Galak's LRB7 test rules coming to FUMMBL

[plasmoid]

It’s pretty dispiriting to be facing a team that has 11 players as good as yours or better but is also getting inducements.

I know this is widespread in FUMBBL and Cyanide.
I don't experience it in league play. Not even in open league play like MBBL.
Maybe it's a TV-matching thing?
I certainly think that when opponents are more randomly distributed, being the overdog is a nice advantage.

Either way, when I come up against any 11 man team while having a bench myself, I flip to the fouling page of my playbook

Cheers
Martin

[garion]

If your TV was being increased by your petty cash and you knew you were playing a team that were going to induce a wizard you could use your petty cash to get one aswell without giving your opponent more inducements as a result.

Eh?
To be clear, Bank replaces the petty cash rule completely.

So, say, you're playing against an underdog opponent TV 175 vs 190 - so he'll get a wizard.
You could - in the postgame - put 150K in your treasury (not bank)
You'd then have TV 205.
You could blow your cash on a wizard. Or not. Either way he'd get the 30 points as inducements.

No you miss the point.

If two team are playing say chaos vs wood elf. The Chaos Team has a TV or 2200 and the Wood Elf team has a TV of 2050. Both team have the 150k in the bank, but also have 150k adding to their teams TV because there is no more room in the bank. Now the Chaos team can pay for the wizard without increasing their TV. Because at the moment if you want to pay for inducements out of your cash then you are giving your opponent a further 150 to do what they like with if yuo are already the TV leader.

But anyway. I do completely agree the wizard is too strong at the moment.

Sounds like a tactical decision to me.

Can we get back to garion's rules?

and yeah I agree, still waiting for feedback and help with the star player pricing . rules are linked on the previous page

[dode74]

If they have 150 in the bank then neither of them have any cash adding to TV. Bank money does not add to TV, only money above the bank money does. The only way to have 150k of cash adding to your TV is to not have that cash in the bank, so you could have anywhere between 150k and 300k cash total (or which between 0 and 150 will be in the bank respectively).

In the example you game, assuming that the Chaos team only had 150 in the bank, taking that 150 out of the bank and buying a wizard would increase their TV by 150 and would reduce their bank to zero.

[garion]

If they have 150 in the bank then neither of them have any cash adding to TV. Bank money does not add to TV, only money above the bank money does. The only way to have 150k of cash adding to your TV is to not have that cash in the bank, so you could have anywhere between 150k and 300k cash total (or which between 0 and 150 will be in the bank respectively).

In the example you game, assuming that the Chaos team only had 150 in the bank, taking that 150 out of the bank and buying a wizard would increase their TV by 150 and would reduce their bank to zero.

No no, the chaos team have 150 in the bank as does the wood elf team, the chaos team also has 150k not in the bank thus adding 150 to their Tv. So they can use that to pay for a wizard at the start of the match which doesn't effect their TV because it would already be 150 higher anyway.

[plasmoid]

Hi said 150K in the bank - also 150K adding to TV.
So I think he meant 150K in bank, 150K in treasury.

[garion]

Hi said 150K in the bank - also 150K adding to TV.
So I think he meant 150K in bank, 150K in treasury.

Yar. Thats what I mean,

But anyway, this is all getting side tracked. Feedback please

and yes I agree wizard is too cheap, lets bump him up to 200k, and I would also like Zap back in my rules, it wasn't very reliable and you could end up hitting your self too, which was always funny.

[Chris]

And who is this man I am apparently ghost written by? I demand satisfaction on the field. So if you have the cyanide game I am The_Real_Chris on it

If you are really not cbbakke then you wouldn't be frightened of meeting on Fumbbl.
We might even let you use the house rules that started this thread.

Sign up by Friday night if you think you can handle it!

Ah Fumbbl.

I've always wondered how it works. Is it just start the program and play or is there a bunch of different things you have to do?

[Chris]

But Dodes, the other person can have a 13 player roster and you can have a full roster. His team on pitch is going to be far stronger which is going to reduce yoru chance of getting his people off the pitch and increase the chance you need your deep bench.

That's the game dude. It's different to the previous game. You don't need a 16 man squad unless they are going to add value.
My human team is currently 12 players including 3 catchers. I've a stash of cash and I'll buy another lino but with TV matching there is just no point padding your roster with players that don't add real value and may rarely get on the field.

This is purely a preference thing. Some prefer the old rules and some the new.

I agree it "is the game" right now. That is the problem imo. It is not a flexible option of team management that people are trying to make it. It is THE GAME.

I admit I don't see it as much of a tactical choice currently. More of the latter being it is a somewhat obvious choice. Each lineman sitting in the box is 2-3 skills for your opponent on the field. Fouling I would hope is not the answer (as it shouldn't be a central objective in the game), but if it is currently it is a pretty poor choice as you have a 1/6 chance of being ejected from the game compared to far less chance of getting a cas and ensuring they won't be back, even with dirty player.

Is it online only? In the pub league I'm now in I have no intention of getting past 12 players with my Orcs (and with my winnings roll won't be even getting that for some time but thats a different issue) as I would much rather outmatch on the field as fighting a blocking war from an early advantage looks a better bet than an average on field side but more casualty replacement, especially as with the teams slow speed I can be stalled against if the dice aren't working far more easily than a faster team.

I can't see many ways out of this in the current system other than a look at the value skills give the team or somethinmg off the wall like dropping all the player costs by 30k or something.

(I'm sure if this was still a game GW had interest in they would be looking to have us buy 16 models at least )

[koadah]

And who is this man I am apparently ghost written by? I demand satisfaction on the field. So if you have the cyanide game I am The_Real_Chris on it

If you are really not cbbakke then you wouldn't be frightened of meeting on Fumbbl.
We might even let you use the house rules that started this thread.

Sign up by Friday night if you think you can handle it!

Ah Fumbbl.

I've always wondered how it works. Is it just start the program and play or is there a bunch of different things you have to do?

Simple.

Sign Up
Read the rules
Create a team
Install java if necessary
Play

[plasmoid]

Hi Chris,

I admit I don't see it as much of a tactical choice currently. More of the latter being it is a somewhat obvious choice. Each lineman sitting in the box is 2-3 skills for your opponent on the field. Fouling I would hope is not the answer (as it shouldn't be a central objective in the game), but if it is currently it is a pretty poor choice as you have a 1/6 chance of being ejected from the game compared to far less chance of getting a cas and ensuring they won't be back, even with dirty player.

I disagree.
Playing outnumbered is a massive disadvantage.
So going in with just 11 is a risky proposition.

Fouling is not a big part of the game currently - but fouling is the obvious choice against someone who has decided to put all his eggs in one basket and go with 11 players.
Yes - fouling is risky, but if you trade your 70K lineman (DP included ) for someone with double or thrice the value - while at the same time reducing your opponent to 10 while you still have back-ups on the bench, then I think you've made a very good deal.

Cheers
Martin

[garion]

Playing outnumbered is a massive disadvantage.
So going in with just 11 is a risky proposition.

Fouling is not a big part of the game currently - but fouling is the obvious choice against someone who has decided to put all his eggs in one basket and go with 11 players.
Yes - fouling is risky, but if you trade your 70K lineman (DP included ) for someone with double or thrice the value - while at the same time reducing your opponent to 10 while you still have back-ups on the bench, then I think you've made a very good deal.

Cheers
Martin

It’s not quite as clear cut as that though, there are other factors like the race you are using etc... Assuming you are playing in a league where everyone starts at the same time and you have a round robin (everyone plays everyone once or twice in a specific order) then when you play at a low TV you do not want to have any more than 12 players. Then depending on the race I will not exceed 11/12 players until I start facing opponents that have a TV of 1500+. There are exceptions to this, like all the stunty teams I try and load up on all the players and foul like mad. Or vampires and Skaven who need possible 13 player rosters. If I am using Dwarves for example, I probably wouldn’t exceed 11 players untill I started facing teams around 1300.

[plasmoid]

Sure. There are lots of nuances. Which is also sort of my point.
I would not consider it the be all end all tactic to keep your roster at 11 players.

I know there are some deadly minmaxed bashy rosters out there with 11 guys and quite low TV.
But I think part of that problem is the (online) league environment, where some can spend 30 or more games grooming the key players and then sacking everyone else.
Another part of the problem may be bash being slightly too good.

I don't remember any other hardcore minmaxed strategies than bash.

But if you're up against a team with lots of skilled players and no bench, I would definately try my luck at fouling.

Cheers
Martin

PS - completely anecdotal:
In the NTBB tournament a lineman got ST- in game one.
I kept him - (for game 2 it was fairly obvious, because he didn't add TV anyway, so I got sa journeyman). By game 3 I had had very low winnings, so he was a liability. He could have been replaced by a loner player by then. However, by the end of game 3 I had the cash to buy my 12th player. Had I fired the ST guy, I would still have been at 11. I'm sure there are those who would disagree with my decision - but as game 4 started with a throw a rock MNG, I was glad I was at 11 men and not 10 for the next 16 turns.

[garion]

I know there are some deadly minmaxed bashy rosters out there with 11 guys and quite low TV.
But I think part of that problem is the (online) league environment, where some can spend 30 or more games grooming the key players and then sacking everyone else.
Another part of the problem may be bash being slightly too good.

I don't remember any other hardcore minmaxed strategies than bash.

There are a few others for MM type environments, like amazons with all Linewomen and one blitzer here is a perfect example - http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... _id=644229 Now the blitzer does have the killer combo. But they also have another 12 of the best defensive players in the game unless playing Dwarves or Chaos Dwarves. I would call this a defensive type min maxing, picking on low TV teams that have no block or tackle which makes winning very very easy.

The Norse can also do a similar thing. Play with a Snow Troll and 11 linemen and you can just stay at a very low TV (Snow Troll 140, 11 linemen 500, 2RR 120,760) then you get Wilhelm Chaney as your star player every game.

I’m sure there are pretty nasty things you can do with Skaven and their fanatic and Dwarves and their Bombadier too.

[spubbbba]

It’s pretty dispiriting to be facing a team that has 11 players as good as yours or better but is also getting inducements.

I know this is widespread in FUMBBL and Cyanide.
I don't experience it in league play. Not even in open league play like MBBL.
Maybe it's a TV-matching thing?
I certainly think that when opponents are more randomly distributed, being the overdog is a nice advantage.

Either way, when I come up against any 11 man team while having a bench myself, I flip to the fouling page of my playbook

Cheers
Martin

No, this is in a scheduled [L]eague divison, my humans (which were rubbish enough in LRB4) were the highest TV team at the start of the season due to most coaches restarting. Some of that was bloat as they had FF18, 5 re-rolls and a couple of less useful skills (BT and multi on the Ogre, 3 dirty players and 2 linemen with Ag4) but they have now dropped a re-roll, 5 FF and lost a few skilled players (unfortunately all of them the interesting ones) so are now around 1900.

Humans need 13 or 14 players to compete at that level, since even the squishiest team can do them damage and once they are down on players they really struggle. I faced quite a few 11 or 12 strong teams (mostly due to injuries rather than deliberate strategy) but these teams still pose a real danger at 1500 even without inducements that humans would not at that level.

I did try fouling and used it very effectively in lrb4, but in crp it is a complete lottery and is now only worth it if you have worthless fodder like zombies (my 1 skill dp got killed so am now left with a block AG4 and block tackle DP) or the target is very dangerous like wardancers or PO monsters.

Back on topic with inducements, I think the main issue with the wizard is when 2 high TV teams face off as a 2150 team facing a 2000 + wizard team is a pretty huge difference.

[garion]

yeah I'm with you spubbba, but what do you think would be a fair price. I was thinking 200 but that might be a little bit too much, what about 180 maybe?