Pre match tactics: underdog and overdog rights

[Silfuin]

Couldn't find anything with regards to this aspect of BB tactics so here's my question:

Is there any rule about what team make adjustments first (i.e. buying/firing players and/or cheerleaders/coaching staff prior to a match) when necessity/opportunity to do so depends on what the other team do?

Particular example is my next match: I need to replace a wardancer and have 120k in bank.
I am underdog in this match, and if opponent's team (@Javelin Wolves of the Calla) stays like it is now I will have a wizard even if I buy a dancer.
However, if I buy a Dancer and later he fires a zombie I will have only 120k inducements and no money in the bank to get the wizard.

 

I have a memory that in times past when such condition occurred the topdog had to make its decision first and then the underdog, but cannot find anything in the forums now.

Thanks to all for any answer.

[Borke]

@Silfuin, it seems indeed that we don't have anything written in our rules about how to handle this. The only rule that is remotely applicable is the "don't be a d***" rule, in my opinion. This is purely my opinion, but I don't want play any "Gotcha!" cards on my opponent, and some pre-game "you go first - no, you go first" shenannigans can feel a bit like playing "Gotcha!". So in that sense, in the absence of any hard and fast rules in the our rulebook, I would perhaps try to resolve the issue by discussing with my opponent the following question, from both coaches' point of view: "Well, what would your best team management decision be if you were forced to make it first, not knowing what the other coach will do?" And then that's what both coaches do.

 

But perhaps we should address this question in the OCC rules (and you are right, it's possible that we had something about this in our rules in the past). I will open up a discussion about this with the Green Suits.

[Silfuin]

On 8/17/2023 at 8:33 AM, Borke said:

@Silfuin, it seems indeed that we don't have anything written in our rules about how to handle this. The only rule that is remotely applicable is the "don't be a d***" rule, in my opinion. This is purely my opinion, but I don't want play any "Gotcha!" cards on my opponent, and some pre-game "you go first - no, you go first" shenannigans can feel a bit like playing "Gotcha!". So in that sense, in the absence of any hard and fast rules in the our rulebook, I would perhaps try to resolve the issue by discussing with my opponent the following question, from both coaches' point of view: "Well, what would your best team management decision be if you were forced to make it first, not knowing what the other coach will do?" And then that's what both coaches do.

 

But perhaps we should address this question in the OCC rules (and you are right, it's possible that we had something about this in our rules in the past). I will open up a discussion about this with the Green Suits.

In our case we discussed the matter, Javelin let me know he would not fire a zombie anyway and I bought the dancer.
The case for "what would you do if you had to go first" triggers some speculations which have no definite answer and which I would prefer not to engage with.
For example let's assume that Javelin wanted to prevent me having a wizard and fire a zombie preventively, then if I don't buy anyone (which I wouldn't if I didn't know what his move was) I still have a wizard and he is a man short.
Therefore it's prefectly logical that he doesn't fire anyone, but I, knowing this, would possibly buy a dancer.
On the other hand, he, knowing this, could fire a zombie anyway so we're back to square one.
Seems like a game of poker with two players bluffing and neither knowing who has the better hand.
This matter is probably not too important and in my case I would've been perfectly ok with not knowing, therefore not buying the dancer and playing with one more loner, but having a rule would help tidying up these situations.

[Borke]

I understand that a "Mexican standoff" situation as you described can develop under very specific circumstances.

 

For the time being, until we implement a strict rule (and I'm not promising we will, yet), you'll have to talk it out with your opponent and come to a conclusion together. As you did with Javelin, which is of course much to both of your credit. :)

[humbe]

My impression from back in the day, was that it was ok to change the team at any point, as long as opponent had due time to react.. So the only no-go was to sneak in a change after opponent had checked your roster and was waiting for the invite.. As long as you notified coach of change if it was close to match, and gave the coach the chance to react, you could go back and forth until noone wanted to change anything more..

Inducement normally don't make up for the TV difference at all, so allowing bottom dog to have last dips on roster changes is fine by me, but that needs to be clearly documented in the rules and communicated..