BB2016 - No Petty Cash Rule - Wins from treasury?

[Pedda]

Hi Pedda - yes, underdog does get the TV diff in cash.
What you don't get is a Petty Cash/recalculation phase, so any actual Cash spent does not Enter into the calculation.

I.e 1450 TV team faces TV1500 team.
Compare TV and underdog gets 50K for inducements.
Then either side can burn as much Cash on inducements as they want at no penalty.

Cheers
Martin

Ah, then I see what you mean and I also see the potential problem.
It's kind of the cyanide version, but worse, since it benefits the stronger team.

[Marlow]

Ah, then I see what you mean and I also see the potential problem.
It's kind of the cyanide version, but worse, since it benefits the stronger team.

It is exactly the same as teh Cyanide version. Petty cash is the TV differance and you can spend it as well as any gold in your Treasury.

[Pedda]

Ah, then I see what you mean and I also see the potential problem.
It's kind of the cyanide version, but worse, since it benefits the stronger team.

It is exactly the same as teh Cyanide version. Petty cash is the TV differance and you can spend it as well as any gold in your Treasury.

But in the cyanide version the higher TV has to choose first, then the lower TV team, which means that the lower TV team can spend its money knowing that the other team won't get anything for it.

On tabletop, I assume that it's simultaneous?

[Milo]

I know where you are leaning with this and it makes sense to me but say a league final comes down to two teams and one doesn't intend to return the next season so goes all in on inducements. Yes, ok his team isn't making it back in to the league next year so he's paying the price that way, but that may takes away his opponents chance to a fair shot at a championship perhaps?

That sounds entirely in keeping with the BB fluff for Championship games.

[plasmoid]

Hi Milo,
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.
Cheers
Martin

[Milo]

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.

[Jimmy Fantastic]

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.

Which is exactly why they will be spending it on "free" inducements.
Awful awful rule. Only saved from complete damnation by the fact that Wizards aren't out... yet.

[Darkson]

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.

On the other hand, you want to carry your team on, while I, for whatever reason, have decided I'm not carrying on my team, so I don't care about redrafting etc. I can happily blow my treasury, you have to balance the one game vs your on-going team.
That then pushes the successful "meta" towards not carrying your team onwards, which is against the principle the rules are designed for.

[GalakStarscraper]

On the other hand, you want to carry your team on, while I, for whatever reason, have decided I'm not carrying on my team, so I don't care about redrafting etc. I can happily blow my treasury, you have to balance the one game vs your on-going team.
That then pushes the successful "meta" towards not carrying your team onwards, which is against the principle the rules are designed for.

I see the point that Simon and Jimmy are making.

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.

[Stout Youngblood]

...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.

That is an interesting proposition...

[Steam Ball]

So use Bank?

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

[Lyracian]

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.

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.

[plasmoid]

Hi Milo,
I was merely making the point that "follows fluff" doesn't always mean "fun game" - the joke example being if someone were to try to kill you/me, the head coach.

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.

I'm firmly in the camp thinking that the coach who deserves to win is the one that plays best in that match.
I don't see any connection between "deserving to win" and "managing to hoard Cash". Sure, if it is an actual decision, then there is some merit to it. But just as often, the guy with no Cash to spend had a rough season - bad winnings rolls and/or many players to replace - and you might just as well argue that he deserves to win because he made it to the finals in spite of that.

Cheers
Martin

[GalakStarscraper]

So use Bank?

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

No bank ... just have Treasury straight up count as TV.

[dode74]

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 think those are different issues. You could still simply allow "topping up" after inducement cash is accounted for.