Thinking ahead: NTBB 2013

[fanglord13]

garion - What you described is exactly the same as what I wrote!

Cheers
Rob

[garion]

BWBs = Bloodweiser Babes.

the nonsensical babes distracting the ref stuff

It's only non-sensical if you're not into girls. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but claiming that it's nonsense because of it is blinkered.
These are the RL Budweiser Beerleaders:

I would find that distracting

Yeah but would a skaven??? I dont think so. I also don't think human refs would be overly enamoured by Skaven babes.

It is terrible childish fluff like a slightly inappropriate child's cartoon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVN1Apz45AE

[dode74]

Because a coach couldn't (automatically) specify he wanted a race of babe which he knew to be deemed attractive by the ref? Come on, garion, open up your imagination a little. Or is this all

In all honesty, the fluff is not reaching at all. Given that, the effect of the rule is now what's important.

[garion]

god your always so condescending . It is possible for people to have different opinions to yours you know dode.


Yes the game is about fun first and foremost, but it is also and RPG and as such I like to be immersed in the game, nonsensical rules detract from this. You can easily write something contrived for any idea you come up with but being true to the game world is very important when coming up with rules.

I am trying to help martin with suggestions about how he could improve on his project, by offering alternate suggestions etc... because I think he is heading down the wrong path with this rule. You sticking your beak in to say 'I think the fluff is fine' every 3 posts doesn't help anyone. Its just spam.

Anyway I will leave you all too it.

[plasmoid]

Hi Garion,
Work is killing me, but I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Bloodweiser Babes are girls serving strong drink. They can't affect the crowd the way a cheerleader can, but they can affect individuals. Like the ref.

I know you think it's stretching the fluff. I don't. Moreover, I've had this discussion before, and there were people on both sides. In the end a decision was made. And as stated, I'm now stuck with it until it proves to be overly powerful.

In the end, it is not a rule that it would break my heart to see changed. But I'm testing it with the Babes.

Cheers
Martin

[spubbbba]

Let’s face it, the argument from a fluff perspective that babes could distract the ref can be just as easily used on cheerleaders or assistant coaches (through arguing or intimation rather than flirting, but you never know).

I’d argue that babes are already a good deal at 50K and cheerleaders and coaches could do with a bit of a boost since they are a permanent rise to your TV and expensive.

[dode74]

garion, you were the one to label the fluff aspect as "nonsensical" and "childish", so accusing others of being unaccepting of other peoples' ideas is somewhat hypocritical of you. I said it can go either way on the fluff, and have said before that people will interpret fluff differently because the details of the fluff aspects largely take place in the imagination of the individual.

That said, I agree with spubbbba that the cheerleaders and coaches could do with some love (and have said as much before). What might be more acceptable is a way of using these instead of babes as advantages for the sent off player. As I said before, though, this is likely outside the scope of NTBB.

[harroguk]

Ultimately fluff is semi irrelevant. If people are desperate for a fluff reason for a crunch ruling then one can be found that people are happy with.

What is important is the crunch behind the fluff. Does the rule achieve what it is designed to do? Does it impact anything that it wasn't designed to? Is the overall implementation easy to handle? If you get the answer you want from all of these then you have achieved the aim.

Obviously what people want will be different in each individual case.

[plasmoid]

Hi Garion,
if I come across as dismissive, it's because I've had this discussion before, and my hands are already tied on this until 2014. So there's not a lot I can do. But I'm happy to discuss it all the same

Though I probably wouldn't take it on anyone other than SW even in its current nttb form.

Got that. But since others have, this doesn't worry me.

IMO, SG is of interest to:
*Any team which would like to foul, but doesn't because they usually run out of players due to being squishy. I'm thinking AV7 elf teams (who'd love to foul the POMB player or the MBlw+Tackle player) and all of the stunty sides.
*Any teams with a (overly) plentyful supply of A players. (Human catchers and Undead ghouls come to mind). NTBB Amazons also. And the teams mentioned above.
*A team committed to bash, but missing some of the pain from the nerfed killstack.
*SWs - obviously. I.e. desparate Gobbos and unpopular DRs.

As much as I enjoyed PBeM drawing any conclusion from the data you get there is very spurious.

It's what I got. Well that, and 2 (soon 3) live leagues. But I agree that I'll have to rely on analysis and "soft" data (i.e. coach interviews) rather than hard statistics.

I just don't think the opportunity for abuse has been considered fully here.

But I have, I just reached a different conclusion.
And as stated, I've considered SWs in the specific context of their teams.

Why not just make it something more simple like... 'If the ref spots the foul then roll 1d6 on a 4, 5 or 6 the Sneaky Git player manages to convince the ref he did not commit the foul and the play continues.

We considered something like this, but one of the BBRC'ers has already stated that he would not condone anything that cuts send-offs in half. In fact, given what you've recently told me about send-off rates in CRP, I'm very surprised you'd consider this a good idea.

It has the advantage of keeping the player on the pitch when fouling, rather than sent off then returning. [Snip] It doesn't confuse the KO and sent off thing, which on TT would probably require markers.

IMO, this is not an advantage.
The very send-off/return mechanism as what makes it hard to abuse, IMO. A heavy foul strategy is about man-advantage, and I fear that a 16% send-off rate would be very abusable! I feel much more comfortable seeing the player in the sin-bin, to return later.
That's why I prefer the current version.
Also, I think that send-off/return is one of the things that makes it different from Bribes. Making Bribes still useful.
As for the need for markers, you can just put your KO'd B&C just across the edge of the KO-box. I already do that in straight CRP when I have a bribe on hand for the end of the drive - when I push him into the KO box if the bribe works at the end of the drive.

Lets do a bit of theory bowl. And look at my first round Fumbbl Cup game - https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3353848

I looked at this, and didn't get an epiphany.
I think it's awesome that you're building your team around something that a lot of dwarf coaches consider useless TV-bloat.
And if NTBB happens to make the DR a tad more useful, then, as stated, I'm fine with that.

Mind you, you'd first have to suffer through getting a doubles on the damn thing.
And then you'd have those games where you couldn't TV pick and wouldn't have the Babes.
Not to mention that while the synergy with BWBs is very good, in many games with dwarfs I don't consider BWBs a very good inducement pick.

Now this team was built just to see how good a deathroller can be if you have all the inducement money in the world. In that game I had 3 bribes, a babe, Morg and a bombadier. Now if that deathroller had Sneaky Git . I would have dropped 2 bribes, keeping the 3rd just in case. And I would have had 200k more inducement money to spend, meaning I could take a wizard too which would make my team sooo much more powerful. And I could take a card, which may or may not be useful.

OK, TV-difference was 850K.
Heap a doubles skill on your roller and you're down to 820K. That matters too.
I think there are other strong doubles options out there, but be that as it may.

Instead of Morg (430K), 3 Bribes (300K), 1 BWB (50K) and Boomer (60K) = 840K
You'd get Morg (430K), 1 Bribe (100K), 2 BWBs (100K) and a Wizard (150K) = 780 - with 40K up to the 820K

So you lost the Bombardier - and certainly the synergy with him and the multiple bribes.
You got the wizard - though I should probably mention that in NTBB the wizard is 200K.
You'd also be less likely to foul with anyone but the roller, now that you don't have 3 bribes to fall back on.

On top of this I could have fouled even more freely with the deathroller than I did with my 3 bribes.

I assume that like most Dwarf coaches you'd be trying for 8 turn drives.
This is eactly the kind of situation where Bribes help you foul freely, while going with BWB/SG could see you without your DR for a lot of turns.

I don't know that you'd be better off. But if you were a little better off, then I don't have a problem with that.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

I'm going with something like this:

Sneaky Git (Agility): The player is a sneaky silver tongued git. If sent off he'll argue the call, get the referee drunk, don a disguise, or just plain threaten his way back onto the pitch. To represent this, whenever you make K.O. recovery rolls, you may also make one such roll for each Sneaky Git currently sent off. If he passes the roll, he is no longer sent off and may return to play as normal (provided that that he isn’t prevented by an injury).

Cheers
Martin

[harroguk]

Working might be slightly better?

Sneaky Git (Agility): The player is a sneaky silver tongued git. If sent off he'll argue the call, get the referee drunk, don a disguise, or just plain threaten his way back onto the pitch. To represent this, whenever you make K.O. recovery rolls, you must also make one additional KO roll for each Sneaky Git currently sent off. If he passes the roll, he is no longer sent off and may return to play as normal (provided that that he isn’t prevented by an injury).

To cover the eventuality that a SG SW is KO'd and sent off.

[plasmoid]

That is a bit clearer. Thanks Harroguk. Might even let me axe the last sentence.

[Juriel]

I’d argue that babes are already a good deal at 50K and cheerleaders and coaches could do with a bit of a boost since they are a permanent rise to your TV and expensive.

I don't care about fluff, but this is solid. Babes are already great, while ass coaches and cheerleaders suck.

[Darkson]

while ass coaches and cheerleaders suck.

Is there some adult-only version of the Rulebook I've missed?


Martin, what's your worry in whether any of the former BBRC condone a potential change or not? These are your house rules, and yours only.
Unless you are trying to sneak it in as LRB7, in which case, I need to take more interest in opposing it, as this is completely the wrong way for official BB to go.

[garion]

while ass coaches and cheerleaders suck.

Is there some adult-only version of the Rulebook I've missed?


Martin, what's your worry in whether any of the former BBRC condone a potential change or not? These are your house rules, and yours only.
Unless you are trying to sneak it in as LRB7, in which case, I need to take more interest in opposing it, as this is completely the wrong way for official BB to go.

+1