What if Cyanide did to BloodBowl what GW did to Warhammer?

[koadah]

Well I'll open by saying, if you didn't match by TV, but by success of some sort, would teams use JM in this way?

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Because your positionals are more important. You want to replace them straight away. You don't want to play with no wardancers for several games while you save the money.

What does TV matching have to do with it at all? It is exactly the same in league. For me there is no point at all buying a lino to take you to eleven players. I will use journeymen until I can afford to buy two to take me to twelve players and still have enough left over to replace a key positional immediately. Ideally with some to spare.

That is exactly the same in leagues, Box, ranked. If you want to call it an exploit then fine. As the devs like to say "it's not a bug. It's a feature"

As I said, change match making so that each team tries to become the best team they possibly can, and it's rewarding to do that, then you are playing to the spirit and if you do that you should be using JM legitimately.

What do you mean by "best"? Biggest? From a box point of view that is definitely NOT what a lot of people will want to do. Forcing them to do that will just drive more people out. As for "using JM legitimately" I think that is nonsense. You take a slightly weaker team today for a better team tomorrow. It is nothing to do with match making. Are you confusing this with firing healthy players?

I believe the fantasy influence and the pure brilliance of the world created does have a bearing

I bought 2nd Ed years ago because I love NFL and loved LotR. I love the role play element of the game.
Saving for the rainy day when my star witch or WD gets tackle-POMBed matches my fluff perfectly.
I really don't care whether JJ would be horrified or not.

I don't agree with your idea of 'the spirit' and probably never will. Fumbbl apply a reasonably rule for the use of JMs.
My issue is that they don't make it clear what the rule is. That gives old vets an unfair advantage over rookies who may be playing it unnecessarily safe.

it just sits in a bank account. Then used if your wardancer dies. It's not a realistic mechanic

Yes, yes, yes it is.

If a key player takes a serious injury before the transfer window closes the team will rush out to try to buy a replacement.

There's no point fixing JM therefore restricting creativity only to leave the real problem.

I suppose I am just going to have to accept that I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Dr. Von Richten]

How many of these problems occur in an actual offline league; as the game was designed to be played in?

I.e. not some online thing where you play against people you don't know and cannot develop a set of socially accepted do's and dont's with, but people you meet face to face and hang out with and who have to compromise with the league's rules and spirit, and clawPOMB murder teams are just not done?

And not some situation what you can play a game in an hour during work, so you get someone who plays 20 games in one week just to get a team up for the next XFL, but a real-life thing where you meet once a week at most, and, playing multiple teams, you play each team 5-15 times a year, or less?

And, finally, not something like Box, where there is no point to play other than to play, and murder is all there is, or Ranked where you can take as long as you want to build a team just for some tournament, but an actual league (which do also exist online, I know), where you have a finite amount of games to win the competition (whatever form that takes; open, scheduled, knockout) and you must build and win at the same time?

In other words, if you play a game in a style it wasn't designed for (like FUMMBL's Black Box or even a perpetual Ranked list) you will face issues the game cannot possibly solve.

And yes, JJ wanted the game to be playable 'in perpetuity', but, having designed a boardgame, working for a miniatures company and being steeped in a philosophy of 'fun and good sportsmanship' (however well or badly GW's current product lines may live up to that), I think the online game never was a serious consideration for him, so 'in perpetuity' implies ' withing the constraints of a tabletop game' , not 'as it is stretched and abused by online gaming'.

[dode74]

Can in this case is 'ability'. Which means the team is unable to field 11 players. Be that fluff restrictions, money restrictions or restricted in some other way.

While the rules state what they state they do not do so in a vacuum. It is the 7th step of a fairly well defined sequence, and the step where you may buy players has already been completed. Nowhere does it say you must buy up to 11 players if you can. The phrase including "can" must be read within that context, and the framing of the post match sequence defines very well that you don't have to buy up to 11, and that the decision to take JMen or not is taken after purchasing (or not) more players. It's not sensible within the entire context of the Post Match Sequence to suggest that the "can" means what you are saying it to mean rather than meaning simply the number of players currently on the team.

I know you don't agree with me on this issue, and I believe that's a blind spot for you. Think fluff before rules, then make the rules to fit, not the other way around.

And I believe the inability to think rules before fluff is a blind spot for you, but there we go. In this case all we have to go on is the rules as written. What you appear to be doing is taking those rules, fitting an interpretation of the fluff around them, then coming up with more rules which make that fluff fit. That makes little sense to me, and I think if your fluff needs to do that then you need to rethink your fluff so that it doesn't require extra explanations to make it work.

Why isn't this the case for all players then? Or at least or linemen?

See, now you're asking me to make up fluff to fit the rules, but if I do you'll simply accuse me of making up fluff to fit the rules! I can think of several reasons for this but don't think it matters as much as realising that the rules are what they are and we should play by them even if we find some of them unsatisfying; there are plenty of examples of that, the intercept roll perhaps being one of the most infamous.

[harvestmouse]

1. It is clearly 'can' as in 'ability to'. However it's by the by. Because JM usage was not an issue in testing and the whole issue is because of other mechanics failing, not the JM rule itself. Match (ok and handicap Koadah) on something success based, rather than TV and I'm sure it's no longer an issue. There's the real problem. The fact we match and handicap with TV is what is causing these artificial issues.

2. All the original rules came from portraying a fluff element. You should always keep in mind what you are trying to portray when making rules. An example of the opposite is the modern claw. From a fluff aspect it's ugly, I'd like there to be a good fluff for claw, but as it is, it's better to gloss over it rather than force some bad fluff on to it. However the more rules you make like this, the more you dilute the fantasy the game is trying to portray.

3. No, I'm totally not. I'm saying the rules do not fit Koadah's fluff portrayal. He's done exactly what I've said not to do. Find a rule, then make the fluff to fit it. It's better you don't come up with a fluff reasoning aka modern claw. If JMs portrayal are how Koadah describe, why don't the rules support it? The fluff for JM is that they're 'make weights' and 'used if you cannot field 11 players'.

As I pointed out, there a many reasons why you might not be able to field 11 players. From a fantasy point of view continually keeping a bank in case certain players die, recycle free players or to stash cash for when you hit SE are not them. However you don't match/handicap with TV then the coaches have to make trade off choices, then you're making more realistic choices on whether or not to use them.

[dode74]

1. Disagree with your interpretation of can once more, and for the same reason. Some confirmation that you do not have to buy players: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=40715&p=720668&hil ... en#p720668

2. You not liking the fluff is not the same as the fluff being ugly.

3. There is no fluff for JMen. There are only rules in the rulebook as it stands. "Makeweights" is your own interpretation of those rules.

From a fantasy point of view continually keeping a bank in case certain players die, recycle free players or to stash cash for when you hit SE are not them.

I'd agree with the stashing cash, but why not saving for certain players? Seems exactly like the kind of cutthroat shenanigans a blood bowl coach would get up to!

[harvestmouse]

We're going around in circles, which we knew we would. I see no point in circular arguments trying to prove who is the better debater. We don't agree on the issue, we knew that too.

The issue is pretty pointless also, as we both agree we dislike TV match making and that I think would fix my problem with JM anyway.

[koadah]

The issue is pretty pointless also, as we both agree we dislike TV match making and that I think would fix my problem with JM anyway.

One last one before knocking it on the head. What on earth does TV match making have to do with the journeyman issue?

[harvestmouse]

(TV matchmaking and handicapping)

Coaches can:

A: Stay with 4-5 Journey Men and save up money and then buy positionals or line fodder to take them to 12. Safe in the knowledge that although they'll be matched to team strength not on the power of the team's results.


Coach 1:

Has 190k in the bank but only 6 players, all of which have skills. He wants to replace all the Journey Men in one and add a 12th lineman, but at the same time. He also wants to ideally maintain a healthy bank to replace either of the blitzers if they were to get injured.

His team would actually be weaker for a longer period. If during this time he continued to win matches, his match ups would be getting harder, not staying the same. Therefore he has to make the decision each time he refuses to replace his players "Can I still continue to win, even though I don't improve my squad?"

Coach 2:

Coach 2 is saving for a blitzer. He's playing with 10 men and a Journey Man. After his last match he is 10k short. He could afford a catcher for his next game though and only has 3 of these. Does he buy the catcher or does he save for the original blitzer and use the Journey Man?

Both times the coach has to weigh up whether it is playing the next match with less chances of winning. Of course, there also needs to be better incentives for winning immediate match ups.

Although yes, coaches may choose to take the saving option in both these situations, they're unlikely to continue to do so over a period of time.

There are of course many other scenarios.

[WhatBall]

How many of these problems occur in an actual offline league; as the game was designed to be played in?

I.e. not some online thing where you play against people you don't know and cannot develop a set of socially accepted do's and dont's with, but people you meet face to face and hang out with and who have to compromise with the league's rules and spirit, and clawPOMB murder teams are just not done?

And not some situation what you can play a game in an hour during work, so you get someone who plays 20 games in one week just to get a team up for the next XFL, but a real-life thing where you meet once a week at most, and, playing multiple teams, you play each team 5-15 times a year, or less?

And, finally, not something like Box, where there is no point to play other than to play, and murder is all there is, or Ranked where you can take as long as you want to build a team just for some tournament, but an actual league (which do also exist online, I know), where you have a finite amount of games to win the competition (whatever form that takes; open, scheduled, knockout) and you must build and win at the same time?

In other words, if you play a game in a style it wasn't designed for (like FUMMBL's Black Box or even a perpetual Ranked list) you will face issues the game cannot possibly solve.

And yes, JJ wanted the game to be playable 'in perpetuity', but, having designed a boardgame, working for a miniatures company and being steeped in a philosophy of 'fun and good sportsmanship' (however well or badly GW's current product lines may live up to that), I think the online game never was a serious consideration for him, so 'in perpetuity' implies ' withing the constraints of a tabletop game' , not 'as it is stretched and abused by online gaming'.

Had this been the case, BB would have (imo) been dead many moons ago. It would be played out in very small obscure leagues here and there and would have a small fraction of the support it has now. I personally have no time or desire to play TT at all anymore. I don't have any urge to go to a tournament.

Fixing perpetual online play is actually key to keeping BB alive for years to come. It is very possible to fix the game mechanics and alter very little of the way it runs now for TT and tournaments.

[dode74]

We're going around in circles, which we knew we would. I see no point in circular arguments trying to prove who is the better debater. We don't agree on the issue, we knew that too.

The issue is pretty pointless also, as we both agree we dislike TV match making and that I think would fix my problem with JM anyway.

I'm not trying to prove who is the better debater, I'm showing how the "you must buy players" argument is flawed both conceptually and evidentially.

[dode74]

It is very possible to fix the game mechanics and alter very little of the way it runs now for TT and tournaments.

Absolutely. Nothing needs to change on-pitch.

[WhatBall]

It is very possible to fix the game mechanics and alter very little of the way it runs now for TT and tournaments.

Absolutely. Nothing needs to change on-pitch.

That's not what I said, because I am one of those who does believe the rules need improving.

[dode74]

I believe the rules need maintaining (which can include change), but that does not mean a rule change is necessary to fix broken environments.

[koadah]

I believe the rules need maintaining (which can include change), but that does not mean a rule change is necessary to fix broken environments.

I would definitely change them. Don't care if you call it 'official', a 'house rule' or turnip.

[harvestmouse]

We're going around in circles, which we knew we would. I see no point in circular arguments trying to prove who is the better debater. We don't agree on the issue, we knew that too.

The issue is pretty pointless also, as we both agree we dislike TV match making and that I think would fix my problem with JM anyway.

I'm not trying to prove who is the better debater, I'm showing how the "you must buy players" argument is flawed both conceptually and evidentially.

But you haven't shown me, I still believe I'm right and you are wrong. Just as you believe the opposite. We're not going to convince each other and we're hijacking a thread. So it's better to move on, particularly as something we'd both like would go a long way to solving my problem with JM anyway. So I don't see a point in chasing the issue.