| Poll |
| The New Rulz are: |
| Exactly what I wanted and predicted |
|
17% |
[ 14 ] |
| A sign the GW is getting the Blood out of BB |
|
13% |
[ 11 ] |
| A bit better than a piece of pie |
|
28% |
[ 23 ] |
| The final nail in the coffin of my hopes in humanity |
|
19% |
[ 16 ] |
| Par for the course |
|
20% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 81 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
 Posted:
Nov 27, 2016 - 19:24 |
 
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 02:57 |
|
League matches have "sequences of play": pre-match, match, and post-match. The post-match sequence has changed: skills, team stats, winnings and fame, hiring, preparation for the next match. The "team stats" step contains a small ambiguity. We'll return to it later.
The preparation for the next match contains: rolling for expensive mistakes, adding journeymen, and calculating TV.
The most important novelty is Expensive Mistakes. Here's how it works: if you got more than 100k in your Treasury, you need to roll on a table. There are four different results:
- Crisis Averted: nothing happens
- Minor Incident: lose D3 x 10K (D3)
- Major Incident: lose half of your Treasury (T.5)
- Catastrophe: your Treasury is wiped up (T0)
The table changes according to the size of your Treasury: <200, <300, <400, <500, and 500+.
Roll a D6. Excluding cases where nothing happens:
For <200, 1-2 => D3
For <300, 1 => T.5 and 2-3 => D3
For <400, 1 => T0; 2 => T.5; 2-3 => D3
For <500, 1-2 => T0; 3 => T.5; 4-5 => D3
For 500+, 1-3 => T0; 4 => T.5; 5-6 => D3
In the long run, we should not see millionaire teams anymore.
Also note how this structure works with the "three times your most expensive positional" unwritten rule.
***
To compensate, some fantastically good news. Under Time Limit:
| Quote: | | After four minutes a turnover occurs. |
That hasn't changed. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %28, %2016 - %04:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 03:16 |
|
Loner abuse would likely go up with this rule. Less incentive to replace rookies with permanent replacements. Or perhaps it wouldn't be called abuse as folks wouldn't have huge treasuries. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 03:41 |
|
Take an 11 elven squad with a treasury of 210 and three loners. You can buy a 60-70K player or risk losing 110K. You guessed it - it's rounded up.
What do you do? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 03:46 |
|
True, buying 1 there would make sense. The rule seems a little arbitrary but it may work. Would hurt if you have a game where you take 4 perms/deaths at once. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 03:53 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | Would hurt if you have a game where you take 4 perms/deaths at once. |
Indeed it would.
OTOH, the new MVP rule may help compensate, for the loner rut problem is that Star Players and Journeymen eat all your MVPs.
Speaking of the MVP rule, this may be of relevance (DZ1, p. 24, with my emphasis):
| Quote: | | In Competition Matches, each coach awards their team MVP as described on page 21. In friendly matches, no MVP is awarded. |
If only league matches have a post-match sequence whereby MVPs get awarded, Fumbbl is leagues all the way down. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 04:03 |
|
Yes that may well be the case at the start of a season, interspersed with buying and firing players or RRs just to waste treasury to keep under a level I would suggest is 300K in the bank.
It's basically min/max on steroids winning the Tour de France 7 times in a row. Before it was about skills, occasionally stats and team re rolls and was practised on some level by most people though it was possible not to do so and most people were not rigid it was still possible to make cool and still semi competitive alternative teams. Now loner abuse is necessary, hire and fire guys to waste money, skills and stats even more min/maxed to the point turning down stats and doubles is a serious min/max meta decision, roster sizes even more min/maxed, still don't take coaches and cheerleaders. If you add up the TV possible over an average league season maybe around 10 games in my experience that's about 1550TV as the min/max sweet spot give or take a little depending on how good a coach is with the TDs and CAS they score (1mil + 300k treasury + 150K for TDs and CAS +100K for the games.)
That's it, super extreme min/max 1550 is the league meta. Min/max was a good way to win before especially in box type environments, a problem people constantly complain about. Well we probably have got a more extreme version in league play following that rule. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 04:11 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | RRs just to waste treasury |
It might be important to note that RRs need not need to be re-drafted. Same for the coaching staff.
The 1000K for re-drafting thus already offers a small buffer, something around 200K.
The fact that RRs and apos don't count also argues against min-maxing the way we all love it (0RR + Legend).
EDIT. My interpretation is false:
| DZ1, Re-Drafting wrote: | | Take a new team roster then create your team again - just as you did when you first joined the league." |
Creating a team implies one buys back the RRs and staff.
Thanks to AD for spotting this. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %02, %2016 - %23:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 04:20 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: | | RRs just to waste treasury |
It might be important to note that RRs need not need to be re-drafted. Same for the coaching staff.
The 1000K for re-drafting thus already offers a small buffer, something around 200K.
The fact that RRs and apos don't count also argues against min-maxing the way we all love it (0RR + Legend). |
I think you misunderstand that. It means you buy the RR to use up 100k of your treasury stop the risk of losing the lot or a serious risk of at least half. Then you sack it for in game TV reduction to not give away the inducements for a few matches. Basically just do this with players and RRs as and when needed to make sure you never risk losing all of it or 150k. So not really relevent as a plus point against the rolls for if you need to pay a player extra to resign.
I left the non RR buying off because once you factor in the cost of guys you need to spend extra to keep on the roster that will eventually probably even out after a few seasons against the extra gold to convince some players to stay. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 04:28 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | Basically just do this with players and RRs as and when needed to make sure you never risk losing all of it or 150k. |
A RR costs 100K min.
A lineman costs 70K max.
If you wish to say that one should waste 100K instead of hiring a 70K lineman (i.e. to replace a journeyman), I think your argument is invalid however you conceive minmaxing.
Perhaps you should offer a tangible counterexample. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 04:58 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: | | Basically just do this with players and RRs as and when needed to make sure you never risk losing all of it or 150k. |
A RR costs 100K min.
A lineman costs 70K max.
If you wish to say that one should waste 100K instead of hiring a 70K lineman, I think your argument is invalid however you conceive minmaxing. |
Why after keeping TV under a certain limit would a coach not then buy hire fire etc etc a combination of such things to protect their treasury going into a rebuy phase and would they give away inducements or reduce their own for the TV of a lino they don't normally run with?
They are not going to keep the lino either if he is not already on the roster at 300k plus in the treasury if they are wanting to protect it. Any gaps would already be filled meaning no Jmen by the point you have to waste gold. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 05:11 |
|
If you want to say that coaches will be tempted to dump money to keep around (say) 200K in their treasury instead of investing in a bench, I agree. I'm not even sure how a 2000 TV team is possible.
Let's see: 10K per season game (friendly or competitive), 5K per CAS or TD. Take a random 2000 TV team. Notwithstanding the Wants to Retire column and the number of seasons, rehiring all the team would costs 2000K gp (See EDIT).
That's 1000K beyond 1000K.
This team scores 1 TD and inflicts 3 CAS per game. That's 20K. It would therefore need to play around 35 games (h/t Traul for spotting a previous calc, and AD for the RRs) per season to match that extra 1000K.
Assuming 35-games seasons, the team has 7 players that risk to cost some extra money. This means some rookies will need to be ditched.
50-games seasons may be enough to have monster teams.
The same exercise would need to be done with elven teams.
EDIT: I've added 10 games for 3 RRs, H/T AD. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %03, %2016 - %00:%Dec; edited 4 times in total |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 05:14 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | Why after keeping TV under a certain limit would a coach not then buy hire fire etc etc a combination of such things to protect their treasury going into a rebuy phase and would they give away inducements or reduce their own for the TV of a lino they don't normally run with? |
There's no answer to this rhetorical question unless a bigger TV is *always* better.
Cf. the Book of Dakka.
Think of it this way. If after a while a coach feels that his team hits a sweet spot, then that coach will try to keep within that spot. His or her team's Treasury increases. Once the Treasury hits 1000K or more, what will prevent that team to always remain in that spot?
In other words, Treasury or not, a sweet spot is a sweet spot, but with a Treasury, a sweet spot can only be sweeter. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Traul
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 06:37 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | This team scores 1 TD and inflicts 3 CAS per game. That's 20K. |
20K for TD and CAS, but didn't you forget the base 10k per game? That would mean 27 games to make 810k. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 07:25 |
|
| Traul wrote: | | 20K for TD and CAS, but didn't you forget the base 10k per game? |
Yes, I did. Thanks! |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
