FOF House Rule: Action Points

[QuikSand]

Action Points for FOF

If you are among the many who play the “new wave” of mostly European-designed board games, then you already know the concept of Action Points. The idea, which has crept up in many different table-top strategy games in recent years, is basically that on your turn, you have a variety of things that you can do – but you are limited by a number of Action Points (AP) available to you. For instance, in a given game's turn, you might be able to move your token one space for one AP, draw a card for two AP, or play a card for one AP. On your turn, you might have a total of five AP to spend – so you essentially have to budget your actions according to the AP limitations. All in all, this makes for a pretty decent game concept – players decide what kinds of things they want to do, and have to make strategic decisions about how best to use their AP for each turn.

I recently got to thinking – and I believe that the “Action Points” concept might work well as a sort of house rule for FOF 2004 (or other versions, candidly). I’m playing a pretty mature career right now, and I’m looking to add some more challenges – I think this might be a good way to go. The concept will be this: Each year, I will have a limited number of Action Points to use, and will be able to allocate them among many different decisions within the game, at predetermined AP costs for each major action.


Here is my first sketch of AP costs for major events in an FOF off-season/season:

Staff Costs
1 pt - Each staff member paid in the upper half of the league
1 pt - Each staff member in the top page of all sorted staff contracts
1 pt - Each staff member paid highest in the league for his role

Player Contracts
1 pt – Each newly signed free agent to more than a 1yr deal
1 pt – Each newly signed free agent to more than 2x minimum salary
1 pt – Each newly signed non-rookie free agent initiated after FA begins
1 pt – Each non-rookie free agent signed after rookie draft
2 pts – Each player protected by franchise tag
1 pt – Each player contract negotiated by “Cap Out Offer” option
2 pts – Each player contract renegotiated to higher total offer
3 pts – Each player contract renegotiated to lower total offer
1 pt – Each contract renegotiated for currently or recently injured player

Trades and Transactions
1 pt – Each trade offer from other team accepted
1 pt – Each trade made involving only current year’s draft picks
2 pts – Each trade initiated involving current and future year picks
2 pts – Each trade initiated to send or receive players
2 pts – Each trade initiated involving players and any first round draft pick

In concept, these payments are cumulative – so, if I sign an outside free agent in the late FA stages to a fat multi year deal, it costs me 1pt (more than 1 yr deal) + 1pt (more than 2x minsal) + 1pt (after initial FA stage) + 1pt (after rookie draft) = 4 AP.


At the moment, I have two competing ideas how to implement this in practice:

1) Set an annual “budget” of Action Points, which governs the number of actions I may take in that season. For example, if I allow myself 20 points (which I’m thinking might be a fair limit under these rules) then that’s the limit. If I have a player get injured during the season, and I would like to sign a journeyman replacement – I need to have at least 1 AP left to sign anyone but an undrafted rookie in that spot.

2) Allow unlimited use of Action Points, but the cost of doing so is a reduction in the available salary cap for that season. I’m thinking something like a 1% cap reduction for each AP expended during the season (or perhaps for each AP expended in excess of a nominal amount – like each AP over 10).

Right now, I’m leaning toward using option #2, but am open to more thoughts on refining the list or the concept.

[QuikSand]

At the moment, I have't thought about adding an AP cost for things liek backloaded contracts or other advantages in the bidding process... I generally use my own rules to completely eliminate that sort of thing, but it's certainly possible to use the AP concept to just make such things more difficult. Something like this ought to do:

2 pts - Each FA contract with more than a 33% increase in any annual salary

2 pts - Each FA contract to player demanding bonus without a bonus at least as high as the highest annual salary

[Fritz]

Sharp idea.

[WSUCougar]

Very interesting idea, QS. I'd strongly favor your #1 over #2. Perhaps you could introduce a randomness to the total, reflecting the vagaries of ownership, media/fan pressure, etc. Or a sudden reduction or bonus.

By the way (not to nit-pick), but the concept of Action Points has been around in wargaming for a lot longer.

[QuikSand]

Fair enough... didn't mean to suggest that Euro board games invented the concept, it's just the first place that I have come across it.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm finding FOF2k4 enough of a challenge myself, but I think that your idea is great for those looking for more challenge.

One observation--because a lot of your AP tasks tend to relate to saving money on players, there will be a feedback effect if you tie it to the salary cap. The more points you spend, the more money you should save on players, BUT the less money you will have to spend on players. That seems to be a pretty good system, and I therefore believe that option #2 would be better than a flat cap on APs.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Fair enough... didn't mean to suggest that Euro board games invented the concept, it's just the first place that I have come across it.
It was more an informational point than anything. It's all good.

[Peregrine]

I like the idea. I'd recommend trying out both options before deciding on one, the first one might be interesting since you're so limited, you'd want to save points for emergencies and might not be able to do everything you'd like at the start of a year such as renegotiations, etc.

One option would be to have an annual budget of points, but to have extra points roll over to the next year's budget. That might let you do too much in the "boom" years, however.

[QuikSand]

My biggest concern right now is that I think this provides an untoward incentive to keep your own players. In concept, a team that lets go its current $2 million RT and signs another comparably-skilled $2 million RT hasn't really made a big move - they just replaced the part that was missing with an equivalent. This point system would penalize that team more than had they just re-signed their own player.

Working through how to avoid that ffrom being the central way to beat this system...

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by QuikSand

I recently got to thinking – and I believe that the “Action Points” concept might work well as a sort of house rule for FOF 2004 (or other versions, candidly).

Could you forsee any multiplayer applications of this, or is this primarily an AI equalizer?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Could you forsee any multiplayer applications of this, or is this primarily an AI equalizer?

First and foremost an AI equalizer.

But since player renegotiations are a function of working with the computer AI - that's one area where maybe some sort of limitation might be applicable in a MP environment.

[wheels]

someone needs to pay this man! great idea.

[The Shadow]

QS,

Seems to me that you've started looking at AP as a result of finding a more restrictive "House Rule" for yourself.

Have you tried the following 3 House Rules?

1. Don't take advantage of AI teams - no swapping future 1st round picks, no trading for stud rookies, etc.
2. You can only bid on your staff (HC, OC, DC, Scout) in the last stage.
3. Your team cap starts out 10% below league Salary cap. It will drop 5% every time your team reaches the Superbowl. It will increase 5% every time your team has a losing season, upto 10% below league Salary cap.

I like these 3 simple House Rules because they are simple, easy to remember, and doesn't prevent you from using certain facets of the game - renegotiations, Franchise designations, trading, etc.

Although the AP system appears to be viable, it seems too complicated to track for most people, including myself.

[QuikSand]

I haven't used rules like #2 and #3 with FOF 2004 yet.

I don't like the staff restrictions - but it certainly could pomote more challenge. I just prefer not to have my restrictions feel too much like luck rather than decision-making. Fprcing me to sign whatever coach is eft after the staff signing wraps up seems too luck-driven... if I get a good guy, great. If I don't there's nothing I can do, except sign him only short term and hope for better luck next time.

A cap limitation is something I have played with in previous FOF versions - and I might incorporate it in FOF 2004 as well. Not sure about the adjustment based on results... but it's an interesting concept, I'll agree.

[The Shadow]

Rule #2 just means your staff is not G to EX in every category. You need to decide what is a good trade off - VG in Injury Avoidance but Poor in LB or G in Injury Avoidance but G in LB?

I think it does force the human player to make some tough decisions on staff hiring.

Sure, you can sign your staff to short term deals, hoping for better luck next time, but you'll find that you'll almost NEVER have staff that is G to EX in every category. Even if you do, that coach/scout will only be with your team for 5 years, because you'll most likely lose him when his contract comes up.

[QuikSand]

I understand how it would work out, for the most part, I'm just not sure that I like it. On balance, I like the concept of being able to pursue and secure the very best coaches or scouts -- but at a meaningful cost to the other things that you might want to do. For the most part, I have not found this sort of balance - but I think the AP concept gets fairly close to that, if executed well.

Good ideas, though. Your annual cap adjustment concept sounds intriguing, the more I think about it.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by WSUCougar

By the way (not to nit-pick), but the concept of Action Points has been around in wargaming for a lot longer.

I was thinking the same thing. Just for fun, the first game off the top of my head that I can remember the concept from was Third Reich from Avalon Hill which was one of the first war games I ever got into. First was Blitzkrieg btw.

The concept in TR was called "basic resource points" or BRP's and you used them not on a per unit basis but on a per theatre basis to perform offensives, resupply troops, strategic move, etc.

These resource points were allotted by controlling strategic resources on the map so the number you received varied with your war efforts and they mainly represented economic resources.

I mention all of this to avoid a threadjack. Possibly the AP Quik wants to assign should be based on the money his team brings in?

Maybe a set number for season ticket sales. Maybe one per 10k. Possibly a set number for the various team values from the past season. Maybe some more or less based on last seasons results. This could represent money from marketing etc.

This may make being at the top too easy but it would make getting there much more of a challenge and you'd really have to roll up your sleeves and work if the cap bit you and you had to rebuild.

[Axxon]

dola,

if done right it would definitely impact the importance of getting that new stadium approved or moving that team so you could compete. I like that idea.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Axxon
if done right it would definitely impact the importance of getting that new stadium approved or moving that team so you could compete. I like that idea.

And to me, that sounds too arbitrary. I don't have all that much faith in the game's enging that determines whether new stadia get approve, or whether expansions get funded by the public. I'd hate to put my football fates (which I more or less control) into the hands of that part of the game.

But to each his own, of course.

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Action Points for FOF

If you are among the many who play the “new wave” of mostly European-designed board games,

New wave?!?!?

I have a stack of these type of games that SPI and its magazine Strategy & Tactics, put out in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Immensely unpopular in their day.

QS, you sound like a Frenchman praising Jerry Lewis movies.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by QuikSand
And to me, that sounds too arbitrary. I don't have all that much faith in the game's enging that determines whether new stadia get approve, or whether expansions get funded by the public. I'd hate to put my football fates (which I more or less control) into the hands of that part of the game.

But to each his own, of course.

I'm a bit confused about your reaction. Isn't the entire concept of assigning an arbitrary number of points which allows you to pursue actions, well, arbitrary??

I certainly wouldn't want stadium approval or expansion to be deal breakers but as a variance that would give these areas some importance didn't seem over the top.

It certainly didn't seem as arbitrary as just picking a number like, say, 20.

Now, as for it's effect isn't the entire point as you said more about balancing and making the AI more challenging? You're not exactly trying to find the razor's edge between challenge and frustration though with this, are you?

If you are then I indeed misread your intentions. If not, then a few more points more or less if you can't fill a stadium sounded interesting and actually make me look at these things where I admittedly don't right now.

I don't keep very much track of these factors and if your performance and the player popularity doesn't impact it in any real way and there's no way that your actions can affect these then my idea indeed wouldn't work and I'd see how it is arbitrary. I don't know about this.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by OldGiants
New wave?!?!?

I have a stack of these type of games that SPI and its magazine Strategy & Tactics, put out in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Immensely unpopular in their day.

QS, you sound like a Frenchman praising Jerry Lewis movies.

Sorry if my comments seem out of place, but I have read multiple times that there has been something of a renaissance among European game designers in the last decade or so. I believe most would track it back to the success of Settlers of Catan, but for whatever reason the companies that publish board games are making and promoting new ones at a greater clip than at any time in history, by a pretty considerable margin. Companies like Rio Grande are actually finding a demand for their products across Europe and America that far exceeds anything of the sort seen before.

I'm calling this a "new wave" not because nobody has ever made or sold or played strategy-based board games before, but because there has never been as robust a market for them as there seems to be right now.

As for the notion of "action points" - I apologize for suggesting that these games invented the concept. I recognize that isn't true, but the concept has become a fairly standard currency in these games, and it may be new to some people. I thought the description of its use in modern board games was a useful way to introduce the concept, adn I ask for forgiveness if my historic references don't correspon well with whatever went on in your personal adolescence.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Axxon
I'm a bit confused about your reaction. Isn't the entire concept of assigning an arbitrary number of points which allows you to pursue actions, well, arbitrary??

I certainly wouldn't want stadium approval or expansion to be deal breakers but as a variance that would give these areas some importance didn't seem over the top.

It certainly didn't seem as arbitrary as just picking a number like, say, 20.

I'll try to better explan what I mean by "arbitrary."

Some people have shared their ideas of house rules over the years here at FOFC, and many of them are indeed ways to make the gam more difficult. One great example was the single-state challenge - play FOF but only use players who come from colleges in one state.

I played this once - using only players from Ohio colleges. It was certainly difficult - it took me years to build up a decent program, and even more to win a title. But after I wraped up maybe 20 seasons, I looked back and felt like my team's greatest successes came not because of the decisions that I mde, but rather because of the luck fo the draw-- e.g. a great QB just happened to come out of an Ohio school, and suddenly my team got a lot better. To me - that was just too arbitrary - my team's success didn't connect well enough to my decisions and efforts. Indeed, playing under that restriction deeply limited my decision-making entirely -- there were very few players in every draft that I could even think about taking, and I rarely had much choice in what kind of free agents to sign - I just went after the few guy I was allowed to pursue under my rules. That wasn't decision-making... it was too close to simply rolling dice for my tastes, despite being "challenging" in a certain sense.

So, my ideal set of house rules will still allow me to make important decisions that affect the overall outcome. I don't want to feel like the team's success or failure is due in large part to the happenstance of some boundary that I set up, and how things happened to work out within that boundary.


Now, as for "as arbitrary as just picking a number like, say, 20" -- I see your point, but I hope that my meaning is clearer. By establishing a wide range of things that i can do within an admittedly arbitrary budgetof action points, I'm trying to accomplish the opposite of an arbitrary rule. Yes, the limit of 20 is arbitrary, but what I can do with this 20 action points is totally up to me - not arbitrary at all. I can decide to invest heavily in my defense, get a coach with great playcalling, and get a good offensive coordinator to groom the young offensiev players mostly from the draft... or I can invest in top-dollar offensive free agents and try to build a veteran, cohesive defense out of cheap players with complementary skills. I can use free agency primarily, or the draft primarily. It's up to me -- that's the point. If I want to change the nature of the team completely, it might take a couple of seasons, but I could do that. That's the essence of what I'm after.


My criticism of pinning this to attendance or stadium receipts is more a criticism of that part of the game than the idea itself. I just don't have much faith that the financial engine behind the game works in a very reasoable manner. So, I'd hate to have my team do better or worse in substantial part to something just absed on that part of the game (like whether my new stadium was approved). I want it to come down tothe things that I feel like I control -- the roster, staff decisions, and perhaps game planning.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Axxon
You're not exactly trying to find the razor's edge between challenge and frustration though with this, are you?

I'd say that's pretty close to what I'm looking for. I'd love to sit down and play a hotseat career, with rules that I could easily explain and articulate, where I was constantly faced with difficult decisions that had a real impact on my team's success. Ideally, this would mean that my team experienced "realistic" results -- missing the playoffs during a bad year, getting real excitement from years when we make a good playoff run, and so forth. And ideally, I wouldn't find myself just gravitating to the things that end up representing the greatest AI weakness left after the imposition of my rules system (a somewhat subtle issue, but one that arises in nearly every career I play).

If that's the razor's edge, then that's what I'm looking for. What attracts me to the AP idea is that it is so adjustable... I might find it entertaining to play with only 12 AP, someone else might like an easier challenge, and use the exact same system by 25 AP - and we both could have plenty of fun playing.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm calling this a "new wave" not because nobody has ever made or sold or played strategy-based board games before, but because there has never been as robust a market for them as there seems to be right now.

As for the notion of "action points" - I apologize for suggesting that these games invented the concept. I recognize that isn't true, but the concept has become a fairly standard currency in these games, and it may be new to some people. I thought the description of its use in modern board games was a useful way to introduce the concept, adn I ask for forgiveness if my historic references don't correspon well with whatever went on in your personal adolescence.
Once again let me state that my "nit-pick" on Quik's original comment was intended to be informational rather than a snipe. Given the apparent fallout, I regret the incriminating post immensely. :redface:

And let me also concur with Quik's description of the new wave of "European" games (not that he needs my concurrence, certainly). Some are also called "German" games categorically. They are NOT the same as the SPI and Avalon Hill games, which were in large part the founding fathers of board wargaming. European/German games emphasize simple game mechanics, quality (often wooden) components, family/multiplayer, and lots of playability and flavor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by QuikSand That wasn't decision-making... it was too close to simply rolling dice for my tastes, despite being "challenging" in a certain sense.

This snippet isn't really the only reason I'm asking my question, it's just something somewhat related to allow me to hang it onto something.

Like any number of gamers, you're (IMO) a "house rules guy", somebody who isn't a stranger to trying to expand the challenge of a game beyond the baseline.

House rules, AFAIK, are often an attempt to remedy the "lather-rinse-repeat" cycle of gaming -- once you find a successful formula, simply continue to do those things and success generally follows as a result.
What I'm curious about is this -- what single-player game(s) have you played that don't follow the lather-rinse- repeat cycle?
I gather you aren't fond of games where success is largely generated by die rolls, so ... is there any game that has ever met your goals without significant house rules?

FTR, I'm not picking on QS at all here, I'm asking largely out of curiosity and also because I'm having a tough time thinking of a game I've played that hasn't eventually boiled down to L-R-R and/or random die rolls.

[albionmoonlight]

Please don't let this become a threadjack, but I would appreciate it if Quik or WSU or someone could post a link to a site that has a lot of the type of turn based board games about which they are speaking. I am finaly at a place in my life (i.e. surrounded by the right people) where I can look at getting involved with a few of them.

Thx. in advance.

[WSUCougar]

albionmoonlight:

Fun Again Games (http://kumquat.com/cgi-kumquat/funagain/home)

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Like any number of gamers, you're (IMO) a "house rules guy", somebody who isn't a stranger to trying to expand the challenge of a game beyond the baseline.

House rules, AFAIK, are often an attempt to remedy the "lather-rinse-repeat" cycle of gaming -- once you find a successful formula, simply continue to do those things and success generally follows as a result.

What I'm curious about is this -- what single-player game(s) have you played that don't follow the lather-rinse- repeat cycle?
I gather you aren't fond of games where success is largely generated by die rolls, so ... is there any game that has ever met your goals without significant house rules?

Very fair question.

Best answer I've got is this: most games, once they degenrate to what you call the L-R-R stage, become residents of my junkheap. It's a fairly rare game that I like enough to want to invest the time and effort needed to make it more challenging and entertaining by adding my own limits and rules.

For me, that's turned out to be:

The Front Page Sports/FB Pro Football series
The Front Office Football series
Hooves of Thunder (horseracing simulation game)
...and that's basically it.


As for your question... I can't think of any game that really stood up to long term replay value without some kind of limitations. I've played a number of games that were plenty challenging for a while, and then got fairly mundane (LRR). But I don't think I've ever personally had that long term "perfect fit" that you describe.

[QuikSand]

I second the Funagain games site recommendation -- they provide detailed write-ups on each game (a la Amazon), they offer an enormous range of games, their rankings of hot sellers and historic sellers is a great shortcut to "top recommendations," and they discount enough to make shipping worthwhile. They are wonderful.

[OldGiants]

Thanks for the funagain link. I'll need to browse that. I noticed it has "Caracasonne" a game I spent some time staring at in a store over the holidays.

As to action points, my recollection of them was that they gave me the feeling of an ill-designed game. That is, one where an articfical constraint needed to be snuck in for play balance. The S&T Civil War and Mexican War battles I remember playing were only challenging because the more powerful side had a low action point total and so couldn't coordinate their forces. That's what the salary action points sound like to me.

So for me, action points = "no fun"

[QuikSand]

I will give a hearty endorsement to Carcassonne - which is my favorite board game right now, bar none. I prefer the Hunters & Gatherers edition, which came out after the original, but either one is excellent, in my judgment. Fantastic game.

As for action points = "no fun"... I'd just offer a thought that there are many recent games which use the AP concept very effectively, and there is (in my book) no sense at all that AP is in any way compromising the game's design. A good example in my mind is Torres, a tower-building game where each turn consists of 5 AP - a very good game for multiple players.

[Grid Iron]

I really like the AP idea, but keeping track of the numbers is too complicated for me personally. Consequently, I was thinking about a simplified version of Action Points.

I use Quik's standard house rules (no renegotiating, "fairness test" trades, bonus=highest year), and I'm toying with the following.

At the start of each season, my team gets one AP. I accumulate one per year, up to a maximum of 10. I can then spend the APs at any time. Here is a list of things that cost Action Points, and their relative point values:

5 - Make a stadium proposal
4 - Sign a coach/staff member to a salary in the top 5 in the league
3 - Use the franchise tag
2 - Execute a trade
1 - Sign a free agent (that didn't play for me the previous season) in the first 10 rounds of the FA period

The result of this system is that I need to weigh the long-term consequences of signing that blue-chip free agent against making a stadium proposal in a few years.

Just my $.02.

Thoughts?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Axxon You're not exactly trying to find the razor's edge between challenge and frustration though with this, are you?

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'd say that's pretty close to what I'm looking for. I'd love to sit down and play a hotseat career, with rules that I could easily explain and articulate, where I was constantly faced with difficult decisions that had a real impact on my team's success. Ideally, this would mean that my team experienced "realistic" results -- missing the playoffs during a bad year, getting real excitement from years when we make a good playoff run, and so forth. And ideally, I wouldn't find myself just gravitating to the things that end up representing the greatest AI weakness left after the imposition of my rules system (a somewhat subtle issue, but one that arises in nearly every career I play).

If that's the razor's edge, then that's what I'm looking for. What attracts me to the AP idea is that it is so adjustable... I might find it entertaining to play with only 12 AP, someone else might like an easier challenge, and use the exact same system by 25 AP - and we both could have plenty of fun playing.

Fair enough, but it seems you just might be chasing the holy grail. I've never even gotten this for very long versus a human so I'm not hopeful it can be achieved vs a machine.

Everybody learns games at different paces and to different levels. In my experiences, in chance limited games, these levels are rarely equal and rarely at the same time. We keep gaming of course because the shared experience is fun but usually who the better player is isn't in doubt and I'm sure that for them the games don't come down to this razors edge though they do lose a few.

For a computer to be able to adjust it's play to every human opponents learning curve and keep itself exactly at that razors edge of competition would be an amazing task indeed.

Even in sports leagues I've been in ( as I've reread your post and see that it's primarily sports based ) there isn't that level of competition. There's always some guys who just plain suck and then there's those "philosophy" guys who will consistantly try and turn chicken poop into chicken soup because it's how they feel the game is played no matter what players are available etc, etc.

I know that the AI in games like this seems weak but the actual I of most leagues aren't top notch across the league but have a few great minds, some average ones, and cannon fodder. To consider that the player in a computer sim would be in that top percentage isn't that much of a stretch to me.

Now, my problem with house rules as a method of chasing that holy grail is that it drives a dagger right through the heart of immersion for me. I've played house rules games and then while just doing my normal roleplay I realize that I accidently resigned a player during a full moon or somesuch and now, I can't continue the game in good faith as I feel that I've cheated.

It is easier for me ( and I admit freely that it isn't this way for others ) to just play the game and make no effort to learn it. Play it like a GM who can't study every draft to find out that players with even bars are likely to be busts.

The more about the engine we learn the less challenging and enjoyable the game becomes until we're searching for more and more ways of artificially creating a "challenge" and the end result less and less resembles football, the game we set out to play in the first place.

That I think is why I thought of tying this suggestion to attendance in the first place. It at least makes an effort to tie in the arbitrary rules to something football related and seems less out of place thus being less disruptive on immersion. Yes, it's not a cutting edge challenge of your football skills maybe, but financial realities do impact what a GM can do and while the game may not match up with reality in this regard, in reality the GM has no control over these areas so that part at least appears realistic on first glance.

There was a time that I used to feel bad that I didn't take more of an effort to "master" the games I played but as time goes on it's beginning to seem much more like a blessing every day. :)

[The Shadow]

My first thought on House Rules is that I wish we didn't need House Rules. But even for a great game like FOF, we need them. :(

Since we need House Rules, my preferences are that the House Rules are simple (to remember and to implement) and interfere as little as possible with my actions/decisions.

One House Rule that is a must - we can't cheat or take advantage of an obvious AI weakness. Typical example is swapping future 1st round picks with one of the worst teams in the league, once your team is a perennial playoff team.

Let's review some other popular House Rules :

1. No Franchise tags, no renegotiations, etc. - simple to remember, but takes away some of my actions/decisions.
2. Limit signing FA's in the first 10 rounds - not as simple to remember and takes away some of my actions/decisions.
3. AP points in various forms - difficult and painful to track (for me) and takes away from my actions/decisions.
4. Take only players from certain states/schools, etc. - difficult for me to implement and takes away from my actions/decisions.

House Rules I like :

1. Only sign your staff in the last stage - simple to remember and adds more tough decisions for me to make. What category can I afford to have Fair or Poor?
2. Alternative to the first one is that combined salary of HC, OC, DC and Scout must be the lowest in the league - tougher to track but again more tough decisions for me to make.
3. Human team has 10% less Salary Cap to start. Then depending on your team's performance, it's adjusted (see my previous post) - not simple to track but not too difficult. You just need to know what 10% (or 15% or whatever) of the salary cap is and keep the "Available under the cap" over that amount. It still allows me to make many decisions/actions (re-negotiate, Franchise, pursue FA's, etc.) but handicaps me more than the AI.

Just my $0.02 but really........everyone can do whatever they damn please - it's their game !!!