Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[sean newboy]

Unfortunately those statistics dont help the current question. That is how many games does it take average to get a 2 skill welf lineman vs a dwarf lineman?

[Thadrin]

All those statistics tell me is that - barring the stunty teams - the balance of the game today (I haven't been to Fumbbl for a while - real busy lately...is the 2003 RR implemented yet?) is pretty good.

Which is why the package as stated is fine, because it hurts everyone roughly evenly. My beef with the freebooted apoth is merely one of personal preference, not rules balance. I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference.

[Dinaturz]

Hard to answer to this question.

There are many things playing important roles like luck, how many players a team has (the more they are the more spps are spread); opponents; how good a coach is in using them (that means how effective they can be) and so on...

Having played most of the races I could say that fast scoring teams (elves, lizards and skaven) develop (a bit) faster, but die young. Slow running/scoring teams are usually also slower in gaining skills, but live longer. Humans are in trouble...

marco

[Thadrin]

Hard to answer to this question.

There are many things playing important roles like how many players a team has (the more they are the more spps are spread)

Not ALWAYS true - specifically thinking about teams who have one outstanding player...a OTS or some guy like my MA7 AG5 runner (the king of 1s...), but thats irrelevant.

Humans are in trouble...

True. A little shocked by that, but they're not so far behind. I think the breadth of the human team can be a hard thing to overcome...they're OK at everything, but not great at anything. They have to be developed on a theme from very early on.

About 40% wins (+- 5%) seems right for a race.

[Gutripper]

Galak posting through Nazgit ... sorry Naz. ... you had a good break point from the other thread....

2) TBB Package:
Step 1: Remove Aging from the game.
Step 2: Move to a better handicap table like the CHUBB table for example: http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/handicap.html
Step 3: Rule Change: In addition to the preGame rolls for Niggling injuries if a player is STILL in Reserves or KO (ie is a casualty or already missing the game/niggled out) at the beginning of the 2nd half or overtime, he must successfully roll for his Niggling Injuries again or miss the remainder of the game.
Step 4: Add the Simplified Coach's Choice Negative Winnings rule:
Note: If your cash roll at the end of a game is negative, this amount is deducted from your treasury. This may cause your treasury to go negative. If it does, the negative amount is recorded to your roster as a team debt (ie negative cash). Negative treasuries will be treated as if they are positive treasuries for Team Rating points. You cannot purchase anything for your team if your treasury is negative.
Step 5: Change the Apothecary from being purchased for 50k to having to be freebooted for any game for 10k. (Much like the wizard was changed from being purchased for a team to being only freebooted in the LRB 1.0)

Galak is this still the most current version of the proposal? I've decide to implement this for my league next season and just want to make sure Im using the right version.

[lightingbug]

I was wondering. I actually didn't play during 4th ed. at all. Read the rules and hated them, thought ohmy god apperence fees bite! So I don't know how they played or anything. I can't find my copy of the 4e so I can't read up on it.

But I was wondering, Not considering the neg winnings into account. but would bringing back an "Apperence Fee" element work/help/do the same thing that the soft/hard TR cap is trying to do.

Could any player over 30/50/75/some level of SPP's be made to roll an Apperence fee roll. When you fail the roll the player won't play unless you pay 5k * number of skills (over original #).

Make the roll dependant on # of SPP's ie.
30 Spp D6 6+ you pay
50 Spp D6 5+
75 Spp D6 4+

You could even use the 2D6 roll that we have now with Ageing, and then it wouldn't hurt too much paying out 5K for your blitzer that just levele for your begining team. But I would push it up to the higher Spp's level.

I don't know how the existing winnings table would fit into this I don't know how much high TR teams leave in their treasury or not. Whether or not it would nerf them or they could just pay it. but if you have to pay out a lot and then you have negative winnings, yes you couldn't replace dead players easily, but would this work to curb the high TR teams?

Just wanted to discuss this a bit snd get some other ideas/thoughts besides my own.

Thanks
Lightingbug

[gken1]

appearance fees we're awful. They favored agility team that could spread out the spp's evenly. Bash teams with designated scorers suffered.

[GalakStarscraper]

Galak posting through Nazgit ... sorry Naz. ... you had a good break point from the other thread....

2) The Package:
Step 1: Remove Aging from the game.

Step 2: Move to a better handicap table like the CHUBB table for example: http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/handicap.html

Step 3: Rule Change: In addition to the preGame rolls for Niggling injuries if a player is STILL in Reserves or KO (ie is a casualty or already missing the game/niggled out) at the beginning of the 2nd half or overtime, he must successfully roll for his Niggling Injuries again or miss the remainder of the game.

Step 4: Add the Simplified Coach's Choice Negative Winnings rule:
Note: If your cash roll at the end of a game is negative, this amount is deducted from your treasury. This may cause your treasury to go negative. If it does, the negative amount is recorded to your roster as a team debt (ie negative cash). Negative treasuries will be treated as if they are positive treasuries for Team Rating points. You cannot purchase anything for your team if your treasury is negative.

Step 5: Change the Apothecary from being purchased for 50k to having to be freebooted for any game for 10k. (Much like the wizard was changed from being purchased for a team to being only freebooted in the LRB 1.0)

Galak is this still the most current version of the proposal? I've decide to implement this for my league next season and just want to make sure Im using the right version.

I've been having this conversation on 5 different Blood Bowl forums. I've seen a lot of good arguments and a lot of well thoughts out discussions. All of these discussions have convinced me to make 2 changes to the above plan when I test it.

Step 2: The new Handicap table. The CHUBB table is a great idea but needed the deadweight effects cleaned, the permanent effects removed, and in general simplified. After discussion on the handicap table specifically, this was the result of that discussion:
viewtopic.php?t=9777&start=115
So change Step 2 to using the handicap table in that link.

Step 4: The negative winnings is supposed to really throw out an anchor around TR 300, however discussions have proven to me that a team might escape with the right variables in place. To prevent this Step 4 needs to include that the winnings table should add 2 more columns to the right (ie 301-325, 326-350, and 351+) and continue the pattern for modifiers already there ... to make sure this is clear add this to the winnings table:

Code: Select all

Gate/TR  301-325 326-350 351+ 
  0- 20    -8      -9      -10
 21- 40    -7      -8      -9 
 41- 60    -6      -7      -8
 61- 80    -5      -6      -7
 81-100    -4      -5      -6 
101-120    -3      -4      -5
121-140    -2      -3      -4
141-160    -1      -2      -3
161+        0      -1      -2

Other than these two changes the plan is as you quoted above, Gutripper.

Galak

[Cerebus]

I noticed Virus is missing from the Desperate Measures table. I found that this handicap table result (combined with a 'Your Choice' roll, which was also eliminated from the table) was a very good way of convincing teams to manage their niggled players well or risk playing games with multiple players missing.

Will the additional half time niggle roll combined with negative winnings be enough to make niggling injuries a serious consideration?

[GalakStarscraper]

Will the additional half time niggle roll combined with negative winnings be enough to make niggling injuries a serious consideration?

Like I said I've been having discussions on several different boards.

The thought was that having Virus in combination with the Niggle rolls for each half was overkill. The Niggle on half will make the Niggle count more so why not give the underdog a handicap that helps them in a manner not already covered by the package. Ianwilliams helped quite a bit clean up some of the results on the revised table.

Galak

[DoubleSkulls]

Will the additional half time niggle roll combined with negative winnings be enough to make niggling injuries a serious consideration?

For a single niggle you'll miss 1/6 of your turns. Under the new rules that will jump to 1/4.

Given that a lot of coaches retire double niggles (11/36 missed turns) it makes it significantly harsher - especially as its normally the 2nd half squad size really comes into play.

[neoliminal]

I would make a niggling injury roll at the start of any drive. This will make the player more "annoying". Missing the game means you just write him off, but if you were needing him to score in the last drive and he fails you, you're more likely to consider him someone who might need leave the team.

What do you guys think?

[Blammaham]

I'm all for making niggles ahem... hurt more. Getting a niling injury should be the begginnig of the end for that player, and I don't think that is the way it is now.S.

[BlanchPrez]

I would make a niggling injury roll at the start of any drive. This will make the player more "annoying". Missing the game means you just write him off, but if you were needing him to score in the last drive and he fails you, you're more likely to consider him someone who might need leave the team.

What do you guys think?

I would agree with this idea only if you didn't get niggles from aging on the first one or two rolls. On pitch niggles are fine, but if you did this, and I had a player get a niggle from his first skill, I would ditch him right then and there, and really start to resent aging (and at the moment, I don't mind aging).

Chris

[GalakStarscraper]

I would make a niggling injury roll at the start of any drive. This will make the player more "annoying". Missing the game means you just write him off, but if you were needing him to score in the last drive and he fails you, you're more likely to consider him someone who might need leave the team.
What do you guys think?

The problem is that I see John is that it does just that ... makes them annoying. I'm not sure it has the bite we want.

Okay so lets look at it through math and I'll see ... have not done the calcs yet.

Over the looooonnnggg term here is the effect of each (assuming no overtime):

Current Niggles: Player averages 2.7 turns/game missed
Niggle on half proposal: Player averages 3.8 turns/game missed
Your suggestion no matter how you divide the drive time: 2.7 turns/game missed

So yes it makes the player more annoying ... but it didn't actually make the niggling injury have a greater impact at all.

For that reason I'm not sure it interests me. By removing aging from the package ... niggles should have more bite to be effective. Currently they are just ignored ... which I think would be the same with this proposal.

Galak