Wargamers
http://wargamers.freeforums.org/
This should spark some debate…….
http://wargamers.freeforums.org/this-should-spark-some-debate-t378.html
Page 1 of 1

Author: Luke [ 09 Dec 2010 10:28 am ]
Post subject: This should spark some debate…….

I believe this is a topic which has been heavily discussed in the past so my prior apologies for raising it yet again, but the forum seems like a great place to help gain some input and clarity from you wonderful people. Just a quick question about the specifics of the “who you play” rules. I’m going to outline the argument/disagreement at which point me and Pete will then post our respective opinions. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD UNTIL PETE HAS WRITTEN HIS POST. IT IS IMPORTANT YOU HEAR BOTH SIDES BEFORE FORMULATING YOUR RESPONSE. The issue: In Black and White it’s about how players decide fixtures and the rules governing them. As I’m aware: Players must not play a team more than twice without first playing every other team within a reasonable range of their T.V. Question 1: Is there an official “cut off point” where you say the difference in T.V’s is too large and the coach has the right to decline the game? Question 2: Due to coaches not always being available, how definitive is the rule about playing every team once before revisiting another team for the 3rd time? Or: Is it more loose? Eg: as long as there’s been (for example) 5 matches since you last played them you may play them again. My Side:Obviously the above is “in general” and not a individual example.But I specifically want to talk about the following:I feel that I have played lots of combinations of fixtures against Pete with my non-developed teams when I have (debatably) been less likely to take much from the fixture in terms of a victory or SPP. This includes playing more skilled/developed teams. And as I know many of you agree, inducements never seem to even up that deficit.Now my Chaos Dwarves are developed themselves and Pete is refusing to play them with either the Firedrakes or the Hornets (I will mention here I have played the Hornets once in the past, but before my team was as developed as it is now). Both of which I think are higher T.V than me anyway. Even though we have played pretty much every other combination of game twice over (the limit).The reason for this seems clear to me: it is likely I will cause damage to those teams and possibly win convincingly. So I feel although I played fixtures where Pete took victories / improved fan factor / SPP etc from them. I am now not being afforded the opportunity to do the same.So either: we uphold the league rules and need to come to a sensible group decision on how to solve this.Or: we scrap any sort of structure to fixtures and just let it be a free-for-all.I think if we say it’s o.k to pick and choose your fixtures based on if you think you’ll get beaten/take injuries etc, then we may as well all play the same race because as soon as anyone has a hitty team doing well, they just wont be able to find a game.The balance is sometimes in your favor in terms of skills and sometimes not. I can see that with a lot of “tackle” in my team, opponents depending on “dodge” probably won’t want to play me too often and I accept that. But if you’re going to play the games where dodge helps you out, you should take the rough with the smooth.To surmise: I just think every coach should endeavor to play as many different combinations of games where T.V allows it, ultimately it brings more variety and gives everyone an even go at gaining team development.Peace out and over to Pete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Author: Luke [ 09 Dec 2010 10:29 am ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

Just to let you know, I pasted this in with paragraphs etc, but the forum clearly chose to ignore that


Author: DOOM [ 09 Dec 2010 01:55 pm ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

If pete doesn’t want to play certain teams that’s up to him, there are other people/teams in the league you can play.

When the league was formed it was always with the understanding that it’d be relatively open. After a year we tightened the rules a bit as we had 8 of us playing regularly. Now the league has become a little more spread out and some of us have ducked out, so the rules have been loosened again to allow more freedom.

Now you can have as many teams in the league as you like and you can play whoever you like, as long as you don’t play them too often. if there is to be any change maybe we can loosen the rules further to say that you can only play the same team twice within a 10 game span, that way you can potentially revolve around 5 teams, which currently seems quite reasonable to me.

The only time you are forced to play a particular team is in a tournament.


Author: RoninOakcleaver [ 09 Dec 2010 02:33 pm ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

The only time you are forced to play a particular team is in a tournament.

Agree with this completely and we shouldn’t – and I’m not sure Luke is suggesting that – be thinking along the lines of forcing people to play certain games at all. The system we have now is fine, although there is some room to abuse it by refusing to play certain teams and I do think that this is happening.
It works on an unwritten rule basis where no one presses for games that are compeltely unfair (massive TV differences, domination of styles etc) but at the same time games which don’t represent the best match up for your team should still be played, even if you don’t like the odds. Otherwise certain teams will struggle to get games and resentment builds up.
Not saying I agree with everything that Luke has said above, but it does come down to the attitude of some players in the league of wanting to preserve their players above all else, as has been discussed in the other thread (putting the blood in Bloodbowl).

RE: Pete’s replying first, can’t see him replying at all tbh, though i know he has read this.


Author: The Power Spence [ 09 Dec 2010 03:47 pm ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

I think all this has gone a bit far to be honest.

I have mentioned on several occasions, that I will play the Skullcrackerz eventually with both those teams. For the sake of the Hornets, I would like them to play the Corsairs and the Renegades at some point before I sacrafice them. I’m not “wimping out” it’s just that the games wouldn’t be the same if certain players weren’t there.

With regards to the Firedrakes. They are a new team to me and I would still like to ease them in a bit before again the team gets murdered.

Both of the teams have only played 4 games this season so it’s hardly if they have played every other in league twice and I’m refusing to play you. It’s not my fault, Luke, that you have gone out of your way to play 20+ games this season (with the same team) and have ran out of options.

I have already played the Skullcrackers in 22% (8) of all of my 37 games this season. In total 54% (20) of my games have been against Luke. It would be nice to play different opponents.

In reference to me “always being the more favourable team”,

2 of the 8 games vs the Skullcrackerz were with Brutal Deluxe (Chaos) who lost both matches and were out casualtied on both occasions by the Skullcrackerz.

2 more of the games were against the Maulrats (both teams were created at the same time – so even (but the “skills” were tipped in the Skullcrackerz favour imo).

The Hornets have played them once and scraped a 2-1 win (Skullcrackerz won on casualties 2-1) and had to rest loads of players to get the TVs closer.

The Greenskins have played them 3 times with one of each result (W/D/L) with a total of 10-7 casualties going to the Skullcrackerz.

There have been many times at BB weekends etc where I’ve not been able to use the team I wanted or to play the opponent I wanted. I just love the way as soon as I don’t want to play a game I get whinged at.

So in summary, I don’t feel that I should be forced to play a game with a team I don’t necessarily want to play with just because someone else has no other options. I barely ever get to “pick” the team I play against and usually have to pick the best of my teams in terms of TV fairness (which isn’t always the team I want to use) to play against my opponents. It’s not up to me to be a continuing source of games if no other opponents are about.

The league is primarily meant to be about having fun. It’s not really fun to be criticized for not doing what someone else is demanding all the time. There are teams I would like to play as well but don’t have the chance as people don’t want to use them at the moment, but I don’t feel the need to drag it through the forums as some sort of court case.

PS: In your face Rich :)
PPS: Pardew for the Win….erm yeah.


Author: Luke [ 09 Dec 2010 05:30 pm ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

This has obviously been received wrongly.
I wasn’t suggesting at any point that we make Pete or anyone else play games. After all we put fun and enjoyment first and nobody will enjoy a game they essentially don’t want to play.

Being the newest member to the league i don’t have the benefit of knowing what has been discussed before regarding this issue and i genuinely thought that posting it in the forum where a group of people who share a hobby and interest could help us move forward on an issue with their input wasn’t a bad idea.
It seems to have been received more as a pop at an individual. i did carefully read my post back to myself before submitting to try and avoid that, but maybe i have been unsuccessfull.
In my defence i did mention to you Pete, both verbally and in an e-mail that i thought posting this issue on the forum was a good idea and you didn’t oppose. If you had said you weren’t happy to do that obviously, i would have listened and not done it.

It seems strange that we have the forum and lots of experienced gamers but there’s been a whiplash reaction. I think that if i come to gain a better understanding from these posts and that in turn gets rid of any ill feeling that i was having then that’s a superb use of the forum. That is more how i see it, rather than “dragging it through like a court case”. Isn’t that how “house” rules evolve naturally?
I also think it is more respectful to openly discuss, rather than leave feelings brewing and moaning behind peoples backs (just to clarify that is NOT a pop at anyone. I am not suggesting anyone does that). So we shouldn’t shun discussion.

As for Doom’s suggestion, i think it’s o.k. It provides coaches with a good amount of flexibility and enables people to form specific relationships between coaches, play who you want with what teams you want. However i do think this will result in ultimately less games being played and hardly any deaths / injuries in the league in comparison to what there should be.
I also think that it kind of defeats the point of keeping a league table. Maybe we should each just keep our individual records?

I’m glad you posted the breakdown stats Pete because they uncover some things that i hadn’t noticed. But i am a bit sore about the comment
“I just love the way as soon as I don’t want to play a game I get whinged at”
This say’s to me that you believe my reaction has been altered specifically to you. Which would in essence be victimisation. I can 100% assure you my course of action would have been the same if this situation had arisen with any other member of the league, it was not “Pete specific”, you are not the worlds biggest victim, you are not always mugged/robbed, and dice have no facial recognition software being used to target you and disrupt your life.

Lastly, it’s obvious from your reaction Pete that you’ve received the post in a very different way to how the author had hoped, so a sincere apology if you feel it was out of line.

Next time we engage in B2BD’s i look forward to it being angry and fast. x


Author: snailracer [ 09 Dec 2010 06:09 pm ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

Ok wish I’d replied earlier to this.

I can see where everyone is coming from with this argument, and it is a problem that has come up before in the league, which is why we introduced a game limit rule.

As Ju has pointed out, when we started the league we had few teams with low TV’s and limited games so it was not a problem. As new teams entered the league there were a wider range of TV’s and more opportunities for games to happen, so certain teams played more games and sprinted ahead in terms of team development. There was also an issue of teams only playing one or two regular opponents and increasing their TV, stats, skills etc with very little risk to the team.

We tried to develop a proper league with full season standings and attempted to even out the TV’s in the league by introducing a limit on how many times one team could play another. This was fine until the league got bigger and more spread out so it has developed into what we have now.

We now follow more of a gentlemens agreement on fixtures. We loosely agreed that you can only play a team twice (home and away if you like) and then cannot play them again until you have played every other team in the league. This doesn’t really hold anymore with coaches having several teams in the league, all of them eligible.

So I think I will put my commisioners hat on now and say:

‘No team in the league may play any other team in the league more than twice in any 10 game period’

We all have enough teams and there are enough coaches for this to work. Unfortunately those coaches that play more games will suffer from this rule more than those coaches who play less.

Ultimately we are trying to run a perpetual, fun league, and a bit of common sense is needed to keep it that way. I can understand the frustration at coaches avoiding fixtures, but it has never really been an issue in the league before now, almost the opposite in fact. If there is a desire to play in a far more competitive way then we could look at setting up a second league with a rigid fixture schedule etc.

Hopefully I’ve made myself clear, and please tell me if I haven’t :)

And we definitely need to put the blood back into Blood Bowl


Author: Tubes [ 10 Dec 2010 06:54 am ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

I will just put in my 2 pence worth also…

I appreciate where Luke is coming from but the overall aim of the ‘league’ is to provide a pool of teams and players to play some fun games of BB. Obviously the frequency and availibility of games varies due to individual coach’s circumstances.

A tourney game obviously cannot be refused without penalty.

I personally like the ‘gentlemans’ rules we have adopted (I certainly do) to balance the two teams – a fairer game for both coaches and teams. Then then there are circumstances where you could choose to play a wide divide of TVs. But you cannot force anyone to play you (maybe try to gently persuade?).

The end of the day it is only a game and no-ones life is on the line…


Author: RoninOakcleaver [ 10 Dec 2010 01:30 pm ]
Post subject: Re: This should spark some debate…….

I think everyone is in agreement and happy with the general ethos and the gentlemens agreement we have in place. Matt’s new rule as introduced above should suit everyone fine – I don’t see the need for any team to play the same team more than twice in that short a period anyway.
But as Matt said this sort of thing has come up before and, before we stoke Pete’s victimisation complex any further, it is by far from just him. I think just about everyone in the league has actively avoided playing the hammerers as much as they can get away with in the past.
The problem in this case perhaps lies in the fact Luke has been playing /wanting to play lots of games, and the circumstances have meant he has been left with very few opponents (Giles moving away, me having a live in house guest, general geography of the league) which has lead to him and Pete playing a lot and frustrations on his part when it seems they have played other combinations of games but not this specific one Vs Hornets.
Given that their TVs are similar now the reason for not playing does seem to boil down to Pete not wanting to get them pummelled – as he says he would prefer them to play a few other teams at full strength first to experience those games.
Whether this is a ‘valid’ reason or not, who knows, who could even decide that? As people have pointed out we play for fun and if Pete was to play a game he didn’t want to play then that would not be fun.
But, if everyone took this attitude, Luke’s Skullcrackerz (much like my Avengers) would be left without anyone to play, which equals no fun for him.
Somebody seems to lose out whatever…

Finally, I would strongly agree with Luke in that this should be posted on the forum. He may have got the tone of his post wrong, but these issues certainly should be discussed amongst the group, that is what we’re here for!

ps In your mum’s face Pete ;-)


Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC – 1 hour [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/
Advertisements