massive treasuries..

[mattgslater]

Matt - 10% of what? Of your treasury?

I was thinking TV, but 150k is a nice alternative.

Even then a wizard can be bought every game by teams able to hoard cash, which is something other teams cannot do.

What teams are unable to hoard cash? There's a period when teams flirt with going broke, and sure, heavy teams take a little less damage so start hoarding faster, but those are usually the teams that get less mileage from inducements (especially Wizards). It's not like they can do it really honestly every game: they have to build up to burn off, and at 50k-ish per match all told they can only splash cash for a Wiz once every 3 games on average. They're gonna save that splash for important games, or for games as a 60k-90k underdog, so they can add 150k TV and not give up a 100k inducement. Me, I never spend Petty Cash in a non-elimination game. Nuffle doesn't like it, and it always backfires.

We agree that you'd choose the "best value" inducements first with large amounts of inducements.

I agree in principle, but I'm not sure what that really means on the ground.

* I frequently find that I have just enough money for that cool Star and a Wizard, and I'm really fretting that I can't get the Babes I need to keep my numbers up and let me save my Apothecary. If my opponent spends 150k in Petty Cash, well, I even get a card too! Or I can downgrade to one Babe and take a Bribe… choices.
* People are bad at choosing inducements, and at estimating their value. People like the shorthand "Wizard Good" and it's not a terrible thing, but the truth is that when you're picking your inducements you often find yourself looking at two comparable tracks, and after the game is over you often find yourself wishing you'd gone the other way. If your opponent splashes for a Wizard, just accept you don't know enough to be confident that you had just enough to get all and only the best.
* Value isn't an equal proposition between the teams. Some races have certain key inducement levels where they're especially effective. Some teams have stars that are really good only against certain opponents. Some teams have stars that complement one kind of team build with that race, but not another. Some teams turn Wizards into touchdowns, others just get an edge in the scrum.

[mattgslater]

Yes, but most people will end a team after getting into the journeyman spiral. The second leading cause in team retirements I see (first being lack of success) is taking many injuries in a short time period that you cannot replace. Allowing teams to build up a cash reserve mitigates this, the bank rule would exacerbate it. For example, in a recent playoff run (3 games) with my chaos dwarves I lost a Minotaur, a Bull Centaur, and two dwarves - replacing them all coming with a price tag of $420k. The bank rule would put me in a position were retiring the team was probably the best option. IMO, the rules should be set up to try to avoid this.

The Journeyman rules are extremely uneven: some teams don't have to hire replacements unless they come with SPP, other teams have to hire everybody up real fast after a bad streak before the SPP fall on the Journeymen. Chaos Dwarfs are one of the hardest in this regard, because you don't want MVP Hobs. Elf and Human types, it's very different. It doesn't matter how far you fall: hoard cash, hire MVP bodies, and when you're rich, buy everything back at once. It makes me sad when people retire perfectly good elf teams just 'cause some one-skill Wardancer died and the roster is at 7 menz with 40k in the bank. That's totally playable.

[dode74]

I can't speak for tournaments as I play leagues, but I have never seen this happen in league play.

The rules appear to me to be written for a season followed by a set of playoffs as per the NFL. It's those playoffs after a season of cash-building where the issue can become noticeable.

Yes, but most people will end a team after getting into the journeyman spiral.

Personally I think that's because it's very easy to create a new team in places like B and MM. There's no commitment to a team so there's no reason not to restart after a downturn in luck. In the leagues I play there is a minimum 10-game commitment, meaning there is the opportunity to pick the team back up and turn them around.

Allowing teams to build up a cash reserve mitigates this, the bank rule would exacerbate it.

The teams which are most hit with expensive casualties are those teams which are least able to build up cash reserves.

What teams are unable to hoard cash?

Those teams which have to replace expensive casualties often.

It's not like they can do it really honestly every game: they have to build up to burn off, and at 50k-ish per match all told they can only splash cash for a Wiz once every 3 games on average.

It's not an "on average" thing. It's an ability to build cash reserves in preparation for a set of playoffs: the cash is spent in a splurge when it matters most (playoffs) rather than over the course of a season. We both know that teams in R and B "prep" for the majors, and this is just one more method of preparation.

[Smeborg]

What teams are unable to hoard cash?

Many teams in my experience. Dark Elves, Slann, Ogres, just to name a few. I have even been short of cash with Nurgle.

[mattgslater]

Hmmm… for how long? I stay poor with cash-poor teams for 10-20 games, but after that I get to hoard with the best of them. Nobody takes 50k damage on average per match if they play competently. Or 40k. Or 30k. The brawliest, most brutal environments it can be 30k I guess, but at that point you'll reach an equilibrium as the damage will concentrate on your Journeymen and your cash will start to pile back up.

@dode74, I see what you mean for the kind of seasons you play: for 15 games and a tournament then reset, there can be a massive cash disparity, and it helps the squads the format helps, which are exactly the ones that get hurt in perpetual play. In perpetual BB, the real beneficiaries of hoarding are also the ones whose players bounce back the worst from a bad beating. In large-scale open perpetual, if you're struggling more than 5 games to rebuild with anything other than Orcs/Nurgle/Khemri or other Blocker-driven teams, you're doing it wrong.

@specific examples (Ogres, DE, Slann): if you lose a 100k+ player regularly, why is Bank good for you? Vamps need that cash on hand more than anybody because they also need a bench. Ogres… lose two Ogres, and you're out 280k worth of stuff. Bank rules, yer hosed. As is, it's a significant deduction from your abstract number called "Treasury": if it happens a lot, it's less abstract, but once in awhile, no biggie. IDK why you'd have trouble hoarding cash with DE or Slann though, they're expensive to replace but Journeymen are fine if money's tight. So if you take a ton of damage out the gate, just farm SPP on Journeymen until you're good on money and then splurge to replace your losses.

@coaches who drop teams for excessive damage, bah, be rowdy. Play through the hurt. Don't splurge on positionals you don't need unless it's with money you don't need. This is Blood Bowl, after all.

[Smeborg]

Perhaps you play in gentler environments than I do, Matt.

All the best.

[mattgslater]

I'm just talking about cash. If you're taking 4.5 Cas per game, and running 3 Journeymen, you're probably taking 2.5 on your actual players. Let's say you're unlucky, and getting one retirement per game (3 cas). If you're the type who uses Apoth to save good players (and you should, if you're taking that much damage), that's one retirement per 3 games. If you're unlucky with an expensive team the average retired player's replacement cost is 90k, that's 30k per game. If you're winning, you're socking away 25k gold even if you replace all losses, if you're sucking you're breaking even or a tad better.

But then what? Let's say 5 or 6 games goes, your winnings are bad or your damage is heavier than that, or just the distribution, whatnot , takes you down to 5 players. Now, your 6 JMs are suffering probably 2/3 of that damage, so you're only taking half damage, 15k gold (Treasury in replacement value, not TV) per game in damage that matters, meaning if you're losing and have no FF you'll get 20k per match, and if you win (totally gonna happen with elveses, no matter how much you suck you'll win a little) you'll average more like 40k per. Journeymen will soak up 35k per match if you're hiring MVPs… but in that case they're close to B/W/D or some other skill that will hopefully keep them alive.

So… the fewer players you have, the more damage gets distributed to Journeymen, but the less you spend on MVP Journeymen (or lost MVPs). Just not hiring blank rookie players until money is no object, that's the same effect as hoarding and replacing like the AV-driven teams have to. The difference is that elves can live on five men and some bodies, while a heavy team needs its engine in place and a midrange team has to keep reserves.

[Smeborg]

Matt - I was teasing.

Another way to solve the perceived problem would simply be to ban the overdog from using petty cash. Just a suggestion.

[mattgslater]

Or include all the cards….