johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 19, 2004 - 22:47 |
 
|
| BadMrMojo wrote: | Additionally, Peikko, the guy who is in charge of stunty, is the guy who gets to pick. Not you or I. This is what he has picked.
By arguing against non-official rules in Stunty solely on the basis of their non-officiality (my new favorite word), you're arguing against having a stunty leeg at all. |
Peikko obviously has the right to decide what he wants. I'm simply disagreing with him on this one and hope he'll change his mind. That someone has the right to decide something doesn't necessarily mean his decision will be the best one.
Also, the argument that arguing for an official rule in Stunty is akin to asking Stunty to be removed is silly. I don't see you arguing for 7-turn halfs, passes getting easier as they get longer or goblins getting AV 10, do I?
/johan |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2004 - 22:49 |
|
Of the 10 stunty cups, 6 winners were goblin, and 2 snotling. I think that shows how well things were going don't you? |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2004 - 23:00 |
|
| Me, with the appropriate emphasis and less made up vocabulary wrote: | | By arguing against non-official rules in Stunty solely on the basis of their non-official status, you're arguing against having a stunty leeg at all. |
I'm saying that there has to be a reason to alter rules _aside_ from their officiality. Simply arguing that everything in Stunty should be _exactly_ like LRB because it those are the _official_ rules means taking out all the rosters which make Stunty Leeg... well... stunty.
I know that you think that there is a perfectly good reason aside from the rule's officiality. That is, however, a weak point since it is just your opinion. It happens to be an opinion I share, actually, but it's just an opinion and it is neither your place nor mine to demand that our whims are met.
Peikko thinks that, regardless of the official status of the G access on big guys, removing G access on big guys in Stunty would be a bad change to the Leeg.
What would be more productive would be responses which, just like Peikko's decisions, ignore the degree to which something is or is not official. If we all got hung up on BBRC approval, we'd have to chuck Stunty and DivX altogether, as they are quite clearly not official rules.
Any of this making any sense? |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 00:15 |
|
| BadMrMojo wrote: | | Any of this making any sense? |
Fair enough. I disagree with the decision though, and I still don't understand Peikko's reasoning on the matter. It would be nice to see the full argument behind the decision. Toning down Big Guys in thie BBRC way seems the best single thing that could happen to Stunty. This is, obviously, In My Opinion.
I happen to think it's a reasonable opinion, but since what you like in FUMBBL is a matter of personal taste, it's not an objective truth. Personally, I think that the Big Guys are already far too powerful, and with Pro now a general skill, Big Guys will become even _more_ powerful. I wonder if anyone thinks that's really going in the right direction.
/johan |
Last edited by johan on %b %20, %2004 - %03:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
hunter
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 01:23 |
|
Well, I rolled a regular roll on my new mino earlier this afternoon, and all I had available were strength skills. So, it would seem as though Big Guys don't have access to G at the moment. 
~hunter |
_________________
Stunty Leeg Central - For ALL your Stunty needs!  |
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 04:44 |
|
| BadMrMojo wrote: | What would be more productive would be responses which, just like Peikko's decisions, ignore the degree to which something is or is not official. If we all got hung up on BBRC approval, we'd have to chuck Stunty and DivX altogether, as they are quite clearly not official rules.
Any of this making any sense? |
Actually BadMrMojo ... makes perfect sense.
Look guys I'm one of the BBRC ... have you ever seen the rules for my currently online league???? Heck here is the list of team's allowed in my league:
http://www.blood-bowl.net/BloodBowlTeams.html
In addition to the teams .. we have these extras ( http://www.blood-bowl.net/MBBL2/index.php?show=Rules ) purchasable permanent secret weapons on teams, lineman allies, onpitch spellcasters, personal skill trainers, upgradeable apothecaries, rules for bionic limbs and eyes to be surgurical added to your players, new skills and traits, and rules for cheerleaders and assistant coaches and wizards to help you out by drawing special play cards for you. Now does that sound very LRB???
You cannot get hung up on what is and is not official to have a good league. NOW IF you think the BBRC change was something that is for the good of the league ... go with that and defend it. But just to say that every official rule is the best thing for a league ... heck ... even I as a member of the BBRC don't agree with that statement.
Galak |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 05:18 |
|
You make it sound as if I'm for it simply becuase it is official. That is not the case. I consider it _the_ solution for a whole slew of problems with Stunty. But the fact that it's official shouldn't be held against it; i.e. an unofficial rule should only be used if it's actively better than an official one.
/johan |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 05:31 |
|
| johan wrote: | | You make it sound as if I'm for it simply becuase it is official. That is not the case. I consider it _the_ solution for a whole slew of problems with Stunty. But the fact that it's official shouldn't be held against it; i.e. an unofficial rule should only be used if it's actively better than an official one. |
Exactly. 
What I was trying to say what that your arguments have revolved simply around its official status, even if your intentions did not. You've made it clear that you think it is a good idea aside from that but all the the arguments that you have put forth have either been:
1. it is the official rule, or
2. you think it is a better idea.
I was trying to get 1. out of the way. Can we all agree that's done now? Ok, onto 2. I happen to think it is a better idea as well.
That doesn't change the fact that the admin of the division has decided to forego that and let it play out as it exists because of other possible problems (most obviously, existing blockle big guys and less obviously, the general spirit of the league). That's his choice because it is, essentially, his division. Just like Galak's MBBL2 league.
I just read Hunter's comment. Heh. Maybe it's all moot. We'll see... THEN we can all complain about it. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies
Last edited by BadMrMojo on %b %20, %2004 - %06:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 06:02 |
|
I'm glad people are starting to discuss the main point. Stunty should have rules that are in the best interest of the league. Past general policy was to stick primarily with the LRB and with any changes that occured due to the Rules Review and with changes to the client applying to the Stunty Leeg. Several examples include: Treemen for Faeries with Take Root, RR changes to Wild Animal, Handicap Table implementation, RR changes to Hypnotic Gaze. In retrospect, I'm not sure if I agree with all of those decisions. Now that it seems that Peikko is going to take a radical change in policy, I think it might be worth revisiting some of the older issues and probably examine a few new ones but those are probably best for other threads.
In an attempt to be helpful here's what I have heard so far:
1) Some people dislike that Stunty Leeg plays more like a Big Guy Leeg with an abundance of targets.
2) Some people like that Stunty Leeg allows them to develop Block, Tackle, Multi-blocking monstrousities with an abundance of squishy targets.
3) 6 (Squigs, Strigoyan, Gnomes, Cheaters, Skinks, Skryre) of the 13 rosters don't have Big Guys. Some (and stats) would argue these are the weakest teams and would be much more balanced (and arguably a lot more fun to play) if the Rules Review change applied to Big Guys.
4) Applying the Rules Review changes to Big Guys would put more empahsis on the Stunty players/teams.
5) Big Guys might be used more frequently to TTM. Some think this would be more in line with the silly light hearted fun that the Stunty Leeg was designed to provide.
6) Big Guys would still get 3 dice blocks on Stunty players just like they do on any newly created Stunty Leeg team.
7) Games might be less one sided when teams with Uber-Big-Guys face another team that doesn't have an Uber-Big-Guy. Arguably less fun for the team that has the advantage but probably more fun for the team that doesn't have the advantage.
8) Grandfathering old Uber-Big-Guys could create an uber-mess.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Still Looking for ideas for the Horrors team |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 06:20 |
|
BadMrMojo, if you've thought my arguments rested only on the offocial status, that's up to you. I've argued again and again why it's a substantially good idea as well, and you reply by attributing me solely another opinion.
Now, since we have a quick checklist from Evo, I'll just say that I agree with #1-7. As I'm not sure what Evo means by grandfathering, I can't comment on #8.
/johan |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 06:30 |
|
Grandfathering means keeping the block, tackle on older big guys. I don't see this as a major problem - most likely teamsm withi such players will look to play each other and those teams that are active will gain spp on theiri BG quickly and age... or get fouled as they are prime targets. Or you could remove all skills from all existing BG and force a full reroll of skills on them with the new skill access.
What I'm waiting for is the argument why stunty should be a cas-fest like it is now. |
|
|
the_grey_ghost
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 08:40 |
|
Look Johan has a point I fail to see why he should be so flammed. Good onya anarchism, you stated it well.
The only reason why I see a problem with big guys getting only strength access is that they can only pick five skills.
The Rules making official changes are made to resolve inbalances in the game. When the rules change they are to create a more fun environment a game that we want to play. Why should we oppose NO General access in stunty if General access is though to make the game less fun.
Bring the change on. Stunty can only be more chaotic without General access for big guys. I think that most coaches will struggle over weather to pick block or Tackle with their only double. (perhaps pro) I reckon that this could be the best thing for the league. |
|
|
Idolen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 08:41 |
|
Will you still be able to transfer your stunty team to U? Then you can play a few games in S and gaet general skills on your BG's, transfer it and have the skills you could'nt gain in that division, Not that I know why you would do that, but you could....... |
_________________
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d |
|
Jinxed
Joined: Jul 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 09:17 |
|
Only 5 ST skills is not a problem. Any skill after counts as a double.
That is an official rule and very workable.
If the BG ever gets that far without debilitating ageing effects that is. ;p |
|
|
annachie
Joined: Jul 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2004 - 10:11 |
|
I'm starting to think that Stunty is better going with the LRB with reguard to big guys and skills. ie: no general access.
But then I only play Stunty teams in U anyway. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
