MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 12:02 |
 
|
| BeanBelly wrote: |
I had a game where the underdog spent additional treasury gold to afford a Wizard. It did not affect the result as they beat me easily anyway. But it got me thinking is this now a common way to get an edge in matches?
I've not really played enough BB2025 to scry the meta..
|
The underdog spending additional Treasury to afford a Wizard and Bomber happened in BB2020 too:
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=4412012
Even then was a way to get an edge as well. |
|
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 12:11 |
|
| Grod wrote: | | Loon wrote: | | Grod wrote: | | Now FUMBBL has set a precedent by house ruling something that someone didn't like. |
Oh noes, people have told me if we don't play every GW rule as written, especially the bad ones, nobody will play here!! What shall we do?? |
Mate, did you lose your old account, made a new one and have actually been here for more than 2 years? Otherwise it's a bit of a d#$% move to be that dismissive on something you have no history on. |
I first played TT in 2002. I’m being dismissive of the people saying we must have 100% GW orthodoxy or people won’t play the game. This attitude is all over the place, not just FUMBBL. If you are among those orthodox people, I guess I am being dismissive of you. We need a rules revolution! Throw off the shackles of GW! Long live JJ! |
|
|
BeanBelly
Joined: Nov 14, 2019
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 12:43 |
|
For info: FAQ Nov 2022 stopped underdog treasury spending in BB Second Season. |
_________________
Painting myself into a corner |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 12:49 |
|
| Loon wrote: |
I first played TT in 2002. I’m being dismissive of the people saying we must have 100% GW orthodoxy or people won’t play the game. This attitude is all over the place, not just FUMBBL. If you are among those orthodox people, I guess I am being dismissive of you. We need a rules revolution! Throw off the shackles of GW! Long live JJ! |
For the most part, people are not saying that.
They're saying that the further you move away from the GW rules, the more people you will lose.
I haven't played the new rules. I don't currently have any plans to play them.
But, I haven't seen your rules. I haven't seen Garion's rules.
How likely is it that I'll prefer them to what I'm playing right now?
So, you've played since 2002? Well, a lot of people have only been playing since Christmas.
They've never known your "good old days". Many likely won't understand what was good about them. 
The increase in games since switching to 2025 suggests that the site owner knows his business.
Hopefully, most of those people will stick.
Many people who liked it the old way have gone. People who like it the new way or who grudgingly accept it, have the majority.
I certainly wish Jervis a long and happy life. But isn't he messing with some Dread Ball thing now?
There are probably a lot of people thinking "who is Jervis?" They probably call the players "pieces". |
_________________
Official + Secret League rosters, old style skill progression, NO re-draft OR full 2016 rules. OR... 4000TV All Star Bowl - ALWAYS recruiting! |
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 18:52 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
The increase in games since switching to 2025 suggests that the site owner knows his business. |
Which includes house rules that ups the prayers cost from 10k to 30k. If he can modify things like this for the better, surely he could do others.
The issue at hand is pretty clear to me given my assumption that inducements are intended to be fairly priced to represent their value in TV. Note I said intended, as game balance is incredibly hard. But I am assuming the game designers intended inducements to give the underdog parity with the overdog. Admittedly this assumption is immediately called into question by merc pricing at over list cost.
If inducements give equal TV value, affording an underdog up to 50k in added inducements makes the underdog better than the overdog after spending those inducements for that game.
If we allow 50k of underdog inducement over-spending, it means one of two things. The value of an inducement is not equal to the cost, or the designers intend for the underdog to have a mechanism to gain a decided advantage in the game. I am fine with considering the first option, but I am 100% not fine with the second. And if we are saying inducements are not generally equal in value to the TV they represent, we would have to agree that ~50k is the delta, so that when an underdog overdogs by 50k it actually results in parity, as opposed to a decided TV advantage.
Am I crazy for just wanting a system that makes a good faith effort to put both teams at TV parity? This echoes last edition with randoms costing 50% TV, which I did not like for parity reasons. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 19:06 |
|
| Loon wrote: | | I am fine with considering the first option, but I am 100% not fine with the second. |
Why are you not fine with inducements granting a slight advantage to the underdog? What's the exact idea that upsets you there?
Not, note, that inducements necessarily make the underdog at an overall advantage in the match, but that the inducement mechanic itself could be underdog-favouring. For instance, it's possible that carrying your TV in base team strength rather than inducements could be favourable, so that having the inducement process itself being slightly underdog-biased could still leave match-ups equal or favouring the overdog. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 19:07 |
|
| Loon wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
The increase in games since switching to 2025 suggests that the site owner knows his business. |
Which includes house rules that ups the prayers cost from 10k to 30k. If he can modify things like this for the better, surely he could do others.
|
Yes, he could but, as far as I know, he doesn't want to change too much the ruleset with FUMBBL house rules, in order to stick as much as possible to official GW rules.
The prayer's cost change is a minor one, it doesn't affect a lot the gameplay in the end.
It could be confusing for people used to play with the official rules joining FUMBBL and discovering that some rules are not the official ones. Also, as bad as GW rules are, they have the "official" seal on them.
It would be better (just an academic observation, not saying it should happen) to have 2 different rulesets:
one fully sticking to GW official rules and one heterodox ruleset with house rules.
That, though, could create issues: 2 different rulesets would add extra work and would split the userbase, with the risk of reducing the number of games played on the site.
So, Loon, don't get me wrong, I'm with you about house ruling, considering the low quality of GW rules, but it has some drawbacks.
I guess that with enough people willing to play with heterodox rules a TT league could be possible, but on FUMBBL client programming is required, and that's a big obstacle. |
|
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 19:24 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Loon wrote: | | I am fine with considering the first option, but I am 100% not fine with the second. |
Why are you not fine with inducements granting a slight advantage to the underdog? What's the exact idea that upsets you there?
Not, note, that inducements necessarily make the underdog at an overall advantage in the match, but that the inducement mechanic itself could be underdog-favouring. For instance, it's possible that carrying your TV in base team strength rather than inducements could be favourable, so that having the inducement process itself being slightly underdog-biased could still leave match-ups equal or favouring the overdog. |
For the first question, I am okay if it results in an advantage either way, but I am not okay with an intention of giving an advantage either way. If inducements are worth about what you pay for them, you are effectively giving a 50TV advantage to underdogs when they have the treasury to burn. That is a lot of difference. I want TV parity matchups if at all possible.
For your second part, I agree, if we admit that inducements are not actually worth the TV of their cost, there could be a situation where +50k in inducements actually gets us to parity because inducements are not worth their cost. I'm fine with this, but I would also rather have inducements be properly priced to begin with. |
|
|
Vicen
Joined: Jan 05, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 13, 2026 - 21:35 |
|
From a mathematical standpoint:
Extra team training
1 RR per half.
Average price for 1RR: 100k (BAD)
Mascot
50% RR per half.
Average price for 1RR: 50k (GOOD)
Halfling Master chef
3*50%: +1.5 for you (and -1.5 for your opponent)
So, +/- 3 RR per half
Average price for 1RR: 100k (BAD)
Average price for 1RR if Halfling Team: 50k (GOOD)
Assistant coach
a) Less and less effective.
1st: 11/36 x brillant coaching
2nd: 9/36 x brillant coaching ; (3rd: 7/36 etc...)
b) Brillant coaching.
Chance: 1/6 x (1 + extra kick of per half)
Note: a touchdown without extra kick-off may occure during the round 8 (of the team who is playing second).
c) Average price for 1RR per half.
Best case: unique assistant coach from draft (10k)
No extra kick-off: 196k
One extra kick-off per half: 98k
Two extra kick-offs per half: 65k
Three extra kick-offs per half: 49k
Unless your game is extremely offensive, with several touchdowns per half (and the team have a bad re-roll price), that's not a good idea. In any case: never buy coach assistant from inducement (cost double).
Cheerleader
Best case: unique cheerleader from inducement (5k)
Average price for one prayer to Nuffle per match:
No extra kick-off: 59k
One extra kick-off per half: 29k
Two extra kick-offs per half: 20k
Three extra kick-offs per half: 15k
However, those that occur at the end of a half will have a shorter-lasting effect. In any case, don't add pom-poms during the draft directly to the roster (cost double). |
Last edited by Vicen on Apr 16, 2026; edited 12 times in total |
|
zambakhan
Joined: Mar 03, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 14, 2026 - 12:27 |
|
| Vicen wrote: | From a mathematical standpoint:
Extra team training
1 RR per half.
Average price for 1RR: 100k (BAD)
Mascot
50% RR per half.
Average price for 1RR: 50k (GOOD)
Halfling Master chef
3*50%: +1.5 for you (and -1.5 for your opponent)
So, +/- 3 RR per half
Average price for 1RR: 100k (BAD)
Average price for 1RR if Hafling Team: 50k (GOOD)
Assistant coach
a) Less and less effective.
1st: 11/36 x brillant coaching
2nd: 9/36 x brillant coaching ; (3rd: 7/36 etc...)
b) Brillant coaching.
Chance: 1/6 x (1 + extra kick of per half)
Note: a touchdown without extra kick-off may occure during the round 8 (of the team who is playing second).
c) Average price for 1RR.
(Best case: unique assistant coach from draft at 10k)
No extra kick-off: 196k
0.5 extra kick-off per half: 131k
One extra kick-off per half: 98k
1.5 extra kick-off per half: 79k
Two extra kick-off per half: 49k
Unless your game is extremely offensive, with several touchdowns per half, that's not a good idea.
In any case: never buy coach assistant from inducement (cost double). |
I came for the math, I got the math.
Thank you for saving me doing my own spreadsheet! (I had Excel already open xD) |
_________________
Karak Norn Wargaming Club (Zürich, Est.2003)
6th Ed Reports, Rules & Tactics karaknornwargaming.blogspot.com
WHFB 6th Ed. Army List Builder github.com/lexicanum-imperialis
--
WHFB-6th|40k-3.5|BB-LRB6 (Icepelt)|Specialist games|WHQ-'95|DUN|D&D-3.5 |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Apr 15, 2026 - 01:14 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
There are probably a lot of people thinking "who is Jervis?" They probably call the players "pieces". |
 |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 15, 2026 - 02:52 |
|
Maybe we should bring back the illegal procedure rule, but instead of the trigger being a failure to move your turn marker, it triggers every time you call a player a "piece".  |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 15, 2026 - 11:33 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Maybe we should bring back the illegal procedure rule, but instead of the trigger being a failure to move your turn marker, it triggers every time you call a player a "piece". |
Yes! The term piece needs to die |
_________________
 |
|
Vicen
Joined: Jan 05, 2023
|
| Posted:
Apr 15, 2026 - 23:15 |
|
| zambakhan wrote: | I came for the math, I got the math.
Thank you for saving me doing my own spreadsheet! (I had Excel already open xD) |
A double-check wouldn't be a bad idea. There was a mistake in one of my calculations. The line: “two extra kick-offs per half” weren't good (by mistake, I did the calculation for three). It's fixed now. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 16, 2026 - 00:35 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | | Maybe we should bring back the illegal procedure rule, but instead of the trigger being a failure to move your turn marker, it triggers every time you call a player a "piece". |
Yes! The term piece needs to die |
Henceforth shall Monstrous Mouth players be called "Pieces of Ate": so it is written. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
|
|
| |
Simple question - co...
Search
