Talk Fantasy Football

Does it make sense for the Underdog to put any cash into the Petty Cash? Since this will raise his team value, he recieves the same amount he spends less as inducements, so in the end, he hasn't got any additional money to spend on inducements.

Or which point did I miss?

Thanks for your answers

A very common tactic for the underdog is to but a babe and still deny the higher team any inducements I'd they are less than 5 TV under. For example, my Elves TV98 play your Dwarves TV 100. By spending 50K of my treasury you only get 30K which I know can't buy anything.

Further examples would be if you didn't have enough to get something very handy, like a wizard, but did have the gold to spend on it. The same Elves TV98, spend 150K to hire a Wizard vs your 110TV Dwarves instead of just using the 120k normal inducement money. Even if you where 105TV taking the wizard only gives you 70k to spend on a babe. My wizard is far better than your babe do still a good shout.

Make sense?

Yes this makes sense. Thanks for the handy tricks.

Just to be sure, because I think we played this wrong in our league: If one only gets 140k of inducements one can't just spend an extra 10k to get a wizard, but would have to pay the whole 150'000 out of Petty Cash money?

That changes things quite a bit.

Ranudar wrote: Just to be sure, because I think we played this wrong in our league: If one only gets 140k of inducements one can't just spend an extra 10k to get a wizard, but would have to pay the whole 150'000 out of Petty Cash money?

Correct.

To expand on that (already correct) answer, by spending 10000 you effectively increase your TV by one, meaning you'd have your 10k and the now reduced 130k to spend. Meaning that if you wanted a wizard you do need to use all 150000 from your treasury.

It's a petty cash inducement inversion.

Team A is 30K less than Team B.

If Team A puts in 50K therefore making it 20K more than Team B, it can buy a babe or whatever.

The Petty Cash shunt is decided before team values are worked out for inducements.

Hi everyone,

I also messed things up in our league. I was allowing an underdog who had 140K in inducements to spend 10,000 to top up to 150 K.

Can I ask the reason for the inducement inversion? To me it seems overly complicated and quite silly, but perhaps I am not seeing a larger picture here?

In my opinion the game is always better when the underdog can top up in the way stated above. It encourages better balance. It makes a better team work a bit harder to get their win.

In all of my 14 games for far this season my opponents have received inducements. And letting them spend a bit of cash to make these even better hasn't turned the tide enough...

It certainly is already much more balanced than the Death Zone cards from 3rd edition and the game was still fun back then.

Cheers,
Michael

If there was no inversion, a team could horde cash, still compete with inducements then splurge all the cash leaving them the actual overdog.

For example, a team with 300k in the bank just needs to be a 130k underdog, and using your rules, could take Morg in that game.

In my view this would be a better solution (how we are playing in our league currently):

1. Compare TV at the beginning of the match. This is the base TV difference.
2. Higher TV can add funds from treasury to buy inducements (at normal cost)
3. Any funds in step 2 increase the lower TV "free" inducements total. The Lower TV now receives adjusted inducements based on the base TV + higher TV's purchase in step 2.
4. The Lower TV can now also supplement their inducements with cash from treasury.

Example:
1. Team A has a Team Value of 1, 490, 000. Team B a TV of 1,000,000. Base difference is 490,000.
2. Higher TV adds 50k from Treasury to purchase a Bloodweiser Babe.
3. Adjusted free inducement value is now 540,000 for Team B
4. Team B adds in 10K from treasury to purchase 550K in inducements at an expense of only 10K.

Thoughts? Balanced? Good/bad idea? Easier/harder? Better??? haha

Cheers,
Michael

Darkson wrote:If there was no inversion, a team could horde cash, still compete with inducements then splurge all the cash leaving them the actual overdog.

For example, a team with 300k in the bank just needs to be a 130k underdog, and using your rules, could take Morg in that game.

Thanks for your post Darkson. I just don't understand the logic why a team should have to pay 150K for something that they would get 140k for free with 10k from their own funds?

If a player wants to spend all that built up cash for one game (for Morg) good for them not? I don't really see a problem with them doing that at all.

In fact, I think that is a further reason to include all treasury in TV not?

Just my thoughts.

Because given my example, the underdog is now a 300k overdog.
Also remember that inducements not meant to balance the teams. The design goal was that inducements would allow the underdog to win 1 in 3 games (roughly). If they balanced the game, it makes team development pointless.



Also, Petty Cash was a case of Jervis overruling the BBRC. The was a Bank rule, where treasury over 100k added to TV. At the last moment, Jervis threw it out for the untested Petty Cash rule.

I see your point, but the original underdog have also taken a lot of time (games played to build the cash reserve) and cash (which in theory could be used for a better positional player) to convert to "overdog" status.

Saving up funds for something big at a critical time should have a reward in my opinion. And of course both sides have that option (even if it increases the lower TV's free rewards).

Ultimately as the commissioner of a league we can choose how to play the game and adjust the rules. As long as everyone inside my league plays the same way their is a degree of fairness.

Not saying my view is better. I understand why a bit more now the system is as it is.

To be honest, I would always rather see the matches more balanced than not. I do not view the team development as pointless even with my rule adjustments. It is very important - perhaps even more so. Having a critical skill on the right player will always help you win a game.

And I think the taste of victory is even sweeter when Morg joins the other side!

Michael

A note of caution: the initial overdog must spend money on inducements FIRST and may not spend additional money after the underdog.... So, if the initial overdog spends nothing and the intial underdog spends 100k of treasury on an apothecary, the initial overdog gets no chance to spend anything more....

Digger Goreman wrote:A note of caution: the initial overdog must spend money on inducements FIRST and may not spend additional money after the underdog.... So, if the initial overdog spends nothing and the intial underdog spends 100k of treasury on an apothecary, the initial overdog gets no chance to spend anything more....

I'm not sure that is true, does it not miss the 'Petty Cash' stage e.g.

Team A TV130 + 300Kgp Treasury meets Team B TV140 + 0Kgp

1st Step - Treasury to Petty Cash...
Team B (starting overdog) has no cash to transfer (so declares no money from Treasury to Petty Cash)
Team A transfers all money to Petty Cash

2nd Step - Inducements
TV's are now compared and and Team B has now become the 200K Underdog, Team A (the initial underdog) now has to buy his stuff first with his 300K Petty Cash then Team B spends their 200K of inducemnets (even if Team B doesn't spend his cash at this point Team A still gets inducements as the Petty Cash does add to TV even if treasury doesn't)

The danger of allowing teams to add treasury to inducement money is that it encourages min-maxing.

Some teams do very well at low TV and can either have a few stars and lots of fodder or recycle players keeping an artificially low TV. Those teams can quite easily horde a large treasury, which adds nothing to TV so being able to top it up would in some cases make them stronger than normal teams.