Fixing Journeymen II: the poll

[voyagers_uk]

did you mean doesn't NOT make it worthwhile....

[GalakStarscraper]

Bounties may help, although I do not suggest excess cash prizes, more +1 to fame in their next match as a reputational fear thing.

that gives you back your win/win for fouling/bashing.

I had the same idea as I was reading the thread this morning and saw that voyagers had already mentioned it.

What it sounds like you need for your league is something to encourage them back to the realm of maiming for the joy of maiming. If that requires small incentives ... that works for me.

So in that case as I'm learning more of the psychology of your league. I think your idea of giving 1 SPP for CAS through Stab, Secret Weapon and fouling ... that's an okay house rule for your league.

I would also recommend the following house rule:

Any time you permanently kill (from any method) the player on your opponents team that had the most SPPs at the beginning of the game, you receive +1 FAME for your next game.

I still recommend using the Bank rules instead of Petty Cash even with the above. In my opinion ... I'd make this recommendation to ANY league.

Galak

[mattgslater]

Thanks, guys! I'll definitely suggest an alternative to bounties. Bounties themselves are really controversial here; we've had all sorts of things go wrong over the decades with different rules for bounties. But that rule Voyagers_UK proposed is pretty cool.

[SillySod]

WHAT!!!????

How about:
1) The joy of watching your opponent's face as you snap the spine of their players

We need more of this sentiment when it comes to turn 16 fouling

[mattgslater]

See, I generally have a big problem with Turn 16 fouling, unless you're playing up and losing. If/when there were SPP for fouls, then it's okay.

[Darkson]

*I spy a T16 fouling threadjacking looming...*

[mattgslater]

Go ahead. I'm pretty much done with the poll, and besides I'm like the world's worst threadjacker, though I don't do it on purpose; I just think in broad circles.

But you might as well start a thread on T16 fouling. That sounds like a fun debate. Both practical and ethical arguments for both sides are pretty easy to stake out.

[funnyfingers]

Is the bank only if journeymen are used?

[GalakStarscraper]

Is the bank only if journeymen are used?

No ... the Bank was the original and BETTER rules for how the Treasury in the game should be treated. If you use the Bank rules ... throw out the worse than useless Petty Cash rules that JJ invented and you'll be set to go.

Galak

[funnyfingers]

Oh and I could spend my winnings freely without matching up inducements?

Say:

TV: 1500K with 200K = 1600K TV
vs
TV: 1600K with 50K = 1600K TV

Top team gets to spend 150K on a wizard *and 50K on a babe* and bottom team still gets just his 50K to spend?

And this helps the journeyman "problem" by not hording gold?

*edited to clarify*

[GalakStarscraper]

Oh and I could spend my winnings freely without matching up inducements?

Say:

TV: 1500K with 200K = 1600K TV
vs
TV: 1600K with 50K = 1600K TV

Top team gets to spend 150K on a wizard *and 50K on a babe* and bottom team still gets just his 50K to spend?

And this helps the journeyman "problem" by not hording gold?

*edited to clarify*

Not quite. Money in the Bank cannot be used to purchase inducements only money in your team's Treasury can. Page 2 of the Fixing Journeymen Poll (the first one) has the full rules for the Bank (which I'm thinking should maybe be a sticky post in House rules)

So with the above ... assuming they are both fully using the Bank's 100k limit. Then both teams are 1600K TV and team one has 100k he can spend on inducements for this match if he wants. Team two does not have any money in treasury and so cannot purchase inducements from treasury.

Galak

[mattgslater]

I like that, particularly for the regular season. It will be interesting to see how coaches use that rule to gear up for the postseason.

I hate the Petty Cash rule; if we don't go with the Bank, we'll go with the split TV and a house rule for Petty Cash. My guys are hashing over the Bank, but we won't be voting for awhile now.

[funnyfingers]

I don't see how the bank does much then. It just seems to force the team that needs to save for a rainy day to give away inducements. Overall I am satisfied with the inducement system and journeymen as is.

If I had any gripe, it would be with mercenaries who just aren't worth hiring most of the time as they are just not worth it.

[mattgslater]

What I'm running into is that JMs take away all sense of urgency. Money problems mean nothing at all anymore, and cash-flow differential was a major balance element. Mercs are balanced about right, IMO; Journeymen, Stars and Wizards are too good. In a fixed-format league, it's almost like you're penalized for winning your games.

We don't like an invitational postseason: we want every team to be competitive right up to the end to avoid a late season string of forfeitures (damn voluntary activities). If you really want to win in the postseason, the way we have it structured, it almost seems like the best plan is never to spend any money at all, forfeit all your games by not trying, and go in with a winless record and lame seeding but an enormous underdog value so you can always induce a couple stars and whatever else you need to win the matches when they start to count. The way I see it, that's unsportsmanlike. In a game like this, perverse incentives are absolute killers, even if they're never applied. After one coach did this with some success, it pissed everyone else off. They don't do it themselves (and we voted that guy out), but if sportsmanship tells you not to do the optimal as a matter of course, the rules should be in agreement.

[Darkson]

Just outlaw some (or all) inducements in the post-season, as LRB5 said (not sure if it made it to the CRP or not).