JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 11:50 |
 
|
I agree with koadah that I don't see how this is an issue. Journeymen are always worse than regular linemen and you still have to pay the full TV cost for them. The best way to make your team as competitive as possible for their next game is to minimise the number of journeymen you have.
In bobsarmy's extreme example, the woodelf team is basically sacrificing immediate competitiveness because of long-term team-building considerations. I'd be perfectly happy if I drew that team in the Box. They can't use the money in any way to get an in-game advantage (like you could in lrb4) because of inducements.
Don't really see why this is a problem ... |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 12:54 |
|
I would also note that this rule wasn't written with LRB 5/6 and journeymen in mind -- its original intention was to disallow noncompetitive teams that only focus on building cash. I see no reason to try and reinterpret the rule in a way that limits team management in the new rules, especially because I don't see playing with journeymen and hoarding cash as being a dominant or unfair strategy. |
|
|
Collins254
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 07, 2011 - 17:28 |
|
I see where oracle is coming from though, he would rather put 3 jmen on the LOS and save for his full team than buy 3 beasts, and have 1 of them MNG, one of the niggled or injured, and 1 killed on LOS say, therfore has spent 180k for nowt and starts next game with 3 jmen again, and yes has 2 beasts in the wing but only 1 is fully functional.
With 13 players you can go longer and save cash in the bank for re-rolls or replacing other players without having to buy a new player every 2 or 3 games.
I may have interpreted it wrongly but i dont see that as a massive deal because worst case scenario is it takes about 5-10 games to save 300k up depending on variables, but if after 10 games he amazingly managed 900k and didnt spend it and was still using 3 jmen id start getting suspicious, which is what i think everyone else is getting at |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 07, 2011 - 17:55 |
|
BANHAMMER! BANHAMMER!
Some of us have already rebuilt our teams due to Harvestmouse's ruling. |
_________________
 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 07, 2011 - 17:59 |
|
Fool!  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 07, 2011 - 18:42 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Fool! |
Yes. But in this case following an admin's direction. |
|
|
Wylder
Joined: Aug 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 06:18 |
|
| HarvestMouse wrote: | Didn't I just say that saving to replace players isn't really of interest to me? Personally I can't see any reason why you need to save and replace in one, however if replacing is the obvious and achievable goal, it doesn't interest us. Worst comes to the worst, you'll be asked to buy some of the players you are saving for, not really a massive issue is it?
What I believe is abuse, are the teams that clearly aren't saving to replace players, horde cash and continue with the journeymen. A common example of this is the 6 cds 2 bcs and 3 journeymen hobbos lineup. All this said there isn't a categoric ok/abuse line. Each team is different and so is each ruling. |
I oncee had a Skaven league team (Not on Fumbbl) that ran at TR170~TR180 for quite a while with no linerats. It gave me 3 loners to put on the line each game and when they died (which they did do quite a lot) it prevented me from hemorrhaging cash each match to replace them. This meant I could afford to replace Gutter Runners at the required rate and ended up able to field 4 Gutter Runners a LOT more often than otherwise. My team was more competetive in the league I was in because of it. If I hadn't done it, I'm quite sure my team would have self destructed at least a dozen games earlier than it did.
I haven't had cause to do this on fumbbl, but you're saying that this is not OK? That I have to keep letting each game bleed my cash replacing linemen so that when my Rat Ogre or more than one GR dies, I obviously won't have the cash and just have to play on without it?
This is a competetive skaven development tactic that has achieved quite a few wins for me. I think banning it is simply catering to your personal feelings about how teams should be managed. There are no rules against it in the rulebook. You just don't like it.
I don't think I should be forced to play non-competetively, just to cater to your notions of "fair".
Refer: Playing to Win.
Edit: I would have thought that having Loner on your entire LoS is penalty enough for using this tactic. No one in their right mind would use it if they didn't have to.
Edit the second: Don't Journeymen count as players anyway? The rule just says "Teams in competitive divisions are expected to strive for at least 11 players on the roster." If Journeymen are players (which they are), then using Journeymen should be fine, no?
Perhaps the rule should be changed to explain more clearly that the problem is using Journeymen when you have cash. |
Last edited by Wylder on %b %19, %2011 - %06:%Aug; edited 1 time in total |
|
Krispy
Joined: Jul 20, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 06:59 |
|
Why not pay a small amount for gold for the services of a JM in a game (10k-30k)? The players union should really step in and protect the lowly JM's. Underpaid for putting their lives on the line. |
|
|
Wylder
Joined: Aug 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 07:03 |
|
Frankly, NOT allowing people to flexibly and proactively use Journeymen to manage player loss might be a BIG part of the reason that fumbbl has so many people whining about CPOMB combo. The correct answer to PK teams is to feed your Journeymen to them while you chain-score on them all match with your skilled positionals.
I have NO idea why the admins would be in favor of non-competetive and bash-favoring team management limitations in this manner, that do not appear anywhere in the actual BB rules. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 08:02 |
|
they is cheatin. Report them to the Mouse. |
_________________
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 08:13 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | I would also note that this rule wasn't written with LRB 5/6 and journeymen in mind -- its original intention was to disallow noncompetitive teams that only focus on building cash. I see no reason to try and reinterpret the rule in a way that limits team management in the new rules, especially because I don't see playing with journeymen and hoarding cash as being a dominant or unfair strategy. |
This was one of the main points of discussion here before we migrated to LRB6. People said many coaches would do exactly this. Hoard loads of cash while staying under the SE limit and thenboost the team up to an enormous TV while paying for the SE from the millions saved up.
I think the rule stayed in place mainly because of all this uproar.
My own main concern was that teams using this strategy would kill the minors scene by entering low level Smacks with millions in cash to do with what they pleased, but this was expertly countered by the admins through TW.
As it stands now I agee with you that this particular rule isn't very useful anymore. I see little gain in being 50 TV above everybody else. It will just result in that coach having to face wizards and such every damn game.
That being said, it's not up the individual admins to choose not to enforce a rule that is there. If Christer chooses to manitain the rule the admins have to enforce it. Just the way it works. |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 08:50 |
|
| Cloggy wrote: |
That being said, it's not up the individual admins to choose not to enforce a rule that is there. If Christer chooses to manitain the rule the admins have to enforce it. Just the way it works. |
True of course. However, they should first have a consistent policy of how to interpret the rule. For example, my interpretation of the rule would be that the phrase "coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose" is key. Thus, if you're using journeymen as part of a competitive strategy, you're not letting the team deteriorate on purpose and are not breaking the rule. |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 09:31 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | Cloggy wrote: |
That being said, it's not up the individual admins to choose not to enforce a rule that is there. If Christer chooses to manitain the rule the admins have to enforce it. Just the way it works. |
True of course. However, they should first have a consistent policy of how to interpret the rule. For example, my interpretation of the rule would be that the phrase "coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose" is key. Thus, if you're using journeymen as part of a competitive strategy, you're not letting the team deteriorate on purpose and are not breaking the rule. |
What you miss is that somewhere Christer already gave us his point of view in a similar topic, saying that even constantly fielding JM to avoid spending money on linemen wasnt in the spirit of the site. And that's above any of our interpretation 
To avoid problems with the staff i've tried not to rely on JM when i had enough cash to field normal players without crippling team building. And i'd first ask admins before considering to run a team with many JM for many matches (unless forced to, ofc) |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 09:57 |
|
Just my personal opinion:
I have no problem with Wylder's strategy of fielding 3 journeyman line rats, as long as he isn't banking more money than would be required to say replace his 4 gutters. Gutters are the key players on Skaven.
A similar approach could be done with journeyman chaos beastmen, as long as they didn't keep more money than could buy 4 cw at any moment.
That said, I prefer to have a bench, as there are few games where attrition isn't a large factor.
I wouldn't do this, but I see no problem with it. I think facing different strategies makes for more interesting games. |
|
|
Wylder
Joined: Aug 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 - 10:32 |
|
If I had the 320k required to replace all 4 Gutters, I'd buy 6 linos and go into my next game with 3 reserves. 3 reserves is MASSIVE for prevent GR deaths.
But if you're sitting on 150k cash, and only have your 8 positionals. You'd be mad to buy 3 linerats and leave yourself with exactly the same team (albeit ex-loner) and flat broke. |
|
|
|
|
killing by fun?
Search
