Talk Fantasy Football

I have been playing for about 6 months now and still cannot figure out how inducements are bridging the gap between TR's.

Point in question, I wanted to induce a Blitzer with Tackle, my oppo could have an identical player for 60 less TR.

Or you can pay 100 for a re-roll worth as little as 40.

I am not saying throw the baby out with the bath water, Babes work well for 50k. Star Players can be worth the money.

However, Wizards cannot be worth 150, if the rules gods dislike them that much just remove them. They were 50 in LRB4.

The inducement rules are a step forward vs the old handicaps, I just don't see why I should pay more than somethings worth when the whole thing is supposed to be about achieving a balance in TR's.

Thoughts guys?

It's not about achieving a balance between the underdog and overdogs. It's about giving the underdog approximately a 1/3 chance of winning (dependant on the skill of the underdog coach)

Now, not all Inducements are created equal - some are better for their value than others - the Wizard and certain Star Players are the best example of that. But for the most part the underdog is supposed to get worse value for money/TV than someone who's invested time in developing their team.

So, you've kind of missed the aim of Inducements. They're not there to equalise the teams - they exist to give the underdog a shot at winning while also encouraging teams to develop. If Inducements were so good that they were the same as on roster items then there would be absolutely no point in developing your players & team.

All of this said, there still are certain inducements that are a lot better than you pay. The wizard for example can win a match, especially when used against slow teams that struggle to score more than 2 TDs in a match.

Say I was in a league playing catch up because I have fallen behind with my games. I am going to get mauled by teams with higher TR's and the situation will just get worse. I believe that is a negative spiral and should be avoided.

Also, just having looked again at Jervis's designers notes LRB5 pg61, he is explicit in his wish to use the inducement system, along with skill cost being applied to player values, to "make it much more straight-forward to BALANCE a match between two teams of differing experience".

50 - 50 chance sounds balanced, 67 - 33 not so.

I see and understand your point, but it was FAR worse in LRB4. I got mauled on just the senario you mentioned with no help. With LRB5 I have a chance of getting back in there, NOT a GREAT chance , but a chance.

Lychanthrope wrote:I see and understand your point, but it was FAR worse in LRB4. I got mauled on just the senario you mentioned with no help. With LRB5 I have a chance of getting back in there, NOT a GREAT chance , but a chance.

Agree Journeymen help, especially high AG teams, but why should it not be an even playing field?

Well, Wizards aren´t worth 150k, that´s right. But 50k were too cheap. I had one every single game and every one feared my fireball (always 4 or more players going down, that´s called burn down the cage...) I think 100k would be the perfect prize...

But inductments shouldn´t even the odds. That wouldn´t be fair for the higher Player. If a team worth tv 100 could beat a team worth tv 350 easy, why level up? ^^ It is to give the lower one a chance go make it at least a game, where you can make some SSP´s to improve yourself. Nothing more or less

It's weird, some folk reckon that Inducements are waaay too good (when hiring 2 strong StarPlayers generally I think), I can't say I've found that to be the case and agree with your assessmement of the reroll and mercenary cost. Especially the Merc cost-they're already more expensive without skills and have Loner as a disadvantage.

But the inducements are there to make things more balanced (66% to 33%), not completely balanced (50% to 50%). And I reckon it does a good job, it may not be 100% perfect, but it's a lot better than what we've had before.

I would however like to see the underdog team get more SPPs, as at the moment, inducing players can actually hinder the development of teams as the hired Stars and Mercs can get the MVP, which wastes it and stops the full time members advancing as quickly and the team "catching up" with the overdog.

IMO if you use handicap to equalise the teams then the guy with less tv always has the advantage because he can fit his player against his opponent.

Oh, I play against elves, I'll take players with takle, ohhh dwarfs, I better take block. They are certainly more skills to support that.

this basically means the coach with the lower tv can adjust his team to his needs every game, while the developed team can't

King-Nerd wrote:but why should it not be an even playing field?

Because as fen said above, if inducements made it straight 50/50, what would be the point of building your own team? Why should a rookie team (i.e starting it's first game) be the equal of a 20+ game roster?
If inducments make it a straight 50% chance of winning or losing, what's the point of even bothering having progression rules in BB at all? Just decide before the game what TV level you want to play at, and build your team to that level.

Personally, I think the flat 1/3 chance for the Underdog, regardless of TV difference, is a load of horsesh*t, but I won't bother with that rant again.

Darkson wrote:

King-Nerd wrote:but why should it not be an even playing field?

Personally, I think the flat 1/3 chance for the Underdog, regardless of TV difference, is a load of horsesh*t, but I won't bother with that rant again.

Can you provide a link to it then?

I think Mercs, Journeymen, and Star Players all having Loner, all stealing MVP's and SPP's in general away from my rookie team, are enough to cope with. Making sure, after all that, that I can only win 33% of the time max is just crap if you ask me.

Are people just scared to play on an even playing field? It is one of the defining traits of wargaming (non-historical) in general, the fact that it is down to my skill and tactics if I win or not, not how many games I have played with that team before.

Probably not - I think it's on here, on SG forum, on NAF, on ...
Might be on the www. link in my profile.

Oh I agree that 33% isn't what it's turned out as. I've found with Inducements I tend to have a better than even chance against most of the other guys I play against. But I'm ok at this game and I play teams with good star players.

I've won matches on the strength of the Wizard alone, and I still hate many of the Star Players - some because they're just killers and others because they're crud. But the rest of the inducement system I kind of like - lately I've enjoyed the Cards more than anything else. I'd happily play in a league which allowed the Babes, Apoth, Igor, Master Chef (for flings), Bribes (For Goblins) and Cards as the only Inducements.

As for the MVP concern, we don't allow Induced players to get the MVP here (note: Journeymen are not induced, so they still can get it.)

Still, I certainly don't want inducements to put evey underdog on an even footing, development should count for something. When someone has invested time in their team they should get some pay off - but I'll also admit that right now not all Underdogs are created equal (until you remove Merc and Star Players - then everyone is more or less on the same footing inducement wise).

King-Nerd wrote:Are people just scared to play on an even playing field? It is one of the defining traits of wargaming (non-historical) in general, the fact that it is down to my skill and tactics if I win or not, not how many games I have played with that team before.

That works for games where you play to a set points total, ie 40K or WFB, but BB (and Mordheim and Necromunda for that matter) are ralrely meant to be played at "equal points". If they were, then they wouldn't have progression rules at all.

If I want to play a "fair" game, I play fixed point games (normal 40k, tourney BB, same gang-rating gangs in Necro etc).

Darkson wrote:

King-Nerd wrote:Are people just scared to play on an even playing field? It is one of the defining traits of wargaming (non-historical) in general, the fact that it is down to my skill and tactics if I win or not, not how many games I have played with that team before.

That works for games where you play to a set points total, ie 40K or WFB, but BB (and Mordheim and Necromunda for that matter) are ralrely meant to be played at "equal points". If they were, then they wouldn't have progression rules at all.

If I want to play a "fair" game, I play fixed point games (normal 40k, tourney BB, same gang-rating gangs in Necro etc).

You make a good point, as usual, however the GW small format games like Necromunda, have an inbuilt risk / rewards structure. So if my rookie gang plays against your killer gang, my experience points earned from the encounter are ramped up to encourage me not to duck the fight.

I would quite happily get rid of all inducements, journeymen etc, if you substituted it for a proper risk / reward system. Off the top of my head 1 bonus MVP for each 100 TR difference, plus double the regular SPP for each 200 difference in TR. Hell if I am 100tr and you are 140tr, and I manage to score, without any inducements, then that has got to be worth more than 3SPP.

It never actually boils down to 33/66 precent chance for the underdog, that's just an average. Above all coaching skill is the most determinig factor still.
If you want every game to be absolutely equal chance, well then you can: play with a fixed team value and allow teams to buy skills. Or just participate in a ressurection tourney.
There's no point in actually investing time and development in a team if the inducements were equally good. It would suck all the flavour out of the game. There would be no joy in beating a superior team (as such a thing would not exist). What would be the point?
At least that's my opinion...

I would quite happily get rid of all inducements, journeymen etc, if you substituted it for a proper risk / reward system. Off the top of my head 1 bonus MVP for each 100 TR difference, plus double the regular SPP for each 200 difference in TR. Hell if I am 100tr and you are 140tr, and I manage to score, without any inducements, then that has got to be worth more than 3SPP.

That system existed in 3rd ed, you'd get extra mvp's per game as the underdog. The games were still a terribly one-sided affair though, which were not exactly fun for either coach (the underdog was just trying to survive).