BB2016 - No Petty Cash Rule - Wins from treasury?

[ramchop]

Star Players and Mercenaries are banned from play-off games in the rules already.

So a Fling team defies the odds and makes the finals. Suddenly the tactics that got them there are banned. Why the halfling hate?

(sorry for veering off topic)

[Steam Ball]

So use Bank?
Serious side, how would Bank fit? What would have to be removed, changed, etc?

You should be able to just fit it straight in to replace Expensive Mistakes (or use alongside). Bank is a hard cap on the amount of gold you can have without impacting TV; Mistakes is a soft cap.

Sorry, I don't get it, Bank counts towards TV minus the base money, BB2016 Treasure doesn't at all and is what Mistakes erodes. Also it looks you are free to keep all the money you want but seems it will probably float below 190K (because you decide to avoid the risky cases) or barely above (because you lose the money). Mistakes means, if you have 500K or more, 50% going directly down to just 2D6 10K, 16% of halving and 33% of only going down 1D3 10K. At 200-290K you already have probabilities to halving so 100-150K, and with 300-390K you start to get cases of only 2D6. So Mistakes reminds me of Spiraling but letting (even encouraging, "use it or lose it") big team size with moderate treasure.

BTW, Mistakes says rounding up, while Raising Fund says nearest 10K... if input is always in 5K steps, wouldn't just better say up or down?

And while keeping on the money topic... no Journeymen (it was a quick reading, and the crap brownish background doesn't help)? Demolished squad, restricted savings to rebuild, give up the league?

[birdman37]

And while keeping on the money topic... no Journeymen (it was a quick reading, and the crap brownish background doesn't help)? Demolished squad, restricted savings to rebuild, give up the league?

Journeymen are still there. Step 5 of Post Match sequence, on page 24 of DZ.

[Steam Ball]

And while keeping on the money topic... no Journeymen (it was a quick reading, and the crap brownish background doesn't help)? Demolished squad, restricted savings to rebuild, give up the league?

Journeymen are still there. Step 5 of Post Match sequence, on page 24 of DZ.

Thanks. Damn contrast.

[Darkson]

I am thinking more and more that Treasury needs to be part of Team Value with this new system. That would go a long way to avoid any of these issues being discussed.

Where as one of the points I really like about this system is it is not. If you are 5 skills down and getting 90k under LRB then you cannot buy an Apo or Chainsaw unless you fund the full price from cash. Now I can spend 10-30k and get something for that single game.

I was under the impression spending from the Treasury was the next step after spending on inducements? I didn't think it was in the same step so no "topping up"?

So from your example you'd still get the 90k of inducements to spend then you could spend your treasury.

[dode74]

I was under the impression spending from the Treasury was the next step after spending on inducements? I didn't think it was in the same step so no "topping up"?

So from your example you'd still get the 90k of inducements to spend then you could spend your treasury.

Not how I read it. DZ says "Each team can spend gold from their Treasury to purchase any of the inducements listed below. The team with the lower Team Value is granted an additional amount of 'petty cash' equal to the difference in Team Values."

[Darkson]

God, these rules suck more and more! Why oh why didn't they get people with some knowledge of the game to read through them first?

I understand errors creep in, but FFS. Mantic got slaughter for the errors and misworded/unclear passages that were in the Dungeon Saga first printing of the rule book, and there were about the same as we're seeing here (and to be fair to Mantic, it was a hardback book that they reprinted and shipped to backers at their own expense).
meanwhile, GW can't get a errata pdf updated. Gaaaahhhhh!!!!!

[stashman]

If treasury is spent on inducements by the overdog should count in TV. Then nobody would do it. And GW maybe wanted to change that part.

How would we players want it without being like crp/crp+

Maybe expensive mistakes will handle it?

[Darkson]

If treasury is spent on inducements by the overdog should count in TV.

Why just the overdog?

[dode74]

How would we players want it without being like crp/crp+

Personally I would prefer:
1. High TV team spends cash on inducements and updates TV (where TVs are equal roll to see who goes first, or have "away" team go first).
2. Low TV team receives TV difference in petty cash and may add up to 40k to the total from treasury.
3. Low TV team buys inducements.

The 40k limit is to prevent the low TV team dumping cash which would either create a bigger advantage or cause a cycle of adding cash in order to allow the high TV team to equalise. It basically ensures the on-pitch difference is no more than 40k, but differences of up to 40k in real TV value can be offset. The low TV team having a slight advantage due to an inducement isn't a major factor based on the data we have, even at low TV differences, and it would cost them treasury to achieve it. Yes, it can create a difference, but it probably won't, and BB is all about the probabilities.

[Darkson]

I could live with that.

I still don't see the issue with allowing the underdog to spend treasury on inducements (no limit), then if it takes them above the TV the original overdog gets to add inducements, it's hardly a long process.

[dode74]

I still don't see the issue with allowing the underdog to spend treasury on inducements (no limit), then if it takes them above the TV the original overdog gets to add inducements, it's hardly a long process.

If it ends there, sure. It can lead to tit-for-tat spending though. If you want that then fine, I just think it makes things a little silly.

[Darkson]

Hardly an issue in TT, teams don't normally carry that much of a treasury around to make it last very long - huge treasuries are more of an online thing.

[nivlaps]

The Three Scenarios
I very much think the difference in scenarios matter. I used to play in a league where we were all just a bunch of happy n00bs playing away and enjoying the random and extremely unpredictable influence of the special play cards and in which we'd all have been quite happy to see teams do "fluffy" things, whether they won or lost. That's the first scenario.

To be fair, that's the expectation you hold as a n00b after reading the ruleset and the fluff. You expect flings to not stand a chance, you expect nurgle to have serious scoring issues, you expect the humans to be versatile and competitive. (All of which seems slightly at odds with the very competitive CRP rendition of BB.)

Enter the notion of tournaments and deciding who's best, which is a reality far from the fluff. No injuries, no progression, no winnings. All in an attempt to isolate the perfect situation to determine who's best (+ a tad most lucky, obviously).

Now, this is a very different reality in which I completely understand why balancing would veer towards statistically determined standards and where the (im-)balance proposed in the current new BB ruleset is hard to swallow. That's scenario two.

And the same goes for scenario 3, which is leagues like my current league, the ECBBL, where you have loads of tourney players and a great sense of the games not being played for fluff as much as for other more tournament-like purposes. Most of us really want to win; therefore not winning because the other guy gets better cards or spends everything on inducements without me being compensated inducements-wise becomes extremely hard to swallow.

The Effort of a Championship
So, the way I see it, it's all down to setting. Most people on this forum are probably playing for the latter reasons, but out there in the wild hopefully more people will play to the fluff, have a great time and not worry too much about someone spending two seasons first building a team, then building a bankroll and then splashing out on winning the league, only to then lose those two season's worth of effort (I take it players can't be re-hired if you resurrect your team for a later season, and that a n00b team cannot win the league). Spending a year or two building a championship effort doesn't seem off-fluff to me, at all. Plus:

- No wizard
- No mercs
- No star players

So you can get what - 2 bribes, an apothecary and a reroll? Ooooooh. Scary.

Just a Little Side Rant About Subs
On a side note, to me, part of the implications of having a very predictable BB (ex. cards etc) is that you need your subs less, which is something I hate about playing in non-fluffy settings. Oftentimes people will speculate with the inducements system (fling-style) or be happy to rely on journeymen or min-max and I just hate it. I think forcing everyone to have more capable players, emphasise their team's capabilities as a deep and forcing a greater reliance on one's bench are all good things. (Even if I do think the cards are a bit out of balance...and that the current selection is way too small even for a 10-14 game league like the ECBBL, fx.)

[Steam Ball]

Hardly an issue in TT, teams don't normally carry that much of a treasury around to make it last very long - huge treasuries are more of an online thing.

Expensive Mistakes means huge treasuries are in the way out. Only 90K or less ones are safe, first two bands 100-190 and 200-290 are safeish... rest of columns clearly point to keeping everyone down, by choice or by catastrophe. Unless you definition of huge is 150K.

(BTW, I would had put the first column as 100-190, for clarity, even if keeping the text about under 100K... yeah, errata and unclarity festival 2016 )