Inducements Cash and TV
Moderator: TFF Mods
- daloonieshaman
- Legend
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:58 pm
- Location: Pasadena California
- Contact:
Inducements Cash and TV
Your TV is 1.11 mil you have 600k in cash
your opponent is TV 1mil and 40K in the bank
your opponent gets 110K in inducements
you being the higher TV elect to spend 50k on a keg (because you being the higher TV elect first
your opponent may then:
use the 110K inducements
to buy say a wandering apoth (10K left over)
spend his 40K in the bank + the 10K left over (say a keg)
does he also get a matching gift of 50k because of the 50k you spent?
your opponent is TV 1mil and 40K in the bank
your opponent gets 110K in inducements
you being the higher TV elect to spend 50k on a keg (because you being the higher TV elect first
your opponent may then:
use the 110K inducements
to buy say a wandering apoth (10K left over)
spend his 40K in the bank + the 10K left over (say a keg)
does he also get a matching gift of 50k because of the 50k you spent?
Reason: ''
- Darkson
- Da Spammer
- Posts: 24047
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
- Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
- Contact:
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
BB2016 - no idea.
CRP - if you add 50k then your opponent gets 160k inducements, as Petty Cash is worked out before inducements (see Pre-Match #2 & #3).
If they add their 40k in the Petty Cash phase then they get less "free" inducements (120k) from the example above.
CRP - if you add 50k then your opponent gets 160k inducements, as Petty Cash is worked out before inducements (see Pre-Match #2 & #3).
If they add their 40k in the Petty Cash phase then they get less "free" inducements (120k) from the example above.
Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
- daloonieshaman
- Legend
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:58 pm
- Location: Pasadena California
- Contact:
-
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 1:22 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
BB2016: You spend what you want, it makes no difference to inducements.
Reason: ''
- Rolex
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:24 pm
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
BB 2016
Inducements are calculated before you spend money and are not influenced by it.
This is one of the biggest changes IMO.
Inducements are calculated before you spend money and are not influenced by it.
This is one of the biggest changes IMO.
Reason: ''
- birdman37
- Experienced
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:13 am
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
Agreed. My Orc team got blasted by a Catastrophe after the first game of the current season when we switched over to the new rules. Now that we're back up to over 100K, I expect that Bomber Dribblesnot will become a semi-regular feature for our team in order to keep the Treasury trimmed. Fun for everyone!Rolex wrote:This is one of the biggest changes IMO.

Reason: ''
- rolo
- Super Star
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 9:38 am
- Location: Paradise Stadium, where the pitch is green and the cheerleaders are pretty.
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
When combined with Expensive Mistakes (which drastically limits the amount of money a team can safely keep in their treasury), it's not that big of a deal.
It's a change, sure. But it was already a pretty common move to buy a 50k Babe if you were slightly lower TV than your opponent.
I do agree that we'll see a lot more of the inexpensive star players (and Kegs, got to remember they're not Babes any more). And I imagine that the biggest behavior change will be among advanced teams with no reason to save money. I assume that most "new" teams will want to use their money to buy players and rerolls and apothecaries for the first 5-10 games or more.
Our league changes over to most of the BB2016 rules soon. I'll wait and see what effect they really have before complaining.
It's a change, sure. But it was already a pretty common move to buy a 50k Babe if you were slightly lower TV than your opponent.
I do agree that we'll see a lot more of the inexpensive star players (and Kegs, got to remember they're not Babes any more). And I imagine that the biggest behavior change will be among advanced teams with no reason to save money. I assume that most "new" teams will want to use their money to buy players and rerolls and apothecaries for the first 5-10 games or more.
Our league changes over to most of the BB2016 rules soon. I'll wait and see what effect they really have before complaining.
Reason: ''
"It's 2+ and I have a reroll. Chill out. I've got this!"

- Darkson
- Da Spammer
- Posts: 24047
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
- Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
- Contact:
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
Stupid change that i won't be using. Petty cash has its faults but at least it made match-ups of equal TV (if not equal value TV).
Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
-
- Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
- Posts: 1611
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:12 am
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
Teams need to save money for the Re-Draft.
Will not be that much to spend
Will not be that much to spend
Reason: ''
- Darkson
- Da Spammer
- Posts: 24047
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
- Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
- Contact:
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
Unless they're not planning on redrafting.
Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
- Rolex
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:24 pm
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
There will not be much to spend in general.
It is very hard to keep more then 190k in the treasury if you are not very lucky.
In general we found this helps more the underdog that can often have something useful spending 10 or 20k.
The problem exists only in finals with players not planning on redrafting.
That can easily be solved houseruling no cash can be spent in the final, only inducement money.
With this correction the new sistem as almost no drawbacks IMO.
It is very hard to keep more then 190k in the treasury if you are not very lucky.
In general we found this helps more the underdog that can often have something useful spending 10 or 20k.
The problem exists only in finals with players not planning on redrafting.
That can easily be solved houseruling no cash can be spent in the final, only inducement money.
With this correction the new sistem as almost no drawbacks IMO.
Reason: ''
- El_Jairo
- Veteran
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:31 am
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
I would simply fix it that the overdog has to buy inducements first and these count for petty cash of the underdog. Typically inducements don't fill in the TV gap anyway and as overdog you will only buy an inducement that really helps you in the particular match-up.
With the wizard gone, inducements are far less effective.
With the wizard gone, inducements are far less effective.
Reason: ''
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 12:52 am
Re: Inducements Cash and TV
While I agree with your other points, keeping up to 290k is easy unless you are unlucky. In that bracket you only lose half your treasury on a 1. At 290k, 5 in 6 times you stay in the 200k+ bracket and 1 in 6 you drop to 140k. Compare this to always staying at 190k. 1 in 6 you are behind 50k and 5 in 6 you are ahead 80k. On average you come out ahead, hence I argue it is easy to keep more than 190k in the treasury if you are not unlucky.Rolex wrote:It is very hard to keep more then 190k in the treasury if you are not very lucky.
Unless you use the optional rules that were published separately, the most powerful deck of cards is often more effective than their inducement cost of 100k.El_Jairo wrote:With the wizard gone, inducements are far less effective.
I'm currently abusing this in our playoffs. Next season we implement the optional rules that balances deck costs. I'm fully in favor of the optional rules, but I will always use loopholes while available.

Reason: ''