and may be their only chance to play as a team.

It would make people make teams. You could have people emailing each other about tactics or saying "hey Mr XYZ since you are travelling over from Latveria why don't you join our team" and getting shirts made up or silly hats. You would get match ups such as the Northern Warlords vs. USA.

I do feel using the average of the countries individual results to determine the overall WC winner has its flaws. What happens if New Zealand can only get three players? Or an English player takes Halflings and decides to spend more time getting his players sent off than winning making his compatriots reaching for the hammer?

I think making it the world cup with nations is the wrong way to go.

Id make it a team event say 4 or 5 players per team not nationalties though as it would exclude to many people, there plenty of smll leagues and groups of friends out there indeed you could team up with people from TBB.

That way youre still making it different to the bloodbowl and the eurobowl. Teams or individuals can enter, individuals can just be teamed up with other when they arrive. Ive played a warhammer fantasy tourney like this and itS good fun.

From a personal point of view if its a nation thing with a bit on the side then there no chance of me going.

Anonymous wrote:I think making it the world cup with nations is the wrong way to go.

How do you make it a world cup without nations / counties?

Dont know how i managed to post that last message as a guest

Hangus wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think making it the world cup with nations is the wrong way to go.

How do you make it a world cup without nations / counties?

That the 1st error for me calling it the world cup, i think lowsman said something similar that it needs to be more champion league ish than WC.

firebreather wrote:Dont know how i managed to post that last message as a guest

what you should have said was "I agree with Mr Guest he's a top bloke with great ideas" and we would have been none the wiser

firebreather wrote:

Hangus wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think making it the world cup with nations is the wrong way to go.

How do you make it a world cup without nations / counties?[/quote

That the 1st error for me calling it the world cup, i think lowsman said something similar that it needs to be more champion league ish than WC.

I think the problem is that GW in all their wisdom printed the dates without OMM or anyone elses knowledge so like it or not its stuck.

I'd love to see the ECBBL carry off another trophy

Hangus wrote:I'd love to see the ECBBL carry off another trophy

And as obvious winners, TSM (The Square Mile, West Hartlepool) boys would welcome the ECBBL stepping up to the challenge and beating the other teams to the 2nd place spot.

lucifer wrote:

Hangus wrote:I'd love to see the ECBBL carry off another trophy

And as obvious winners, TSM (The Square Mile, West Hartlepool) boys would welcome the ECBBL stepping up to the challenge and beating the other teams to the 2nd place spot.

why who would finish 1st?

firebreather wrote:Dont know how i managed to post that last message as a guest

That would be because we forgot to turn of guest posting when the sub-forum was set up. (I blame Valen! )
Luckily, your post brought this to our attention before the spammers found it.

Hangus wrote:why who would finish 1st?

lucifer wrote:And as obvious winners, TSM (The Square Mile, West Hartlepool) ....

Ah, that would be my cunning and subtle use of the English language that has caused your confusion. I suspect that it's a direct result of your living too near France for so long that your understanding and comprehension have been eroded

Having Team Hartlepool or Team ECBBL or Team Timbuktu is a nice idea, but it's moving away from the original idea of the WC. Eurobowl was replaced on the premise that a similar nation vs. nation tournament would be created so I think this is the way to go.

I was under the impression that Eurobowl was deferred on the grounds that it would be financially impossible to attend both in the same year for most people concerned (let alone a month apart).

But I do agree that teams should be primarily national not club/region/race/etc. And whilst Lowsman did say to make it "more champions league" I don't think that he meant the teams shouldn't be country affiliated, just that they shouldn't be limited to one per country as many people seem to want.

lucifer wrote:

Hangus wrote:why who would finish 1st?

lucifer wrote:And as obvious winners, TSM (The Square Mile, West Hartlepool) ....

Ah, that would be my cunning and subtle use of the English language that has caused your confusion. I suspect that it's a direct result of your living too near France for so long that your understanding and comprehension have been eroded

oh. I thought that was a joke sorry Geoff


how dare you call me nearly French .....outside now

Mordredd wrote:I don't think that he meant the teams shouldn't be country affiliated, just that they shouldn't be limited to one per country as many people seem to want.

I thought Dave?OMM? or someone said ages ago before the debate heated up about 'two teams per country and the spares and teams handed back getting filled up on the day' i could be very wrong and its just the voices in my head playing tricks again but i thought that got thrown out there to be discussed.