Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 14:48 |
 
|
From the site rules
•Teams in competitive divisions are expected to strive for at least 11 players on the roster. While this doesn't mean that any team below 11 players must immediately hire a new lineman, coaches are expected to not let the team deteriorate on purpose.
Understanding the intent there is the big trick, its funny how many miss the point. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 16:42 |
|
| harvest mouse wrote: | | Let's take a step back. Why were Journey Men added to the game? They were added to help out beaten up team, they do this greatly. They weren't added to help save cash or circumnavigate spiralling expenses. They weren't added to build up a gold chest, so that you can get your name on a hall of shame forum topic for saving 23 million gold pieces in the lamest possible way. They weren't added, because you feel your team works best with 5 very skilled players and 6 players who's job is to stand there for 16 turns. They weren't added so you can keep a little kitty to replace your wardancers every other game and maintain an effective status quo at 1450 TV. |
While I think you've been blowing this completely out of proportion, you can't blame the community for Jervis Johnson's decision to cut the banking rules all of a sudden for unknown reasons (maybe he did it just because he could).
Obviously, the game designer meant the game to allow the alleged exploit.
| harvest mouse wrote: | | Look at the bigger picture, what effect does this have on outsiders getting into the game (if these players aren't the type who just care about mechanics, which is pretty much what we're now left with). The effect is pretty similar to using urine instead of milk in your coffee......not very appetising. |
I don't think outsiders care much about cash hoarding (and in my humble opinion your analogy doesn't comply with the spirit of the rules of this side), POMB is the only major CRP design fail. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:00 |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:03 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | POMB is the only major CRP design fail. |
in your opinion |
_________________
 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:10 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | | POMB is the only major CRP design fail. |
in your opinion |
Agreed.
There are so many things that could have been fixed/made better, many with only minor tweaks. CRP has a lot of issues. |
_________________
 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:18 |
|
| Bobs wrote: | | Understanding the intent there is the big trick, its funny how many miss the point. |
Explain it please. I'm quite dumb  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:20 |
|
In support of HM I would say his point on spirit of the game is very important.
Making threads to see how much you can push the rules to help your win rate = awful. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:35 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | Stanley wrote: | | OK I understand your first point. It was dealt with when you were an admin. And yes it does seem a bit off that it has been asked again , even though you answered the problem in the first place. |
Not really.
1) Conditions have changed. People have come up with new uses for Journeymen, which is really the nature of the question (at least the admin part).
2) This question is two-part and the second is aimed at coaches, not admins.
3) HM's "answer" so many moons ago was more or less "ST…U" response, telling me that because I have site-rules questions I must be some kind of cheeser.  |
That's unfair:
1) Conditions have not changed. The rule hasn't changed so it should be applied as it always has been. As I said before, I think the 'condition' you're talking about, is a change in management and a bizarre situation that arose. I think the best thing for everyone, is to forget what happened, not see the situation repeated and don't make an issue out of it, Nobody gains.
I don't usually agree with Licker, however I think he has the right approach to this rule.
2) Is that particularly healthy? In the end it will boil down to "The man makes us play in this way, should we stand for it?" Damn (bleep) straight you should stand for it. This is Christer's house, who subsidises this site by at least 50%. It's my opinion, and in the minority in this, but we don't have the right to question his rules. You accept it, or move on. If Christer added a rule tomorrow that everyone has to play FUMBBL in a pastel coloured dress with a contrasting flower design; we play FUMBBL in said dress. No arguments, just apply your make-up and matching hat, for me it's that simple. It's in nobody's interest to make issues out of rules he's firm about and cause negativity.
3) Did I? I certainly didn't see it like that. I thought I was very patient, and spent my free time trying to answer your questions. I became uncomfortable when you tried to winkle out of me exact situations where it would be illegal. I see this as you looking to play as close to the white line as possible. The other point is, like a lot of rule situations, there is no definitive white line.
Each situation is different, and you have a group that look at each situation and judges it on merit. As an example a Wood Elf team with 250k in the bank and 1 JM, is a totally different situation to say a Zon team with 240k 6JM and 250k in the bank. I'm not saying one is legal and the other isn't, but they are different and need to be judged differently.
The bottom line is, do the responsible thing, and what's best for the site. Responsibly decide where you think the white line for you team is, and then stay well clear of it. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:41 |
|
Part of the issue with many of the 'site rules' is that for people new to the site, or whom just have not had the opportunity to be affected by those rules, the rules do not appear to make sense from a 'purist' (whatever that is) blood bowl view point.
That's why these kinds of threads pop up now and then.
A civil discussion/answer is all it takes to address the issue. The rest is just people discussing (hopefully) the FUMBBL 'site rule' to gain a better appreciation of it.
I agree with HM that at some point, for those who refuse to understand it, STFU is the only resort. However, there are times (and posters) for whom that is the first resort.
Such is the internet. *shrug*
I enjoy a lively forum, even if somewhat redundant from time to time. |
|
|
cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:45 |
|
| Fumbbl Rules wrote: | Game Rules
Games on FUMBBL are played using the Competition Rules Pack (CRP) ruleset
In addition to the CRP, FUMBBL also allows Chaos Pact, Slann and Underworld teams.
No optional rules are in effect.
The tournaments section is not in effect. |
Here's my two cents. The site rules say that the CRP rules are t be used, and that no optional rules are in effect. Fine. Except that some house rules ARE in effect. For example, the loosely defined "journeymen rule" and the "concessions rule".
These are both areas of the pre / post game sequence (in the former case) and of the game itself (in the latter) where Fumbbl imposes house rules which are not included in the CRP.
I have no problem with either of these rules. But I think there is an onus on the site admins (and ex-admins) to allow and encourage discussion of the house rules and to answer valid questions about them. CRP didn't impose them. GW didn't impose them. Jervis Johnson didn't impose them. Fumbbl did.
So slapping people down for asking for some clarity is pretty rude. I'm not saying all admins should be available 24/7 to answer any and all house rule queries. But don't tell me I'm not allowed to ask, or to discuss, or to question these rules. And to imply that anyone questioning the rules is somehow wasting forum space or trolling or looking for unfair advantage etc is just cheap bullying.
If I set up a League which uses the revised POMB rules and alternative fouling, the onus is on me to justify why this league needs / will benefit from these rules. Likewise, the onus is on the people who make the site house rule decisions to explain the rules. And if the original rule is so ambiguously worded as to be meaningless, well, whose fault is that?
I'm not trying to get any rule changed, I'm not looking for an advantage, but it is just possible that with free and open discussion of a rule, we might arrive at a better version / interpretation that would help everyone. Who's to say that the current version is the best possible version? And if we can't discuss the rule and its intent, then how will we arrive at any critical appraisal?
Anyway,
/2 cents. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 17:52 |
|
Iam just sitting here shaking my head guys.
I slag my entire team and play one match with 10 J-men. The intent of this move was very public and everyone knew what was going to happen. Iam now 2 games later and the Bucs are building back up.
Now it seems to me that some coaches had briefs turned into thongs over this. Some claimed it was fun and fluffy others claimed it was the most blatant abuse of J-men ever witnessed in the history of Blood Bowl. Some called for perma ban, some called for team disbanment, other said the J-men rules are whack and have no meaning.
It has become very clear to me that the issue surrounding the Buccaneers is way behind us at this point. Now this issue has been hijacked by other coaches who wish to push this discussion in other directions, pick on some old scabs and start kicking the carcass of the J-man abuse rules again.
I can only say my intent was clear, the goal of my intentions was clear and very public. The plan has been executed and the goal was achieved. It is now way behind us at this point. So any more discussion of this issue is not related in any way to the Buccaneers and what they did. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 18:07 |
|
| PainState wrote: | Iam just sitting here shaking my head guys.
|
You should have left it here  |
_________________
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 18:09 |
|
K, I think at this point I see where we're talking past each other. HM and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree on what level of definition is necessary in a houserule, water under bridge. I appreciate that you tried to answer my question, I still don't think I got an answer, such is life.
Let's get off this talk of cheese, though. The site rules question was answered on page 1: you can use Journeymen to rebuild, and have some leeway in the cash strategy you use in a good-faith rebuilding effort, and maintaining Journeymen for a single game as a fluff mechanic (à la the Bucs and Ranked Amateurs) doesn't constitute hoarding so long as you try to maintain 11 permanent players on the roster. That is, what the Bucs did was okay because it was just one game and then they spent the cash, and Ranked Amateurs are okay because they actually hire all their JMs (bar perms) rather than running loners all the time. Check.
So, let's talk Journeymen.
* What's your strategy when rebuilding? If you're down to 9 men, do you hire replacements one at a time, or do you run JMs to save up and hire both? Are there some conditions where you do one and others where you do the other? Do tell.
* Most coaches use Loners on the LOS, and to foul, and to tie guys up, and to act late in the turn when you may not have (or want to spend) a reroll. Do you do it any differently? Have you seen others do it differently?
* Re: LOS duty, if you have both Journeymen and stars, do you bench rostered linos on defense so your JMs can take the hits? Or do you like maximum impact/opportunity on the pitch? Is it conditional?
* Ever spend a RR on a Journeyman? I did recently for the first time. Worked. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.
Last edited by JackassRampant on %b %20, %2014 - %18:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 18:12 |
|
Here is my strategy in managing journeymen:
The 3-11
3: This is how many players you have to place on the LoS. I am completely indifferent as to whether these players have loner or not as I expect them to die on defense or to mark up scary things (and die) on offense. So I am fine in having three JM to serve these roles. If I have less than 8 real players... I will buy in order to have 8 (so I can put a real player in the backfield for skilling).
11: Minimum amount of players right? Yes, but this also means if I am short handed and have as many positionals as I want... I am only interested in buying linos if it takes me PAST 11 players. This means that if I have 8 real players, I will not buy again until I have enough to jump to 12 (although see the disclaimer below to see a notable exception).
Now let's look at an example involving my wood elves:
I currently have 9 players and 80k in the bank. I don't need any positionals at all so I would rather aim to buy linos. Looking at the 3-11 rule above, I know I will not buy any players since I have less than 4 JM and I don't have enough money to buy the 3 linos that would take me above 11 players.
Now for an important disclaimer with my viewpoint:
- If a JM gets spps, I want to buy them. That could cause me to buy a 10th player prematurely.
__Synn
**Note this is just my stance and does not represent any form of hard rule or policy. I have never had any issues with admins on the usage of JM. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 18:14 |
|
Thanks, Synn. That's a good way of explaining my basic rebuild philosophy too. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
|
|
| |
NBFL Season 32: The ...
Search
