| Author |
Message |
robusa |
|
Post subject: Inducments question
 Posted: Mar 04, 2013 - 05:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi all,
I have a question as I have never seen the inducments phase actually used in a game. Say for instance, I have a team value if 1440. My opponent has a team value of 1590. I understand that I have 150k to spend on inductments but what if I decide to use my treasury 330k. Would that make my total inductments allowed 480k?
Or does my 330k go to my team value before the team values are compared for purposes of inducements?
Thanks again and I know that this is a basic question, but again, I have never been in this position before. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
SBG |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Inducments question
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 - 05:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Canada
Posts: 771
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
You add the money to your team value. So it's pointless to do so. If you use your money, you get 330K to buy stuff, but then, your opponent gets 180 K worth of inducements.
Fred |
_________________
Winner of Soup Bowls I, II, III (Chaos Dwarves); IV, V (Dwarves); XIII (Orcs); XIV (Dark Elves) & XVII (Chaos).
Forget the Yankees, forget the Habs: THAT'S a Dynasty!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
robusa |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Inducments question
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 - 06:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
|
|
| Thank you Fred, that's what I was thinking it did and realized quickly that I *DON'T* want to do that. Thanks again for the quick reply. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
celticgriffon |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 11, 2013 - 12:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2013
Regina, Sask, Canada
Posts: 17
Location: Regina, Sask, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
I have always found the way this is handled as extremely confusing.
Let's say we have two teams - A and B.
Team A has a team value of 1,000,000. Team B of 1, 500,000.
Under the LRB 6.0, page 28 playing League Matches step 2., it says both teams can transfer money from their treasury to petty cash. This adds to the team value of that team.
Let's say Team B declines. If Team A now adds any money his inducements will actually be decreased by that amount. Huh????
This would then make all of the text in the upper right side of step 3 pointless not?
Shouldn't the underdog be allowed to supplement their inducements with cash to top up or buy additional things to balance the match?
Perhaps I have this backwards but I really think I have the spirit of things correct here. The rules do not make sense to me as written.
Michael |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Grumbledook |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 11, 2013 - 01:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 922
Status: Offline
|
|
| if A adds money his TV increases and will get less inducements, you have this correct |
_________________
'Boomshanker an Interception'
Jon
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
celticgriffon |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 11, 2013 - 01:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2013
Regina, Sask, Canada
Posts: 17
Location: Regina, Sask, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
I guess how I am looking at this issue is through these lenses:
I have 140K in inducements based on our difference in TV. I am the current underdog. If I want to hire that wizard (which in theory is only 10K more) I now have to pay 150K... and flip to a 10k overdog??? It is nutty logic and somewhat poor design (in my opinion).
I would always rather see a more balanced game than not. Inducements are the balance. And they are way more balanced than what we had in third edition.
Allowing a lower player top up using actual cash makes so much more sense to me. It is a better bleed of funds in a league setting.
And I get how this means a slight underdog could then blow a large amount of moola on a game to hire Morg. So be it. That is a lot of time invested to save for a critical match. The art of saving to buy something you want (in society) is largely a forgotten ideal.
I am having the same discussion on Talkfantasyfootball right now... lol I am very much enjoying the discussion.
Cheers,
Michael |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Grumbledook |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 11, 2013 - 04:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 922
Status: Offline
|
|
it makes more sense to everyone but that isn't how the rules work ;]
unfortunately the rules process had some issues, some rules got vetoed which would have been good to have which may have led to the strange situation you've described with inducements
the other big problem is the spiralling expenses aren't harsh enough and aren't doing the job they were designed for, sure you could point out that they can be house ruled to be harsher but in the main environments that need it (the big online digital leagues) this hasn't happened (or may not even be possible), would have been better to make them too harsh and let leagues house rule the other way
anyway the basic premise was to let any two teams face off and have a reasonably even chance of winning all else being equal, letting the underdog hire stuff for the match is the most straight forward way of doing things, but overprice them slightly so that you don't discourage team building at the same time
maybe a better way of having the rule would be to say you can either use inducement money only or treasury money only and then people wouldn't keep getting confused by it |
_________________
'Boomshanker an Interception'
Jon
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
