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

[dode74]

So you can no longer save for a rainy day

You can, it will just give you an on-pitch disadvantage of an inflated TV. The alternative is to not save and not be able to restock after a nasty match in one go - it'll take a number of matches to do so, during which you will rely on JMen, but will purchase replacements as and when you can afford them in order to avoid that on-pitch disadvatage.

[spubbbba]

Given treasury counted towards TR in LRB4, and that the only real difference is that the first 150k doesn't count under the Bank rule, I'm curious as to what you think won't work.

I liked the fluffiness of the LRB4 formula, but it was a bit more complex than the SE system. Not exactly rocket surgery, but still...

Remember you could spend cash on wizards and stars in LRB4 with no change to TV. They were also ridiculously underpriced compared to crp as well. Any human or undead team was far better with the count than a rookie wight/blitzer.

For some teams in crp you end up with more cash than you know what to do with, undead are a prime example as you don't even need to buy linemen.

[dode74]

Exactly: under LRB 4 you either chose to spend your cash on inducements or it counted against you on the pitch. The bank does exactly the same thing except it lets you put 150k aside as well. And instead of handicap rolls we now have inducement cash.

[straume]

Please explain why it is a problem with huge treasuries? If an Undead team has 1.5 million in the Treasury, so what? They are never going to use them anyways. And if they do, the opponent gets the same amount in inducements (assuming the same TV).

I also don`t see the "Journeyman-exploit" as a huge problem. If a Pro Elf team chooses to play with 10 players and 1 JM instead of 11 players, so what? It makes them just a little less competitive (loner) in the match and a little more likely to replace that dead positional right away. Is that bad?

Also: Using JM you will choose to field 11 players, which always is a big con. And especially so, I would assume, in "the Box" which I understand has a lot of bash (disclaimer: I have 0 experience with the box). Who would like to go into a bash-heavy match with 0 bench?

As for "sweet-spotting" I assume this will always be an issue in a TV-matched environment, as some teams simply are better that others at certain TV-ranges. No changes (bar drastic ones) would change that.

[harvestmouse]

You're looking at it from a rules perspective, and in truth there isn't really one. I can also think of good fluff reasons to allow big banks or the use of JM.

However your stance for me is the problem with BB now, it's moved on so much the original premise of GW games is being forgotten. The spirit of the game is to make a realistic fantasy football game, with mechanics that are believable. The more you erode this spirit, the less appealing the character of the game is. It's becoming a competitive entity of it's own, and removing itself from the world GW created. This I know, doesn't mean a lot to many of you. However it probably means more than you think.

A big bank makes money a bit pointless. Teams are supposed to scrimp and save, and make money decisions. In the fantasy world there wouldn't be a point where SE kicks in. You wouldn't know the value of your team and at what point you need to stop growing the team and sit at that level. Allowing this, is unrealistic and unappetizing. Especially for those that play or want to play due to the credible fantasy setting.

The same with JM. Journey Men are unpaid players, hoping to show enough in their one chance that they get signed up. They are inferior to regular players. Their main role is to play for the desperate teams with little money, in the hope they get signed up if the team manages to come out of the red. So why would a good team hire one or some of these, if they have the money? As clearly, they're inferior. Ok, there are fluff reasons that this might be. 'The team isn't popular and cannot sign regular players' 'The team manager adores his star player, and neglects the rest of the team, so much so he never signs any!' 'The team never buys players, it only raises them from the dead' etc etc. These are good fluff reasons, that are creative and should be encouraged. However doing it to save money so that if you decide to go up in TV or save money so that you have enough in the bank for a rainy day, is lame and rule driven.

The circumnavigate rules that are there for spirit integrity or try to portray a certain mechanic.

[straume]

You're looking at it from a rules perspective, and in truth there isn't really one. I can also think of good fluff reasons to allow big banks or the use of JM.

A big bank makes money a bit pointless. Teams are supposed to scrimp and save, and make money decisions. In the fantasy world there wouldn't be a point where SE kicks in.

Okay, you make a good and fluff-driven argument for the Bank that makes perfect sense. And to be clear: I am not arguing against The Bank, I just didn`t understand the problem rulewise with the status quo. And there really isn`t one, as you explain. The fluff argument makes sense, though, and if the Bank works and does not break anything rulewise I am all for it.

As for the JM I am still unsure, though. Someone spoke of the JM-"exploit" and I am not really seeing it (again: from a rules perspective) as playing with 11 players is generally not a good thing. In my league (OCC) we have some Wood Elves at times with 7-8 players which saves money to get back on their feet. And that means waiting until they can get up to 12 players usually. Not really a bad thing is it? In my opinion it gives the more longevity to the league. It gives them some breathing room to not replace a lineman from LOS every match. And fluffwise, as you point out, this could be explained.

[harvestmouse]

It's an 'exploit' (if you like) as it's exploiting a rule. Journey Men are for teams that cannot afford to replace players. Ok ok, it's been pointed out by one BBRC member that it's perfectly fine, and it's never been stated that this is the only reason for including JM. It's also been pointed out by another that this was not the intention of JJ and it's an exploit. I firmly believe the latter is the case. There are other reasons you could use JM, but I think it's needs to be creative or realistic.

Now, your fluff point. "And fluffwise, as you point out, this could be explained." This is the most important part for me. There's a core difference.

1. Creating the fluff and then the rules to replicate the function.
2. Creating rules and then fluff to explain the function.

1. is the Spirit of the game, this was GWs original intention with all their games. 2. Unless very very good will come across as artificial and forced. This hurts the integrity of the fantasy universe. I know many will read this and think I'm off my head with mushrooms, however I can't stress enough how integral it is,. It is part of the original appeal that many will have forgotten about.

Let me give an elven example.

I start 2 Wood Elf teams:

Team 1 I go to my Commissioner and tell him my theme:

We are the Wood Elves of Lothel Tathelern, a dwindling wood realm on the borders of the Dwarven and Border Prince's realm. Both Kingdoms are slowly eroding are realm by removing the trees for their own vile use. Our numbers dwindle and we have hit poor times, recruiting is difficult. The few young elves there are either move away or develop all too slowly. To which the realm's team is finding it harder and harder to recruit new elves.

Special rule: Recruiting. After each game decide how many elves you need to recruit. For each new recruit roll a D6. If you wish to recruit a lineman on a 1-4 you may recruit him. If you roll a 5-6 there are no elves available and you will have to make do or use Journey Men. If you wish to recruit a thrower or catcher 1-3 you may recruit him. If you wish to recruit a wardancer these are becoming rarer by the year. Only on a 1 may you recruit him. Treemen no longer frequent the wood of Lothel Tathelern, and may only be recruited on start up.

(Fluff with special rules agreed with the Commissioner to fit)

Team 2 I go to my Commissioner and tell him my theme:

We are the Wood Elf Troupe of the Dancing Stag. So proud are we of our troupe, that we maintain an exact number of Special dancers. That being 1 thrower, 2 catchers and 2 war dancers. We would be extremely dishonoured if we could not fulfill our performance commitments and therefore we maintain a goldchest of a minimum of our 2 most expensive dancers. We will also not purchase supporting dancers unless we have enough to maintain a troupe of 12, as this makes the supporting dancer numbers uneven and spoils the show. We will never have more than 12 dancers, as our performances are for 12 only.

(Clearly here I have thought up fluff to support the reason why I am 'exploiting' the Journey Man rule) This is obvious to anybody who knows the game, the league rules and my intentions. i.e. it is artificial.

[dode74]

Please explain why it is a problem with huge treasuries? If an Undead team has 1.5 million in the Treasury, so what? They are never going to use them anyways. And if they do, the opponent gets the same amount in inducements (assuming the same TV).

Imagine a box team (let's call them Team A) entering a tournament with a high TV and an enormous treasury. Their opponents get inducements already, but what Team A can do is effectively nullify some of those inducements by simply buying the same ones. Many people would buy a wizard at 150k, it being one of the most effective inducements for the 150k. Team A can purchase one with his treasury money, forcing his opponent to spend another 150k on something which is less effective (if it wasn't less effective it would have been the first choice). He can do the same with some star players: a mirror match is particularly suceptible to this, but if Morg is an obvious choice for a star hire then Team A can purchase Morg himself, forcing his opponent not only to lose out on one of his two stars but to spent 430k on something else.

It doesn't happen often, sure, but it has happened, and has potentially had an effect on FUMBBL majors in the past.

[straume]

Okay, nice example. That is indeed a potential problem.

[dode74]

It's an 'exploit' (if you like) as it's exploiting a rule. Journey Men are for teams that cannot afford to replace players. Ok ok, it's been pointed out by one BBRC member that it's perfectly fine, and it's never been stated that this is the only reason for including JM.

You describe it as an exploit because JM are for reason X then state that "JM are for reason X" has never actually been definitively stated as the case. That you firmly believe that reason X is the case is neither here nor there, tbh.

I get your the difference between your two paradigms - we discussed it at length after Khorne was released - but I wonder if you're inventing your own fluff rather than being open to what the fluff could be. Having had a quick scan there doesn't appear to be any fluff in the LRB6 to describe the reasons behind journeymen being available, so I'm not sure why you 'd think there would be any restriction. The fact that you can hire them post-match suggests to me that the fluff is that they can be taken on trial, only to be hired after they have proven themselves on the pitch (given most people only hire those with SPP that seems to fit). Only once they have accepted a contract are they considered to be one of the team, hence losing loner.

[koadah]

However your stance for me is the problem with BB now, it's moved on so much the original premise of GW games is being forgotten. The spirit of the game is to make a realistic fantasy football game, with mechanics that are believable. The more you erode this spirit, the less appealing the character of the game is. It's becoming a competitive entity of it's own, and removing itself from the world GW created. This I know, doesn't mean a lot to many of you. However it probably means more than you think.

Now, this is where you and I fall out Mouse. I bought the game with my own money. I don't want to be told in which 'spirit' I should play it.

I will definitely NOT want to be playing it in the same 'spirit' every evening.

I play mainly on Fumbbl. I play in different leagues/divisions depending on what I am looking for. If it is important to play against someone who is going to use the same 'spirit' then play a favourite opponent in Ranked or in your favourite league. Create your own league with your own rules if necessary.

The idea that there is one 'spirit of the game' is just bizarre.

If you play in the Black Box you have to play what you are given. That could be a person with different ideas. Or at least a different 'spirit' that evening.

So why would a good team hire one or some of these, if they have the money? As clearly, they're inferior.

For the same reason as we do in the game. To save money. Whether it is to pocket the money, pass it on to shareholders, build a new stadium or use it to pay stars. A cheap player who can do a job for you is better than a slightly better player who is much more expensive. Unless of course you are Chelsea, Man City etc. Everyone else has to make do.

Teams take players on loan in deals where the owning team pays part of the salary. Whether those are young players who need playing time or stars that the owning team cannot get rid of they sound a lot like journeymen to me.

I don't know how much you know about the NFL Mouse but that is the league that inspired the game more than any other. In the NFL managing the salary cap is an essential part of the game. If you do not min/max you cannot win.
A general manager can be elected to the Hall of Fame if he can build a championship winning team.

[Regash]

I may be very much mistaken but I think the rules for JMs are being abused.

7. If a team can only field 10 or less players for the next match, the team may bring Journeymen onto the roster for free until the team can field 11 players for the next match. A Journeyman is always a player from a 0-16 or 0-12 allowed position on the team's roster. He counts his normal rookie cost towards the total team value, but has the Loner skill as he is not used to playing with the team. Journeymen may take the total players on the team (including injured players) to more than 16 at this point.

It is the "can only field 10 or less" part, that makes me think so.

I can't imagine, this rule was meant to be used in a way to stack up your gold and play with JMs.
Can you field more than 10? Yes, you can! You have the money to buy players for the team!
I'm pretty sure that it was meant to keep teams alive that have been beaten up completely.

So this is the old "abuse rules with unclear wording" thing again.
People who will grab any kind of advantage just to have them.
Why are people doing this?
Is winning a stupid little boardgame so important, so essential to you?

Really, guys...
Play for fun, not for a sense of achievement.
It's only a game and being good at it is no achievement.
Especially rule-abusing is no achievement.

[Darkson]

It is the "can only field 10 or less" part, that makes me think so.

I can't imagine, this rule was meant to be used in a way to stack up your gold and play with JMs.

Actually, it was, and a few people tried to do it during playtesting (it didn't work very well).
But remember all the playtesting was done under Bank rules, not Petty Cash.

Basically, JJ screwed up.

[dode74]

I can't imagine, this rule was meant to be used in a way to stack up your gold and play with JMs.
Can you field more than 10? Yes, you can! You have the money to buy players for the team!

You can only field more than 10 if they've bought enough players to do so at step 5. Nowhere does it say that you have to go back and buy players at step 5 if you can buy up to 11 players. Add that to the fact that Doubleskulls has said on this forum that a coach can field all loners if he wishes, and iirc Galak has said that there was never any intention to force people to buy players, and it seems to me that the argument that "if you have the cash you can field more than 10" doesn't work.

[harvestmouse]

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? That is where the problem really lies. Making rules about when and how you can use JM is just a patch, and why I think there are no rules or definitive fluff. Exploiting the use wasn't considered. You match another way, the problem largely goes away. Or the coach makes a genuine choice, weighs up whether in the long run there's a benefit. Then you are playing to the spirit of the rules. If SE is no longer the ceiling, then it goes away completely. Yes, it's subtle however the use of JM becomes totally realistic. The Spirit of the rules is what is inside JJ or GW. I think only experience and an understand of what is trying to be achieved and what has actually been achieved will let you understand this. There are small differences, but breaking differences. I'll agree it's interpretation and I can be wrong.

It's an 'exploit' (if you like) as it's exploiting a rule. Journey Men are for teams that cannot afford to replace players. Ok ok, it's been pointed out by one BBRC member that it's perfectly fine, and it's never been stated that this is the only reason for including JM.

You describe it as an exploit because JM are for reason X then state that "JM are for reason X" has never actually been definitively stated as the case. That you firmly believe that reason X is the case is neither here nor there, tbh.[/quote]

The rules state "If a team can only field 10 or less players for the next match, the team may bring Journeymen onto the roster for free until the team can field 11 players for the next match. A Journeyman is always a player from a 0-16 or 0-12 allowed position on the team's roster. He counts his normal rookie cost towards the total team value, but has the Loner skill as he is not used to playing with the team. Journeymen may take the total players on the team
(including injured players) to more than 16 at this point."

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. From this it is clear these players are 'make weights'. So you have to ask yourselves what is a legitimate realistic situation for using a makeweight. I think JJ from what Milo has said, and I agree with has taken this rule literally. It's his (Milo's) belief and mine that he'd find the current use (in a TV matched environment) unacceptable. Think what you like on that, but that's my position.

I will say this. I think that making rules on when and how you can use JM is counter-productive, but necessary if we continue to use TV as we do, which is disappointing. I had no bearing on Christer making the decision to keep the 'coaches may not let their teams deliberately deteriorate' rule for spirit reasons. It's also disappointing as it curbs creativity. However in the main divisions I really believe it's necessary.

I get your the difference between your two paradigms - we discussed it at length after Khorne was released - but I wonder if you're inventing your own fluff rather than being open to what the fluff could be.

The fluff 'could be' anything. I could pull something out of my arse and explain it away. 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. "Why would a team realistically use a make weight?"

The fact that you can hire them post-match suggests to me that the fluff is that they can be taken on trial, only to be hired after they have proven themselves on the pitch (given most people only hire those with SPP that seems to fit). Only once they have accepted a contract are they considered to be one of the team, hence losing loner.

Why isn't this the case for all players then? Or at least or linemen? I can see that being the way linemen the most basic of players being hired. However there's clearly a difference between a JM and a standard Lineman. That is one is unproven and the other is proven. So, why would you play one, see if he's ok and then purchase him, over purchase the one who is already proven to you. Sure in a B team, but not your A team where winning is essential. Again, dead games at the end of the season would be a perfect time to blood these JMs and not risk your best players. No professional team would use players that are not part of their team and unproven unless they had to, or didn't need to win their next game. This is a problem with the 'treading water' mentality of the perpetual divisions.

Now, this is where you and I fall out Mouse. I bought the game with my own money. I don't want to be told in which 'spirit' I should play it.

I will definitely NOT want to be playing it in the same 'spirit' every evening.

I play mainly on Fumbbl. I play in different leagues/divisions depending on what I am looking for. If it is important to play against someone who is going to use the same 'spirit' then play a favourite opponent in Ranked or in your favourite league. Create your own league with your own rules if necessary.

How has this got anything to do with what I said? You want to play in a certain way? Sure go for it. You want to play with house rules? Fine. You want to make a league that specializes in min-maxing and uses special rules to promote that? Great, really interesting to see how it fares.

Diversity is key. The more house ruled leagues the better! I don't want to see rules to restrict JM. Rather the coaches weighing up what is best for them, their chances of winning and their fluff. 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. It could be you're restricting your chances of winning due to fluff reasons (our friends from Lothel Tathelern for example) fine BB is all about underdogs, try to make them the best they can under their limitations.

Play as you please, house rule as you please but make the successful strategies as realistic and spirit orientated as possible. I have no interest in restricting individual creativity.

If you play in the Black Box you have to play what you are given. That could be a person with different ideas. Or at least a different 'spirit' that evening.

Sure, again we're on different frequencies. Everybody has different reasons for playing. Particularly on FUMBBL, half the coaches have little idea about BB or the world it comes from. However I believe the fantasy influence and the pure brilliance of the world created does have a bearing, not just the well balanced rules. It's an eco-system, a little well balanced world living on our kitchen tables.

Each person comes with different goals and personal fluff. It's only a matter of time before the 'Types of Bamboo from South East China' team appears, with all it's bushy fluff. You want to make teams like that, well it breaks the illusion, but that's your personal choice and you shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

However the is a Spirit, a spirit the rules are trying to portray. Forget about rules and mechanics and what you can and can't do and what the rules are trying to do. What they're trying to replicate. Damaging this spirit is what I wish to curb, not creativity. Again, you want to play a league with all sort of house rules, then fine you have that choice. You want to play a game that damages the spirit in a division for all users? Then no, I don't agree with that.

For the same reason as we do in the game. To save money. Whether it is to pocket the money, pass it on to shareholders, build a new stadium or use it to pay stars. A cheap player who can do a job for you is better than a slightly better player who is much more expensive.

Sure, I can accept all that. Either we add those mechanics in the game or they are covered under SE. However none of that is the case, it just sits in a bank account. Then used if your wardancer dies. It's not a realistic mechanic, it's gamesmanship. If you use this fluff it's the same as our 2 Elven teams; artificial fluff.

You want to create fluff where you pay all these people and you delete funds. Great, good fluff! Yet, it should be detrimental to your team in the long run. Not strategies to avoid taxing mechanic or away to squirrel away funds in case on of the few positionals you have dies.

Teams take players on loan in deals where the owning team pays part of the salary. Whether those are young players who need playing time or stars that the owning team cannot get rid of they sound a lot like journeymen to me.

Not to me. You don't loan a player you have no idea about. You probably wouldn't blood that loaned player without testing him first unless you were desperate. Loans would be..........loans. Where teams would transfer players to other teams for a limited period. You're creating fluff to fit the rules. Not making rules to fit the fluff. You want loaners, make loaners not put a Square Journey Man in a Round Loaners peg!

I don't know how much you know about the NFL Mouse but that is the league that inspired the game more than any other. In the NFL managing the salary cap is an essential part of the game. If you do not min/max you cannot win.
A general manager can be elected to the Hall of Fame if he can build a championship winning team.

Fund management should be part of progressive BB. Salary capping doesn't really work as we pay positionals the same price. The best we could do would be TV limits with culling. However players cannot choose to take lower salaries, so....salary capping isn't a good example.

The bottom line is................it's a sticking point half way down the avalanche. It's not the cause. Fix the cause and JM probably wouldn't be an issue. There's no point fixing JM therefore restricting creativity only to leave the real problem.