zero_cochrane
07/12/2007, 12:09
We haven't been using BFCs in tournaments at the Tin Soldier for quite some time now. Originally there were a few reasons for this - because we only have two rounds per tournament it seems like a waste to bring just one BFC, and we have had a high proportion of newer players who seemed to be easily screwed over by BFC choices.
This has worked out fairly well - we don't see very many "abuse" teams so we don't need the silver bullets.
I was going to suggest to James H. that maybe we should consider bringing BFCs back, because the thematic teams rules should allow somebody to play a decent theme team without being screwed over by an "abuse" team with a BFC like Earthquake or Deep Shadows. But after seeing how the rules arbiter has decided that the "cancelling or ignoring BFCs?" question will be resolved, I've changed my mind.
Who needs to memorise another page of errata and clarifications? Twenty-eight entries to remember, keep track of, and argue about during a game... no thanks! It's a lot easier to simply not use BFCs at all.
What do you think?
This has worked out fairly well - we don't see very many "abuse" teams so we don't need the silver bullets.
I was going to suggest to James H. that maybe we should consider bringing BFCs back, because the thematic teams rules should allow somebody to play a decent theme team without being screwed over by an "abuse" team with a BFC like Earthquake or Deep Shadows. But after seeing how the rules arbiter has decided that the "cancelling or ignoring BFCs?" question will be resolved, I've changed my mind.
Who needs to memorise another page of errata and clarifications? Twenty-eight entries to remember, keep track of, and argue about during a game... no thanks! It's a lot easier to simply not use BFCs at all.
What do you think?