Fixing Journeymen II: the poll

[mattgslater]

Which of these options is the best or the least bad? Note, I didn't include "Do nothing."

Objective: ensure that any team can always start with 11+ players, while generally disincentivising Journeymen on teams that don't desperately need them.

Potential solutions:

1) Journeymen are Bonehead. This is fluffy, but kind of mean. It might be fun....

2) Journeymen add an extra 30k TV, like automatic Mercenaries. I like the balance, but it's kind of bland.

3) You must hire a player if you have the cash to hire a lineman and have 10 or fewer players on the roster. This one seems heavy-handed to me.

4) Unspent Treasury in excess of 100kgp adds to TV. This is the "Bank" that Galak favors and Jervis dislikes.

5) TV is calculated normally for inducements, but for winnings includes missing players and Treasury, with a higher Spiraling Expenses threshold.

Re-voting enabled. I've voted "Undecided" for now.

[Joemanji]

If at first you don't get the answer you want, fix the vote so people can't disagree with you?

[mattgslater]

I don't really have an interest in whether or not y'all want to do something or nothing. This is House Rules, not New Concepts, and there's a reason I'm posting here as opposed to there. You aren't my constituency: you're my sounding-board. My constituency is my league, which isn't happy. They don't complain to me because they want to hear "let's use what's in the rulebook." The idea of using the rulebook occurred to us, thanks. Our experience with that has led us to look for alternatives. So let's talk about tweaks.

[Darkson]

Bank, but only because that should have been in the rules anyway.

[voyagers_uk]

let Matt have his soapbox Joe... it is healthy

[Joemanji]

... so long as it doesn't drown out everyone else.

[mattgslater]

Cool. I posted this here in House Rules just for this reason. I'm trying to figure out how to do it in my house. Off the table goes any solution my coaches don't like, whether they're posting on this forum or not (and for some reason they never do).

I know I post too much... but nobody can drown anybody out on this forum: it takes a mob to do that. I'm just a bit of a blowhard. That's different. This thread isn't the same thing as a tactics thread: there are some external considerations, and I can't expect you to know them like I do. So for this conversation, assume that I have to walk away with an answer other than "nothing" or the exercise is moot. It may be moot anyway....

[GalakStarscraper]

Bank, but only because that should have been in the rules anyway.

Concur. One good thing from Matt with this thread is me hoping that if an LRB 6.0 ever happens that whoever is involved gets the bank back in now that I relooked at all this.

The Bank would have totally erased the whole "Is there too much gold in BB" thread that went on for so long as few months back. Never thought of it during that whole thread ... but if there is too much gold in BB its because JJ screwed up.

Galak

[Thetian]

but if there is too much gold in BB its because JJ screwed up.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

Personally, I think you should have to buy up to 11 players if you can AND treasury over 100k should count towards TV.

I could probably be talked out of the forced buy with a good arguement for not forcing coaches to buy a lineman to replace a positional. Over the course of a season, you could systematically kill all the WE team's positionals and force them to buy linemen as replacements. How good is a WE team of 11 linemen?

[Digger Goreman]

How good is a WE team of 11 linemen?

Too damned good....

[GalakStarscraper]

Over the course of a season, you could systematically kill all the WE team's positionals and force them to buy linemen as replacements.

One of the things I found I had to remind folks often during the Vault process was that Blood Bowl is a board game ... which means ... it should be fun to play it.

Whenever someone suggested a rule ... one of the things I tried to stress was "is it fun by itself"; does it "add fun through a better balanced game" or "is a downer". Being FORCED to buy a lineman because your star positional died is definitely in that last category so for me it automatically lands in the category of something I would personally never add to the game. The biggest problem with Aging was that it tried to create balance through downer rules. We really tried to remove as many of the downer rules as we could from what became the CRP.

In general forcing a coach to retire a player; harming a player off the pitch; or being forced to hire someone not wanted on the team will always fall in the "downer" category for me.

[mage75]

Voted the 100k sheltered from treasury, but I think it should be more than that. The protected amount should allow for someone to hoard enough money to buy their most expensive on roster player - in the current ruleset it's 160k for the Deathroller. In that case, I'd like to see the protected amount be 150k - so as soon as you win your next 10k - you can buy your Deathroller. A variable amount for each team would be nice - an amount equal to your most expensive player (-10k) - but that becomes painful to rule/enforce - so I reckon go with the most expensive - 150k.

[GuppyShark]

I actually really like reservoirelves' selection from the previous thread, which doesn't force a player to purchase a lineman, it just stops them using journeymen if they do. Teams that are struggling to stay afloat still get the journeymen assistance, it's the players choosing to hoard cash for special players that don't.

[GalakStarscraper]

I actually really like reservoirelves' selection from the previous thread, which doesn't force a player to purchase a lineman, it just stops them using journeymen if they do. Teams that are struggling to stay afloat still get the journeymen assistance, it's the players choosing to hoard cash for special players that don't.

The problem is that it also hurts teams who are just trying to replace what they've lost.

I have a Human team with 12 players. After a brutal game, I have 2 Lineman MNG and my Ogre dies. I have 60k in the bank. I really don't need more linemen on my team. Instead I really want to use the 60k to save to replace my Ogre. If reservoirelves' suggestion was in force than I would be forced to play my next game with 9 players because of that decision.

In the above scenario you don't have a team hording cash but is being pentalized pretty severely just because they don't want to be FORCED to buy a lineman.

Galak

[Rhyoth]

I voted for Galak's Bank rule, simply because i really dislike how Petty Cash works.

Journeymen are really useful for rookie or crippled teams (or crippled rookie teams) : why do you want to penalize those teams so much ?
They are already having a hard time due to a couple of bad dice, i don't see the point in making them suffer even more.

When playing LRB4, I remenber several teams being dropped just because they lost too many positionnals, and replacing them would just have been too long and too risky.
So, i was really glad when Journeymen solved that issue, and if there is some abuse, then i think it's a small price to pay.

The problem I see is best illustrated with Wood Elves (...)

If your bigger complains concerns Wood Elves, i'd say Journeymen are not the main issue... (still true if you replace Wood Elves by Dwarves)

(...) You aren't my constituency: you're my sounding-board. My constituency is my league, which isn't happy. They don't complain to me because they want to hear "let's use what's in the rulebook." The idea of using the rulebook occurred to us, thanks. Our experience with that has led us to look for alternatives. So let's talk about tweaks.

Blood Bowl Coach (Ballis brutus) is one the most complaining species on earth, give them what they ask for, and they will find something else to complain about ; even if they touch some sensible spot, their solutions will often be too powerful, abusive, weird or will create more problems than they solved (for example, coaches in my league want more reliable Big Guys, and you would be really scared by most of their suggestions) :

Sometimes it's better not to give them what they ask for !
(just remenber to be very diplomatic in those cases)