Talk Fantasy Football

Way back in the 3rd ed, Team Rating disparities resulted in cards and MVPs. There was one deck of cards that you'd take if you wanted to build, and one if you'd wanted to win, and one you just drew one from in the hopes of getting that REALLY COOL card. So if you were a big underdog, you could build faster by playing up (or at least you'd get compensated a bit for submitting to a beating), but you'd be in trouble for that one game.

Now, TV disparities are mostly handled in immediate form: you get an extra guy or a one-shot benefit. Sometimes this is like the old days (I'd rather have an old Dirty Trick than a new Wizard), but they're intended to make you competitive for this match. Moreover, there's a lot of basic hostility in the House Rules forum to houserule suggestions to allow coaches the opportunity to build using inducements. When I try to get to the root of it, the subject changes abruptly.

I'm trying to figure out what the basic concern was that motivated the BBRC or Jervis or whoever to reject the idea of using inducements to improve your team. It's done to a much greater degree in some other GW league games (I'm thinking Necromunda), and seems to work nicely.

I think the main intent of the new inducements system was to make every game close/exciting.
By creating (expensive) team growth handicaps, you could easily have people challenging big overdogs, and essentially throwing the game by sinking everything into team growth - heck, it would probably be the bright thing to do.

It wouldn't work.

On the other hand, being a newbie in an established league can be a looooong hard pounding.
You could just house rule that for each 30 points of TV you're down, you get +10K and an extra MVP.
But I'd keep it out of the inducement system.

Cheers
Martin

Seems like ages ago, but when I asked pointed questions about Inducement value(s) to an underdog, I was told said Inducements were only designed to make up 33% of the disparity between teams.... At least one significant personality on the site expressed disdain for anything better, along the lines of 'an overdog deserves the advantage, or why would I even bother with "team build"?'....

The Arkham Asylum Blood Bowl Ladder League attempts to mollify this, while staying heavily within the rules, by using a chess ladder (strength of schedule) system and permitting the lowest team in the ladder to issue the first challenge (successive challenges by the next lowest teams, etc.).... I'm pretty sure this is helpful (if not perfect) by allowing the lowest ranked teams to "pick their poison".... At the suggestion of two of our coaches, we included TV and SPP values to inform match-up choices.... Interestingly, it seems to actually encourage our fine coaches to pick, more or less, equivalent matches.... Teams are retired to the "Legacy League" (open play) if not challenged/challenging within two months.... Of course, a coach is welcome to play multiple teams....

Here's the current ladder:
Seems to be working, so far....

Matt - cards are still in the game as an option, if that's what turns you on. And you can ban any inducements that you do not like as a league-specific option (for example, the Wizard).

In 3rd edition, teams could be helped in their build by cards in 4 ways IIRC: Magic Helmets, Healing Potions (or similar), extra MVP award(s), and cards which helped you to do something which might skill up a specific player. Extra MVP awards would also come automatically to the underdog, given enough disparity in TR. I suggest the latter was far more effective in accelerating the development of the team.

I have seen 3rd Ed. teams on the net in which practically every player had a Magic Helmet (+1AV for free). I'm not at all sure that was the designer's intention.

I quite liked the way late entrants to a league in 3rd Ed. could skill up more quickly (mainly through the automatic extra MVP awards). This allowed new teams to catch up skill-wise. However, it seemed to create a development advantage for the cheaper teams.

I quite like the current handicap system (inducements based on TV difference) in practice. Although relatively complicated, it allows the underdog to tailor inducements not only to his opponent's team, but to his own playing style and temperament. That is important, and not random like cards. Cards can be a lot of fun, but they are rather "shit or bust", and not everybody likes them.

But to answer your original question, I think the current inducement system was a result of a "fresh start" approach to handicapping, initiated by JJ, and did not start from the handicap system that existed in 3rd Ed. It's not surprising that elements of the 3rd Ed. handicapping (whether good or bad, liked or disliked) have disappeared as a result.

mattgslater wrote:I'm trying to figure out what the basic concern was that motivated the BBRC or Jervis or whoever to reject the idea of using inducements to improve your team. It's done to a much greater degree in some other GW league games (I'm thinking Necromunda), and seems to work nicely.

The answer Matt is actually pretty simple.

Growing your team is one of the most fun parts of Blood Bowl. If inducements allow you to build your team you rush the childhood of a team unnecessarily removing a lot of the fun of growing the team. The revamp of the rules was about trying to make each game fun and the experience of coaching a team more fun. Many surveys to players revealed that the building of a team through some of those low TV levels was a great experience. So the new rules attempt to make sure of two things:

1) That each game is fun. That's why the underdog is designed to have a 1 in 3 shot at winning the game with inducements (that was the target goal at least).

2) That the building of the team is not a rush process that skips some of the most fun parts of the game. Thus no inducements that have lasting effects on your team (outside of things like an apothecary saving a player to play another day).

Tom/Galak

Ah-ha. That makes a lot of sense to me.

To be honest, I would rather there was an inducement-like system in Mordheim (Although, it wouldn't really fit the fluff or background) rather than the underdog bonus.

I think it's much nicer to feel you have a fighting chance, rather than the potential abusement in mordheim of "Oh, I take 3 casualties, choose to voluntarily rout, and then get +4 to my experience bonus for every guy who survived". Note that people generally get kicked in the face if they voluntarily rout early though. BUT, it can still lead to warbands leap frogging their way from bottom to the top (As in Mordheim, you get experience as long as you don't actually kick the bucket).

So definately think the inducements system is the right approach . Much more interesting to have your own team evolve rather then suddenly go from amateur to brilliant.

ahh,
the inducement is in the eye of the beholder
I got bashed BBADDDD
so for 2 games and a third coming up I got/get inducements
granted I lost 3-0 in my last game but I only had 4 players. The inducements allowed me to try out stars, mercs and such even fun high priced cards
My next game I am coming in with 7 players and I should beat my opponent 3-2 thanks to the inducements improving my odds

I don't believe the current system does not result in long term effects. Just take into consideration what a chainsaw backed by two bribes on a dwarf team can do to any opponent.

Duke Jan wrote:I don't believe the current system does not result in long term effects. Just take into consideration what a chainsaw backed by two bribes on a dwarf team can do to any opponent.

Oh ... but we wanted that effect. We got rid of aging and introduced more on-field effects that would "help" you manage your TV.

Galak

GalakStarscraper wrote:

Duke Jan wrote:I don't believe the current system does not result in long term effects. Just take into consideration what a chainsaw backed by two bribes on a dwarf team can do to any opponent.

Oh ... but we wanted that effect. We got rid of aging and introduced more on-field effects that would "help" you manage your TV.

Galak

or your opponent's...

I just love managing my opponents TV

Yes, yes, in our league we call it "helping your opponent with his TV".

And I applaud the BBRC's decision to replace off-field blood (ageing) with the proper, red, on-field stuff. Much better.