ted
Member
Australia GMT+9.5
Posts: 141
|
Post by ted on Jan 30, 2015 3:01:03 GMT
Can I make a suggestion so maybe the coach could pick 1 for 1 instead of the Warriors? I have no real ball handlers and my defence is half arsed, and Nurgle are not very common in this league?? whys that? I think the more teams in a league the better, for a more balanced Blood Bowl experience. And having the option to pick the Pestigors would make Nurgle more flexible. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Feb 19, 2015 5:39:02 GMT
seems nothing lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 9:27:39 GMT
i can agree with ted. good proposition !
|
|
|
Post by Ren Höek on Feb 19, 2015 10:38:10 GMT
The rule of 'no pestigors' for Nurgle teams was adopted by us from the old (and well-tested)Crippled Cup rules. They had through many seasons come to this conclusion. As I recall the argument was that since Nurgle have regen and acess to mutations they need some kind of drawback, to make it fair/-er. But of course, we are free to make whatever rules we can agree upon. Next to a benevolent dictatorship, democracy is the best thing.
Maybe the idea Ted has of exchangeing 1 Nurgle Warrior for a pestigor is an agreeable way to go? So a Nurgle-coach could either choose to go with 3 Nurgle Warriors or 2 warriors and 1 pestigor?
I'm willing to go along with this idea if the majority of coaches also say yes. (In later seasons we could always change the rules back if people protest in the future.)
But to change the rules I say we need more input. And the rule change would only come into play after this season is finished.
Ted: Is it possible for you to edit and add a poll to your thread?
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Feb 22, 2015 5:50:11 GMT
personly i think its a good and fair call you take a pestigor over a NW you are losing a strength 4 guy with 2 mutation skills
personally i think it would have been more balanced if it had been no CW allowed or only 2 so a 2 of each or 4 pestigor and no NW
in a CC high str is king
|
|
|
Post by Ren Höek on Feb 22, 2015 10:15:37 GMT
As the above poll is formed, I'd interpret a 'yes' to mean: A nurgle team must have 1 big guy and may have 3 non-rotters. Is that what we all agree it would mean? Best to clear this up before next season and before I make the rule change.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonvisper on Feb 22, 2015 10:22:24 GMT
yes sir:)
|
|
|
Post by Squiggy on Feb 22, 2015 13:10:13 GMT
I agree, with the probably obvious proviso of it being they must take a big guy and then may take 0-3 positionals.
|
|
|
Post by Ren Höek on Feb 22, 2015 17:18:24 GMT
I agree, with the probably obvious proviso of it being they must take a big guy and then may take 0-3 positionals. Yeah, I edited my post, they must ofc have the big-guy...
|
|
|
Post by parrigan on Feb 23, 2015 1:17:54 GMT
I'm on board with Ted's idea, but I actually like Jester's version even better...
|
|