plasmoid wrote:I can't tell if you're serious or not.
But if you are, then I'd like to add that trying to assassinate the opposing head coach too is very much within the realm of BB fluff. Still, neither of those "fluffy" things make for a particularly enjoyable game.
And yet, there was a BB 3rd Edition card which allowed one of your players to "fall" off the field and squish your opponent's head coach. I thought that made for an enjoyable game, except for the fluff-nazis who then tried to say Undead teams had to forfeit because they couldn't survive without a necromancer.
I'm *somewhat* serious. I don't have a problem with a team spending their every dime to try to win a championship game. And frankly, if two teams make it to the championship and one of them has saved up a significant chunk of change for the express purpose of winning the game at all costs, don't they DESERVE to? They made strategic decisions to hoard that money instead of spending it during the season, risking Expensive Mistakes.
It's not chess. I understand the value and importance of balancing the games out with inducements, but I also think it's reasonable for an overdog to be able to play like an overdog, especially for important matches. Don't they deserve to be able to spend their money for a competitive advantage without it being immediately offset by a corresponding amount of inducements for the opponent?
Like I said, I'm somewhat serious. I can see arguments on both side. I'm not 100% firm on a position. But I think you need to look at the ruleset holistically -- not just this piece. Expensive Mistakes makes it more dangerous to hold on to large sums of money.