Fixing Journeymen II: the poll

[Fat_Emrys]

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

Our league has a no-journeymen-if-you-can-afford-a-lineman rule but it's only effective if the missing players are dead (i.e. you'd only not get a journeyman if you've got fewer than 11 living players but have enough cash to buy a lineman). Personally I dislike the rule but have to admit it does seem to work out ok.

In your example the team still has 11 living players so would get two journeymen for the next game. Had one of the linemen died rather than MNGed then you'd only get one journeyman.

[GalakStarscraper]

Our league has a no-journeymen-if-you-can-afford-a-lineman rule but it's only effective if the missing players are dead (i.e. you'd only not get a journeyman if you've got fewer than 11 living players but have enough cash to buy a lineman). Personally I dislike the rule but have to admit it does seem to work out ok.

In your example the team still has 11 living players so would get two journeymen for the next game. Had one of the linemen died rather than MNGed then you'd only get one journeyman.

Buit the same "not fun" scenario plays out with that.

I have a 12 player Human team and 60k in the treasury. I have an Ogre and a Blitzer die in a brutal game. I have penalty of Linemen in my team already but you are going to force me to play with 10 players because I'd rather replace the Blitzer than buy another Lineman I don't need? Again ... you are forcing the coach to choose between two negatives. Either play down a man or buy a player you don't want.

That's why I liked and still do the PBBL v1.12 Bank. 100k not counting towards TV is enough to allow you to save appropriately even for a high cost player without giving up inducements or losing Journeymen for your next games. If you want something more than 100k for your team ... the amount you'll need to give up in inducements is minor. Side effect #2 ... it solves any cash hording that Matt doesn't like even if a team doesn't need Journeymen.

Galak

[Borthcollective]

Along these lines, is it so harsh just to put the entire treasury towards the TV? I've been playing for years, but any league I have ever been in has not lasted long, because our gaming group is scatterbrained and bitchy. So, I've never run into spiraling expenses or that. I know I've played many versions of the game though and thought I remembered all cash counting at one point.

[Fat_Emrys]

Buit the same "not fun" scenario plays out with that.

I have a 12 player Human team and 60k in the treasury. I have an Ogre and a Blitzer die in a brutal game. I have penalty of Linemen in my team already but you are going to force me to play with 10 players because I'd rather replace the Blitzer than buy another Lineman I don't need? Again ... you are forcing the coach to choose between two negatives. Either play down a man or buy a player you don't want.

Not me, guv - I did say: "Personally I dislike the rule".

It is less harsh than a flat-out no-journeymen-if-you-can-afford-a-lineman rule, though, so I thought I'd mention it as a possible compromise solution.

Our league's just been lucky that (as far as I can recall) no team's been reduced to fewer than 11 living players due to deaths but also had enough cash to buy a lineman. We've certainly had games with multiple deaths but the teams involved have either had 13+ players or were low on cash at the time so it's not been a problem.

[GalakStarscraper]

Along these lines, is it so harsh just to put the entire treasury towards the TV?

Yes it is.

During playtesting we'd have situations like this:

TV 150 team (no treasure) playing TV 155 team (100k in treasury saving for a new Witch Elf).

Suddenly the TV 150 can induce a Wizard for a game where realistically they are the Overdog.

You really want to avoid that for a team that was saving to improve the team. (this was the key ... to make sure its clear. We want to avoid penaltizing a team as little as possible for trying to become better up to the point where Spiraling Expenses hits)

The idea was to only penaltize teams for having amounts of cash more than they need to have as a security blanket to replace a player.

Galak

[mattgslater]

Suddenly the TV 150 can induce a Wizard for a game where realistically they are the Overdog.

Actually, it's turning your Babe or 50k card into a Wizard, or turning their Babe/50k card into your own: Galak is double-dipping in that analysis. But yeah, the two ideas are up to an Apoth or a TRR apart in practice.

What about setting it to 50k instead? This would give teams a 10k-for-10k penalty for hoarding above the lineman cost, with a very small chance at an additional 10k TV penalty for the teams that get the most benefit from Journeymen, once that team had an Apothecary.

This way, a team that saved 100k and needed one more game to buy a new positional or TRR would be giving up just 50k in handicap, but any team could give up handicap when saving for something or other.

[plasmoid]

I fought long and hard towards counting any honest treasury towards TV.
If you're just saving for something expensive, you shouldn't be slammed for it with inducements!

But I see Bank is seriously winning the poll.
Stroke of genius that one

[GalakStarscraper]

What about setting it to 50k instead?

Honestly ... that's too small Matt. If I'm saving for a Rat Ogre for example ... you allow too much cash to be used against the team saving to develop.

I've said it once before ... going to say it again. Avoid excessive penalties for making a team better. We decided 100k was the just right point.

Why is 100k just right. We picked an amount that would allow a team to buy whatever they were saving for with normal winnings without having the gold saved effect the team.

IE I save 100k in the bank and that doesn't effect my team. At the end of that game odds are good that my winnings will give me enough to buy whatever I was saving for and then the gold is still not giving up inducements.

If you go less than 100k (like 50k as you said) ... then you have a period of time where a team is giving up inducements just for saving up to buy something. That is bad and your coaches will definitely let you know about it.

100k put just about every team in range of their most expensive item without ever exposing themselves to more than 20k of inducements lost for saving to buy the big ticket item.

So no ... a 50k Bank would be a bad thing ... in my opinion.

We tested the Bank for quite a while ... the BBRC voted to put it in the LRB 5.0 ... Jervis used his Veto power to remove it and replace it with Petty Cash.

So all I'm saying Matt is that this is not a house rule I just thought up ... this was a heavily playtested rule set that had official approval and the more I'm listening to leagues since LRB 5.0. I have come to the conclusion that Jervis should not have used his veto ability. I'm not a fan at all of house ruling CRP ... I think it is pretty much spot on in my opinion. However on this one item since what was wanted by myself and the playtesters was thrown out via veto ... I think house ruling back in the Bank is a fine house rule.

Galak

[mattgslater]

I'm wondering why nobody has said anything one way or another over the +30k Journeyman base cost? I've got a couple coaches lobbying for this. Mind you, these are the same coaches who insist that Freebooters were just fine....

[GalakStarscraper]

I'm wondering why nobody has said anything one way or another over the +30k Journeyman base cost?

I would venture to guess that because of what you've told us about your league ... many of the coaches know this isn't the real solution for your league. Journeymen are not the root of the problem you've expressed. I think charging an extra 30k for a Loner Lineman spot is overcharging a lot for what you get especially since the team in the position to need Journeymen is in a position of need.

To get Journeymen you already have two negative with them:

1) They have Loner
2) You are forced to have only 11 players on your team for the game unless you are able to get Mercs or Stars through inducements.

To add a 3rd negative ... +30k ... seems excessive.

Galak

[mattgslater]

I think Galak is bringing up a good line of questioning: where does the stick begin to hit?

Are you paying for hoarding cash? Or are you paying for not keeping your numbers up? If you're paying for hoarding, then at what point are you hoarding? In this case, you can get more punitive at the high end. This makes me want to ask y'all what you think of the last option, to calculate TV one way for inducements (effective TV or ETV) and another way for Spiraling Expenses (full TV or FTV, with missing players and Treasury but no JMs). So hoarding cash costs money, but doesn't make your games harder.

If you're paying for not keeping your numbers up, then you just need enough push to get players off the pot. The more I think about it, the more I think Bonehead is actually a better solution for Journeymen than the +30k: if the Bonehead is too much of a problem, teams that would be the underdog anyway can just take mercs instead, and it's like the better of the two for such a team. But teams who wouldn't be able to take the Mercs will pay for it with Bonehead on their JMs, a nasty disadvantage but one likely only to hit average or better coaches.

I think 100k for the bank is too high, and favors teams with 50k TRRs and 70k Linos. I actually don't mind needling teams a little for saving money, so long as it's never a huge issue. 100k bank could yield up to 30k in TV penalty for, say, an Ogre team, but will never yield a penalty on a Dark Elf team. Of course, at 50k bank the Ogre team would top out at 80k.

Hmmm...

[mattgslater]

Ooh... here's a semi-new idea!

This solves the talent disparity bit with Journeymen, and should address hoarding too, but doesn't penalize teams with injuries that play up. I don't think it has to be exclusive of the 100k bank or the two-TV solution, either, though I think the latter would be a better fit because hoarders already pay an in-game penalty.

1) Journeymen are inducements selected in the pre-match phase.

2) After taking all inducements, if you took no inducements other than Journeymen or Mercenaries and still don't have 11 players, you may go scrounging through the stands for fit, tough-looking blokes who don't put a high value on their own lives. These folks are called Fill-Ins, and are a sorry excuse for Journeymen. Fill-Ins count as basic players on the team roster, just like Journeymen, but in addition to the Loner ability, they also have Bonehead, as they are fans, not players!

[GalakStarscraper]

... ...

I tried.

[mattgslater]

I'm not sure I understand the exasperation. Do you have some sort of objective? I'm looking for three or four near-perfect answers that I can let them mull over and ultimately do nothing. It won't do to have just one.

[GalakStarscraper]

I'm not sure I understand the exasperation. Do you have some sort of objective? I'm looking for three or four near-perfect answers that I can let them mull over and ultimately do nothing. It won't do to have just one.

You did not state your objective then at the beginning. My exasperation is that it looked like you were looking for one answer but then running contrary to the opinions that you stated you wanted. I also don't believe in this game that there are 3 or 4 near-perfect answers for each question ... all that time getting BB to CRP taught me that for sure. The poll suggestions a single solution and its a solution that was already heavily playtested but last night you threw out last night as being inaccurate ... that point was when I realized you need to roll on your own.

I have no objective ... but I thought you did and I apparently didn't know what it was.

Tom