Flame Bowl @ the Poobowl Team tournement? Feedback required

[Podfrey]

Team action FTW!

I'd prefer 6 games, otherwise you won't get chance for team banter (just head down and play all day Sat)

[SillySod]

Shockingly good idea

I'd be in favour of 7 games although you might want to consider the viability for you rather than the viability for everyone else. Seven games clearly works fine but iirc Nippy had some problems getting the rounds to run smoothly - because its a team event might it be trickier to make the software play fair?

I'm sure any ruleset is fine but I'd encourage you to create a mad hybrid. Maybe you could give skills different costs but hand out skill points slowly through the course of the tournament

[Joemanji]

I'd also prefer all games to be within teams. Geoff could your Eurobowl software be used for this?

[Pipey]

One word: whencanipay?

Is a Friday night game one an option? Then 3 and 3?

[Don__Vito]

OK, how about....

- Teams of five people (Bear with me on this).
- Eight teams (Venue capped at 40 I believe?)
- Seven games, meaning....

Every teams plays every other team! No complaints over who got the easiest run. No one getting an easy run in. Just a predrawn list of what team plays who every round before the tourney starts, the only 'draw' to be made would be on which individuals played who. Which could easilly be added up on a simple Excel spreasheet?

[Joemanji]

This seems an obvious ploy to give the Geordies the easiest draw.

The cads.

[Pipey]

Bless him, can't wait to reopen the sledge war despite last year's ignominious defeat.

You lot'll need more than an easy draw to deny GBBL another UK Team Championship Title (as good as official).



Interesting suggestion, Don...

[Ironjaw]

Flame + Poo = Steaming Pile of Shit Bowl

[PeteW]

OK, how about....

- Teams of five people (Bear with me on this).
- Eight teams (Venue capped at 40 I believe?)
- Seven games, meaning....

Every teams plays every other team! No complaints over who got the easiest run. No one getting an easy run in. Just a predrawn list of what team plays who every round before the tourney starts, the only 'draw' to be made would be on which individuals played who. Which could easilly be added up on a simple Excel spreasheet?

<3

Or if it were 32 people then same deal with 8 teams of 4.

[Purplegoo]

This seems an obvious ploy to give the Geordies the easiest draw.

The cads.

We all know they'll find some way of cheating / lucking it, but we want another team event anyway. That's how manly the WB is.

This is going to sell out sharpish, isn't it? Accepting Paypal yet, Stick?

[Pipey]

Votes for:

Flame rule set - well worth a second run out. It was awesome.

All team games. Happy with 6 I think. 7 could be just too intense with all the team stuff factored in.

I think it would be great if you could find a way to increase the capacity. It will be popular no doubt. Is there a second function room at The Swan you could hire?

[stick_with_poo_on_the_end]

Righto, My early thoughts would be have it capped at 32. 8 teams of 4. Mainly as 40 will be a squeeze and spill down stairs and be more disjointed, I would prefer to have all teams sat together. 7 games would mean all the teams play each other once, so there will be no excuses about cushy draws etc!

I will prob open doors for payments etc soon, to give people chance to reserve their spot. Teams would only be guaranteed a spot once all the payments are received, so maybe elect a captain to sort out rounding up. I would imagine it will sell out sharpish.

Prizes, I think the prize fund should be ploughed into the team of that win, rather than the individual winner (although they will of course get a trophy etc), thoughts?

Skills, will stick to the poobowl usual ( 1 double 3 singles day one / 3 singles day 2). But will put some kind of tier system on how many top races each team can bring.

To avoid accusations of fix, I will not play for a “team Geordie”, so will put forward my services as a freebooter!

[Joemanji]

But will put some kind of tier system on how many top races each team can bring.

I don't like this, it's stick over carrot (no pun intended). By all means incentivise people to take lesser races, but making someone bring a gash race to a tournament is a buzz kill IMO, especially one where you feel like you'll let people down if you lose. People are spending >£100 on the weekend most likely. Team BB is all the better for complete powergamery IMO.

[Jimjimjimany]

Yeah, forcing some people to take lesser races is pretty lame. Flamebowl was ace because it was optional but incentivised, and as a result we had a good mix of teams choosing to take the lesser races for the bonuses and teams deciding against it.

Also, if you were to make every team take a tier 2 race and a tier 3 race (just for example) it’s highly likely that these teams just will end up playing each other all weekend. Not a disaster but potentially pretty repetitive.

[stick_with_poo_on_the_end]

I totally understand Joe, and certainly don’t want to “force” anyone to play a gash team. What I am trying to achieve is to have decisions with in the teams, to add fun and dilemmas to the team picking. Hopefully my proposed rule set will reward teams that field underrepresented races, without forcing teams to have to field one.

1st draught

16 points to spend

5 points

wood elf
undead
lizzies
cds
dwarf

4pts

orc
darkies
norse
skaven
amazon

3pts
necro
human
pact
kemri

2 pts

chaos
vamp
nurgle
slann
elf
high elf
slann
underwold

1pt

ogre
gblin
fling

example of a waterbowl team

Jimmy - Skaven (4 points)
Manj - Dark Elves (4 points)
Purplegoo - Wood Elves (5 points)
Fraser - Pact (3 points)

Cant see that being to harsh?

Ideas?